Film was released last night(Thursday 25th). The rating is MA 15+ and @ a run of 95 mins, it would appear that the film is uncut. The question is how can the film be an 18 everywhere else and not here? This will allow me to take my 14 yr old son to the movie on Saturday night. It will also be interesting to see if the MA15+ rating relates to better box office than in other regions.
Quote from: Judge Fudge on 25 October, 2012, 11:39:26 PM
The question is how can the film be an 18 everywhere else and not here? This will allow me to take my 14 yr old son to the movie on Saturday night. It will also be interesting to see if the MA15+ rating relates to better box office than in other regions.
Good point,
Fudge. Let us now what you and your wee fella think and what the general reaction is like.
I find it kind of crazy that while I'm getting impatient for the DVD release some places have only just got it in cinemas or are still waiting. Might have to take a trip abroad for a final viewing :)
Nae bother Sauchie. It's definitely cinema going weather this weekend in Melbourne and I think I'm right saying there are no similar films being released as the likes of Resident Evil, Looper and Total Recall etc have already done the rounds.
I would also like to add that Australia is known as "The Lucky Country". Lets hope some of that luck rubs off on Dredd and it makes it to number one!
Quote from: Judge Fudge on 26 October, 2012, 01:44:23 PM
Nae bother Sauchie. It's definitely cinema going weather this weekend in Melbourne and I think I'm right saying there are no similar films being released as the likes of Resident Evil, Looper and Total Recall etc have already done the rounds.
We get everywhere don't we,
Fudge?
Even if
Dredd were to overcome the pester power of
Frankenweenie, which opens this week too, Aussies seem to have completely lost their shit over
Paranormal Activity 4. An honourable number three, or four behind
Taken 2, seems like the best we can reasonably hope for. The entire population of Australia is only a little more than that of London and the Home Counties, but if the same percentage of your compatriots turn out as in the UK they should add about $2 million (US) to the film's overall profit. Which would be useful.
Lucky me, I get picked for Jury duty on the week that Dredd finally comes out down here. And it is the second time I've been called in the past year, to boot.
I'm hoping to find time to see it on Monday, if everything works out, and I don't get selected for another trial, but nothing is guaranteed at this point.
I should push to send all concerned to the iso-cubes on pure principal. ;)
Aye Sauchie, there are a good few fellow country men and women down here. Loads of English and Irish as well(have only met one Welshman down here so far).So hopefully some of them will relate to bums on seats.
So finally got to see the movie. Decided on 2d for my first viewing, as like many of you out there, I am not a massive 3d fan. I was not disappointed. Not much to say about the movie itself as most of what I loved about it has already been said, but having read 2000AD since prog 300, I can share the sentiment that they pretty much nailed it, particularly Karl Urban, who WAS Dredd. Fan or not, this was an absolutely cracking film, which really did/does deserve a sequel. My 14 yr old, who has not read the comic, absolutely loved it and now wants to go again with his pals. He has seen a good few of this years release, and said that this was without a doubt his favourite of the year.
So now for the(maybe) bad news. The viewing wasn't exactly packed. Probably 30-40 people tops. To be fair though, there could be a number of reasons for this. The viewing was early evening and the cinema is currently being renovated. On the plus side, there are more showings of the 2d version than 3d. Have to say though, I've not seen a single billboard with Dredd on it, and have seen only one advert on TV(though that's not saying much as I barely watch it anyway), so maybe the shit marketing theory is right. Would wait till the weekend results are in, as of course, these are just personal observations.
So in conclusion, we got a Dredd film to be proud of. Bitter-sweet though, as the team who brought us this could have, I believe, really taken an audience to even greater heights with the sequels. Will still live in hope until we get a definite on that one.
One last thing. I reckon I will be going again, however, I'm not convinced by going to see it in the 3d. Am I wrong about this?
Quote from: Judge Fudge on 27 October, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
One last thing. I reckon I will be going again, however, I'm not convinced by going to see it in the 3d. Am I wrong about this?
