Dredd (2012)

[Spikes]

yeah  Joe was wondering about that Worldwide Gross: $36,097,247 .. DREDD has  been at that total since Nov 01, 2012        . I'm personally hoping that it  is nearer  the  $40,000,000 total now if not more . Think we will be surprised how well it does down under in Karl's home turf

Slowly, oh so very slowly, but surely its edging upwards.

I should post what it says.Same cast for Dredd and Anderson.

Top Five Reader requests
1# Keep it 18
2#More Judges
3#More of the Cursed Earth
4#2D
5#More Mega-City One

Cant argue with any of that.

[PreacherCain]

Both Bruce Willis and JGL are MASSIVE box office draws, replace them with two lesser known actors and I bet Looper wouldn't have done half as well.

Looper's total budget was around $60 million (marketing included). Alex Garland confirmed after the screening in London that the actual production budget for Dredd was $35 million. It was later rumoured that $20-25 million was spent on marketing which would make it around $55-60 million in total.

I'm not talking about box office results. Or marketing budgets. I'm talking about what each film managed with their respective production budgets and how - since Looper had to factor in a number of presumably more expensive actors - it still managed to create a more futuristic looking city than Dredd, which apparently had a higher production budget than Looper.

I remember a lot of the reviews said Dredd looked like it was shot with a small budget; yet I didn't hear anyone say the same about Looper, which was shot for less. I think more Mega-City One would have helped (the city is pretty important to the character as a whole, no?) I guess I'm mainly wondering just how much of Dredd's budget was blown on 3D? 

[Steve Green]

I seem to remember a figure of 15 million (not sure if that was $ or £) being mentioned as the cost of 3D.

There's a breakdown of costs here, I've no idea how accurate this is

http://the3d.co/2012/02/15/native-3d-versus-2d-to-3d-conversion-pros-and-cons/

(stereo conversion adding 5-10%, native stereo 30-50%), but Dredd had some shots post converted, so unless someone from the production has stated what it was, it's a pretty wide range to pick from.

[dweezil2]

Both Bruce Willis and JGL are MASSIVE box office draws, replace them with two lesser known actors and I bet Looper wouldn't have done half as well.

Looper's total budget was around $60 million (marketing included). Alex Garland confirmed after the screening in London that the actual production budget for Dredd was $35 million. It was later rumoured that $20-25 million was spent on marketing which would make it around $55-60 million in total.

I'm not talking about box office results. Or marketing budgets. I'm talking about what each film managed with their respective production budgets and how - since Looper had to factor in a number of presumably more expensive actors - it still managed to create a more futuristic looking city than Dredd, which apparently had a higher production budget than Looper.

I remember a lot of the reviews said Dredd looked like it was shot with a small budget; yet I didn't hear anyone say the same about Looper, which was shot for less. I think more Mega-City One would have helped (the city is pretty important to the character as a whole, no?) I guess I'm mainly wondering just how much of Dredd's budget was blown on 3D? 

Looper looked more futuristic looking than Dredd?
I think that's debatable. I thought Looper looked pretty shoddy. Considering most of it was shot in a corn field, that was no mean feat!

[JOE SOAP]

I'm not talking about box office results. Or marketing budgets. I'm talking about what each film managed with their respective production budgets and how - since Looper had to factor in a number of presumably more expensive actors - it still managed to create a more futuristic looking city than Dredd, which apparently had a higher production budget than Looper.

If you read my last post you will see Dredd only had $5 million more than Looper in its production budget of $35 million, without marketing. We could presume that a large part of that $5 million paid for the 3D gear and FX so each film had relatively the same budget.

To me the futuristic city-scapes of Looper don't look anymore impressive than Dredd but they are less distinctive and Dredd had a very large interior set and many practical FX.

As for actor's fees, we don't now what they were or whether they took a cut from their usual to be in the film, which they probably did.

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

I wouldn't say Looper had a better future look, I found it quite easy to forget it was set in the future at all.

[junox]

just found this on facebook still to check it out
If anybody missed it, Dredd 3D is back on for a week at London's Odeon Panton Street:

http://www.odeon.co.uk/fanatic/film_times/s117/Panton_St/

[Jim_Campbell]

I wouldn't say Looper had a better future look, I found it quite easy to forget it was set in the future at all.

Most of it was set in a field, wasn't it?

Cheers

Jim

[The Sherman Kid]

Most of it was rubbish.

[Jim_Campbell]

Most of it was rubbish.

Well, yes, but I went through that on the Looper thread, so I didn't see the point in going over it again!

Cheers

Jim

[Goaty]

I do really want to see Dredd 3D again!

Don't know why I kept enjoyable see it as it's my 4th views!

[Goaty]

[Goaty]

[Spikes]

A caption contest photo if ever there was..

[Cookyman]

A caption contest photo if ever there was..

Dredd XXX edition!