|
Gonz posted:It failed here in the States because it didn't have enough krumping competitions/giant CGI robots/sparkling vampires in it.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Gonz posted:It failed here in the States because it didn't have enough krumping competitions/giant CGI robots/sparkling vampires in it. Give me a break. It failed because it barely had any marketing and people had good reason to think a Judge Dredd movie would be garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Klisejo posted:A scifi/action movie that's faithful to its source material, light on bullshit cgi, has amazing gunfights, makes good use of 3d effects, and tells a clear, concise, and interesting story. Are you sure? A sci-fi movie about a somewhat emotionally stunted cop in a grimy future dystopian megalopolis where huge highrises tower over decaying old buildings, working with a woman he knows he really should be enforcing the law on, which flops at the box office? It seems an unlikely cult hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Of course it isn't in the real world, but in Megacity One, everyone's told it is. You are. Very few crimes carry a mandatory sentence. Judge Dredd has even proscribed mental health care to people who were clearly insane when they killed others. People with future shock for instance aren't generally bad, they are sick. They get treatment. It's not so simple as "This is a satire in which the fascist law system of the Judges is always wrong". Well no, you don't get it that easy. Sometimes it isn't wrong. Sometimes it's fair, or compassionate. It's why people let all the terrible poo poo that goes on get a pass. Because of those moments where it is clearly in the right. It wouldn't be compelling satire that lasted decades if it was always so obvious. Dredd is both the most fascist of all Judges and the greatest force for social change in his setting. He is humanized, but only to the extent where we see how terribly broken a human being he is [He tries to have social interactions with people he cares about, but he just...is not in any sense equipped for them. He is the Law, and outside it is almost nothing.]. He is the hero and the cautionary tale all in one. That's why it's a compelling comic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
Gonz posted:It failed here in the States because it didn't have enough krumping competitions/giant CGI robots/sparkling vampires in it. It flopped because nobody knew it existed. Seriously, I have not seen a single ad on tv or anywhere for this movie. I literally didn't even know it existed until a friend got tickets to an advance screening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
People seriously still rely on ads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:People seriously still rely on ads? Advertising spending is highly correlated with earnings. Not everyone in the country is you or your peer group. Also, short of word-of-mouth, the only other way to find out about new movies is ads. This includes new media bullshit like blogs - you think people write those for free? All that stuff costs money and requires PR muscle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
And this isn't a website for everyone. I mean the people in this thread who mentioned not knowing about the movie. Rrelying on TV ads means you're going to miss a lot of good stuff. We're on the internet. Take 5 minutes to check IMDB/RT/Google's Coming Soon list once in a while. Or even just this forum. By the way, it was advertised. You just don't watch the channels where it was. This is true almost every time someone says something wasn't advertised, which is every time something does badly. quote:Also, short of word-of-mouth, the only other way to find out about new movies is ads. This includes new media bullshit like blogs - you think people write those for free? All that stuff costs money and requires PR muscle. Or websites about movies. Or websites about movie showtimes. Or even the newspaper. Or the newspaper's website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
I saw it in a trailer for another movie I was watching. I don't watch TV, and generally speaking I never look up movies that are coming up unless they're by big name producers. I assume everyone else is like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:And this isn't a website for everyone. I mean the people in this thread who mentioned not knowing about the movie. Rrelying on TV ads means you're going to miss a lot of good stuff. We're on the internet. Take 5 minutes to check IMDB/RT/Google's Coming Soon list once in a while. Or even just this forum. We're talking from the viewpoint of someone selling a product, not a consumer. Most consumers don't care that they "miss a lot of good stuff." Most people don't actively look for new movies or regularly check movie review sites. Trusting people to find out about your new product on their own is a pretty bad idea. Especially nowadays, when theatergoing is down generally, and the decision process is moving away from "I want to go to the movie theater, let's see what's playing and pick one at random." Especially when you're past the summer movie season, the school year has started, and when the product in question is more niche nerd stuff like this, all of which means that you'll depend a lot more on people specifically going to the theater to see that particular film. Getting articles in the newspaper or movie sites also takes money and PR clout. It's just another form of marketing and still requires money and influence. The advertising presence for the movie was pretty minimal compared to a typical major hollywood release. I don't have marketing numbers here, but I'm willing to bet they're pretty small, considering who the studios and US distributors are. The movie did well in the UK because it was a primarily British production about a British cultural icon, so naturally there was a lot more promotional buzz. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
It wasn't a typical major Hollywood release, actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
