The current state of Dredd

Its the 2D issue for me. I would have seen this on opening night, more than once probably, if they had just released 2D prints.

Can't see why there can't be an accepted norm, where all 3D releases get an initial fixed advanced run, then the 2D release follows?

I'm one of those who couldn't find a showing in 2D, but since I don't mind watching films in 3D I just manned up and paid the extra cash. I wouldn't say the 3D was used brilliantly, but it wasn't terrible either. Some of the 'drug view' scenes were quite good fun. Was it actually shot in 3D or was it just a conversion job? I'm guessing the latter?

i dont think its 2D or 3D issue. what it is? sheepy thinking americans. end of watch and others were so hyped up. but dredd will make its money and then some. when they go to rent, they will say how did i miss this? the movie kicked ass. urban was perfect. the 2 girls were perfect. nothing to be worried about here. its not over yet.

The bulk of the film was shot in native 3D -- I could certainly tell the difference, since it lacked the 'pop-up book' look of films converted to 3D in post.

also...i am american. but not easily influenced. i know quality when i see it.

I've actually heard people say "If 3D is in the title of the movie I am not going to it because from past experience it's going to be bad"

Wonder how much they forked out in marketing costs too. It seemed like ads for it were everywhere!

Perhaps people are simply bored with the character? I agree with deaner in that Dredd will see much better success on pay-per-view/DVD but it must be said that Dredd sits well back in a long list of 'must-see' films this year. As good as it might be, there's more compelling plot mechanics than an overzealous, omnipotent cop shooting at bad guys in a futuristic world inspired by Philip K Dick (as far as that goes, my bet is on the new 'Blade Runner' film in production under Ridley Scott) - particularly as we just had a groan of a remake in 'Total Recall'.

I saw it with a friend the other night in 3D. I normally reject 3D films, but wanted so badly to see this. Marketing in Canada has been nil. No TV, no print...nothing. The theatre was about 50% full on a Thursday night late late show, so that's not too bad really.

The film was great. There were no in-your-face 3D shots that I can recall, certainly nothing that stood out as being there just to show off that it's in 3D. I appreciated that.

I'd like to think word of mouth will help a little bit. I'll certainly do my part.

Bad publicity and the lack of 2D showings is definately the downfall of this. Shame because it's a great frickin film. Why they couldn't have had both 2d and 3d is beyond me. Wouldn't that cover all bases and get more money? I don't know too many people who bother with 3D - so most of my friends have said they will wait to see this on Blu. Luckily my local cinema had one 2D showing a day and that seemed to be filling up more than the 3D showing.

This gets more depressing with every update about Dredd - for the record, we've just had a new indie cinema open up locally in an old Odeon that closed a decade ago. All seats £4, no 3d screenings (also no online booking and and cheap concessions). It's a freaking revelation.

I've also seen Dredd there 3 times but sadly not contributing much to its box office considering the ticket prices. There was one very expensive trip to see it in 3d at a Vue that cost more than the other 3 put together and didn't really add all that much.The visuals are awesome anyway and work even better in 2d given the lack of gimmicky stuff flying out at you. Such a shame this has crashed... Here's hoping for an early DVD release so it has a chance to start building some momentum that way?

He's not omnipotent and it wasn't isnpired by PKD.

Im gutted for the makers of DREDD. They have created something very special with this new movie and it deserves to be doing much more business than it has. Its baffling to think there has been no stronger wider advertising campaign, considering the niche appeal of the character. The 2D lack is also a thorn in the side. Its the last thing i would hope for but if this is to be our one and only Dredd movie then at least weve been giving an outstanding and faithful adaptation worthy of such a great iconic character. Danny Cannon's debacle has been erased now and for that, if nothing else, im so pleased about.

I would've rather seen it in 2D, but all the showings I've noticed are all 3D, so went and saw it in 3D otherwise I wouldn't have seen it at all. (and yes, 3D in the title isn't the best thing either). However it looks to be the trend these days. Apart from the big hitters so far this year (Hunger Games, Avengers, Dark Knight Rises) which you couldn't go anywhere without reading about, genre films seem to tank at the box office, mostly through lack of advertising as opposed to actually how awful the film is, as word of mouth from fans and blogs seem to be very positive. I hope that these supposed film failures find their audience in the home market (for the record I enjoyed Dredd, John Carter, Total Recall) just like the old days with films like Blade Runner and The Thing.

it was shot in 3D

3D makes me queasy and I am gutted I can't see this at the cinema. GUTTED. I wanted to take my dad as I knew he'd love it. SORT IT OUT AND RE-RELEASE IN 2D!!

