Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 15, 2012 16:38:39 GMT -5
We have a new RoboCop, and he looks like crap.I get that the desire to update it. I even get that they would want to make it slimmer and more comfortable for tha actor to wear, but couldn't it look at least recognizable? Why is it black? The chrome looked so much more destinctive. I'm not sure what's up with the bare hand. I'm assuming he's not wearing the glove for a productive/practicality reason. At least I hope so. Oh well. At least they kept Robo's eye the same. I would have been through the roof if they changed that. Maybe I'm just pissy because I watched the original a week ago and then this was sprung on me.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Sept 15, 2012 19:53:14 GMT -5
Okay, I needed to boot up a word processor to try to compose a thoughtful response to this. I should note that I didn't "read" the article; I pretty much just clicked on the link, quickly looked at the two photographs, and closed the web page. I'm taking a wild guess that the actual text of the article had little to nothing to say. First off, as I have probably addressed multiple times on this forum, 1987's RoboCop is without a doubt one of my favorite all-time films. My love for the Verhoeven film can be evidenced by this illustration that is hanging to the right of me as I am writing this response. When you tell me that Hollywood is in the process of remaking RoboCop, my immediate response is, "How the hell does one improve upon perfection?" Yes, I will admit that the remaking of RoboCop feels in my core like an act of blasphemy. So, perhaps some measured thought needs to be applied here. THE RIGHT TO MAKE A FILMWhen I originally saw The Phantom Menace, I was left really confused as to what in the world I just saw. Maybe some people take it further and view the film as the ultimate betrayal. Maybe some people leap to the other end and defend the film as the craft of an earthly demigod. I will defend George Lucas' right to make films like The Phantom Menace and others of equal or lesser quality; after all, there are plenty of embarrassing properties featuring the Star Wars brand that were made long before The Phantom Menace reared its ugly head. What ultimately bothers me is the ultimate consequences of Lucas' meddling: his penchant for revisionist history and his refusal to make commercially available the original edits of The Star Wars Trilogy. Freedom of speech and censorship are not the same beast. I think we can all agree that, no matter how well or poorly this new RoboCop film performs, the original three RoboCop films will most likely not be locked away so as to force consumers to forever turn to the new film to satisfy their RoboCop fix. THE STYLE OF FILMMAKINGI would like to argue that it shouldn't be construed that the people in charge of producing this new film are individuals that harbor a hatred of the original RoboCop or are trying to illicit an angry reaction from the Verhoeven film's fans. The people doing the work in this film probably have a love (or general indifference) for the original film and are trying to create something that is a nod to the 1987 film while at the same time clearly defining major differences to make it its own film. I looked at the photographs in the article Torgo provided as well as some artwork from typing "New RoboCop" into YouTube. I might joke that it looks like the filmmakers raided Robert Downey's wardrobe. This leads me into something of a rant against today's filmmaking standards. There is a part of me that wonders if this new film is being made with today's "sensibilities" in mind. I left wondering if this new film will paint RoboCop in a far more jingoist tone, while going to extra lengths to portray Alex Murphy as the ideal family man and maybe even Mrs. Murphy as the feminist ideal. Perhaps all the male police officers in Old Detroit will be overweight and lazy misogynists to provide the perfect contrast for Anne Lewis as Detroit's finest. Maybe they'll take painstaking measures to make Bob Morton look like the ideal American wih absolutely no vices and an utter respect for women, so as to make his death by grenade all the more tragic. I think we are in need of a revolution in filmmaking that bucks excessive political correctness, abusive shaky cam, and shameful plugs for pop musicians who will not stand the test of time. FINAL THOUGHTS1987's RoboCop is a very important film to me. I might point to it as the source of my interest in fiction about cyborgs and the possibility of cyborgs in real life. The film is intensely and entertainingly violent, and yet not hideously gory. The soundtrack by Basil Poledouris is incredible and fun to listen to by itself, and the composer gave our titular hero such an over-the-top theme that triumphantly plays even as he's gunning down dozens of factory workers. I'm very confident that this new film will not even graze the original film's greatness. I might rent it when it comes out on video, but even if I had the free time and the money to blow, I would certainly not watch it in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 15, 2012 21:44:59 GMT -5
The new Robocop looks lame.
That's it.
It would have been tremendously easy to simply streamline the nifty, original design. Instead we get the definition of bland. They put a motorcycle helmet on Christian Bale's batsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Frameous on Sept 15, 2012 23:23:02 GMT -5
As a serious Robo fan, I think they have officially f*cked up, and this is probably indicative of the entire production. I was cautiously holding out hope for this, as I try to see remakes as possibilities to inject new thoughts and ideas into an established work of fiction (it has and can be done, albeit rarely)...but this looks like Robocrap.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 20, 2012 21:54:35 GMT -5
i was recently revisiting the brilliant 1975 "Rollerball" which you might remember was remade, abysmally, about 10 years ago. there's a certain kind of sly cultural critique that Rollerball raised, sorta "Clockwork-Orange" style, you know, ironizing the effort to sanitize and contain violence, and I think the original RoboCop did something really similar, although it was more satirical than dramatic and tragic etc. The Rollerball remake completely missed this critique, which was the ENTIRE F@%^ING POINT OF THE ORIGINAL G@#%@#%NED FILM and instead turned it into an addle-minded, A.D.D. "Extreem" soulless action movie.
