Robocop to be remade!

Sounds good to me....loved Robocop. They could do a good job with a remake, but it could also be bad......I am up for them attempting it though

completely agree!

I don't see the sense of remaking this. The original is a classic, in which everything went right. The special effects in the original are great. I don't see how they can improve this movie by remaking it. It would be like remaking Jurassic Park. They are not going to improve on it.

Some people have more money than brains.

^Some people WANT money more than brains.

It's like the "well of original ideas" has dried up. Everything is a remake of another movie or even tv shows. This latest attempt at ol' Robo is to show off more CGI. *Sigh*

Stupid idea. Why Hollywood feels the need to remake a classic like this, I don't know. There was nothing wrong with the movie in the first place, no holes that should be sewn up or missed opportunities. What in hell is the rationale behind this besides money?

If ever there was no reason to remake a movie, this is it.

That's my question, doesn't anybody in Hollyweird have any original ideas anymore? To me, CGI looks far more fake and hokey than the old methods. I would even prefer the way they did the old "Thunderbirds" series with the puppets to today's CGI.


No, that would have been "The Day The Earth Stood Still".

Hollywood is running out of ideas apparently.

Yep. The children of the 70's and 80's are now our movie makers and producers and instead of original thoughts, we get a remake Robocop, more Indiana Jones, more Rocky and Rambo, rebooted original Star Trek, Die Hard, missed anything?

This remake has been in the works for years now.

My question is simply, why?

I just hope its as good as the first!

The last one with the jet pack was not the best.

I simply can't believe it. I remember being completely stunned by the incredibly graphic violence in Verhoeven's original. in a good way, that is. Everything from Murphy being blown to hamburger to Emil's head rolling over the roof of the 6000-SUX after the toxic waste bath.. just.. wow!

the remake will probably be rated PG-13.

edit: looks like Aranofsky is supposed to direct.

May I mention Psycho? This shot-by-shot "remake" is absolutely, desperately, pointlessly, awful. I often try to find some signification, some sort of point to a movie when it's made, but regarding Psycho, nope, nothing, I still don't get it. Robocop didn't need to be remade, but let's see what they do with the material before judging it...

Oh no! please no!!!!

To this day, I still think Peter Weller's makeup is one of the best I've ever seen. His half-human/half-robot head is simply haunting!

Yeah, all those mentioned definitely should not have been remade, either - but no more or no less so.

(As you can probably gather, I have an extremely high opinion of the original. I think it's one of the best satires made in more recent times.)

As much as I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie, I agree with you on this. Destroying Vulcan and messing with the whole timeline. So basically everything Kirk & Spock accomplished in the original series ceases to exist now. I dunno.

As for Robo, I believe the last movie was PG13, and didn't it have some kind of Ninja? WTF???

If nothing else, the Psycho remake is an interesting intellectual exercise. What happens when you take a highly-regarded classic movie and film it again with the same script and shot-for-shot identical direction? If you copy the original exactly, shouldn't the copy be as good (or almost as good) as the original?

Obviously, the answer was no. You can't recapture the magic of a great film just by copying it.

So, by that measure, Gus van Sant made a valuable point. Of course, that doesn't make watching his version any more pleasant an experience.

The old time line still exists. It's not like any of it was erased. Otherwise, what was old Spock describing to Kirk in the new movie? A new time line branched off when Nero attacked the Kelvin, and we got to see the result of that (we've already spent plenty of time in the old time line). Also, just because it is a different time line doesn't mean Kirk & Spock don't have equally impressive accomplishments (they saved all the remaining planets of the Federation from being destroyed).

Ok, I'll point out the obvious.....the IMDB just lists the name of the movie. There's not even a director listed, or any information, other than that it's RoboCop.

So remake? Reboot? A sequel? Just seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions about something based off of a name alone.

I don't really care. The RoboCop franchise (other than the first one) is a joke anyways.

The answer to that is the same as most Hollywood remakes--there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the original. It's all about recognizing the brand name: if the original was successful, then people will pay money to see a new version, right?

For once, I'd like to see a Hollywood remake of an unsuccessful movie or one that had a strong premise but poor execution--in other words, fix what's broken, and leave alone what already works.

But that's asking too much of Hollywood, isn't it?


TinMan368

***

Trivia for 2009-June-8

Q) In the history of the Conn Smythe Trophy, only the 2004-05 season was missing an award winner because of the NHL lockout. Who was the winner of the Conn Smythe in the previous season?

A)

3 did have a Japanese built ninja cyborg which was supposed to destroy Robocop.

Remake? Ehhhh... NO.

IIRC the original Robocop was supposed to be rated X simply because of the scene where the ED209 is shooting up the exec in the board room went a bit too long. The restored scene of that is on the Criterion release. I think it's in the magazine article on the disc that you can read on screen.