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?
this bait is bad and you should feel bad
it was more along the lines that if it ain't Marvel capeshit, it's irrelevant.
>>69617639
What did this movie do to you that makes you repost this thread constantly?
>Dreed
>Capeshit
Not every comic book movie is cape shit dufus
>>69617639
>movie bombs
>everyone I know who saw it said it was amazing
>I ask how they saw it
>oh we pirated it
There is your answer.
>calling dredd capeshit
i know you're baiting, but im still angry because your post may keep people from watching this excellent action movie
3D only killed this film
>>69617639
I didn't even know it was in theaters when it was. Considering I was their demographic for the movie, they failed.
>>69617639
I'm going to post my anecdote.
I didn't know shit about Dredd or its universe. I only knew of the Judge Dredd movie from the 90s (which I never even saw), so that negatively colored my perception of what the movie might be.
I don't know how faithful Dredd was to the source material, but once I actually watched the movie I was fairly intrigued by the premise/world. (It was also a little unsettling because I hope our future doesn't turn out like that.)
There probably won't be a sequel, but if there were, I would be purchasing a ticket.
http://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/dredd-poster-big.jpg/
honestly I didn't see it in theaters because I thought it was going to be a remake of the older one, instead of a reboot.
Judge Dredd isn't very well known first of all. It needed good advertising to sell people on something they don't recognize.
It probably would've done better if they had kept the satirical elements of the comic and showcased them in the advertising because really what people want in movies nowadays is for them to be more lighthearted and fun.
They probably would've too if they didn't go so much in the opposite direction as the 1995 movie did.
It failed because it was bad. The reason why you think it was good is the same reason why you think Bernie Sanders would make a good president.
post Olivia pics. I'd like to have sex with her, if you know what I mean
>>69618141
nice try OP
>>69618011
Hmm, someone's data-mining us, eh? That's some pretty affordable market research.
Someone should make a browser extension that can detect repeat threads.
>>69618141
Highly controversial!
>>69618157
TELL US IN ENGLISH DOC WE AIN'T SCIENTISTS
>>69618276
People have had trackers and auto-lists before 07.
>Someone should make a browser extension that can detect repeat threads.
That's /r9k/ and it's worthless.
it opened 7th at the box office in the middle of october with no competition
nobody knew about it and nobody saw it when it came out. That's bad marketing.
>>69618396
>That's /r9k/ and it's worthless
It's not exactly /r9k/. I simply want to know if I'm posting in a thread that's been created 20 times already as >>69618011 has pointed out.
If they're going to try and risk the integrity of the story by using a villain whose only motivation is pure evil, why would you cast a woman? Evil matriarchs with scarred faces don't exist outside of comic books, and that is why it is called capeshit.
>>69617639
>Dredd
>capeshit
7/10 bait
>>69617822
i used my free 3d VUDU movie pass on it ty
I DID watch it in theaters, I enjoyed it, I want a sequel.
>>69617639
It wasn't a marketing issue. Who the fuck wants to see Dredd? Who has ever heard of Dredd? Most people probably forgot about the Stallone version by then, which is the only place where they would have known it from. It's also not really a movie that has mass appeal. Nobody really wants to see a guy in one building shooting dudes for the whole movie. I guess the Raid had that concept too, and it's not like they made a huge amount of money off that.
>>69618484
>Implying evil men are easily identified by their scars
>Implying running a drug empire wasn't the motivaion
>>69618584
Same here.
Literally everyone I've asked about this movie has never even heard of it, let alone actually seen it. Sad how underrated it is.
>>69618695
I'm so glad the mexican government finally found La Chapa. I feel much safer now that she is behind bars.
>>69618484
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselda_Blanco
>>69617969
>Judging a movie based on a movie you never saw
You're a worthless piece of shit.
>>69618802
Barring my suspicion that she is a character invented by the liberal media to dispel a stereotype, this would be what is known as an exception to a rule.
Dredd, like Priest, suffers from being a great movie that got swept under the rug
>>69618947
Given that you have that image on your drive, you should probably follow your own advice.
>Judging a movie based on a movie you never saw
You can judge a movie without seeing it to save yourself time. Not like the guy gave it a critical assessment.
>>69618966
>give me evidence!
>evidence provided
>I ignore your evidence! give me evidence!
fuck the fuck off you fucking fuck
>>69619028
Priest looked really cool in the trailers but it has terrible reviews.