Though im not the biggest fan of 3D, i thought it worked pretty well for Dredd where it needed to. (never did get to see it in 2D). Worth checking out at least once, id say.
I'm not a big 3d fan normally either, but I'd say it's definitely worth it in this case - the slo-mo drug bust justifies the extra bucks on its own!
Quote from: Judge Fudge on 27 October, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
So now for the(maybe) bad news. The viewing wasn't exactly packed. Probably 30-40 people tops. On the plus side, there are more showings of the 2d version than 3d. Have to say though, I've not seen a single billboard with Dredd on it, and have seen only one advert on TV (though that's not saying much as I barely watch it anyway), so maybe the shit marketing theory is right.
More showings of 2D than 3D? I wonder if the Aussies are more stereoscopy-sceptic than Northern hemisphere dwellers, or if the Oz distributors have decided the 3D-led release hurt the box office elsewhere? If that pattern repeats across the whole of the country, the Australian release could prove an interesting
What If...? scenario. Cheers again,
Fudge.
Quick look at the current show times show an even split between 2 and 3d. There were more 2d showings yesterday(Saturday 27th).As I have stated, the rating and the fact there seems to be a lot more 2d showings than other regions might well add to the cause of poor marketing with this films poor box office, if it under performs over here as well.
(http://C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5CGMAN%5CDesktop%5Cdreddshowtimes.JPEG)
3D show times
Sun 28 Oct
12:30pm
4:50pm
9:10pm
Mon 29 Oct
12:30pm
4:50pm
9:10pm
Tue 30 Oct
12:30pm
4:50pm
9:10pm
Wed 31 Oct
12:30pm
4:50pm
9:10pm
2d show times
Sun 28 Oct
10:20am
2:40pm
7:00pm
Mon 29 Oct
10:20am
2:40pm
7:00pm
Tue 30 Oct
10:20am
2:40pm
7:00pm
Wed 31 Oct
10:20am
2:40pm
7:00pm
I'm yet to see a dud review of Dredd in any of the Australian media, so fingers crossed the positive vibes here make up for the lack of advertising. Plus I've had a couple of non-comics reader people say to me they were planning to see it due to a fondness for the character from when they read the comic as a kid, so hopefully 2000AD's newsagent sales here in the 80s and 90s might pay off too.
To be fair, Dredd's probably getting no more or less advertising than any other mid-range action film from a smaller distributor (the best comparison I can think of ads-wise is the Jason Statham film Safe, which was from the same distributor earlier this year, and I don't remember seeing a whole lot of ads for it).
Checking my local's screening times for Dredd, it's getting two 2D sessions a day and three 3D, which seems about average for a film available in both formats. Or at least, that's what the last Ghost Rider movie got...
Cheers, both. I remember US viewers moaning that although there were some 2D screenings available there, most of them played at times of day when most folk were still at work.
Quote from: 13school on 28 October, 2012, 02:38:03 AM
I'm yet to see a dud review of Dredd in any of the Australian media, so fingers crossed the positive vibes here make up for the lack of advertising.
You obviously didnt see David Stratton's review then, he hated it. Though that could hardly be classified as a surprise, really. Margaret Pomeranz gave it a solid, if not exactly glowing, review, though sadly both further propagated the old "The Raid did it first and better and was more original" meme, as way too many reviewers have tended to do, despite the available facts that prove,
at the very least, that Dredd didn't copy anyone. Yet it continues to be routinely damned for an offence in too many reviews that, given the timelines involved, it simply can't have committed. Le sigh.
Anyway, I'm still hoping to see it for myself tomorrow.
Just got back. Six people in the whole cinema apart from me, even with the 3d version at regular 2d prices here. Doesn't look like it'll have a very long run down here at my local cinema, unfortunately.
On the upside, I finally got to see it, and I did enjoy it, so there's that. The largely 'normal' looking cityscape took a little bit of adjusting to initially, especially the regular cars (loved the opening Cursed Earth shot though), but you do the best with what you have, and they certainly made the most of what they had to work with, so no real complaints from me. Plus Urban was pretty much spot on to how I always imagined Dredd.
