Dredd - Box Office

[MattJW]

Thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to Dredd's potential box office earnings. We can try and forecast potential takings and discuss the results when they're in.

So what are the pros and cons?

Pros:

Very positive reviews and buzz.
Not a long running time, so a chance for more showings per cinema.
Recognisable character.
A small-ish budget to recoup.

Cons:

Limitations of the 18 (or equivalent) rating.
Poor reception to the first film.
Character not well known in the US, away from Stallone's effort.

What equivalents do we have to compare it to? A mid-range budget sci-fi or comic book action film with positive buzz and an 18 rating.... others I can think of had poor reviews, such as The Punisher movies. Constantine was R-rated and it flopped, though it did take $75 million in the States, but on a budget of $100 mil. It also featured the popular Keanu Reeves.

Very interested to hear your thoughts on this and see how things pan out!

[Steve Green]

The R rating may work in its favour as it stands apart from the PG-13 Batman/Spiderman/Avengers etc.

Seems to make more sense to make it hard R and hope the buzz from that attracts that crowd.

The shorter running time obviously helps for more showings - I don't know how many people take running time into consideration, it almost put me off TDKR.

District 9 seems like a good comparison - grubby location, gore, scifi setting.

I've no idea what box office will do, I'm guessing it will do OK, but may be more a cult thing.

[blackmocco]

Hard to know. The movie's posters are, quite literally, everywhere here in Los Angeles. My old street had three giant billboards a block apart. Very aggressive advertising which leads me to believe Lionsgate have a good feeling about how this is going to do. I'm feeling good. I'm gonna say it's going to do its $50 mil. I don't think it's gonna make much more than that and it may be a crawl to the finish but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong...

[Buttonman]

$50m in the US was my idea too and that would recoup the budget with the rest of the world and the DVDs etc. all gravy.

The marketing has been great - I've seen at least six massive billboards on my running routes and I don't go far! The ads on TV pop up a lot too - saw one during a Dave reapeat of Armstrong & Miller the other night. I thought 'Ooh I'll need to go and see that'.

[Professor Bear]

No-one will give a shit about the Stallone film in relation to this one - there was only something like 8 years between Batman and Robin and the Batman Begins reboot, and that was a significantly higher-profile failure* to come back from with what looked like - to all observers at the time - the exact same treatment as before, and as much as Judge Dredd is acknowledged as a terrible film in popular culture, nowhere near as much as Batman and Robin is.  Also a mere ten years between Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man - in cinema terms, 17 years ago is... well, it's literally a different century.

I think the market for mid-budget action flicks has been severely underestimated in recent years and Dredd will do just fine as long as they don't do something crazy like spunk away too many millions on marketing.


* "Failure" in this case being some previous definition of the term with which I am unfamiliar, as Batman And Robin made a quarter of a billion dollars.

[MattJW]

Buzz and word-of-mouth are key in these situations.

What about Kick-Ass as a comparison? It seemed to be liked well enough but it didn't do so great ($48 million US gross). But with a budget of only $30 million, it surely made its money back worldwide.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kickass.htm

[radiator]

I've said it before, but I think the most relevant case study here is Kick-Ass.

An indie genre movie, distributed by a mini major (Lionsgate) in the US. Based on a niche comic book. Budget of around $45m. No A listers. Strongly reviewed, and very positive comic con buzz. Violent and R rated.

Kick-Ass made just under $100m worldwide, with an equal split between US and international take, with healthy DVD and Blu Ray sales. It was generally seen as a disappointment financially (and there were accusations that Lionsgate tweaked the figures to hide just how much it underperformed theatrically) but crucially it still somehow got a sequel greenlighted (though tellingly only two years after release).

There are variables of course. The perceived wisdom is that Kick-Ass was marketed poorly - apparently many people thought it was a kid's film. Dredd is 3D. Dredd is likely to perform stronger internationally because of brand recognition, but perhaps not quite as well in the US.

A $50m US take doesn't seem a huge amount, relatively speaking, but it's worth noting that Total Recall - a massive tent pole movie, and a PG13/12A rated sci-fi actioner with presumably wider recognition and broad appeal, just fizzled out with a weak $60m take in the US.

My hand on heart estimate for Dredd is $80-100m worldwide total, with solid DVD sales. Whether that's enough to build a franchise is up to the number-crunchers.

