New Judge Dredd movie - in 3D! Page 12

  • Page

    of 17 First / Last

  • Deckard1 7 Jan 2013 14:38:08 28,677 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Was it even marketed in the US though?
  • Ranger_Ryu 7 Jan 2013 14:42:12 1,074 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
  • Bremenacht 7 Jan 2013 15:05:55 18,690 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I wish it was different too, chrissypoo. The sad fact is, the sly version killed the brand everywhere in the world except the UK.
    Or maybe a Dredd film needed someone like Sly attached to have any success at all outside of the UK.
  • nickthegun 7 Jan 2013 15:09:23 60,408 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Neither of those options are particularly appealing but i dont want to live in a world where that is true.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • daz_john_smith 7 Jan 2013 15:37:32 1,636 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I read an article somewhere a while back that suggested the 3D hurt the film as well. They pushed the 3D too hard and it was very difficult for people anywhere to find 2D screenings. Given that some people just don't like 3D, the brand was somewhat tainted by the Stallone movie and outside the UK the Dredd brand isn't as well known; having to pay more money to see this movie just turned people away, regardless of the good reviews.
  • Trane 7 Jan 2013 15:40:49 4,056 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm gonna buy the Blu Ray, hopefully do my bit :)
  • disusedgenius 7 Jan 2013 15:40:55 5,393 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Still, the best 3D movie to date imo. The silly ingrates were just missing out (if that was the case, sounds a little dubious to me).
  • Whizzo 7 Jan 2013 15:42:54 43,187 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Read somewhere, can't remember where unfortunately, that the film wouldn't have got financing at all if it wasn't in 3D as the backers were convinced it was a money-spinner.

    Quite why there were virtually no 2D showings at all (in the UK or US) is a bit of a mystery though, it must have ended up hurting the box office.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • Deckard1 7 Jan 2013 15:44:37 28,677 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Its the only film I've seen where I thought the 3D actually added something to it.
  • nickthegun 7 Jan 2013 15:46:57 60,408 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, the 3D works brilliantly. Genuinely the only movie other than a handful of animated ones that I can say that of.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • oceanmotion 7 Jan 2013 15:50:22 16,001 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Slow mo for a reason which was a nice touch and done very well. One of my favourite films of last year. Pity it didn't do well but got my money.
  • Trane 7 Jan 2013 15:53:17 4,056 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Best use of 3D since Avatar, for me.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 15:55:46 8,434 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ranger_Ryu wrote:
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
    A film needs to make double its cost to break even.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • CharlieStCloud 7 Jan 2013 21:10:05 5,275 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Ranger_Ryu wrote:
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
    Jesus...

    The latest Texas Chainsaw film (in FREE-DEE!) made a shy over $23 million on the opening week in the US alone.

    ... : (
  • Deleted user 7 January 2013 21:46:15
    But that has Clint Eastwood's son in it.
  • FanBoysSuck 7 Jan 2013 22:10:52 1,524 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    Ranger_Ryu wrote:
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
    A film needs to make double its cost to break even.
    How does that work? Not calling bullshit, genuinely interested.

    Blu ray out in a few weeks, I can't wait! I may even turn the 3d on for once if I can find the glasses.

    For the emperor!

  • Kostabi 7 Jan 2013 22:14:37 4,975 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    FanBoysSuck wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    Ranger_Ryu wrote:
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
    A film needs to make double its cost to break even.
    How does that work? Not calling bullshit, genuinely interested.

    Blu ray out in a few weeks, I can't wait! I may even turn the 3d on for once if I can find the glasses.
    Mostly because the cinema, distributors and the additional marketing budget all take a hefty chunk out of the box office takings.
  • FanBoysSuck 7 Jan 2013 22:47:01 1,524 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Kostabi wrote:
    FanBoysSuck wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    Ranger_Ryu wrote:
    A return of $36 million on a $45 million budget is not bad. It might make a profit after home media sales.
    A film needs to make double its cost to break even.
    How does that work? Not calling bullshit, genuinely interested.

    Blu ray out in a few weeks, I can't wait! I may even turn the 3d on for once if I can find the glasses.
    Mostly because the cinema, distributors and the additional marketing budget all take a hefty chunk out of the box office takings.
    I see what you mean but double seems a bit excessive, especially as it wasn't heavily marketed from what I've read.

    Is there somewhere that states box office takings don't include the theatre's cut? I've read most films make a profit once home sales are included, I just don't understand how that can happen when most don't make back their budget at the cinema. Eg Scott Pilgrim made a tidy profit once it came out on DVD/Blu ray despite bombing at the box office.

    For the emperor!

