Sad Professor wrote: » subtly
Sad Professor wrote: » Give it a rest, guys. Boasting/bragging about watching illegally downloaded content is against the charter and this thread is slowly drifting in that direction. If you can't post about the film without subtly alluding to how you pirated it then don't post at all.
phil1nj wrote: » Have to agree 100% with this. The marketing guys shït on this from a height with their advertising campaign in the USA. And to add insult to injury the DVD/bluray release is scheduled for January (completely missing the Christmas market). It really did deserve better than this. Having said that I've preordered my copy and I am looking forward to re-watching it in glorious Hidefinition.
S. De Sousa wrote: » I don't think it was a case of bad marketing, but rather a case of a limited budget. I reckon they hoped word of mouth would get people to go.
phil1nj wrote: » Really? So the combination of limited TV spots, only 1 theatrical trailer (released very late in the day I might add), no real effort to distinguish this movie from the Stallone abomination, the limited 2D showings and the painfully staggered worldwide release dates weren't down to the marketing folks? Not to mention the US September release date which is normally seen as a month for the release of dross that the studio don't know what to do with. Sorry, still think those folks charged with promoting this fücked up big time with how they handled an otherwise cracking action movie.
Gbear wrote: » They probably should've toned down the violence a tiny bit, even if it meant not being true to the comics (not sure how gory they were).
Gbear wrote: » I didn't think it was that amazing and I'm not terribly bothered that they're not making another one. I think the praise for it is a little ott.
o1s1n wrote: » Never!!!!! I absolutely hate this whole 'tone the film down to make more money' crap we see going on lately. We need more big violent action films. Judge Dredd and Mega City 1 are dark, violent places. We already had it camped up and toned down in 1995 - for the love of god, not again!
Gbear wrote: » Ideally that's fine but you have to decide what you want more, violence, or another Dredd film.
Beefy78 wrote: » But surely the violence is a fundamental part of what makes a Dredd film.
johnny_ultimate wrote: » While you're all throwing down your Blu-ray orders (and I will be too, finally getting to see what all this fuss is about), order your copies of Safety Not Guaranteed, Holy Motors, This is Not a Film, About Elly, Margaret, Himizu etc... too: all superb films whose miserable box office takings make Dredds eight figure gross look like a rip-roaring success. It's nice to see so many trying to actively support an underdog production. But don't let it end with Dredd - there's always a healthy selection of films deserving grassroots support like that.
Sad Professor wrote: » According to Alex Garland the film would have needed to make 50 million box office in the US for a sequel to happen. It made $13 million.