Very sad to hear. It's a great movie that a lot of love has been put into. The 3D is great too. It's the only 3D movie I've seen since Avatar that made good use of the process. Coming off The Dark Knight Rises which I found disappointing but still took in a billion at the box office I can't believe a quality film like this can't make back it's budget.

Man, I was looking forward to seeing Chopper in Dredd 2.

...and besides Dredd is a much better character than Batman [/flamewar]

The plot to The Avengers wasn't exactly original or ground breaking, and look how much money that has made. The only difference between Dredd and The Avengers was Dredd wasn't made with an eye on the toy market.

Less gore and maybe cert 15?

Bit the bullet and went t see the film in 3D and that aside I thought it was great. Refusing to see Taken 2 until I get to see the harder intended cut. Sadly it looks as if the producers did the right thing by going for the lower rating. This upsets me.

Well just goes to show, most people are idiots and don't know a good thing when they don't see it!

... and then it wouldn't really be a Dredd movie. If it were 15, it may get more cash though which just shows how far we've fallen, pandering to the kids (or at least the studios assumption of what kids want).

Dear god Rug, I hope you packed your tin hat!

People don't realise how much it costs to promote a movie, when you're back by a major studio of course you'll be able to publicise your film (no excuse not to), but this is an indie production, beyond the 50 million budget I doubt they had a ton to spend on publicity. Of course people need to know it's out there, and why word of mouth hasn't helped I don't know, you can't expect Dredd to have the same advertising push as some of the other rubbish being produced. Hopefully when it comes to places like Blockbuster and iTunes then people will take notice and raise Dredd up to the cult film level it deserves.

If I was a film maker, and could choose between my film getting good reviews and not doing well at the box office, or it getting poor reviews but making millions at the box office (stand up Michael Bay), I would choose good reviews every time.

This film will not doubt get a cult following from the 2000AD fans and make its money back in Blu Rays when it is released.

Many films suffered at the box office and became classics, notably Blade Runner.

This film will get a sequel, don't you worry.

I'd like to give an Americans view of the film. First, it's awesome. It's one of the best action movies I've ever seen. It's available in 2D and 3D in about the same amount in Oregon. Not many. I've seen it in both 2D and 3D. It seems prices are a lot more for 3D in the UK. Here the 3D can be $10. The 3D blows the 2D away. No doubt. Aside fromt the 3D, the movie is intense and dark very adult.

Now for why the movie has done so poorly is that Americans have no idea what a Judge is, how a Mega City was made or why there is so much crime in a future version of itself. Americans have had exposure to Judge Dredd and Mega City 1 in Stallones complicated cartoonish movie 17 years ago. That brief, awkward moment years ago is all. Americans just have no history with Dredd.

This is why I think this movie is a success because it didn't go for the PG13. This movie is credible in the sense that teenagers and adults will become interested in this world and the character of Dredd. This movie will help introduce Dredd to America. This movie will be the beginning. If it didn't have the intensity it has, it would be a much lesser movie and that much of an afterthought. This creates a world and character that nerds in America can start to explore with intrest. Until then, Americans who have a free weekend or take the kids to see a movie just aren't going to risk it on something they're unfamiliar with. This film will allow us (Americans) to become familiar with Dredd, so the next attempt won't be so alien. If another was made after the Stallone movie another will definitely be made after this. Not a sequel next year but years from now. And the Americans who matter the most for making money, Sci Fi nerds, will be waiting.

Or a video game would help too.

I continue to be confounded by just how badly Dredd is doing. I never expected it to do BIG numbers, but estimated that strong reviews, good word of mouth and fairly wide appeal (with marketing being aimed at both the 'Dad' market - fans of Nic Cage/Jason Statham/Gerard Butler and the sci-fi/comic book fans) it would eventually build an auidience and creep to between $70-100m worldwide, and then storm it on DVD/Blu Ray, guaranteeing a bigger budget sequel.

So what happened? I think someone really ballsed up the marketing. The trailer was pretty weak admittedly. I think cases like this also prove that - despite what we're regularly told, things like Twitter really aren't very effective marketing tools - the astonishingly positive word of mouth for Dredd simply didn't translate into box office.

