Why do people blame "bad marketing" for Dredd's failure?

Why do people blame "bad marketing" for Dredd's failure?

Can't people just admit that they were tired of seeing more capeshit at the time?

>tired of seeing capeshit at the time
>released a two months after The Avengers which made a billion dollars

this is bait

could you be any more off base? Never make another thread again you piece of trash

it failed because it didn't have expensive sets or props

it looked like cheap trash, sorry to say

What? It failed because the vast majority of people don't want to watch people get their heads blown off. 18-30 year old men is not the primary demographic of movies. The trends in movies follow the target demographics there are few R rated action flicks because it's hard to make money off of them these days

dumb fuck

We need more fun Dredd hi-jinks. Just make one unrelated movie every now and again with the same good stuff you made this one with and it'll be aaaalll right.

Probably because most people associate Judge Dredd with the Stallone film, which was awful.

Most people don't even know it's based on a comic.

Just because it's based on a comic doesn't mean it's capeshit.

Given the movie itself was well received by critics and those who have seen it, the suggestion that the objectively awful marketing campaign failed it, is a valid one.

Mad Max kinda reminded me of dredd

>Rated R
>Budget: $30,000,000 (estimated)
>Gross: $66,468,315 (USA) (28 December 2012)

I think Dredd and Looper are incredibly bad flicks, but to say R-rated sci-fi can't do well at the box office is stupid

Maybe Mad Max takes place in the same world but outside the cities.

Except Dredd wasn't a numale cuck like Max was in Fury Road. He was actually the main hero of his story

This. Most people in the US don't even know it's a comic, they just associate it with a terrible Sylvester Stalone movie from the 90s. Since remakes are usually seen as inferior, it makes sense that no one wanted to see a remake of movie universally regarded as terrible.

All comic books are capeshit, and by extension so are all the movies based off of them. A History of Violence is capeshit too.

And yet his boss is a black woman, the main villain was a woman and the only other lead was Anderson, also a woman.
And I'm saying all this in the hopes you will be grossly offended.

Looper had starpower on top of better marketing and a bigger budget. I didn't say that I said it was difficult to make money off of.

Maybe they need to make a hybrid of the two starring Brendan Fraser as our punished protagonist and/or antagonist

>Looper had starpower

So get starpower for Dredd?

>on top of better marketing and a bigger budget.

>Dredd's budget:
>$30—45 million
>Looper's budget:
>$30 million

???

I'm not because it's still Dredd throwin a bitch out the window

>corrupt judge cast into the wasteland, broken beyond measure
I'd see it.
It's still a black bitch bossing Dredd around. Just like in Mad Max 3.

...

I don't know. The marketing was a 100% representation of what the film was.

I know people love it, but I fucking hated it, and every normie I know who has seen it (which is like 2 friends) thought it was boring as hell too.

I guess the starpower was enough alone then. Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon levitt could make any movie profitable they are A list

Deadpool and District 9 refute that guys assertion.

District 9 especially. It had a similar budget, both filmed in South Africa, both hard R's.

Dredd was just boring and looked cheap and nasty and ugly.

They got a really bad director for it.

No they aren't, and no they can't.

Dredd's marketing sold the film exactly as it was.

Which is something that's not appealing to most audiences.

>Deadpool
>sci-fi
I don't think anyone thought of it as science fiction.
>cheap and nasty and ugly
It looked just fine, the hell are you on about?

I know. It really made me appreciate the original Judge Dredd for its practical effects

*Bad green screen effects (the minigun scene)
*Bad overall CG like the CG blood

Judge Dredd is a goofy looking hero, even the name sounds dumb as fuck. Most people aren't even aware it is a comic and just think it's a "90's remake" and all those are doomed to fail.

>It looked fine

It looked like DTV trash. LIterally carboard hallways and extras dressed in K-Mart clothes. Shit was crappy looking.

I'm glad I don't see shit everywhere I look.

Kino

Does it make you feel special liking movies no one else likes?

No because I don't like the DCEU.

I personally love this film

People think marketing failed the movie because it hit peak popularity after it had left the theaters.

>Combined DCEU box office: 2.2 billion

>Combined Judge Dredd and Dredd box office: 148 million

But you can't polish a turd

Ghostbusters 2016 was a bad movie - I don't care how you cut that trailer.

Me, personally, I love this film too. Slow motion. People getting shot in the head. Dark and gritty. Normal people hated it or ignored it, so I feel unique and superior for enjoying it.

Great film.