  • ecu 7 Jan 2013 23:20:53 77,012 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Just watched this. What a bloody fantastic film. It reminded me of an 80's action movie - proper, unashamed violence and a straightforward plot. Great casting all around too. Even though it's flopped, the quotes on the wiki page suggest a sequel may still happen.
  • beastmaster 7 Jan 2013 23:28:05 11,583 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Everyone buy the Blu-ray/DVD! :-)

    I think they can eventually drum up enough money to make a sequel. However, as it wasn't a mighty hit they may not be able to do the dark judges and do something a bit more modest.

    Sometimes, not having a huge budget means that they have to focus on character more and be more creative.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • FanBoysSuck 7 Jan 2013 23:32:14 1,524 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    beastmaster wrote:
    Everyone buy the Blu-ray/DVD! :-).gif" class="smilie" alt=":-)" />

    I think they can eventually drum up enough money to make a sequel. However, as it wasn't a mighty hit they may not be able to do the dark judges and do something a bit more modest.

    Sometimes, not having a huge budget means that they have to focus on character more and be more creative.
    Garland planned for the second film to be about Judge Kal. They could do that and save a bit of the budget for the dark judge movies ;)

    For the emperor!

  • Petrarch 7 Jan 2013 23:37:59 3,436 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The money kept by the cinemas can be anything up to 45-50% of the gross takings from what I've read and once you factor in the stuff like marketing & distribution, the studio having to rake in double the budget suddenly doesn't sound so excessive.

    I think another thing that seemed to hurt Dredd badly is the fact that it seemed to disappear from the cinemas unusually quickly.

    I enjoyed the film a lot - it was rather refreshing to see someone make the film and not water it down to get a low age rating which seems to happen a lot these days. Kudos to Urban for keeping in tune with the character too and not whipping the headgear off to show his face to the audience.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 23:41:49 8,434 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Cinema chains do not make money on ticket sales really; that's why they push the food so hard.
    The reason for the 'double the production costs' is marketing, licensing etc etc. it all adds up and is not factored in.
    I'd bet this would need about 60 million altogether to break even. And after that its still not going to look like a great idea to do a sequel. Limping to the finish line.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • beastmaster 7 Jan 2013 23:45:51 11,583 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    What Scurrminator said. That is why Cineworld passes exist.

    Judge Cal (Kal?) eh? Now that would be very, very interesting indeed.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • FanBoysSuck 7 Jan 2013 23:55:32 1,524 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Fair enough, cheers for the info guys.

    Man I don't believe I got the name wrong there. I've been reading the complete case files since a month or so before the film hit the cinema, on number ten at the moment. I shouldn't be forgetting stuff so quickly!

    For the emperor!

  • crispyduckman 8 Jan 2013 00:37:54 1,884 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I saw this in 2D. I accept that the 3D version might be slightly less terrible than a few other 3D films. I expect this might be attributable to the slo-mo. However, IMO, it looked brilliant in 2D. Why fuck it up? Tolstoy isn't better in pop-up form.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • ecu 8 Jan 2013 04:36:02 77,012 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    daz_john_smith wrote:
    I read an article somewhere a while back that suggested the 3D hurt the film as well. They pushed the 3D too hard and it was very difficult for people anywhere to find 2D screenings. Given that some people just don't like 3D, the brand was somewhat tainted by the Stallone movie and outside the UK the Dredd brand isn't as well known; having to pay more money to see this movie just turned people away, regardless of the good reviews.
    Yeah I've read that too. 3D generally sells your movie to parents taking their kids to the cinema. The audience for Dredd isn't the kind of audience that's going to jump all over something just because it's in 3D. I also hear it was barely promoted in the US, and it looked a bit cheesy compared to, say, the Total Recall remake. Hopefully the blu ray sales will be strong.

    Speaking of blu ray, anyone know if the UK release is region free?
  • Deleted user 8 January 2013 05:58:56
    It was promoted. Not heavily as major releases, but it got full-page ads in Entertainment Weekly, which is more than most foreign releases get, and wasn't on limited release - though it did fall into cheap seats pretty quickly.
  • Deleted user 8 January 2013 06:02:57
    Basically, the issue is both a lack of exposure to the comic book (a lot of people presumed it was just a remake of the Stallone movie), and an overall decline in R-rated movies in general. Expendables 2 flopping at the box office, for instance, is being partially blamed on them going for an R rating instead of the PG-13 they were initially aiming for. Also because it was shit, but still.

    Edited by meme at 06:03:42 08-01-2013
  • Scurrminator 8 Jan 2013 09:00:47 8,434 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Basically, the issue is both a lack of exposure to the comic book (a lot of people presumed it was just a remake of the Stallone movie), and an overall decline in R-rated movies in general. Expendables 2 flopping at the box office, for instance, is being partially blamed on them going for an R rating instead of the PG-13 they were initially aiming for. Also because it was shit, but still.
    Um...EX2 didn't flop. It made 300 million on a budget of around 100; it was easily profitable and there will be a third.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Page

    of 17 First / Last

Log in or register to reply