[radiator]

Prof - the key difference is that the majority of Americans think Dredd IS the Stallone film - they're not even aware that it's based on a long-running comic series. As far as they're concerned, Dredd is a remake, not a reboot.

[radiator]

I've been thinking though - where did this perception that higher certificate = lower box office come from? I mean, Batman (1989), one of the biggest blockbusters ever (far bigger than The Dark Knight Rises), was a 15, right? Total Recall, Die Hard, Predator, The Terminator, Robocop - all hard Rs/NC-17s/18s... And surely among the most profitable films of all time? There didn't used to be this pressure to cater to the widest possible demographic.

What caused this sweeping change? Are audiences getting younger? Are parents and cinemas getting stricter on what minors can watch? Were there a series of high-profile R-rated flops some time in the late 20th century?

I'm confused.

[maryanddavid]

Intersting stuff, I know buggers all about cinema figures. It will be interesting how it does in the UK and Ireland and if that has any effect on international figures.

David

[radiator]

That's just the thing isn't it? I don't think anyone really knows what will be a hit, it's all just people taking punts on things, and then bluffing after the fact.

I remember that Titanic, Avatar and Inception were all seen as enormous risks and destined to fail right up until release, whereas many other films seen as sure things end up failing dismally.

[darnmarr]

Well predicting things is a sure-fire way to look silly down-the-line-and-all but:

I expect much better box-office performance than either Kick-Ass or District 9:

Judge Dredd (95) has a reputation for being truly awful, but unlike the other two films, it at least has a reputation and
I believe this will help: 'New Judge Dredd film is actually very good' is so unexpected a statement that it's a headline-grabber...
Put yourself in the point of view of someone,-

who knows nothing about it but the Stallone film,
Who isn't familiar with the lead actor,
and then hears the budget is only 45mil,
and then hears something happened with the director being fired or something...

You'd feel confident (perhaps even vocal) in dismissing it as a turkey before the first screening, would you not?:
Your perception of the trailers and poster would be "they're trying to make it look good,- but I bet it isn't" Your reaction to overwhelming positive reviews would then be "Naaah!-- Judge Dredd? Good? It CANT be! ... this I gotta see for myself!"

After that, it's just a chain reaction created by you: going to see the film, being impressed, telling your peers (who also go: Naaah!-- Judge Dredd? Good? It CANT be! ... this I gotta see for myself!") and off it rockets. 

So what I'm getting at is, that with the promotion of 'Kick Ass' , 'District 9' and the tragically underperforming 'Scott Pilgrim', the greater part of the potential audience had to be wooed from a position of complete ambivilance.

Judge Dredd, on the other hand, people have heard of... While it's true that DREDD's comic presence is non-existent in the U.S. -the film is a guilty nostalgic pleasure to many people, ( who are adults now but saw it as kids), and they are just primed and ready to be blown away by this bad-ass balls-to-the-walls version.

It's near-rivals at the box-office are Total Recall and Expendables2, which, co-incidentally, are both films that promise something of the eighties Macho-movie days but fall short of delivering it, unlike Dredd which manages to be today in 2012, exactly what RoboCop was in 1987: Brutish, nasty, low-budget original and brilliant.

Sorry for waffling on, but while I dont expect the critical reception at Rotten Toms to stay at 100% forever I am super-confident about commercial success, I'd bet my house on it.

'R' ratings do affect films, of course, but Gladiator made a buck and I reckon Dredd will too and that's my honest feeling about it.

[radiator]

I wish I shared your confidence, Dan, but I don't think there's any question of Dredd topping District 9, which took well over $200m worldwide. I'd be absolutely over the moon if it did, of course (and it deserves to), but it doesn't seem likely.

Dredd's a terrific film, but its a bit more niche in appeal and it doesn't have that wow factor that D9 had, that really draws an big audience.

It really, really deserves to do better than the latest Underworld/Resident Evil drivel, though. If it doesn't then there is no movie-god.

[radiator]

Just checked, and the latest Resident Evil took almost $300m. Latest Underworld $170m.

Thats pretty staggering.

[darnmarr]

Well as William Goldman said of the movie biz: "nobody knows anything"...  I just really believe Dredd can do it.