>A History of Violence is capeshit too

And Ghostbusters hit peak popularity long before it was ever IN theaters.

If you personally don't like Dredd that's fine, but it's a movie that a lot of people who do like it didn't see while it was in theaters. There's no comparing it to a film that was made a proxy for a stupid culture war and still flopped.

Dredd was amazing viewed through the lens of irony, but that just isn't how you win hearts and minds. To me it felt like the movie knew it was hyper edgy, almost to the point of comedy, but at no point did it wink at the camera. I found myself drawn to the dynamic between this absurd, 80s action hero style character and his little rookie girl sidekick.

To most audiences though, I think Dredd looked like the remake of a bad movie using a comic nobody cared about; and it delivered underwhelming action sequences to boot.

That's nice user. How much of that money did you get? Can I have some?
I guess Conan the Barbarian is too, that's been a comic series since forever.

Have Walter the Wobot star in the sequel: Judge Dwedd

The issue was that it was an R rated comic book based adaptation that came out in a bad month (September). Most people never heard of Judge Dredd. And if they did the sour taste of the Stallone one turned them off.
If Dredd was released September of 2016 it would have became a franchise. Thanks to Deadpool we're getting more R/"adult" comic book movies. Look at Logan.

>and extras dressed in K-Mart clothes

like people in real life?

comic doesnt equal capeshit.

>and it delivered underwhelming action sequences to boot.
Compared to what? The Avengers and TDKR? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By that logic fucking American Splendor and the work of Crumb are capeshit.

You're talking shite mate.

>comic doesnt equal capeshit
Well I know that, I was trying to participate in a sarcastic manner.

nobody had ever heard of guardians of the galaxy and it did fine

Im pretty sure it failed because its only demographic were Dredd fans, and I'm also pretty sure there arent a lot of people who like or know about the Dredd comics

It had Disney's marketing blitzkrieg. Don't act aloof.

But you get star power and sometimes things fall apart. Look at the 90s version. Stallone thought he was making a comedy. I guess he mistook satire for goofy comedy

I've never read any, but I saw this on the telly and liked it. Wish I had seen it in the theatres.

>MARVEL

I saw ads for Dredd during WWE Raw, on comedy central and on websites

There were ads.

The only way they could make Dredd look appealing is by outright lying

That and it was PG13 and had more star power.

I liked the Stallone version

thats the point user, you didnt see it in the theatres because you didnt know shit about it when it came out

But this was after the first wave of Marvel shit. They built it up.
Dredd didn't get that. No one outside of dorks in England who read 2000 AD heard of Dredd before the movie.

If they were to either make a continuation film/show or even a reboot, it'd probably sell cause of Dredd 2012.

Dredd's marketing was practically non-existent. I heard from some random news website and here that it even existed, and by the time I actually heard it was good (again from here, nowhere else was even talking about it) it was already out of the theaters.

I don't think it was misrepresented, I think it just flew under the radar more than it should have. If fucking Deadpool made the kind of money it did than surely Dredd deserved at least half as much. It was the superior movie.

I can see the appeal of it. And it gets the costume and world right, to a degree (the cup Dredd has in it is ridiculous.)
But there's things that bother me like Feegee being Rob Schnider or Stallone taking off the helmet. Or the fucking catchphrase.

This desu, I dont really blame Marvel for cashing out in the capeshit franchise, they deserve it in a sick kind of way

but Dredd, it was successful for what it was, it was both a good adaptation and it was also a good movie on its own, its not to blame if it didnt exactl blew up since the source material is very obscure to normies, but the stupid thing is to not follow up on it, thats where the blame is

>they deserve it in a sick kind of way
What did he mean by this?

Schneider sucked but I liked I AM THE LAW. Also the girl judge in the Stallone version was better

It's goofy in a b movie sense but Rico was so over the top.
Also
>Anderson>Hershey

The side chick was better in Dredd. Better character dev.

like i give a fuck about eye candy character development

>releases a slient fart

ISO CUBE, 10 YEARS

they took the time to establish them and profited from it. its good business

What's sick about that then?

>There are people who didn't like Dredd

YOU DENSE MOTHERFUC-no, I completely understand why people wouldn't like Dredd. I absolutely loved it, but for a lot of reasons that it could come off as not appealing to others.

The visuals and tone felt straight ripped from about late 1987, the characters were barebones and not very well developed and the action/violence was over the top and gory. It is basically an action movie from the '80s made today, and I absolutely loved it for that. We don't get a lot of films like it anymore.

