Dredd (2012)

[JOE SOAP]

What I find even stranger, is that there isn't even an official teaser site for Dredd. Not even a simple image of his badge with a "coming in september" caption. There was also rumours about the director being shut out of post-production, so I think it's fair to say there has been problems. Let's just hope they've managed to pull through.

That's conflating two separate things and calling them both problems.

As to the first issue: has their plan to market the film been a problem?

Since the date of release moved from Spring to September I think that's a call that can't be made until the campaign starts -which looks to be soon- and how successful the film becomes when it gets released. I certainly don't think any campaign could've competed with any of the Summer films and would've been lost amid the more monied flicks. I don't think putting up a place-holding site would really do anything either since people would have to know what they're looking for to find it in the first place, unless you pay for other sites to host banners, which cost money that could be spent when the time comes to push the film closer to its release.

A more concentrated impact is better than a diluted one drip-fed throughout the year. If anything the secrecy and John Wagner's endorsement has made people a lot more curious than they otherwise have been.


The issue of the director being shut out we know nothing about and I'd say most punters don't even know that anything happened at all.

[JOE SOAP]

Lucasfilm seem to have a fairly good relationship with the fan community, judging by the costuming groups, fan films etc.

Same with Paramount and Trek.

There's not enough of a relationship built up between Dredd the film and Dredd the film-fans yet. With Star Wars that relationship evolved over 3 decades. With Dredd, there's us and the yet to be seen film, and we don't even know what kind of film it really is in relation to the Dredd we know so it'd be hard to advertise one using the other, at the mo.

[Kowalsky (formerly JudgeGumpty)]

As the marketing budget is evidently lower than most, I have to agree with Joe that a marketing blitz around late July / August would be more prudent and logical.

[Steve Green]

Lucasfilm seem to have a fairly good relationship with the fan community, judging by the costuming groups, fan films etc.

Same with Paramount and Trek.

There's not enough of a relationship built up between Dredd the film and Dredd the film-fans yet. With Star Wars that relationship evolved over 3 decades. With Dredd, there's us and the yet to be seen film, and we don't even know what kind of film it really is in relation to the Dredd we know so it'd be hard to advertise one using the other, at the mo.

Yes, it was more a comment that there can be a relationship between the two, rather than hamfistedly shutting things down.

[HunterZolomon]

That's conflating two separate things and calling them both problems.

As to the first issue: has their plan to market the film been a problem?

Since the date of release moved from Spring to September I think that's a call that can't be made until the campaign starts -which looks to be soon- and how successful the film becomes when it gets released. I certainly don't think any campaign could've competed with any of the Summer films and would've been lost amid the more monied flicks. I don't think putting up a place-holding site would really do anything either since people would have to know what they're looking for to find it in the first place, unless you pay for other sites to host banners, which cost money that could be spent when the time comes to push the film closer to its release.

A more concentrated impact is better than a diluted one drip-fed throughout the year. If anything the secrecy and John Wagner's endorsement has made people a lot more curious than they otherwise have been.


The issue of the director being shut out we know nothing about and I'd say most punters don't even know that anything happened at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that an official site, no matter how sparse, wouldn't really accomplish anything since "people would have to know what they're looking for in the first place"? And what do banners have to do with it? All they needed to do was link from Lionsgate and post on a few of the biggest forums. I'm sorry, your arguments make no sense at all.

The problem with not advertising a movie, at all, in this day and age, can even make people think it isn't even for real. Hell, the very reason I joined this forum was to find out more about the movie in the first place since there's hardly any info available. Also, a site advertising the movie wouldn't cost much at all. Could even be Facebook for goodness sake.

And for the issue with the director, The Los Angeles Times seem to know something about it.

[PreacherCain]

I'd guess they'd rather go for the 'short, sharp shock' type of marketing for this film and it makes more sense in my opinion.

The fact that so little info has been released and that led you to actually go in search of it means that, you know, not releasing loads of info is an effective means of sustaining some peoples interest.

You're also battling for media attention from current/soon-to-be-released juggernauts like Avengers, Batman, Prometheus and new trailers for franchises like Bond. Best to keep your head down and wait for those to die down a bit.

Maybe they'll try and parallel some of the forthcoming media storm from DKR. Another 'superhero'/comic book film that's real-world, dark and gritty and somewhat nihilistic. And the two characters have shared the page before (emphasised by the new Judge Dredd/Batman collection coming out soon).

[JOE SOAP]

Yes, it was more a comment that there can be a relationship between the two, rather than hamfistedly shutting things down.

It'd be nice if there was some hands across the water but it's probably the lawyers rather than the producers themselves handling the routing of the net. I'd say they're also a bit cautious in the lead up to the film.

[HunterZolomon]

1. I wasn't expecting "loads of info", merely an official site or something at Lionsgate.

2. Only the most hardcore geeks (like me) spend time googling for it. An official site, no matter how sparse (badge and date) would have helped tremendously. Also quenching any bad rumours.

3. Dredd will have to battle with the big names no matter what. I agree that a short, focused campaign might be a good idea when funds are limited. But before entering into the advertising phase that costs money, you can create a lot of good promo on a shoestring budget. We got teh internet.

I don't want this movie to do well, I want it to do great. I want it to be great. I'm just curious/surprised/worried about the non existant online presence.