The entire ad campaign should have been giant banners of Dredds head with "OBEY THE LAW" underneath it, hung everywhere. And I guess some tv trailers or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:I saw it in a trailer for another movie I was watching. I don't watch TV, and generally speaking I never look up movies that are coming up unless they're by big name producers. I have friends that don't keep track of pop culture/media stuff at all and they get all their movie recommendations from word of mouth. I think the demographic that posts on SA tends to be much more up to date with these things than the general public. A lot of people are pretty busy and focused only on careers, family, etc.. they just don't have time to keep track of every release. Studios understand this and usually that's what the ad blitz is for..to reach that large market who isn't going to go find info on their own. DNA films seems to do a pretty poor job at finding promotion/distribution with the right people. They made this same mistake before with Sunshine..which was a pretty good movie but flopped in the box office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
There were/are a ton of print ads for Dredd all over NYC at subway stations/etc. I don't know what their marketing outside of that was as I don't watch a lot of TV and don't go to new releases a whole lot, but at least here I think there was a decent awareness of the movie. That also speaks to them trying to do things in a more low budget fashion as those ads cost less, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
I'm sure the movie was probably advertised heavily in the big media cities but it's the outlying areas that you really need to saturate. That's why prime time tv and superbowl ads are so valuable. That's where you touch the heartland of America. Then there's viral marketing etc.. which DNA films really dropped the ball on again. It's a shame because that studio has had its hand in some good films that should have been way more profitable than they turned out to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
leokitty posted:There were/are a ton of print ads for Dredd all over NYC at subway stations/etc. I don't know what their marketing outside of that was as I don't watch a lot of TV and don't go to new releases a whole lot, but at least here I think there was a decent awareness of the movie. Agreed, I don't think you can get from Brooklyn to Manhattan without seeing one. Sadly it doesn't seem to convince people it has nothing to do with the '95 film, unfortunately enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm sure the movie was probably advertised heavily in the big media cities but it's the outlying areas that you really need to saturate. That's why prime time tv and superbowl ads are so valuable. That's where you touch the heartland of America. Then there's viral marketing etc.. which DNA films really dropped the ball on again. It's a shame because that studio has had its hand in some good films that should have been way more profitable than they turned out to be. There was a lot of stuff online including the entire drug bust shootout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
The lack of 2D screenings can be attributed as the reason at least half-a-dozen of my friends and acquaintances haven't gone to see the film. I'd say there's an argument there that 3D is a gimmick that turns off a large part of the target audience it is aimed at. I have told them the 3D is not overly shite, but they just ain't down for it - the extra couple of quid is a bit of a deal-breaker. gently caress whoever distributed this movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:The lack of 2D screenings can be attributed as the reason at least half-a-dozen of my friends and acquaintances haven't gone to see the film. I'd say there's an argument there that 3D is a gimmick that turns off a large part of the target audience it is aimed at. I have told them the 3D is not overly shite, but they just ain't down for it - the extra couple of quid is a bit of a deal-breaker. gently caress whoever distributed this movie. That's a big deal too, for sure. It costs $18 to see a movie in 3D in NYC now. I wanted to see it in 2D (about $5 less) but it was only showing in one theater in 2d that I could get to without going on a ridiculous trek and I couldn't make any of the times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:The lack of 2D screenings can be attributed as the reason at least half-a-dozen of my friends and acquaintances haven't gone to see the film. I'd say there's an argument there that 3D is a gimmick that turns off a large part of the target audience it is aimed at. I have told them the 3D is not overly shite, but they just ain't down for it - the extra couple of quid is a bit of a deal-breaker. gently caress whoever distributed this movie. In my (UK) cinema, they only showed the 2D version for a week, but there's still lots of 3D showings taking place up to at least next Thursday. That's the opposite of what usually happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
I can see the 3d version relatively cheap where i'm at but is there any point at all in seeing Dredd again in 3d? I'm thinking about going to an early showing tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:In my (UK) cinema, they only showed the 2D version for a week, but there's still lots of 3D showings taking place up to at least next Thursday. That's the opposite of what usually happens. Yep, I'm in the same boat as you. I saw it in 3D first week and would actually go again if I could find a 2D screening so I could compare them but for the life of me I can't find one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Few things I thought were going to happen but didn't: -The big slo-mo meth lab was going to involve one of the corrupt Judges getting a huge dose of slo-mo while Dredd used a respirator and killed him hand-to-hand/dunk his head in chemicals. -Barring that, my friends and I guessed that Dredd was going to just chuck his gun at the last judge and set it off with an explosion code-word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Also if that was a normal day for them, I'd hate to know what I bad day would be. Also if it was a normal day than why did Dredd give Anderson a pass if she lost her primary weapon? In the comics, Anderson eventually became an extremely powerful psi-judge. I like to think that Dredd recognised that her Lawgiver was not her primary weapon at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I absolutely loved this film. It was everything a Dredd film should be and it will be a real shame if it goes down as a financial failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:That's why it's a compelling comic. That and also sometimes just the chance to see things from the other side. The second part of the democracy arc, for instance, where Dredd uses his "dirty tricks" to dismantle the Democratic March, is a subversive way to publicize the actual tactics used by the real police against demonstrators. Stuff like blackmailing the organizers with fabricated evidence and planting undercover judges as agent provocateurs in order to justify a later crackdown by riot police. I know chances for a sequel are slim now, but a remake of the democracy storyline would be a welcome way to wash the taste of the last Batman movie from my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