But ultimately, perhaps it would have required a marketing fund of greater than the entire production budget of the movie itself to make it a success, which arguably negates the whole purpose of making a 'low budget' piece like Dredd in the first place.

It's no wonder that the mid-budget movie is becoming increasingly rare.

It's a bummer. It's such a great film. I saw it in the U.S and everyone came out exclaiming how great it was. In NYC there are posters in the street here and there, but he just isn't a familiar comic character to audiences here. Perhaps it'll pass into a word of mouth cult status film, like The Crow which was based on a not instantly recognizable character. A real pity that a solid well made action film like this struggles. I'd hope the series continues as there is plenty to explore, and absolute kudos to the film makers for retaining the feel of the comic, down to us never seeing his face (credit due to Karl Urban who didn't let his ego dictate giving his face screen time).

This is the first 3D film that I'd actually recommend watching in 3D. Such a shame that it's not doing the business. I think it will find a wider audience on DVD/Blu Ray simply because of the quality. At the very least it'll be a big cult film. Maybe it'll go the way of Firefly and Hellboy and impress enough on home video to warrant more. I'm crossing all my fingers.

As another British independent movie, I thought Dredd would make at least as much as The Woman In Black, which raked in roughly $130,000,000.

Agree with many posters, if not for 3D there would have been multiple viewings amongst those who "grew up" with Dredd.

I absolutely loved Dredd (possibly my favourite of the year), and doubly so after the execrable Stallone version. I'm gutted for everyone involved in making the film at this news but still appreciate what they made, which as a 2000AD fan did not disappoint me one bit. I'm still recommending it to everyone and will definitely be buying the Blu-Ray!

My local cineworld had it in 2d and 3d (but only one showing per day of each!) and none of the others in my locale had it in 2d at all! Very surprised! I saw the 3d version and adored it!

I have not seen Dredd yet, and I wasn't too fussed about seeing it, but reading the majority positive comments below I now think I will go and see it. Hopefully the word of mouth will help this become a late bloomer. Here's hoping, because it if it as good as everyone says, I am damn sure I want a sequel.

This is a real shame.

As someone else has mentioned, I think someone has cocked up the advertising.
I think they could have created a whole bunch of mini webisodes just to give the average American a quick potted history of judges, mega city 1 etc.
These could also have been shown as TV spots. This would have created a buzz, given people the required knowledge of Dredd and also not spoiled any of the film by showing clunking great chunks in a trailer.

Just my tuppence worth...

I have to say, I'm surprised as I felt it would at least make 100 million world wide and at least 40 million in the American market.

It's another case where quality doesn't directly equate with success unfortunately. If it did then Serenity would have beaten Revenge of the Sith and Scott Pilgrim would have ruled the world.

I haven't seen it yet because any movie I see in the theatre has to be "girlfriend-friendly", unless I go to the theatre alone. I bet there are lots of guys out there in a similar situation, and for that reason I think Dredd 3D will do VERY well on DVD.

Just a replica Dredd helmet.

Serenity was OK, but was always limited in it's audience by the fact it was a spin-off of an (at the time) unpopular TV show. It certainly didn't entice me to the cinema. (While Dredd is a spin-off of a comic, it's a narrative reboot and doesn't require any prior knowledge).

Scott Pilgrim is very much a niche/Marmite type of film with very limited appeal - it's a teen movie that isn't aimed at actual teens but at nostalgic, thirty-something male nerds. Even within that key demographic, many didn't like the film - myself included. Nice visuals but for a comedy it's woefully unfunny and 'quirky' to the point of mild irritation.

I'm not at all surprised both films failed to catch on.

I genuinely felt that Dredd had true potential for modest mainstream crossover success, in the way of a District 9, or even an Underworld/Resident Evil, and I'm still trying to piece together how it has ended up doing the same sort of business as Safe, Lockout, Shoot 'Em Up and Punisher: War Zone.

