Have Dredd not necessarily the main protagonist but more of an ensemble cast.

Did you like Dredd?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Did you like Dredd?

Hell yes.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Did you like Dredd?

I would have liked it even more if they made a sequel.

A sequel would be where the material could really have a chance to shine. It was a decent introduction, but it missed a lot of what made Dredd's world interesting. I saw it as a set up for a longer, more epic sequel. Which we never got because no-one went to see it :(

@MickyMac said:

Think Judge Dredd would've done better with a lesser known actor ...

"Better" how?

Better script/story/screenplay/acting?

See next point.

*Better ratings and reviews? *

2012 version has a 6.6 rating here on TMDb (a very solid rating for this site) vs. 1995's middling 5.4. Review-wise, most people who know the comics prefer the 2012 as more true to the comics, more gritty. So, generally, I think most would agree with you that the 2012 version was better, and to whatever degree that is a function of the lesser known cast, there you have it.

*Better business? *

While you perhaps should have been right, the final numbers in this case don't support. 1995's campy version made a profit, albeit a sub-par profit. On a budget of $90 million, it pulled in $113 million, or a gross return of $1.26 for every $1 spend on budget. This is not good, most movies need minimum $2 to be considered break-even. But, it is profit. 2012's version, on the other hand, on a smaller budget of $50 million, didn't even break even, pulling in just $41 million.

Why should you have been right? Lesser known casting is a standard approach for boosting ROI. A lot of the most profitable movies all time (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Rocky, Blair Witch Project, Mad Max...) were able to keep budget low because there were (at their respective times of production) no A-List actors headlining.

Even so, A-Listers put more butts in seats, which is the other side of the profit equation, more revenues. And, in this case, Stallone does have pull, even if his Judge Dredd did not pull even close to his average numbers. Rocky paid an incredible $117, and the Rocky franchise averaged out to $8.41. In my movie ROI database, I've got 18 Stallone movies catalogued thus far (not including the Expendables franchise), and over these 18 movies, Stallone has paid $4.41, which is a very decent number (not a few of the greatest movies of all time are in around that $3 - $4 range).

It's nearly always best to cast a unknown, character or a upcoming actor in the role of a superhero.

A list stars usually help to get the film made and make casting and marketing easier, just heir presence is enough to get people to watch the film but it can also create problems like their well known persona distracting the audience from the narrative in this case with Judge Dredd is removing his helmet to show Stallone's face which upset a lot of fans because he never shows his face in the comics, if Dredd was played by a lesser known actor then the helmet would stay on.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Did you like Dredd?

I would have liked it even more if they made a sequel.

A sequel would be where the material could really have a chance to shine. It was a decent introduction, but it missed a lot of what made Dredd's world interesting. I saw it as a set up for a longer, more epic sequel. Which we never got because no-one went to see it :(

Get to see more in the Mega City One TV series.

If the film had been made in the 1980's around the time of The Terminator, RoboCop and Total Recall things could've been very different.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Even so, A-Listers put more butts in seats, which is the other side of the profit equation, more revenues. And, in this case, Stallone does have pull, even if his Judge Dredd did not pull even close to his average numbers. Rocky paid an incredible $117, and the Rocky franchise averaged out to $8.41. In my movie ROI database, I've got 18 Stallone movies catalogued thus far (not including the Expendables franchise), and over these 18 movies, Stallone has paid $4.41, which is a very decent number (not a few of the greatest movies of all time are in around that $3 - $4 range).

I believe the idea with superhero and comic book movies these days is that they cast lesser known actors and make the superhero the star. They build up the character so the character pulls in the audience.

This seemed to be the plan for Dredd. The first installment would create familiarity. Judge Dredd would then become the attraction rather than the actor playing him. And then the subsequent films would build on it, becoming a franchise and making the cash. But, alas, the film flopped so hard it never happened.

But also star vehicles seem to be more of an 80's and 90's thing. They don't seem to work as well these days. I think the film would have failed either way.

@JustinJackFlash said:

But also star vehicles seem to be more of an 80's and 90's thing. They don't seem to work as well these days...

This makes for a good conversation, how movie goers have related to or followed A-listers through the eras.

Back in the golden era (40s-50s), it was all about the A-listers. Gable, Bogart, Grant, Hepburn...

