or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Robocop to be remade!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Robocop to be remade! - Page 5

post #121 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

First, remember that this is a remake. Just because the original is a bit bloody, doesn't mean that the remake must have the same approach to be good.

Second, how many here has seen the directors previous movie, Tropa de Elite?

Third, I'm waiting for the trailer.

It'll be a while yet.

RoboCop opens February 7, 2014.

Release time set-backs are never a good sign.

http://collider.com/comic-con-robocop-panel-recap/#more-269046
post #122 of 303
That depends on why they change the release date. The first JJ Star trek got pushed backed also, and it turned out alright in the end.
post #123 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

The script is notoriously bad. REAL bad.

The studio has been treating the director like David Fincher shooting Alien3. No secret.

This is a massive train wreck. The subject matter cannot be told with a PG-13. There is no one size fits all and Hollywood is going to burn itself down in denial of that very fact.

An R rated film just opened at #1 obliterating it's PG-13 competition. If the film is good and marketed right, an R can dominate.

Still waiting for the trailer. ;-)
post #124 of 303
No interest in seeing anyone blaspheme the original. It was damn near perfect.

Thank you for your cooperation.
post #125 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post


An R rated film just opened at #1 obliterating it's PG-13 competition. If the film is good and marketed right, an R can dominate.

Indeed but when was the last time an R-rated film cost more than 100 million to produce? Prometheus is the only one I can think of. R-rated films like The Conjuring have a 20 million budget, which is a pretty safe bet for the studio. Things like Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim or R.I.P.D have insane budgets, an R wouldn't help them in the first place - not that their PG-13 was very helpful either wink.gif Like you said though, if the film is good.... smile.gif
post #126 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Indeed but when was the last time an R-rated film cost more than 100 million to produce? Prometheus is the only one I can think of. R-rated films like The Conjuring have a 20 million budget, which is a pretty safe bet for the studio. Things like Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim or R.I.P.D have insane budgets, an R wouldn't help them in the first place - not that their PG-13 was very helpful either wink.gif Like you said though, if the film is good.... smile.gif
It's crazy difficult to get the studios to spend money on an R. So there are no real examples in recent years, other than Prometheus (which did well and would have done better had it been great) and Watchmen (which broke even but failed to connect with audiences as Warner had hoped).

I look at The Matrix films. All rated R. Earned a ton of money. The first one was sensational. But had it been made today the studio would have forced it into a PG-13 and it would not have been as good.

By the way, The Conjuring was rated R for general tone. The MPAA basically said it was "too scary" for a PG-13 and said nothiong could be cut to get the lower rating

That kind of argument shows how out of touch the MPAA has become.
post #127 of 303
I've had it with this PG-13 obsession, it has to stop. Does Hollywood really think they're doing better now with all their $200 million PG-13 bombs than they were in the 80s and 90s when all the great films were R?
post #128 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

It's crazy difficult to get the studios to spend money on an R. So there are no real examples in recent years, other than Prometheus (which did well and would have done better had it been great) and Watchmen (which broke even but failed to connect with audiences as Warner had hoped).

I look at The Matrix films. All rated R. Earned a ton of money. The first one was sensational. But had it been made today the studio would have forced it into a PG-13 and it would not have been as good.

By the way, The Conjuring was rated R for general tone. The MPAA basically said it was "too scary" for a PG-13 and said nothiong could be cut to get the lower rating

That kind of argument shows how out of touch the MPAA has become.

Well said.
post #129 of 303
I was just watching my Robocop blu-ray a couple of weeks ago....a remake? Really.

And PG-13?! REALLY?!
post #130 of 303
Well The Dark Knight wasnt rated R, and people doesnt seem to mind.
post #131 of 303
rolleyes.gif

The Lion King was rated G and people didn't seem to mind.
post #132 of 303
I am getting tired of this whining about the lack of "R" rated films.

I don't watch any movie that isn't "R," because I know non R-rated movies suck and can't hold my interest.
If it isn't rated "R", how will I know if it's worth watching?confused.gif
post #133 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Well The Dark Knight wasnt rated R, and people doesnt seem to mind.

True and I think that The Dark Knight is a fantastic movie.

I think with remakes it's trickier because people generally have expectations since we've already seen the original... I'm sure there's people out there who can go into a remake, tune out the original, and just keep their mind totally open. For myself, if they take an over-the-top, violent movie that I really like and remake it into a possibly milder movie to get that PG-13 rating, it's removing one of the very things that made that movie what it was.... I'm also annoyed that they keep doing remakes of movies that are great as is....
post #134 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I am getting tired of this whining about the lack of "R" rated films.

I really don't mind any rating *as long as it's consistent with the movie itself, its context, and is respectful of its audience*. Remember that Jaws was PG! What would the MPAA do with a movie like Jaws in 2013?