I think putting "3D" in the title hurt this movie quite a bit and gave it a cheap B-movie feel (ex. Piranna 3D) to people not familiar with Dredd; which in America is pretty much everybody. When mentioning it to people at my office many laughed at the inclusion of the 3D and asked if it was a serious movie.
Also the showings for this were abysmal. Here in the Chicago area every theater had only 3 or 4 showings of the 3D version and one showing in 2D. The times were mostly in the early afternoon as well so it made it difficult to see during the week. The advertising didn't even show up on televison until the day before; it's almost as if Lionsgate and the theaters didn't want anybody to see this and were hoping for it to fail.

i was dredding this news. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahah...gasp...hahahahahahhahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I will be purchasing the blu ray of Dredd. The 3D was a problem for me but suffered through it to give it some well deserved money. Really is one of the stand out films of the year.

Go Sly !!! This paperthin Dredd deserves everything it gets... which by all accounts will be sweet F.A.

The main problem seems to be marketing. Friends of mine who weren't fans of 2000AD had no idea this film was coming out!! What on earth happened? Whoever was responsible deserves a Rigellian Hotshot!

I don't think it has much to do with how much was spent on marketing. Just how it was marketed. Which was, not at all!! No build up, no sense of anticipation created. Nothing!

Yeah a lot of people seemed to be under the impression - however wrongheaded) that Dredd 3D represented some kind of pop-cultural nadir - an unwanted remake of a bad, mostly forgotten film, this time in 3D.

Never mind that it's only a 'remake' in the same way Batman Begins is a remake of Batman and Robin.

In any case, if you're going to remake/reboot a film, surely it's preferable to remake a film that was bad or was a missed opportunity? I sneered at the superfluous Total Recall remake because Total Recall WAS a fantastic film that was unlikely to be topped - especially by a hack like Len Wiseman.

I agree wholeheartedly about the '3D' suffix. It is NOT the film's official title, and was added quite late in the day by order of marketing people - I suspect against the wishes of those who made it. It totally does make the film sound cheap. I remember being concerned when it was announced Dredd would be filmed in 3D, because I suspected it might coincide with the tide turning against the format completely (unfairly or not) - and it looks like my fears were well-placed. The lack of 2D screenings no doubt harmed takings - but I'm not sure how dramatically. It could have ended up taking even less without the 3D surcharge....

First time I've ever posted on any site about any movie, but just had to say I've waited 35 years for a Dredd movie and I loved this one. Yes, it would have been nice to have - dare I say it - some of the production design of the Danny Cannon movie (okay, Blade Runner) for the exteriors and a bit more of the black-humour and daft block names, etc, but Urban's Dredd is pitch-perfect. If you add in the lack of OTT CGI, Thirlby's excellent Anderson, beautiful slo-mo sequences and the intelligent way that Dredd's character is developed almost as a reflection or antithesis of how other characters play off him... I saw it twice and enjoyed it more the second time around. Very sad if they don't make another one. and as for THE LINE - perfect!

oh no - a dark future city isn't inspired by PKD at all.
From DenOfGeek's own article about PKD: "...because the author grew up in California. He saw the transformation of the state from leafy idyll to an industrialised, prosperous hive in the post-War boom, and this was something that he repeatedly worked into his novels..."

You know that was just dreddful, right?

I live in the US and no theater in my area (granted, I live in a rural area--but there are 4 or 5 theaters within driving distance) even got Dredd. I think it was also hurt by the glut of action movies (most tinged with sci-fi) in August and September!

Drokk!

The film was hardly original. If anyone thinks 35 years of 2000ad equals Dredd walking around slummy corridors of a Mega-City 1 block then you're seriously deluded.

What made this film distinct from other action films? Aside from the central characer... NOTHING. The plot was a variation on Die Hard, the villain was a hooker (Judge Dredd's gallery of rogues is amazing) yet the best Garland came up with was a prossy.

This film was doomed as soon as all the "is this a rip-off of The Raid?" comments hit the net. There's nothing remotely original or Dredd world specific about this film. Go read some actual 2000AD Judge Dredd stories and you'll see there's so much more to Judge Dredd's world than a 'hero stuck in a block' plot.

And there is no such character as Dredd. It's always been Judge Dredd so the producers even made a mess of the title. Dredd 3D is poor title and sums up their clueless understanding of the character.

Yes there is much more to the world of Dredd than a 'hero stuck in a block' plot, but this was a low budget movie that worked within its limitations. The fact that co-creator John Wagner approved of the film would seem to contradict your idea that the producers have "a clueless understanding of the character" wouldn't it?