I would be very happy indeed to see a continuation of this filmic Dredd universe, as highly unlikely as that now seems. But even without that, finally having even one proper Dredd film is still something I'm personally very happy to have.
Ugh, my opinions of Margaret and David are not suitable for public consumption. It's hardly surprising that neither were all that excited about it - especially David, who's never been a fan of movie violence with any kind of real edge to it.
Oddly enough, today I was at a multiplex and I wandered into a cinema halfway through showing Paranormal Activities 4 that was completely empty. So compared to that Dredd's a smash hit!
I can see where Davids coming from to a point. A lot of films with endless waves of violence and action can become tedious, however, I felt they got the balance right in the pacing between the set pieces and storyline with Dredd. Clearly he enjoyed The Raid a lot more, though how he qualifies The Raid being "an infinitely better film" you'd have to ask him that.
Ms BPP wrote to the negative review on TheAge a pithy piece about how the movie is constructed on binary moments, no better illustrated than when Anderson is just about to reach the final room she despatches an injured perp on the ground in contrast to her scene before the Med Centre. It was a lovely submission pointing out their reviewer simply hadn't considered the intelligence behind the violence. Naturally they didn't print it.
Though the overwhelming majority of reviews in Oz have been positive, the few negative ones have tended to use the lazy "Oh, it's just like The Raid" approach (neglecting to take on board that The Raid is basically an indoors kung fu flick, and that a basic plot premise is the only thing it really shares with Dredd).
I went and saw Dredd 3D with a friend from work who was only familiar with the characters from my raving about them in the past and had never read a 2000AD in his life; nonetheless he thoroughly enjoyed himself and thought the film was great. I feel vindicated by this in that it clearly has appeal to an audience of non-Dreddheads. I was extremely disheartened, though, to note that the theatre was almost empty. This was on opening night and maybe word of mouth will help it pick up momentum, but I felt my hopes for sequels diminishing.
That was my Sydney experience, anyway: what sort of reception has the film received in other parts of Oz?
It has already gone from my cinema after a scant two week run.
Ah well, such is life, I guess...
Quote from: Judge Fish on 06 November, 2012, 01:02:59 PM
It has already gone from my cinema after a scant two week run.
Thats the same as my cinema had it for, here in the UK....
Its curious to note how practically ALL the world now, has responded near enough identically, to the release of Dredd, in terms of bums on seats.
Not that i let it bother me, but its got to be the biggest WTF? ever.
I guess there will be plenty of time afterwards to discuss what went wrong with the movie, whether the marketing brought it down or the reputation of the Stallone flick turned it away (as some may have thought the movie was related to that). Hopefully with DVD sales it might at least close even, but I'm being optimistic.
I just don't know how the resident evil movie was able to get past it here in the United States.
There are too many reasons to say why the film failed. Or at least no one single reason can be attributed to being the major reason. The fact is, people are just dumb when it comes to things that they either don't know or don't really care for when it comes to cinema. It's the main reason why there are so many remakes and reboots these days. People just don't like things that are new, and they stick to what they know, and in terms of comics, that's your Batman's, Spiderman, Superman et al.
"Dredd? Who's this Dredd character? Hey, is Judge Dredd that Stallone film that came out back in the 90's? Yeah, that was shit! They are remaking that? Fuck that!" That would be your typical average Joe response. I'd bet my left bollock on it. I suggested to a mate I was going to the cinema and did he want to come. He asked what film. I said Dredd. He tutted and looked at me funny and thought he knew better. In his mind, he instantly declared it to be something shit.
When I eventually made it to the cinema, I had the entire place to myself. It was unbelievable. This was a week day night, and the entire screening was empty apart from me. I've never experienced that before going to watch a film in my life. It was so surreal.
