Quantcast
Channel: Movies – Den of Geek
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 23983

Dredd and Dredd 2, 18 months on

$
0
0
FeatureSimon Brew4/3/2014 at 8:32AM
Dredd Sequel

So: the Dredd movie bombed, and Dredd 2 is a no-go, right? Maybe, but maybe not...

Just over 18 months ago, a film that remains very dear to the hearts of many readers of this site got its UK release. Launching on 7th September 2012, Dredd opened against films such as Lawless, Anna Karenina and the Adam Sandler vehicle, That's My Boy. Whilst, deservedly, the Sandler movie wouldn't even crack the top ten in the UK, it was Dredd that prevailed, off the back of encouraging reviews. The memory of the infamous (although not universally hated) 1995 Sylvester Stallone/Danny Cannon attempt to bring Judge Dredd to the screen had apparently been laid to rest.

Dredd opened to £1.05m of business, with its distributor choosing to play it pretty much exclusively in 3D. At the time, that had some initial upside, with the film being the first 18 certificate movie to top the British box office in two years (Saw 3D being the last), although many protested that they've had caught the film at the movies had a 2D option been available.

Sadly, Dredd was hampered by a different problem in the shape of uncharacteristically sunny weather on the weekend it came out. But it still went on to do good business in Britain. It ended its run with nearly £4m banked from its UK cinema release (it was promptly knocked off the top by The Sweeney), a total that got the film off to a good start.

You know the next bit. In pretty much every other territory Dredd opened up, it struggled. The US take of $13m dominated the headlines, but around the world, it was a similar story. Dredd rustled up business in Australia, China and Russia. But these were the exception, as the film struggled pretty much everywhere else. Even though Dredd cost an economical $45m to make, its worldwide box office receipts would amount to just over $40m. Any hope of the mooted Dredd sequels had been dashed.

Dredd

But then this is when two factors came into play. Factor one: the Dredd movie was and is good to very good, depending on who you talk to. And factor two: a groundswell of fans, led by the excellent Dredd Sequel campaign, was not giving this one up. 18 months later, said campaign is arguably stronger than ever.

As such, Dredd got off to a far stronger start on its DVD and Blu-ray debut. Posting substantive sales in both the US and the UK (it's done nearly $20m in disc sales in the US alone), the Dredd Sequel campaign subsequently co-ordinated a successful day of action almost a year after the film's original cinematic debut. Thus, on September 18th last year, the campaign encouraged people to buy a copy of the film, whether for themselves or for someone else, to try and drive Dredd back up the charts. Up the charts again it promptly went, and even as we write this article, Dredd sits in the top 100 chart at Amazon. Its DVD, Blu-ray, Netflix, in-flight movie and streaming performance might just have got the movie into profit. If that's the case, it's only just.

With all that said, you may be forgiven for thinking, looking back as we are in April 2014, that Judge Dredd's big screen journey is done. 2000AD has now published a sequel to the film in comic book form, and there's no sign whatsoever of a Dredd 2 even at the scripting stage (although just yesterday, a story broke that Alex Garland was set to turn his attention to the project once he's done with his directorial debut, Ex-Machine). Furthermore, there's no evidence either of an R-rated or 18 certificate comic book adaptation heading for a mainstream release anytime soon, with the one olive branch there being a potential low budget take on Deadpool, that Ryan Reynolds remains interested in. As far as we know, no green light has been given there either.

Dredd

So why write this piece? Is Dredd 2 a dead project? Well, by nearly all logical measures, probably. But unlike many films that fail to recoup their money at the box office, and that bomb on their opening weekend in the States, Dredd still has factors in its corner. The fan campaign for a start has seen 100,000 online signatures amassed for a Dredd 2. And whilst that doesn't get you the $40-odd million you need to make the film, it's a step in the right direction. At least it proves there's support out there, even in the days where an online petition is apparently of limited use.

There's a further advocate for the project too though, in Karl Urban. Urban's performance as Dredd was as selfless as it needed to be, capturing the cold steel of the character in a way that, it would be fair to say, Sylvester Stallone didn't. In fact, just yesterday, Urban recorded a special message acknowledging the fan campaign, and declaring that "on behalf of everybody involved with the film Dredd, from Alex Garland to the DNA boys to myself, we really appreciate it and we're working hard to bring you Dredd 2". That in itself is something: the creative team are still - despite many setbacks - keen to get a new Dredd moving. Here's Urban's video...

So how will they do it? Not easily, and this is the stumbling block. Attracting new or existing investors off the back of the performance of the last film - no matter how impressive the DVD numbers - is a major challenge. Furthermore, whilst the budget could be kept low for Dredd by confining it mainly to one location, that surely couldn't be the plan for Dredd 2. Something more expansive, and inevitably more expansive, is likely to be required.

Crowdfunding has all but been dismissed as an option for Dredd 2 already. The wildly successful crowdfunding campaign for the Veronica Mars movie still garnered just under $6m, and that's a fraction of what'd be required for a new Dredd movie. On the surface too, it's hard to see Lionsgate having appetite to buy rights to or invest too much in a new movie. That said, rumours now suggest that the studio hasn't ruled it out. It's also worth noting that with Dredd performing in just a handful of territories, pre-sales aren't likely to be too clever.

What Dredd 2 needs is what Dredd really needed. On the one hand, a bunch of passionate people, keen to make the film. That much it has. On the other, it needs a fanbase that'll continue to make noise about Dredd 2. It has that too, although more recruits are very much still needed. A lot more recruits, in truth. And then crucially, it also needs enough investors for DNA Films to press ahead with the movie. That remains the huge, huge stumbling block, and only prolonged noise from fans seems likely to affect that in any way. The quest for Dredd 2 may take many years.