I wouldn't say that americans are sheepy thinking; it's just that Dredd is completely unknown over here. Lionsgate didn't do anything to educate the public as to who Dredd was at all and the movie itself was more of a love letter to fans dropping you in the middle of the world with no setup.
With movie ticket sales on the constant decline and people being more selective on what they spend their money on the honest truth is that nobody was going to see something that had no story or setup attached to the previews.
Garland probably would have been better off doing origins for the first movie as that would have eased people into the bizarre world of Mega City while at the sametime explaining Dredd and the world that was created in the future.

It really is a shame. The movie was excellent and the people who made it deserve reward for it. Very sad.

Dredd stories, I've read a few, but then again, too many to mention... to mix Ol' stony face with Ol' Blue Eyes for a second. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see a fully-fleshed Dredd-opus, but, as a fan, I can fill in all the gaps. Actually, if you want to see that world watch Robo Cop who, as everyone knows, is based on Dredd/ROM and is a lovely satire.
However, I liked this films premise and , as I've said, the very skillful way that Dredd's character is drawn out via the characters around him and his interactions/inaction/reaction to them - and surely you've got to love a film where the lead character says about 30 words from start to finish.
I think you're closer to the mark when you say there's no such character as 'Dredd', but for the wrong reasons.Like Batman there are many, many Dredd's, from the Maria the Maid and Walter the Robot one, to the stylistic changes of McMahon, Ezquerra, et al and his various incarnations in the Megazine.
Finally, as to the plot, you know what they say - there's only seven of them and this one fits the Epic of Gilgamesh better than The Quest-type of Die Hard. Bruce is reborn in the eyes of his family and reunited with them (if memory serves...)

I haven't seen it because it's only in 3D... A lot of people either simply don't like 3D, like myself, or it makes them feel sick, like my wife. I'd have to loved to see it in the theatre but I guess money from us 2D folks isn't as green or something...

Nah, don't agree with that at all - the movie itself is not the problem - people who have seen this film tend to love it, the problem is that not enough of them went to see it for whatever reason.

We get minimal setup and exposition, only the information we need, and then we learn everything else through character's actions. It's a great piece of scriptwriting that could teach US superhero flicks a thing or two about economy and fluidity. An origin story would have been too obvious - the 'day in the life' approach was inspired in my opinion.

Troll Alert!

I'm afraid to say that the state of 'Dredd' is dire, despite the actual film being one of the strongest and most strikingly visual CBM adaptations in recent memory, plus the fact it was an independent British production made on a meager $45m budget makes it all the more remarkable, and all involved should be proud and be given due credit for their accomplishment.

It's a shame that 'Dredd' was released just as the 3-D bubble appears to be bursting, that it was released in the single worst month for any film to be released, and that the publicity and marketing campaign was so lackluster and uninspiring, but all these things ultimately conspired to make the film eventually limp home to a likely $25m (at most) worldwide take at the box-office... and with numbers like that, great DVD and Blu-Ray sales or not, there will NOT be a sequel, period.

Upon reflection, I feel now that Dredd (the character) is simply too much of an anti-hero to gain wide acceptance by the wider public, too stoic and rigid, no discernible emotional or character arc to hang their hats on, a bit like my other favorite comic-book character, The Punisher, both are extreme characters in an extremely violent and unforgiving world populated by largely unsympathetic characters and impossible situations, and the subsequent film adaptations have struggled to translate those worlds in a way that was both faithful to the source material yet also could be enjoyed by audiences at large, with 'Dredd' (the film) achieving the former very successfully but spectacularly failing the latter, whilst the three film adaptations of 'The Punisher' to date have all fell somewhat short (in their own individual ways) in capturing what made the comic-book so memorable, yet the 2004 version enjoyed very considerable success on DVD, a fate I hope that 'Dredd' will enjoy upon release on home formats, but that remains to be seen... either way, I think it extremely unlikely that we'll see either a new 'Dredd' or 'The Punisher' movie adaptation any time in the near future, and maybe we shouldn't...

Two things have gone against the movie. First, as has been pointed out is the lack of 2D screenings. My local World of Cine had one showing daily for the first week. When I asked them about this, they told me that the distributors didn't think they would be much interest in the 2D print. The second, and more damaging I think, is that almost every review and discussion about the movie brings in a comparison with The Raid, as they have similar plots (in a tower block run by the baddie, and the main character has to fight their way out whilst out manned and out gunned) but they are very different in execution. I hope Dredd does well when released in DVD and streaming services, as we need another dose of The Law.