When you start thinking about it, you understand that the film didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being a success. Garland and Urban knew this. It's why they alluded to it in some of their statements before the film released. Ultimately I think the damage was done by the way it was marketed and the Stallone fiasco of a film as well as The Raid. You add those ingredients into the mixer of your primary source of advertisement that is the internet and social media, and suddenly bad word gets about that it's A) a shoddy remake of a poor 90's film; and b) a shoddy Hollywood remake/rip off of The Raid. The latter of which is one of these internet fads. It's cool to like something foreign and actiony, even though you don't even know what the fuck it is or haven't even seen it. Doesn't matter. It's Hollywood again up to it's usual tricks and doing a remake, even though logic doesn't dictate the fact that the timeline that the two films existed in would render that an impossibility, and that the internet could in fact be wrong! No. That would be too shocking to the mass plebs that infect sites like Facebook and the Youtube comments section. The film was instantly chalked off as either being shit or a flop when the trailer hit. Well, the little minions were correct. It flopped, but not for the reason they thought. The irony is, they contributed to the reasons behind why it failed financially. Typical sheep mentality at it's finest. You can also add in the fact that it had a "3D" in the title. That for me is the kiss of death for any kind of action film. When I hear that on the end of a title, it just spells 'schlock' all over it, and that's not the best impression I want to get from an action film. Avatar was made for 3d, it did everything but hit you up the head with a big massive pair of 3d glasses to advertise the fact that it was intended for 3d, but did it have 3D in the title? No. Let's have a look at some of the films that had 3D in the title, shall we?
Step Up 3D
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Arabia 3D
Piranha 3D
Piranha 3DD
Saw 3D (was the 3d tacked onto this for re-release?)
Born to Be Wild 3D
3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy (What the fuck!!?)
Haunted 3D
Shark Night 3D
and a few others which I didn't even know of or care to mention.
Now, does that list bode well for any film that wants to be taken serious. There's a sort of theme going on there, namely the fact that they are all fucking gash or sound incredibly gimmicky. In fact, I'm amazed Dredd did as well as it did. Whoever marketed this film fucked it. Plain and simple. I hope the blame gets laid squarely at their doorstep for this and a sequel is then considered with the mistakes taken on board.
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
No. Let's have a look at some of the films that had 3D in the title, shall we?
Step Up 3D
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Arabia 3D
Piranha 3D
Piranha 3DD
Saw 3D (was the 3d tacked onto this for re-release?)
Born to Be Wild 3D
3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy (What the fuck!!?)
Haunted 3D
Shark Night 3D
and a few others which I didn't even know of or care to mention.
Now, does that list bode well for any film that wants to be taken serious. There's a sort of theme going on there, namely the fact that they are all fucking gash or sound incredibly gimmicky. In fact, I'm amazed Dredd did as well as it did.
I couldn't give a shite about being taken seriously or accepted but considering most of those films on that list - especially the more notable ones like Saw 3D, Step Up 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D - made a profit on their original budget, Dredd is more the exception.
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Whoever marketed this film fucked it. Plain and simple. I hope the blame gets laid squarely at their doorstep for this and a sequel is then considered with the mistakes taken on board.
Plus the Stallone hangover of course which you wrote about at length.
You need to make money to get a sequel. You can't just say sorry and magically get free money, unless of course you're an independently wealthy fan.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 November, 2012, 12:25:20 AM
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
No. Let's have a look at some of the films that had 3D in the title, shall we?
Step Up 3D
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Arabia 3D
Piranha 3D
Piranha 3DD
Saw 3D (was the 3d tacked onto this for re-release?)
Born to Be Wild 3D
3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy (What the fuck!!?)
Haunted 3D
Shark Night 3D
and a few others which I didn't even know of or care to mention.
Now, does that list bode well for any film that wants to be taken serious. There's a sort of theme going on there, namely the fact that they are all fucking gash or sound incredibly gimmicky. In fact, I'm amazed Dredd did as well as it did.
I couldn't give a shite about being taken seriously or accepted but considering most of those films on that list - especially the more notable ones like Saw 3D, Step Up 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D - made a profit on their original budget, Dredd is more the exception.
