johnny_ultimate wrote: » I am taking the opportunity this weekend to catch up with three genre films that seemed to get decent word-of-mouth around here. I wasn't fond of Dredd, as you can probably tell . Thought Grabbers was a whole heap of silly fun. John Carter tomorrow, although not holding out all that much hope for that one!
pixelburp wrote: » Thread reminded me to pick it up on blu-ray (finally bought my first player after the trusty DVD player packed in) can't say I see the point of the new format for all releases, but Dredd seems like something appropriate for sure.
krudler wrote: » its a bit baffling that its doing so well on home release but tanked at the cinema, was it the 3D that put people off? seemed to be a major lack of 2D showings.
Mickeroo wrote: » It's the very first Blu-Ray I've ever bought (along with the Alien Anthology, which I bought at the same time).
Deleted User wrote: » Considering the initial success of the DVD and Blu release a sequel is pretty much inevitable but it will most likely be a much lower, direct to disc release with Luke Goss taking over for Urban. The Dredd franchise is exactly the type of genre fare that studios love as much like the Death Race sequels and the upcoming Fright Night 2, they can be made for relatively little money and are pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit so don't be surprised to see a Roel Reiné directed Dredd sequel showing up in two or so years
Kinski wrote: » You're speculating wildly there, but f*** that, I'd rather they let it lie than go down that route.
Fysh wrote: » I wouldn't hold out hope of a Dredd TV series being anything but arse, tbh; look at what happened with Robocop - they went from an 18-rated gory, black-humoured action film to a bloodless pg-rated load of nonsense on TV. Even Prime Directives was pretty dire, and that was AFAIK the best of the TV material.
Deleted User wrote: » Not so much speculation as pointing out the obvious. Chances of a big budget Dredd sequel are slim to nonexistent.
Kinski wrote: » That's true, of course, but it's far from inevitable that Dredd will get a low-budget direct-to-disc s***quel. I don't think that's what Garland would be interested in doing, especially not with that guy from Bros donning the helmet.
Lamper.sffc wrote: » Personally Id rather no sequel at all than a direct to dvd sequel. If they cant improve or at least maintain the budget from first one then i wouldnt be hoping for a sequel at all. Better off with just the one Dredd movie or just focus on a gritty tv show like mentioned above. Of course I do understand why they would go the cheap option, I just hope they dont.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » I actually just watched Universal Soldier Degeneration, based on this discussion. It was incredibly good, and looked like a film of twice its means, with excellent cinematography. I would have zero problem with a Dredd film of this caliber; granted, universal soldier only has to portray a current world, but double the budget to a still worthwhile investment figure of about 15m, and I'm sold.
Deleted User wrote: » . Cheap doesn't necessarily translate to shoddy and cheap film making. Check out films such as Ninja, Undisputed 1-3, Death Race 2, Forced to fight, El Gringo, Stash House, The Agression Scale or any of John Hyams films to see what a talented film maker can do with a limited budget. Dredd doesn't need a massive budget, one would be nice but Dredd as a character has never been about spectacle and with a good script and a talented director I think that a Dredd film as good as the last could easily be made for 10-15 million.