Wanted a 2d showing here in Ireland and couldn't get one. Generally not a fan of 3D.. so yup in a nutshell it's why I didn't get to see it. Will deffo get a look on DVD

I think the big problem is that, in very general terms, there are two audiences for films like this. The fans of the comic presentation of the character, and the general moviegoing public audience who have never read the comic. This last category is vastly bigger in numbers than the first group. Thus, the Stalone version of Dredd earned money because it was deemed by the majority to be "A Stalone Movie" ("Hey, he's the guy who did Rambo and Rocky, so the movie must be good!") while, to the Dredd fans, it was largely appalling. This present version is seen as being a great improvement by the Dredd fans, but to the "general public" it does not feature an "A-List" star in the lead part. A decent promotional campaign would have helped, but I suspect the studio suddenly developed cold feet in regard to spending more money. Sad.

Er, so which is it? You start by making one point, then go into another.

I think it's a combination of the former (bad timing/unfortunate Raid comparisons/negative effect of 3D/bad marketing). I don't think Dredd (or even The Punisher) is inherently unmarketable to a large audience - there have always been antiheroes. Snake Plisken never needed an 'emotional arc'.

It’s just a
massive shame that this hasn’t performed very well. I thoroughly enjoyed it,
even in 3D.

It’s a very
well made hard edged very well written action film for adults, with minimal
exposition or spoon feeding, solid performances, a convincingly portrayed world
and occasional moments of real visual style. I really like the fact it was
simply presented as a “day in the life of” style story as it just lead to so
much freedom as to where they could go next, if the y could go next…sigh

What
comparable 18/R rated films have there been in the last 18 months that HAVE
performed to the fairly modest target of $50/60million plus at the box office
without enormous amounts of supporting marketing spend? I can’t think of any
off of the top of my head but I’m sure there must be a fair few? Taken maybe,
but beyond that?

What has
been the difference between them and this?

The fact
that this can’t even match the gross of Paul W. Anderson dross like the Resident
Evil films is just as puzzling and slightly depressing all at the same time, how
do those films make money, who goes to see them?

Anyway rant
over, those that haven’t seen it, try and catch it if it is still on near you. It
is most certainly worth a watch and amongst the better films I’ve seen this
year.

I went and saw it and took my friends who didnt know it was coming out.
I loved it but I love Dredd
It does appear to be a 2D & Marketing issue from previous post, its a shame, I must admit I didnt notice any marketing thats because I wasnt looking for it I knew it was coming out.
Hopefully it will at least pull back its budget from round the world.

Definitely agree about the screenplay - watch it a couple of times and once you look past the novelty of the visuals, it gets more impressive what they do with less and less dialogue. What I really love is that Dredd and Ma-Ma barely even raise their voices (Dredd swears.. once?). It's an unusually elegant way of doing a film with this much violence, kind of ironic that it seems to have an image of being a brainless action flick... I'm a little in awe of Alex Garland managing to pull it off.

Dredd has all ready made $24 million worldwide and has yet to be released in another 12 or so territories including Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland et al.

Your argument does seem to make little sense; it's either marketing or the character that's the problem so which is it?
If Dredd had only attracted it's tarket audience it would have made at least $100 million but unfortunately marketing and its associations with Stallone and 3D didn't attract enough of that audience.

I don't buy the idea that people don't get or like Dredd. I've yet to find any review or comment from a general-punter that truly reflects this as a concern. Most of them just accept the premise and enjoy it for what it is. Dredd is still a character to root for in the film and Ma Ma and the corrupt Judges serve as adequate demoralised foil while Anderson is still a relatively 'decent skin'. It's only politically minded critics and pundits that raise the 'state of our culture' alarm but since when did reviews, bad or good or with a moral stance determine the success of a film? The previous 2 weeks at the box-office have proven that. People still went to films with bad reviews because they were either brands or had 'stars'. Most of them had significantly worse reviews than Dredd which is still at 76% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The film didn't need to make bilions to be a modest earner, it just needed to convince its target audience (18-40 year old men) to actually go see it because when they did bother, the vast majority of them liked it. There was a failure to communicate what the film is and what it is not and the failure to do this is reflected in worldwide box-office, not just the US box-office.