Dredd

All this said, we're still realistic: it seems more likely that Dredd 2 won't happen, and the odds are considerably stacked against it. And yet, 18 months after the film apparently flopped without trace, here we are still talking about it. Karl Urban is still fighting for it, a growing fanbase is still pushing for it, and one of the best organised fan campaigns in recent times is refusing to throw in the towel. If the Dredd movie saga is going to go down, it very much won't be for the want of trying...

Find the online petition here if you want to add your name, and the Dredd Sequel Facebook page is here.

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!

Disqus - noscript

The same was said about Boondock Saints...and if that movie could get a sequel, I have no doubt Dredd 2 will get a sequel eventually. I just hope D2 will be much better than BS2.

Take it to Legendary Pictures or another company that thrives at taking risk. Honestly, the creative team is good enough to make $50 million enough to craft a proper sequel. Somebody out there has pockets deep enough and a mind open enough to get this ball rolling, they just need to be found and convinced.

Goddamn it, why cant I be a billionaire or multi millionare? I would fund this sequel all by myself!!!

What it really needs is a good script and a better plot... I can understand why Dredd failed. It was a decent actioner, but it felt confined. Both physically (a single location) and in terms of what all went on and what was dealt with.

The "world" need to be expanded upon. It needs to be opened up. It just needs more. If you get a good script, a good plot and open it up, I think a sequel could reinvigorate the franchise possibilities. The first go was just a bit... limited. But I'd be interested to see what could be done with a sequel...

This is sad, really sad because this movie was very nearly perfect. We all saw it because we know who Judge Dredd is and what the universe is supposed to depict. However it failed because it has no brand recognition in the mainstream market. I could definitely see them doing a straight to DVD film. We'd all buy it and I think that would be enough.

To be frank I'd rather have no sequel at all than have Dredd face the indignity of a straight to DVD one - those things are the absolute pits. A proper sequel by the original team or nothing at all, thanks.

While admittedly it would have been nice to see a bit more of the city and have a little more spectacle, I actually thought the small, contained scale was Dredd's biggest advantage. The limited budget (which I've heard from a reliable source was actually $35m - not the inflated figure of $50m bandied about to make the movie seem a bigger deal) forced them to be economical - and the film is stuffed with lovely little world-building details that hint at the world beyond the walls of Peach Trees if you're looking out for them.

Not every film needs huge cgi set-pieces, high-stakes, a two-hour running time and a complex plot - the simple, 'day in the life' nature of Dredd was a breath of fresh air, and a welcome callback to a simpler time of lean, mean action movies like Robocop, Assault on Precinct 13, Escape From New York and The Warriors. I thought the script was brilliant in its simplicity and economy - but it seems that modern audiences just want films to be filled with 'stuff' and mistake simplicity for stupidity or vacuousness.

You have to make people give a shit - the opening action scene you've seen a million times. Geeks re easy to please but you need more...

I never knew it did so poorly. I thought it was an awesome movie, and a fresh of breath air.

Agreed, I didn't really think there was much compelling action in this film. Seems like they spent all their budget on some awesome CG city scapes in the opening scene and a bunch of silly slow-mo effects. Would have been better spent on some meticulously choreographed action sequences (like The Raid).

Besides Assult on Precint 13, all those films feature a larger world spanning adventure that the OP is arguing is missing from Dredd.

Debatable, I would disagree - perhaps with the exception of Robocop which is a little more complex. The other films all take place over a short space of time in a limited number of locations, with few characters, dropping us into a world with little exposition, and are all the better for it.

The main thing I take issue with is slamming a film for having a simple plot as if that in itself is a bad thing. I actually think Dredd has a very tight, well-written script in a world of generic, overlong and often convoluted genre movies. It's rare that it's a genre movie that not only stands up to repeat viewings, it actually improves with them - that's why it's cult status has grown so much in the last 18 months after a lukewarm initial reaction, while most of its contemporaries have been swiftly forgotten.

Escape from New York inhabits the same if not more space than Robocop and The Warriors are crossing town. None of those films besides Precinct 13 are one location films. Die Hard or Night of the Living Dead would be better examples of films that have the "stuck in a space" story archetype. Also would be better examples of how to make better movies using this type of story trope as per what the OP was getting at. The Raid is also a good example of basically the same plot only it features highly choreographed action sequences that were shot in a style and tone that I hadn't seen previously. I'm not trying to bash your opinion, I just think it is pretty cut and dried why this film failed at the box office and it has more to do with a blandly constructed film as opposed to bad press (which wasn't as big of a deal as the article makes it out to be).

Yeah, and you could argue that Dredd takes place in a building the size of a city so its all academic. The point is they all feel like small, contained films rather than epics.

And I *really* don't believe quality is anything to do with whether a film fails or succeeds - if that's the case then why do so many godawful films make money? I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard or read people saying that they didn't see Dredd in the cinema (or hadn't even heard of it on release) but caught it on DVD or Netflix and loved it. IMO Dredd's failure to find a theatrical audience was more down to poor (or nonexistent) marketing (it remains a mystery to me why the films backers chose to not release ANY information about the film during its production - it was if they were embarrassed by it), a crappy trailer, and negative association with the awful Stallone Dredd movie. It was a textbook example of how NOT to sell a movie.

Lastly, I think its unfair to compare Dredd to The Raid - one is a straight-up martial arts film, the other is a sci-fi thriller. Extended or highly-choreographed action scenes would have been totally out of place in Dredd. Robocop, Dirty Harry, Assault on Precinct 13, The Warriors, Escape From NY and even The Terminator didn't exactly have blistering action, and that's the kind of film Dredd was trying to be.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 23983

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>