Dredd (2012)

[SmallBlueThing]

Quite obviously, a single photo- or two, as i mentioned- would not have made thousands turn up to watch. But, released a year or two ago, they may have helped ease some of the damage done by the leaked pics. Leaked pics that made the internet ripple with a year-long "it looks shit". There was never an attempt to limit that damage. We waited, sure that it was all part of a clever marketing campaign- that never came.
They even closed down fan sites who were doing their job for them, without the nous to have a decent campaign ready to take over. In the end, we got a couple of so-so trailers that did nothing to erase memory of the 95 version, and a couple of bad posters- one too similar to a marvel flop to avoid direct comparison, and neither even bothering to tell the audience what the movie's about or who was in it. Employ karl urban, cover his face by all means- but at least tell people he's in it! Ditto olivia thirlby. Argh. It's just a catalogue of disastrous decision-making. And now it's over, all (cont)

[SmallBlueThing]

(cont) we can do is poke the ashes to work out why it failed.

Something killed it- if you lot are to be believed it was the most magnificent movie of the year, so there has to be a reason. If we all get to be wildly optimistic beforehand, we all at least should be allowed to discuss why it bombed so catastrophically. And the marketing seems to be the obvious reason- marketing which, nowadays, begins when the production kicks off.

An interesting experiment will be to compare dredd to the upcoming evil dead remake. This has been utterly murdered by the fans and public so far- another remake, of a classic, a totally worthless endeavour. However, theyve just released a barnstorming redband trailer that caused jaws to drop. Will that translate to bums on seats, for what was only a tiny cult movie that made fuck-all at the box office in the first place, but which was profitable for the investors and a critical hit? Like dredd, we ask is there a mainstream audience for evil dead at all?
SBT

[W. R. Logan]

It's easy to work out why Dredd failed, not enough people went to see it.
Despite positive fan feedback and good reviews not enough people parted with their money.
We can only hope that all those under 18's and people who hate 3D buy it on DVD when it comes out.

[The Sherman Kid]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

I'm as gutted as the rest of you that Dredd underperformed at the box office - it was a cracking film and it's not only us that think so the majority of reviews back this up. 

However it was a long shot this being a box office success

So we can all blame lack of publicity pics, lack of marketing etc but we should we be glad we got such an unapologetic badass movie. 

Stranger things have happened though and this could over time become a huge hit on DVD/BLU-Ray and become a cult movie that demands a sequel - lets keep our fingers crossed folks.

Not hindsight, it was debated at length on here for many many months before the film was released.

Without question we are all grateful for the film we have and to those who made it.A sequel was always a long shot, given the figures it needed to reach -that it didn't even come close was due to some poor marketing decisions.

[JOE SOAP]

An interesting experiment will be to compare dredd to the upcoming evil dead remake. This has been utterly murdered by the fans and public so far- another remake, of a classic, a totally worthless endeavour. However, theyve just released a barnstorming redband trailer that caused jaws to drop. Will that translate to bums on seats, for what was only a tiny cult movie that made fuck-all at the box office in the first place, but which was profitable for the investors and a critical hit? Like dredd, we ask is there a mainstream audience for evil dead at all?

The original Evil Dead made $2,400,000 in the US and $29,400,000 worldwide from a $400,000 budget. A successful film by any measure.

I think the new one will be a bad comparison with Dredd. Evil Dead reboot is a horror film with Sam Raimi's name floating around its vicinity, it'll make its money just like Drag me to Hell did. Look at how the badly reviewed the Possession faired: box-office: $73,037,581, budget: $14 million and that was crap and had no marketing apart from Jennifer Lawrence's face. Horror sells.

[JOE SOAP]

A sequel was always a long shot, given the figures it needed to reach -that it didn't even come close was due to some poor marketing decisions.

How do you convince the average American male that a smaller scaled 3D reboot of a previous flop that starred one of their childhood heroes (currently in a career resurrection) now replaced with a lesser-known actor whose face we never see, is worth their money?

How do you communicate that to an audience outside the comic-community without spending a lot of money?

What other comic/sci-fi/action films have ever been in that position? The closest example is the Punisher and it didn't do much better.

Dredd was a hard-sell, Lionsgate could have done more in regards a second trailer highlighting different aspects and pumped out 2D screenings but it's anyone's guess what the result would have been. Dredd had bad precedent yet good reviews but no one reads reviews.