Yes, but the likes of Step Up hardly cost a fortune to make. Most on that list are very cheaply made films. There was also the demographic audience there for those films that they knew they could recoup with minimal risk. 35 million plus advertising, while still tame in comparison to other films, is still a lot of money. It's a big gamble to take massive risks pushing it in 3d in the way they did.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 November, 2012, 12:33:19 AM
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Whoever marketed this film fucked it. Plain and simple. I hope the blame gets laid squarely at their doorstep for this and a sequel is then considered with the mistakes taken on board.
Plus the Stallone hangover of course which you wrote about at length.
You need to make money to get a sequel. You can't just say sorry and magically get free money, unless of course you're an independently wealthy fan.
True, but one of the things that stands out about Dredd is that it was a film made for the sake of art rather than money. If I'm correct, there was nothing that was denied from the writer of the film. His vision remained completely intact? That's a very rare thing these days that that amount of freedom is afforded. Perhaps even if the film does eventually break even with DVD and bluray sales, there could be funding for a sequel. Perhaps that's wishful thinking on my behalf. What are the total numbers so far world wide?
I don't think they fucked up the marketing. It was backed up by a powerful advertising campaign (much more heavily promoted, in fact, than one might've expected for a pretty non-mainstream film). All they can do is raise awareness of the film, they can't tell anyone what to think about it, and to give people an idea of what to expect all they can do is put up TV spots and trailers everywhere (which they dutifully did).
I'm pretty sad that it seems to have been met with a pretty unappreciative response, but other than people like our good selves it never really had a guaranteed audience. The comparisons with The Raid and the fact that the good name of Dredd had already been tarnished in the minds of the general public by Stallone didn't help, though.
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:45:49 AMPerhaps even if the film does eventually break even with DVD and bluray sales, there could be funding for a sequel. Perhaps that's wishful thinking on my behalf. What are the total numbers so far world wide?
Boxofficemojo still has the total earnings at $23 million total, though some of their foreign markets haven't been updated since their opening weekend. Wikipedia has a higher figure at $36 million, citing a different website (boxoffice.com). Not sure which is the accurate one. Either way it didn't break even obviously, but if we are looking at it trying to make up the difference with DVD/Blu Ray/ Digital sales it would have a ways to go even with the $36 million figure.
Stranger things have happened though. Somehow that awful Atlas Shrugged movie got a sequel, so maybe not everything's out for Dredd. Issue is whether or not Garland would continue to be at the helm.
Quote from: MercZ on 09 November, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
Stranger things have happened though. Somehow that awful Atlas Shrugged movie got a sequel, so maybe not everything's out for Dredd. Issue is whether or not Garland would continue to be at the helm.
Bringing Atlas Shrugged to the screen was driven by ideology as well as being financed, marketed and distributed by the producer, a wealthy CEO who spent 18 years of his own time and money on the project.
Quoteone of the things that stands out about Dredd is that it was a film made for the sake of art rather than money
Really? In that case, why all the upset about low box office?
Of
course it was made to make money - is was a business venture that sadly failed, not an art piece.
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:40:14 AMYes, but the likes of Step Up hardly cost a fortune to make. Most on that list are very cheaply made films. There was also the demographic audience there for those films that they knew they could recoup with minimal risk. 35 million plus advertising, while still tame in comparison to other films, is still a lot of money. It's a big gamble to take massive risks pushing it in 3d in the way they did.
Relatively, on a $35 million shooting budget, Dredd didn't cost a fortune either. Step Up 3D cost $30 million to shoot and made $160 million.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 09 November, 2012, 08:40:18 AM
Quoteone of the things that stands out about Dredd is that it was a film made for the sake of art rather than money
Really? In that case, why all the upset about low box office?
Of course it was made to make money - is was a business venture that sadly failed, not an art piece.