You can make a variety of Judge badges here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Yeah, that's one of the problems I always saw in the Judge system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm sure the movie was probably advertised heavily in the big media cities but it's the outlying areas that you really need to saturate. That's why prime time tv and superbowl ads are so valuable. Except there was tons of prime-time advertising for this movie? You couldn't watch a prime-time network sitcom, or a Sunday football game, without seeing an ad for Dredd during nearly every commercial break in the week leading up to release. How much advertising it had in the long lead-up I have no idea, but it was completely unavoidable last week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It flopped because nobody knew it existed. Seriously, I have not seen a single ad on tv or anywhere for this movie. I literally didn't even know it existed until a friend got tickets to an advance screening. I don't know where you live, but here in Phoenix, two weeks prior to it coming out, up until the day of, there were dozens of commercials for it on numerous TV channels, both local and cable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Tripwyre posted:Except there was tons of prime-time advertising for this movie? You couldn't watch a prime-time network sitcom, or a Sunday football game, without seeing an ad for Dredd during nearly every commercial break in the week leading up to release. How much advertising it had in the long lead-up I have no idea, but it was completely unavoidable last week. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I didn't even know there was a Dredd TV spot until I read your post. Different markets, I guess. The first poster I saw for it was at the theater when I went. I wouldn't have known it was even opening except the guy at the comics store told me about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Dredd 3D sponsored the last WWE PPV, I took that as a sign that the American marketing was doing okay. The reason it is doing so badly is because people are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
I'm going to blame the Stallone Dredd, it was so abominably excremental that it has tainted the franchise irreparably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm going to blame the Stallone Dredd, it was so abominably excremental that it has tainted the franchise irreparably. This probably the closest to the truth. Everyone who I asked to come with me basically said "They remade the Stallone movie??? Eww, gross!" Of course I dragged them along anyway and they all loved the movie, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Maybe more people would see this if we talked about it as being like a tasty hamburger?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this and man what an enjoyable movie. It's like the Avengers where it knows what it wants to do and does it. It wont rewrite the rulebook on action movies and it isn't amazingly innovative but it is one thing and that's super enjoyable. That being said it wasn't playing at either of the large theaters in my city. Now I don't live out in the middle of nowhere poo poo I'm like 15 minutes north of downtown Seattle and it blew my mind that I had to go to the tiny 6 screen theater to see this when there is a huge rear end IMAX 19 something theater in the mall. I'm guessing it's probably like that a lot of places which isn't helping the numbers I'd bet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
As a 2000AD reader since 1980, I was quite thrilled with this interpretation of Dredd. I was a little thrown off in the first few minutes by the less than futuristic vision of Mega-City One (i.e. it looked like everyone was driving minivans from the 1980s instead of hover vehicles or futuristic road vehicles, 20th century apartment buildings next to City Blocks) but at the end of the day, they did get the mood of Dredd just right by making the story "small" instead of going for the epic tale that would have failed (also, they did not have the budget for that I guesss). I'm crushed though by its disaster at the box-office  . Feels like the marketing for this movie was just poor (again, probably no budget for it), even I barely knew it was coming out this weekend. Hollywood just has no appreciation or clue on how to leverage this legendary character. I guess my hopes for a sequel just got "sentenced to death". Drokk!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Analrapist posted:My only gripe was that Dredd never fired a single ricochet round to cap a perp throughout the entire film. Heh, I kept thinking the same thing, when he is he going to say "Richochet"! My gripe was expecting an H-Wagon to show when Dredd made it out on to the skateboard platform to call for reinforcements , but that might have made it a less interesting movie I guess  .I also kept thinking whenever they showed a shot of the "atrium" / main shaft of the 200 floor City Block, wouldn't it be cool is some tenants went joyriding in some Boing! down that shaft. Automatic 5 years in the juve cubes of course
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:People seriously still rely on ads? This is easy to forget, but the people on this forum, for better or worse, are largely literati who keep their ears closer to the ground than a vast majority of Americans on a variety of media, issues, and news developments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
I watched Dredd tonight, very good. There's alot going on in it and I want to watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 06:34
|
|