'fatknacker', indeed.

I really enjoyed this film. I thought it was great. 'Dredd' was well written and reminded me of 'Assault on Precinct 13' (the original--not the remake). So I don't understand why 'Dredd' hasn't performed better.
One reason could be the "R" rating. Most of the teenage boys who would normally see this had to stay home or go with their parents. That said, I don't know if this film could have been done with a PG-13 rating. The world of 'Dredd' is very violent. It always has been.
Also, as much as I love Karl Urban, he is not a household name--at least not outside of the scifi/fantasy community.
Lastly, Sylvester Stallone in spandex did the franchise no favors. Perhaps people are associating 'Dredd' with the 90's film, which is unfortunate.
With regard to the 3D issue, I saw it in 2D and didn't have a problem finding a theater that showed it in 2D. I personally despise 3D and won't see a film in 3D unless absolutely necessary. So I don't think the 3D showings were the problem.

--I really enjoyed this film. I thought it was great. 'Dredd' was well written and reminded me of 'Assault on Precinct 13' (the original--not the remake). So I don't understand why 'Dredd' hasn't performed better.
--One reason could be the "R" rating. Most of the teenage boys who would normally see this had to stay home or go with their parents. That said, I don't know if this film could have been done with a PG-13 rating. The world of 'Dredd' is very violent. It always has been.
--Also, as much as I love Karl Urban, he is not a household name--at least not outside of the scifi/fantasy community.
--Lastly, Sylvester Stallone in spandex did the franchise no favors. Perhaps people are associating 'Dredd' with the 90's film, which is unfortunate.
--With regard to the 3D issue, I saw it in 2D and didn't have a problem finding a theater that showed it in 2D. I personally despise 3D and won't see a film in 3D unless absolutely necessary. So I don't think the 3D showings were the problem.

Is Batman a character?

TWIB starred harry potter, and was easily marketed as a ghost story. Dredd is from an old cult comic with no star with a fairly flat character note that may be a bit played out at the cinema. certainly some choice marketing might have got more people into the theatre

I was one of the people who wanted to watch it in 2d. But still watching it in 3D is worth it!!!! the movie is fun action packed movie thats true to the source material. Rare these days with comics. anyways the 3D, Special effects and the blood and gore meld quite nicely. but its true no marketing here in north america, nobdy knew about it.

Y'know when a little film called " Blade Runner" came out it did just over $6m on it's opening weekend, which even adjusting for inflation, was considered a massive flopperoony. And it had an A-lister in it.

DREDD is this generation's Blade Runner. By the time it's earned top tier Cult Status over the next few years, it'll be too late to make a sequel. And do you know what, by that point I won't want one! (see also: Blade Runner sequels!)

DREDD is a brilliant movie, but it's going on that list with Blade Runner, The Thing (the curse of E.T,the little ratb*****d), Serenity (didn't make it's money back till it went to DVD) and probably about a dozen other sold gold classics.

That's the sad truth about studios putting out great movies, it's doing it to a general public that made Adam Sandler a star. (and even his recent bomb has still made $50m worldwide)

i think it was a hard sell for non comic fans--not that they tried too hard. its about a killer cop who we don't get to see, who doesn't really talk; he goes in a building and shoots people for 90 minutes. oh and the people in the building are hooked on a drug that makes the tedium of ghetto life much slower, and allows for matrix bullet time. i'm not dismissing the film here, just possible impressions someone who wasn't waiting eagerly for 2000AD might have had. i read comics and i felt no rush to get out to see it. so much that i'm curious now how people could end up so passionate about it--it just doesn't seem like much of a movie.

Only point to make is I know 50% of the people who would have seen the movie did not because it was only being shown in 3D. I would have chosen 2D if that had been an option.

I a actually don't go to see 3D films as although I have 20/20 vision, the 3D plays havoc with means and I get a double image (slightly offset). Avatar was pretty much unwatchable for the 3D alone. Anything moving at more than a snails pace was a blur. However, I don't know what they did with this but the 3D was perfect for me, and really added to the film.

Goddammit. "Assault on Precinct 13" That is the film I've been comparing it to but I couldn't remember its name. Thank you

Parent? God help your poor kids.

You are very much correct about that current box-office tally, Joe, I didn't realize I had misread it until AFTER I posted, so my bad.