And, like I said earlier, this is definitely not up some people's alley.

the real reason Dredd failed is this

Normies 18-30 went in wanting stallion cheesy funny action flick, really thats it, they knew nothing about real dredd, so word got around it was low budget and grimdark, which people were tired of, avengers was seen as a fun exciting break from stuff like dark knight at the time. Fucking plebs killed it basically

Dredd is kino for the aniti-hero crowd. Those that read the comics and understand where it's coming from where fascism rules through authoritarian force and the humor is dark.

Normies don't understand the irony of it all in their Facetwit bubble.

when it was released there were tons of 3d shit movies. that's why i didn't see it in theaters. Did love watching a pirated copy

>shes a pass
>mfw

it's because his chin was way too small


also he did the batman voice when Dredd is supposed to be loud and clear

Stallone was a better Dredd for the minute he kept the helmet on

keep this shit up I'm posting We need dredd 2, Stallone's was utter shit, mostly

>Barebones and not very well developed

I dunno, for capeshit standards Dredd was amazing. You get to see Anderson evolve into a proper judge over time, one who isn't just in it for the job, like the guys who took bribes were. Dredd himself manages to have an entire arc only in a few lines of dialogue, first mistrusting how useful Anderson would be and then finally realizing that someone who gave a shit was what the city needed, so he gave her a pass despite being a hardass on the rules, AKA being Dredd.

Compared to most of the bullshit you see in Marvel flicks this is downright poetry, even if for more substantive movies it pales, it served the story perfectly.

My favorite part of it all was the movie's silent acknowledgement and hint that this was just normal shit for Judge Dredd. (Drug bust)

I too understand why people wouldn't like it, but if those same people appreciate Marvelshit they should have their ability to make judgments of taste revoked.

I'm a Dredd fan and I thought it looked shit from the comic con footage and it fucking sucked, so I can only imagine how shit it looked to normies.

I liked the Stallone version as much or more than the new version.

Neither of them really got it right.

The comic is The Fifth Element meets Robocop.

I don't see them being able to do it in this day and age. At best a Verhoeven/Arnie vehicle in the 90's. Stallone was well cast, but it's Stallone - So you have to make it a Stallone film. Same thing would have happened with Arnie.

It's marketing was as big as Kick Ass (some people don't realize that Lionsgate, which released both films, also lost a ton of money on Kick-Ass).

It had as much marketing as a film of that budget gets. It just looked like shit to normies.

>It was a superior movie

Deadpool was superior, if you're talking about what will sell to a mass market. It has comedy, a "good" story, it's well told.

Hell, even an R rated sci-fi action film of comparable size (District 9) will sell if you have the right ingredients. Dredd was drab. Had no story. Was just ultra-violence in a flat setting with no humor and nothing visually appealing beyond 90's music video style slow motion scenes.

It's nothing like 80's action movies though.

If it had been, it might have been appealing to audiences.

I mean, what 80's action movies are you comparing it to? Ones like Enemy Territory which didn't make any money anyway?

It's almost the complete opposite of the favorite 80's action films like Die Hard or Robocop, which were very well written, very well directed and "traditional" in terms of commercially appealing narratives. Plus funny with great characters.

Dredd was like something out of 2000's asia, like the oft comapred Raid, or anything from Tony Jaa.

Like a cruder version of what Europa Corp. was giving us in the late 90's and 2000's.

I've read the comics. I hated the film. The comics aren't Grimdark and humorless.

This. Took me months to get my dad to watch it because he thought of judge dredd.

My brother hated it but his wife loved it. My brother said it looked like Dredd smelled a shit the whole movie,

>DREDD
>CAPESHIT

FUCK YOURSELF

I swear to god this is the dumbest meme opinion that people who know nothing always spout off

"disney made a movie about a walking tree and a raccoon and look how much it made!" or "nobody knew who X was and look how much they got for a marvel movie including them!"

you know who else was saying this? The millions of people who trooped into theatres, that's who, everyone was turning to the person next to them and telling them all about what a huge nerd they were because they knew who Groot was and nobody else did after 30 seconds of google searching.

>xtras dressed in K-Mart clothes. Shit was crappy looking.

EXACTLY!

THATS WHAT THE REMAINDER OF THE WORLD LOOKS LIKE IN DREED YOU DUMB FUCK CUNT!

They LITERALLY explain this at the star of the fucking film.
IT based in a apocalyptic fasist version of America.

Next, you are going to say Mad Max and The book of Eli looked like shit?