Today, people are quite inclined to watch a movie with no actors known to them, in part because we today have unprecedented access to content beyond what the theatres are willing to take a risk in screening. I've seen quite a few movies on Netflix that I'd not heard of before I stumbled upon them, and certainly did not know any of the actors in them, but found them engaging, well-portrayed stories.

On the flip side, do I rush to see any movie my favourite actors are in? Nope, I sure don't. If the story is not compelling to me, the fact that an actor I like is not likely to change the likelihood that I'll watch it. I am, however, rather inclined to give a director I like a shot - if Billy Wilder directed, I'm quite likely to watch it, and ultimately to enjoy it; Tarantino, not as much, but not too far behind (and, truth be told, Tarantino mentions Wilder as among his influences, and that makes sense to me).

So, you might be right - the grip that A-listers have had on "the movies" may indeed have slipped significantly.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Even so, A-Listers put more butts in seats, which is the other side of the profit equation, more revenues. And, in this case, Stallone does have pull, even if his Judge Dredd did not pull even close to his average numbers. Rocky paid an incredible $117, and the Rocky franchise averaged out to $8.41. In my movie ROI database, I've got 18 Stallone movies catalogued thus far (not including the Expendables franchise), and over these 18 movies, Stallone has paid $4.41, which is a very decent number (not a few of the greatest movies of all time are in around that $3 - $4 range).

I believe the idea with superhero and comic book movies these days is that they cast lesser known actors and make the superhero the star. They build up the character so the character pulls in the audience.

This seemed to be the plan for Dredd. The first installment would create familiarity. Judge Dredd would then become the attraction rather than the actor playing him. And then the subsequent films would build on it, becoming a franchise and making the cash. But, alas, the film flopped so hard it never happened.

But also star vehicles seem to be more of an 80's and 90's thing. They don't seem to work as well these days. I think the film would have failed either way.

Dredd was badly marketed by Lionsgate films.

As I said they nearly always cast a lesser known for Superman and they do the same with some of the Marvel stuff.

The mid 90's were not a good time for comic book adaptations, you had Batman & Robin, Spawn and Judge Dredd.

Imagine if 95 Dredd was made today, it would not stunt cast the role or trying to hire A listers, it would try to cast the best people for the roles and would have a lesser known for Dredd to keep his helmet on, not it would lead to a better film but more of a fan pleasing one.

Also when 95 Dredd was coming out Stallone was at the end of his heyday which also happened with Schwarzenegger and other 80's action stars.

@Damienracer said:

Karl Urban is and was hardly an "unknown" you keep using that word without knowing its true meaning.

He's not an A-lister. He's a solid journeyman actor but if you asked ten people to name him in a line up, most likely couldn't. They might say "wasn't he in RED?" but I've gathered "unknown" is simply saying, relative to a names like Tom Cruise or Will Smith or Brad Pitt or George Clooney, we're talking less known.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

But also star vehicles seem to be more of an 80's and 90's thing. They don't seem to work as well these days...

This makes for a good conversation, how movie goers have related to or followed A-listers through the eras.

Back in the golden era (40s-50s), it was all about the A-listers. Gable, Bogart, Grant, Hepburn...

Today, people are quite inclined to watch a movie with no actors known to them, in part because we today have unprecedented access to content beyond what the theatres are willing to take a risk in screening. I've seen quite a few movies on Netflix that I'd not heard of before I stumbled upon them, and certainly did not know any of the actors in them, but found them engaging, well-portrayed stories.

Yes. I think it's a good time for the visual medium. Despite what many seem to say. There seems to be more variety. More choice. And I prefer that to a studio and a star choosing what I watch.

On the flip side, do I rush to see any movie my favourite actors are in? Nope, I sure don't. If the story is not compelling to me, the fact that an actor I like is not likely to change the likelihood that I'll watch it. I am, however, rather inclined to give a director I like a shot - if Billy Wilder directed, I'm quite likely to watch it, and ultimately to enjoy it; Tarantino, not as much, but not too far behind (and, truth be told, Tarantino mentions Wilder as among his influences, and that makes sense to me).

Yeah, I'm the same. I did used to rush to my fave actors films when I was younger. But I rarely do that any more. For me the director is the star.

It's always best to hire an unknown or up and coming actor in the role of a superhero or any costume heavy role.