I mean it was made with no concessions to the source material. Normally a film would get drastic cuts made to it, violence toned down etc. The film feels like it was made by a fan for the fans. That is rare. The upset comes from the fact that there might not be more films made like this, i.e more Dredd's. I wanted to see more. Of course films are made to make money, that's a given, but the fact this didn't make any leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Sorry - double post.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 November, 2012, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:40:14 AMYes, but the likes of Step Up hardly cost a fortune to make. Most on that list are very cheaply made films. There was also the demographic audience there for those films that they knew they could recoup with minimal risk. 35 million plus advertising, while still tame in comparison to other films, is still a lot of money. It's a big gamble to take massive risks pushing it in 3d in the way they did.
Relatively, on a $35 million shooting budget, Dredd didn't cost a fortune either. Step Up 3D cost $30 million to shoot and made $160 million.
The original (I can't actually believe I'm talking about Step Up films here) cost 12 million to make and raked in a massive profit. Something like 60 million or so. In that regard it's 3d sequel wasn't really that much of a risk to take considering they already knew that there was an audience for a film of that type. The first Dredd failed badly. So to push this one in 3d was a suicidal decision IMO.
Dredd is still showing in Australia, in Victoria at least: http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/sessiontime/gotobymovie.asp?movieid=30077 Considering most of the cinemas are only showing it once a day (and during the daytime at that), I'd be surprised if it was still showing after this coming Wednesday. Still, that's a four week run, so it definitely could have been worse...
It's now showing only once a day in Brisbane.
I wanted to go see it again and invited my mate to come along with me this weekend but, alas, it's already disappeared from my local Greater Union. Ho-hum...
Quote from: MercZ on 09 November, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
Quote from: Rusty on 09 November, 2012, 12:45:49 AMPerhaps even if the film does eventually break even with DVD and bluray sales, there could be funding for a sequel. Perhaps that's wishful thinking on my behalf. What are the total numbers so far world wide?
Boxofficemojo still has the total earnings at $23 million total, though some of their foreign markets haven't been updated since their opening weekend. Wikipedia has a higher figure at $36 million, citing a different website (boxoffice.com). Not sure which is the accurate one. Either way it didn't break even obviously, but if we are looking at it trying to make up the difference with DVD/Blu Ray/ Digital sales it would have a ways to go even with the $36 million figure.
Perusing wikipedia last night for Dredd related stuff, and as usual clicking the links takes you everywhere, i ended up on the 28 Weeks Later page.
I'd often wondered what a film can make in DVD/Blu-ray sales, and what a film like Dredd
could stand to make.
This for 28 Weeks Later; 1.3 million DVD units have been sold in the United States, gathering a revenue of $24.3 million, as of July 2010.
Now, the two films are not the same by a long chalk, with the 28 Days/Weeks film's being quite successful at the US box office from the get-go, but is there enough points of comparision between the two (niche/cult-ish films, lower budgets, alex garland!) to think a similar figure could
possibly be achieved by Dredd?
I wouldn't be shocked to see the Dredd DVD do similar numbers, even in the current shiny disc retail climate. A lot of people wanted to see the film but couldn't, and an unknown quality can do well on DVD for £12 or whatever, versus £20+ at the cinema. I can't imagine anything at this point would make a sequel possible, but it'd be great to see stellar DVD/rental/Blu-ray sales give the production some financial reward to go with its critical acclaim.
Re: 28 Weeks Later
That film did have the crucial advantage that zombies are "in" right now. Having been elevated from something beloved by cult horror fans into an acceptable mainstream commodity embraced by the media (as though Night of the Living Dead had just come out last week). Despite the filmmakers insisting that "it wasn't a zombie film" (because they're too pretentious to admit to having produced a genre feature), zombies = money at the moment. This will have given it a distinct advantage when it hit the theatres. Being a hardcore horror nut who's appalled at seeing my beloved shambling hordes become a cheesy homogenised market resource, complete with buzzwords, is the subject of an entirely different rant...
And i'll be right behind you in that rant, brother! I blame 28 Days Later for much that is wrong with modern horror cinema and zomema particularly. It's not as if it's a good film or that it doesnt lift entire sections from Romero and them re-does them cack-handedly.
SBT