Some questions about the Judge Dredd universe

[Sandman1]

Or film maybe isn't the right kind of medium for the character. A TV series or game could potentially be a more adequate format, but I haven't heard anything substantial about that sort of project.     

[I, Cosh]

Or film maybe isn't the right kind of medium for the character. A TV series or game could potentially be a more adequate format, but I haven't heard anything substantial about that sort of project.

I've always thought comics worked perfectly myself.

[Sandman1]

I've always thought comics worked perfectly myself.

I'm talking about other kinds of media, not comics.

[Fungus]

Or film maybe isn't the right kind of medium for the character. A TV series or game could potentially be a more adequate format, but I haven't heard anything substantial about that sort of project.

I've always thought comics worked perfectly myself.

Amen.
Dredd games - or even movies - don't interest me much.

[Sandman1]

Amen.
Dredd games - or even movies - don't interest me much.

Why?

[IndigoPrime]

The problem with Dredd is that it needed to do well in the US, despite being a blunt-instrument satire, broadly anti-US in outlook, extremely violent, following a terrible prior movie, and with some iffy marketing. It's notable that Deadpool did well, despite being violent in a less moral manner (he's a vigilante, slicing up anyone who gets in his way and almost certainly causing considerable collateral damage; Dredd's a cop doing his job). Still, when you're a juggernaut, you can barge your way in. Dredd was a minnow at the cinema.

[Smith]

I lean more towards the theory that Judge Dredd is a satire of American politics and culture as seen thru British eyes;and as such kinda lost on Americans.Which also summarizes why the IDW series doesnt cut it for me.

[JOE SOAP]

The problem with Dredd is that it needed to do well in the US, despite being a blunt-instrument satire, broadly anti-US in outlook, extremely violent, following a terrible prior movie, and with some iffy marketing. It's notable that Deadpool did well, despite being violent in a less moral manner (he's a vigilante, slicing up anyone who gets in his way and almost certainly causing considerable collateral damage; Dredd's a cop doing his job).

As Alex Garland noted, there isn't much in the way of the comic style satire in his version of Dredd. It's a film in clear contrast to Deadpool - an irreverent superhero/romantic comedy set in the financially successful X-Men universe.

Even though it benefitted from better marketing, Deadpool's audience was just far broader and the bloody R-rated violence is used almost as a secondary plot-mover, whereas Dredd is specifically about making a show of violence. John Wick is closer to Dredd than films like Deadpool and Kingsman - both of which have shown that violence isn't always a barrier to financial success, but as RoboCop indicated 30 years earlier, tone is a big thing.

[Rogue Judge]

I lean more towards the theory that Judge Dredd is a satire of American politics and culture as seen thru British eyes;and as such kinda lost on Americans.Which also summarizes why the IDW series doesnt cut it for me.

Mr Smith, you absolutely nailed it. I'm Canadian, and am therefore have strong British influences - I think this is one of the reasons I enjoy the satire of American politics more than an American would. The satire (and violence!) is my favorite part about Dredd, but I feel it is often lost on American readers who wouldn't have the same "British" views.

[JOE SOAP]

Americans no more or less have a problem making or watching satire than any other country - Team America, South Park, Borat, The Simpsons, Office Space, Idiocracy, The Candidate, Wag the Dog, RoboCop, Starship Troopers, MASH, Spinal Tap, Death Race 2000 etc. all take the piss out of Yanks and all had relatively decent  success, either on initial release, or over several years.

[radiator]

The problem with Dredd is that it needed to do well in the US, despite being a blunt-instrument satire, broadly anti-US in outlook, extremely violent, following a terrible prior movie, and with some iffy marketing. It's notable that Deadpool did well, despite being violent in a less moral manner (he's a vigilante, slicing up anyone who gets in his way and almost certainly causing considerable collateral damage; Dredd's a cop doing his job). Still, when you're a juggernaut, you can barge your way in. Dredd was a minnow at the cinema.

While they're very different films, the key difference for me is that Deadpool was actually marketed, and marketed well, whereas the distributors of Dredd, for whatever reason, seemed to actively suppress any and all news and material related to the movie getting out to public. As a result, there was simply zero awareness of the film in the run up to release, even among genre movie and comic book fans.

[Frank]

Team America, South Park, Borat, The Simpsons, Office Space, Idiocracy, The Candidate, Wag the Dog, RoboCop, Starship Troopers, MASH, Spinal Tap, Death Race 2000 ...

Dredd (2012) is satire in the same way that White Chicks is about gender fluidity

[JOE SOAP]

While they're very different films, the key difference for me is that Deadpool was actually marketed, and marketed well, whereas the distributors of Dredd, for whatever reason, seemed to actively suppress any and all news and material related to the movie getting out to public. As a result, there was simply zero awareness of the film in the run up to release, even among genre movie and comic book fans.

There's definitely a case for cockeyed marketing - that and lack of stars didn't help - but Stallone cast a long shadow over any marketing. Anecdotally, I'm not sure there's even an example of a reboot/remake becoming a hit after the first version to make it to the big screen was a flop. First impressions an' all that.

Still though, Dredd got a lot more marketing in the US than a lot of films in its budget range.

[radiator]

Dredd always faced an uphill battle at the box office, but the marketing sank it.

From the word go, it was a disaster. From the aforementioned media blackout (still utterly mind-boggling), the delay of the film's release (meaning Empire's exclusive cover feature was published an entire calendar year before the film eventually opened) to the decision (IIRC, against the filmmaker's wishes) to tack '3D' onto the title and to largely release the film only in that format at the exact moment the 3D bubble burst, to the rubbish theatrical trailer, to the failure to communicate that it a)wasn't a sequel to or remake of the Stallone film, and b) the pedigree of the film and the talent involved. Man, even the promotional stills they did release were, in my opinion, very unflattering of the film:





It didn't really stand a chance.

[Leigh S]

The 3D only seemed to be a real barrier - I ahd a few friends at work who were more than willing to see it, but once it came out as 3D, I hung on assuming a normal release would come along, then had to rush in by myself to a 3D screening when it becaome clear that wasnt happening