[JOE SOAP]

Are you seriously suggesting that an official site, no matter how sparse, wouldn't really accomplish anything since "people would have to know what they're looking for in the first place"? And what do banners have to do with it? All they needed to do was link from Lionsgate and post on a few of the biggest forums. I'm sorry, your arguments make no sense at all.

and neither do yours. In case you haven't noticed there is such a page with the kind of sparse info you refer to, it's been there since the start of this year:

http://www.imglobalfilm.com/opus/dredd

The problem with not advertising a movie, at all, in this day and age, can even make people think it isn't even for real. Hell, the very reason I joined this forum was to find out more about the movie in the first place since there's hardly any info available. Also, a site advertising the movie wouldn't cost much at all.

Would it make that much difference it it was done now or 6 months ago? I doubt it. Long-term campaigns involving web-sites etc. need to be sustained to have any real effect, that's why the large budget films do it and release something new every few weeks otherwise there's little point. The Dredd marketing budget doesn't stretch that far for it to be properly effective in -as you say- this day and age of constant content demand. A place-holder site means nothing unless you constantly fill it with something.

And for the issue with the director, The Los Angeles Times seem to know something about it.

It's old news and it's the only news that was ever reported about it, half of it being hearsay and unsourced. I doubt The LA Times know much more. It was well raked over at the time and nothing more ever came of itother than a sparse retraction.

[JOE SOAP]

1. I wasn't expecting "loads of info", merely an official site or something at Lionsgate.

Lionsgate are only concerned with distribution in the US, Entertainment FIlms handle Ireland & the UK. I doubt Lionsgate's campaign will be any more than they give for stuff they haven't produced themselves.

IM Global/DNA are really the ones responsible for the real content.

3. Dredd will have to battle with the big names no matter what.

Not of the same genre in September. Looper is about the only one.

I agree that a short, focused campaign might be a good idea when funds are limited. But before entering into the advertising phase that costs money, you can create a lot of good promo on a shoestring budget. We got teh internet.

It all comes form the same pot of money and a functional net presence needs to be sustained and changing for it to make any real effect.

[HunterZolomon]

and neither do yours. In case you haven't noticed there is such a page with the kind of sparse info you refer to, it's been there since the start of this year:

http://www.imglobalfilm.com/opus/dredd

Would it make that much difference it it was done now or 6 months ago? I doubt it. Long-term campaigns involving web-sites etc. need to be sustained to have any real effect, that's why the large budget films do it and release something new every few weeks otherwise there's little point. The Dredd marketing budget doesn't stretch that far for it to be properly effective in -as you say- this day and age of constant content demand. A place-holder site means nothing unless you constantly fill it with something.

It's old news and it's the only news that was ever reported about it, half of it being hearsay and unsourced. I doubt The LA Times know much more. It was well raked over at the time and nothing more ever came of itother than a sparse retraction.

1. No, not the kind of site I meant. That's basically IMDB info, not marketing, not something for the fans. I'm talking about an official movie site, and I suspect you know what I mean.

2. Dredd probably doesn't have the budget to sustain an advanced site. But updating a simple one, with a few photos, interviews and whatnot is neither costly nor difficult. And yes, it does make a difference. They should have launched it as soon as they had a date set.

3. I did use the word "rumour" remember, since that's what it is. It's the combination of that rumour and next to no online presence and the deafening silence about Dredd that makes me suspect there were some issues.

[Steve Green]

I'd settle for anything which doesn't use that underexposed, blurry, shocker of a photo that was the first one to come out of the production.

I can't believe IMGlobal still have it on their site.

[DeFuzzed]

Quick question - there are reports coming out of Cannes from movie folk and critics. Am I right in thinking that Dredd was only shown to industry insiders rather than those kind of 'public'?

[JOE SOAP]

1. No, not the kind of site I meant. That's basically IMDB info, not marketing, not something for the fans. I'm talking about an official movie site, and I suspect you know what I mean.

It wouldn't be much more than that page so I don't see the effect of anything which was only a bit more than that. Plenty of films have those types of sites that are just one or two pages, I've never visited a single one or read them.

2. Dredd probably doesn't have the budget to sustain an advanced site. But updating a simple one, with a few photos, interviews and whatnot is neither costly nor difficult. And yes, it does make a difference. They should have launched it as soon as they had a date set.

That all depends on what is planned in the next few months. All the promotion in the world didn't help Ghost Rider 2, Battleship or John Carter, whatever way it was put together, and they had millions to spend. First of all promotion needs to be done well if done at all and secondly, it's down to luck.

3. I did use the word "rumour" remember, since that's what it is. It's the combination of that rumour and next to no online presence and the deafening silence about Dredd that makes me suspect there were some issues.

Nothing anyone could have said would've satisfied rumour mongering. Even the official statement that was released in response was met with suspicion so I don't see how anyone can really come back from that without spending money on trying to satiate people with content which wasn't ready. There were issues but none of us know what the source of the issue was and that, really, is it. It never raised its head again which suggests it wasn't anything that damaged the film.

[JOE SOAP]

Quick question - there are reports coming out of Cannes from movie folk and critics. Am I right in thinking that Dredd was only shown to industry insiders rather than those kind of 'public'?

It wasn't a press screening, it would've mostly consisited of distributors.