I've got 20 bucks says these twits are gonna do the same thing to "RoboCop," but i don't actually think there's anyone on this message board dumb enough to take that bet.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 20, 2012 21:58:24 GMT -5
i spewed all that without even looking at the pictures. wtf. he just looks like a dude in body armor.
this makes me really angry.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Sept 20, 2012 22:14:01 GMT -5
Hollywood in the old days: The Dream Factory
Hollywood of the last twenty years: The Regurgitation Factory.
They're remaking everything. The feeling to me is that no film is safe. Hollywood has done a great job of killing it's own history, and some other countries movie histories too boot. The supposed best the new Hollywood has to offer, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton and others, are busy raiding other directors imagery and films.
When did the movie business become so sadly inadequate?
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 21, 2012 7:51:14 GMT -5
Hollywood in the old days: The Dream Factory Hollywood of the last twenty years: The Regurgitation Factory. They're remaking everything. The feeling to me is that no film is safe. Hollywood has done a great job of killing it's own history, and some other countries movie histories too boot. The supposed best the new Hollywood has to offer, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton and others, are busy raiding other directors imagery and films. When did the movie business become so sadly inadequate? some of the remakes i like. i'm on the record as digging a lot of the splatter movie reems -- like "last house on the left" and "i spit on your grave," i mean, there's no way to recreate that 70s grittiness but i liked how they turned last house into a polished conventional thriller (though the ending was idiotic) and the original "I spit" was actually a pretty reprehensible film that they turned into a still-sadistic but enjoyable over-the-top revenge-fest. but that to me is a place where remakes make sense, to take the idea of a popular sleeper or low-budget hit and give it some production values. remaking movies like "RoboCop" and "Rollerball" that already had excellent production values, good writing, good performances, etc.? I find it inexplicable, except that the Hollywood bean-counters know they'll get a return on investment because the movie has automatic name recognition. the remake doesn't even have to be good, it'll still make money. Personally, though, I don't think i'd worry about Hollywood trashing its own legacy, however hard it does seem to be trying. Everyone remembers the James Caan "Rollerball" whereas I feel like the 2002 remake has, rightly, been almost completely forgotten, and I have a feeling Robocop will be the same. Some flicks are untouchable and Robocop is just such a one.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 21, 2012 7:57:21 GMT -5
On the other hand, it's funny... I was in high school when the original RoboCop came out and i remember at the corner theater they had, for a long time before it came out, a life-sized cardboard ad for the movie with RoboCop standing there holding a gun and every time i saw it i thought, "Well, that's gonna be stupid. that robot looks like crap and what the hell kind of name is 'RoboCop' for a movie, anyway? Phone it in much?" Hell, I almost didn't even bother to see it. And then i did, and loved the crap out of it, and saw it like five more times.
so... first impressions can be misleading.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 21, 2012 7:59:17 GMT -5
you know, the "Rollerball" remake would actually make a pretty good rifftrax.
|
|
|
Post by Mod City on Sept 21, 2012 12:21:47 GMT -5
Yeah, this seems completely unnecessary. They could have stopped entirely after the first movie, as far as I'm concerned.
That first movie, though. Wow. On of the best flicks of the 80s, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by CBG on Sept 21, 2012 13:16:29 GMT -5
Hollywood in the old days: The Dream Factory Hollywood of the last twenty years: The Regurgitation Factory. They're remaking everything. The feeling to me is that no film is safe. Hollywood has done a great job of killing it's own history, and some other countries movie histories too boot. The supposed best the new Hollywood has to offer, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton and others, are busy raiding other directors imagery and films. When did the movie business become so sadly inadequate? When the corporations and not the creative body of the business began ruining running the studios. I've been in this business for twenty-five years, and what it's become about is the bottom line. Period. They MUST show a profit. Bottom-liners take fewer risks. In the old days, you'd make 25-50 movies a year, and any "bombs" would be made up for by the "hits" you made. That being said, this requires you to MAKE MORE MOVIES. Too risky. Find "tried and true" stories, and just remake them. Hence, fewer movies made, and each one made has to hit it over the fence in the first weekend. They've systematically turned every one of these Hollywood Landmarks into rental lots. You wanna make a movie? Pay us, use our facilities, and be on your way. No pride anymore...no family.
|
|
|
Post by Wide_Awake_Nightmare on Sept 21, 2012 14:25:43 GMT -5
Boo! Leave movies alone! Stop remaking them!!!! *Gets pissed*
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 21, 2012 14:59:07 GMT -5
Hollywood in the old days: The Dream Factory Hollywood of the last twenty years: The Regurgitation Factory. They're remaking everything. The feeling to me is that no film is safe. Hollywood has done a great job of killing it's own history, and some other countries movie histories too boot. The supposed best the new Hollywood has to offer, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton and others, are busy raiding other directors imagery and films. When did the movie business become so sadly inadequate? When the corporations and not the creative body of the business began ruining running the studios. I've been in this business for twenty-five years, and what it's become about is the bottom line. Period. They MUST show a profit. Bottom-liners take fewer risks. In the old days, you'd make 25-50 movies a year, and any "bombs" would be made up for by the "hits" you made. That being said, this requires you to MAKE MORE MOVIES. Too risky. Find "tried and true" stories, and just remake them. Hence, fewer movies made, and each one made has to hit it over the fence in the first weekend. They've systematically turned every one of these Hollywood Landmarks into rental lots. You wanna make a movie? Pay us, use our facilities, and be on your way. No pride anymore...no family. No family? But...but...Tim Rothman said he was my father...
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Sept 21, 2012 15:00:04 GMT -5
enjoy some commentary on the subject from a grown man who talks through a hand puppet.
|
|