That being said, I still stand by my assertion that 'Dredd' will not make enough both theatrically and on home release to make a sequel a viable commercial prospect, if it hits or exceeds the magic $100m figure by year's end 2013, and continues to sell strongly, then maybe, just maybe, the powers-that-be could be persuaded to give it another shot, and hopefully learn from the mistakes made in rolling this one out onto the market, but it's an outside possibility at best.

In truth, I'm at peace with the fact this one might be the only one we get, there's a refreshing simplicity and focused single-mindedness about it that works well as a gritty police procedural (futuristic environment notwithstanding), and certainly bodes well for future cult classic status, I'm not sure I even want a sequel anymore... unless, of course, the Dark Judges are in it, in which case, resistance would most certainly be futile on my part, 'nuff said.

There were a whole bunch of us in my office looking forward to going to see it - but it hasn't even come to my country! A Rigellian Hotshot despatched to the cinema chain here!

The U.S. marketing has not been good. I've seen the preview on television twice and not until about a week or so before the release. No posters or ads anywhere that isn't comic related were to be seen. I saw ads on Facebook but those are tailored to your tastes so I am not so sure that any of my fellow Yanks saw anything. In order to gross large profit here you need to cater to the general movie goer. You have to try and convince the casual action fan to see it. If anyone thinks that Avengers or Batman made that much money on comic book fans alone they are crazy. Couple that with the film not being available in 2D and you have a small market full of poor comic nerds left. It's sad.

Hello, Scott.

It's at 31 million and counting worldwide; It still hasn't opened everywhere. It will need to really connect on home video to have a shot at a sequel. But let's not forget the publisher in 2004. It made the same amount in the states and was a hit on video..highlighting a sequel. So there is still hope.

It was an advertising FAIL. that is the reason it did so poorly, no one knew it was out there??? What were they thinking?? I have been waiting since the late 70's for a real DREDD film and this one delivered- loved it. It's a real shame the companies didn't get behind it and promote it better. They are to blame and should be ashamed.

Remember that BLADE RUNNER bombed when it first came out- DREDD will have his day-
Sadly it looks like it will put the nail in the coffin for the planned trilogy (Dark Judges being the third & final) which is tragic news :(

NOB!!!!

it flopped because it had a very boring script, poor costuming and cheapo props and sets. The bike looked crap, the helmet was too big and those toyota vans were a joke. It deserved the death it got.

So you haven't seen it yet?

Almost everyone who saw the movie has good things to say about it. Then why did the film bomb at the theaters?
The answer is this. The movie had a female villain. It is not a good idea. Most women (who by the way, today, have better spending power everywhere) are basically turned off.
The villain could have been a Russian or a Black (like Wesley snipes) and the movie would have been much better received.

you sed it grossed 10 mill in uk russia and usa at the top you put 10.8 mill in usa alone 3.6 in uk and couple of mill russia thats over the 15 mill right there

Yeah it is kind of baffling. I was following Dredd closely during production, and was quite surprised that the financiers actively clamped down on any and all third party publicity, presumably still burned by the script leak.

A key example of this was the news of Len Headey's casting. The story broke on an unofficial Dredd movie fansite - and how did the film's backers respond? By ordering the fansite to shut down. They didn't even seem to officially announce Headey's involvement at all, squandering yet another chance of free publicity. A film of this type really could have done with a steady leak of info and production diaries to keep people talking, but there was pretty much silence throughout, and combined with the (innaccurate) stories of trouble on-set led many to believe Dredd was a troubled production that might never see the light of day - except maybe a straight to DVD release.

They released one or two low-quality jpegs of Urban in the suit, and then next to nothing until the film was released, aside from two teaser posters, a weak trailer and one theatrical poster. Even a film like Kick-Ass 2 has been treated to two trailers and dozens of character posters months ahead of release!

The marketing in the US seemed to be a rather tawdry sponsorship of WWF wrestling - which to me - as well as them forcing the '3D' to be added to the title, shows how little the distributors understood what they had on their hands and how little regard they had for it. This was a quality film from the makers of respected genre movies like Sunshine, District 9 and 28 Days Later - and here they were selling it as if it was this year's Drive Angry 3D. Utterly shameful.

Despite Urban's admirable cheerleading of the movie at every available opportunity, Dredd was absolute masterclass in how to totally kill a good film with terrible marketing.