>It had as much marketing as a film of that budget gets

Doesn't mean the marketing wasn't misapplied, I never heard of it and I loved the movie, so should theoretically be its primary demographic. It's the same for everybody I spoke to who saw the movie and enjoyed it. They all asked me why the hell they didn't know it was good when it released in theaters.

>Deadpool was superior, if you're talking about what will sell to a mass market

I'll grant you that, albeit Dredd's action scenes blow Deadpool's out of the water, it lacked traditional comedy (there was some pretty dark humor in it though, "hotshot", her biting the black dude's dick off mentally, Dredd's smartass remarks).

But you're lying to yourself if you think Deadpool wasn't seriously aided by the marketing behind it, which was rather massive for a film of its budget.

I didn't want to see it because I thought it was just another one of those pointless remakes like Total Recall etc., and unlike with Total Recall the original wasn't even a good movie.

I was wrong, though.

>My favorite part of it all was the movie's silent acknowledgement and hint that this was just normal shit for Judge Dredd. (Drug bust)

>dredd throws mama from top floor
>lock down is over
>roof opens up and the sun is all shining bright like its all over
>Dredds boss meets him outside for his next mission
>Just another day in the Mega city

Loved it

>It's meant to look shit

Oh wow. Nice excuse.

>It's based in an apocalyptic fascist version of America

In which slum futuristic slum dwellers look like suburban dads after a trip to Target.

Awesome.

>Next, you are going to say Mad Max looked like shit

No, because it featured fantastic and creative and inspired design work.

While Dredd featured lazy TV movie design work.

Would it have killed them to maybe crack open the comic and thumb through it for ideas?

why did kickass get a sequel if it lost money? not memeing, just curious since you seem to be informed on movie trivia

>The marketing was misapplied

Explain how.

I saw constant ads for it on all the major film, video game and comic websites. It had a major showing at comic con and major trade press. It was heavily advertised on TV during Wrestling and other shitty sports broadcasts.

>I never heard of it

Great anecdote bro.

>They all asked me why the hell they didn't know it was good when it released in theaters

Because it got savaged by word of mouth. Same with Kick-Ass.

Both films were almost identical - Lionsgate dropped a lot of money on them, they did well at comic con, got a heavy marketing push targeting the Males Aged 18-35 Into Nerdy Shit, got heavily mixed reviews, terrible word of mouth outside of a devoted core audience, and then bombed in the U.S. (Dredd bombed internationally too).

Kick Ass's home video hype (much like Dredd received) led to a sequel - Which bombed. Because normies just aren't interested in this shit.

>Dredd's action scenes

Were pretty shit. Slow motion has been a meme since the 60's user. That's not impressing most people.

Deadpools were much cheaper, nastier and sloppier, but they played to the story and humor.

>Deadpool wasn't seriously aided by the marketing behind it

I never even remotely suggested said that. So you're just lying about me.

The budget was massive for it's marketing because they knew they had a winner on their hands.

District 9 didn't even need a huge marketing budget because audiences loved the trailers and the word of mouth and reviews were terrific.

i miss when edgy contrarianism could be enjoyed by both sides

Most of Dredd action isn't slow-mo, and it's pretty well directed. The last fight where Dredd and Anderson work as a team to kill the gangers is really well made. I also like the melee fight with the first bad judge, very fast and brutal.

It was produced by Universal Studios.

The original was an independent film. After it played to a hugely positive reaction at Comic Con, Lionsgate purchased it for the North American market for 50 million (plus). They then lost a ton of money on it.

Universal owned the international rights where it did well. That coupled with the post flop hype (similar to Dredd) meant Universal took over and made a sequel.

was the sequel marketed specifically to a non-american audience?

>Edgy contrarianism

This makes no sense.

Dredd is a box office bomb, with very low exposure and poor reviews that receives next to no praise for any of it's work outside of places like plebbit, Sup Forums and niche audiences.

There's nothing contrarian about saying it's Production Design was lousy, as it holds zero prestige for it's Production Design.

Mad Max's costume and production designs meanwhile are lauded and Oscar nominated and iconic.

You are retarded and using words you don't understand.

It's perfunctorily directed. It's TV directing. Which is because they hired a low budget, competent director. Just look at his other films.

It's not bad. It's just flat. Like most of the film.

Even the Europa Corp. stable of directors have more style and flair.

Deadpool was perhaps even better directed - But it's aspirations compared to it's budget left the technical side of the action scenes from effects to photography looking REALLY shoddy.

so you wanted them to be wearing fat suits and willy wonka clothes? I don't see your point.