>>69619129
>you can TOTALLY judge a thing without knowing anything about it
>>69619149
I don't think that anon is all too invested to care.
>>69619149
>cops aren't pigs who shoot black people for no reason whatsoever
>but what about Michael Brown?
>>69618758
Just because you've never heard of someone, doesn't mean they don't exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_%C3%81vila_Beltr%C3%A1n
>>69617639
>>69617639
Because barely anyone knew it was coming out.
Just popped out of nowhere.
The DVD sales were also more than enough to generate a profit.
Hope Karl Urban signs for the sequel.
>>69619207
You already judge movies without seeing them. By deciding they aren't in your interest when you have the opportunity to see them. Like I don't need to watch more than the trailer for Battleship to realize I'd hate it. Trying to discuss X movie would be dumb, but people can and do judge things from the surface.
Olivia did a great job as Anderson.
>>69619404
>people can and do judge things from the surface
Sure they can - and they're always wrong. NO judgement of a thing is accurate if it does not, in fact, judge the ACTUAL THING. All this presumptive bullshit is really setting us back as a species - how can you know a thing until you actually go out and learn that thing???? You can have a guess, you can have a presumption; but you can never ever have an accurate JUDGEMENT until you, y'know, actually assess the thing in question.
>>69619827
I've never seen or been in the Indian ocean and I know it's wet. I know the movie The Room is only ironically enjoyably. You can hold that judging things is bad, but that's silly. No matter what you do, you are judging and appreciating what you detect in the world. Sure plenty of it can be bad, but most of it works for you.
>>69619149
>fuck the fuck off you fucking fuck
>>69619827
The map is not the territory.
it was promoted at dredd 3d, i only saw commercials for it about a week before release.
it even used some new techniques for 3d, but people were tired of 3d at the time
>>69620069
You know certain universal things, but nothing specific about the Indian ocean itself. THAT'S the point.
>>69620149
Precisely!! This anon gets it.
>>69620083
Pure 4chins, baby!
>>69621357
But if I hate salty oceans I know I'd hate the Indian ocean. Your point is the silly "Let's learn something" version and not the realistic version.
>>69621713
Your knowledge is limited, and you are seeking an excuse to remain limited. Why?
>>69621798
When it comes to shitty movies: totally.
>>69621798
But, again: you can't know that. You can only infer it. Your knowledge is non-existent.
>>69618947
That's a pretty strong feeling over something relatively inconsequential. I hope you're not that emotional in your day-to-day life.
>>69622835
That's pretty moronic thinking over something relatively easy to grasp. I hope you're not this mentally challenged in your day-to-day life.
>>69623463
Hm, I think I'm content with being a moron. Are you content with being a drama queen?
>>69617969
One is a Hollywood piece of shit, the other is a low-budget British film which had a lot of love poured in to it and was written by a Judge Dredd fan.
>>69618011
This kind of autism is chilling
>>69625204
That's the best ya got? Of course a moron's gonna be content being a moron, I guess. Sheesh. Have fun judging things you have no experience with. Let me know how that works out for ya. I see nothing but sunshine and lollipops in your future.
Shit bait/10 OP
Here's your (You),
oh wait I didn't quote your retarded ass.
>>69625711
Your logic is pretty flawed. There are all sorts of things people don't do because they know themselves well enough to be fairly confident that they wouldn't like them.
For example, I imagine that most heterosexual men don't feel the need to lick another man's anus in order to reach the conclusion that it's not something that they would enjoy. But by your logic, unless they're willing to try it at least once, they are a "worthless piece of shit" and "setting us back as a species".
Who knows how many potential ass-lickers are out there, who don't know they like to eat manbooty because they won't venture to try it? It's really a travesty; future historians will lament the close-mindedness of our generation.
>>69626534
Woa - that's some pretty inescapable logic you have there.
I especially love how you went straight for a man's anus in your analogy there. Your logic is flawless.
>>69627054
Yeah you sound pretty stumped to me. Get back to me when you find a counterargument.
>>69627132
A counter argument to you licking a man's ass? Nawww, you got this!
>>69618599
>nobody wants to see an action film
Why on earth not?
Everyone I've shown or recommended Dredd to, have enjoyed it immensely.
>>69617822
I loved this movie
But I pirated it.
It's not my fault however, I didn't even know this movie existed until I saw it on Pirate Bay.
So I'm guessing marketing IS to blame. If I saw a decent trailer before it came out I would have gone the first day it opened.