[Stan]

Kind've agreeing with both sides here but I think there's certainly a good argument for Anderson being pushed more. I know Dredd isn't exactly a date movie but she's a co-star more or less pushed as a drippy damsel in distress as far as the main trailer went. The TV spots may have been even worse in this regard. This was probably the most wasteful aspect of the marketing campaign.

[vzzbux]

I don't think anything more done would have made much difference. The great unwashed are just not ready (or ever will be) for a Dredd film. Quality is wasted on the masses as was proven with this film.




V

[Stan]

I agree to a large extent and don't see the marketing campaign as being a horrific mess as some do. I just think they could've pushed the main characters a little more. Specifically Anderson, with maybe a splash of Dredd's dry wit. Just something to intrigue the audience and give them some hope that there's a couple of leads worth investing in. Not just a couple of cardboard cut-outs who could be stitched into any other action film of a similar type. Which they weren't in my opinion.

[Stan]

So is that Paul Hampshire on the bike (I thought Karl was doing all that stuff?)? And who is Chan?

That's a set snap, not a scene from the actual film. Chan was the guy on the end of the "choke on this" line, and he was played by someone called Karl Thaning.

Oh and thanks. I was actually thinking it was the choke judge earlier. Though I wasn't aware the guy in the pic was a stunt double. Maybe it's a union thing but the role is so small you wonder why they wouldn't just hire the stunt man in these situations instead. He can obviously act enough to have his throat crushed.

[DrRocka]

For what it's worth, I think the biggest killer to Dredd's box office was the sheer lack of 2d showings. It cost nearly a tenner each for just the tickets when Dad and I saw it, factor in petrol, a pint beforehand and a snack and you're looking at thirty to forty quid for a night out.

Last night, we saw Skyfall in a smaller cinema in the next town over. This cinema shows one film a week at 7.30 every night, tickets cost 4.50 for adults, and snacks range from cups of tea and coffee (served in mugs!) to popcorn, choc ices etc, none of which cost more than a two quid. The place was packed, it seemed to be the kind of place where people bring their kids, dates, whatever on a saturday night. It struck me that you could bring a family of four there, enjoy the film, food, stop for a pint later and still have change from thirty quid.

The 3d was a fantastic part of Dredd, and I thought it really added to the cinema experience. But 9.20 a ticket? I wouldn't have gone to see it paying that price if it wasn't my beloved Dredd.

And I reckon that's where it all f**ked up - there was a very limited amount of cheaper 2d screenings, so casual cinemagoers like those I shared Bond with last night didn't consider it.

And that's my tuppence worth.

[Keef Monkey]

What other comic/sci-fi/action films have ever been in that position? The closest example is the Punisher and it didn't do much better.

In fact, it actually did worse. As bad as Dredd's US box office was it still cleared a few more million than War Zone.

It crossed my mind recently when thinking about the possibility of strong blu-ray/dvd sales being enough to prompt a sequel, and the only example I can think of that is War Zone, which went on to take far, far less than the original.

[IndigoPrime]

For what it's worth, I think the biggest killer to Dredd's box office was the sheer lack of 2d showings.

It's a gamble, though—perhaps Dredd would have had roughly the same audience, but made less since 2D tickets were cheaper. I do, however, wish there'd been a longer tail in the UK with 2D showings being more commonplace.

As for Anderson, it's still really interesting to see how well she went down with women. Naturally, this is due to her being a decent character and also through being treated in the judge sense no differently from a man; this, however, contrasts heavily with other comic-book fare (and also general action movie fare), with even The Avengers going a bit hmmm with some aspects of Black Widow. That all said, I'm not sure exactly what they could have done marketing-wise to push Anderson more—she certainly had some great moments in the trailer.

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

I don't think anything more done would have made much difference. The great unwashed are just not ready (or ever will be) for a Dredd film. Quality is wasted on the masses as was proven with this film.

I disagree, the trailer didn't do justice to what the film was like at all, and if it had a lot more people would have gone to watch it. I think one of main reasons there were so many good reviews initially was because people were really surprised at how good it was. I wouldn't say that the original trailer was bad, just really generic. Even if they had used the recent trend of that droney sound every couple of seconds with flashes of images, it would have worked a lot better. I also still think they should have used the music from the film.

Speaking of which, do you think they will do one for the dvd? And are they normally much different?

[Keef Monkey]

I might be in the minority, but I thought the trailer was fantastic. Everyone I knew who watched it suddenly became interested in the movie, it seemed to convince them it was going to be something dark and stylish. It was something dark and stylish, so I don't think the trailer misrepresented the movie at all.