I've seen The Conjuring, which is rated 13+ in Canada, and frankly, I don't understand why it got an R in the U.S. Having said that the film works at the box office so it does prove that there's a adult audience out there who wants to see movies and who doesn't need "toned-down" crap, which is why we call ourselves 'adults' after all wink.gif The most important thing of course is the quality of the movie, regardless of its rating, but when they cut scenes, color blood in black, or remove "violent sequences" because the studio has to make sure the largest audience can go see it, then the quality of the movie suffers.

When you remake Robocop, you better get it right with the proper amount of blood and violence, otherwise it won't work.

People have not got dumber over the years or since Jaws, but the MPAA and some studio execs have.

Yet more R-rated films have been released lately, and in most cases they are/were successful. Maybe, hopefully, that will help the MPAA understand a thing or two about american audiences, and R-rated doesn't mean toilet humor only.
post #135 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

When you remake Robocop, you better get it right with the proper amount of blood and violence, otherwise it won't work.

Well said. At least part of what made Robocop work so well was the deliciously dark and gory sense of humor (with Clarence Boddicker asking, "Won't someone give him a hand?" after blowing Alex Murphy's hand off with a sawed off shotgun, for instance). The scene in the board room during the demonstration of the ED-209 in which the suit gets blown away would not be cool or horrifically and darkly funny unless it is over-the-top gory and outrageous. You simply can't do that in a PG-13 movie. Take out that scene and a few others like it, and the movie drops from a 10 to a 6, in my opinion.
post #136 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

Well said. At least part of what made Robocop work so well was the deliciously dark and gory sense of humor (with Clarence Boddicker asking, "Won't someone give him a hand?" after blowing Alex Murphy's hand off with a sawed off shotgun, for instance). The scene in the board room during the demonstration of the ED-209 in which the suit gets blown away would not be cool or horrifically and darkly funny unless it is over-the-top gory and outrageous. You simply can't do that in a PG-13 movie. Take out that scene and a few others like it, and the movie drops from a 10 to a 6, in my opinion.

Not surpised at all with the PG-13. There seems to be a trend to remake and in the process sanitize Paul Verhoeven movies. First was Total Recall which seemed to be an attempt to make it more like Minority Report. Next up is Robocop, which I think is an attempt to cash in on Iron Man, though wiothout RDJ. What's next, a PG-13 Basic Instinct? Showgirls? Starship Troopers?
post #137 of 303
Do we REALLY want these re-makes to be carbon-copies of the original films?
I sure don't.

In the first place, I don't look the idea of re-makes...period.
Secondly, if they insist on doing a "re-make" (which is more of a marketing hook than anything else IMO), give me something different....something I haven't seen before.

If I want to see the original films, I have them on disk 10 ft. from my HT.wink.gif
post #138 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

When you remake Robocop, you better get it right with the proper amount of blood and violence, otherwise it won't work.

Why? The core of any good story isn't gore or blood. That's belong more to the style they were shooting the original movie. A remake works better if you take a new approach to the same core. There is 100 ways you can tell the Robocop story. 15 of those will work excellent on their own.
post #139 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Do we REALLY want these re-makes to be carbon-copies of the original films?
I sure don't.


In the first place, I don't look the idea of re-makes...period.
Secondly, if they insist on doing a "re-make" (which is more of a marketing hook than anything else IMO), give me something different....something I haven't seen before.

If I want to see the original films, I have them on disk 10 ft. from my HT.wink.gif
It's not about wanting carbon-copies of the originals. It's about not wanting hard-R material pussified and watered-down for the sake of selling more tickets at the theater.

Certain material needs the breathing room of an R rating - and I'm not only talking about violence, but also language, subject matter, and nudity.
post #140 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Why? The core of any good story isn't gore or blood. That's belong more to the style they were shooting the original movie. A remake works better if you take a new approach to the same core. There is 100 ways you can tell the Robocop story. 15 of those will work excellent on their own.
Agreed.
post #141 of 303
Uh, download the script. Read it. Then try and defend this POS. It's beyond awful. So sad.
post #142 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Uh, download the script. Read it. Then try and defend this POS. It's beyond awful. So sad.
Haven't read.
I'll make a judgement on the movie when I see the movie.
post #143 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

First, remember that this is a remake. Just because the original is a bit bloody, doesn't mean that the remake must have the same approach to be good.

Second, how many here has seen the directors previous movie, Tropa de Elite?

Third, I'm waiting for the trailer.
While I haven't seen Elite Squad, according to IMDB, it's rated R for "strong violence, pervasive language and drug content." So the question becomes: how effective would that film have been if they had to cut out the strong violence, pervasive language and drug content in order to obtain a PG-13 rating?

As for the original Robocop being "a bit bloody," well that's just nonsense. It was a hard R, that had to be cut in order to avoid an X.
post #144 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

While I haven't seen Elite Squad, according to IMDB, it's rated R for "strong violence, pervasive language and drug content." So the question becomes: how effective would that film have been if they had to cut out the strong violence, pervasive language and drug content in order to obtain a PG-13 rating?

I don't think a film like Tropa de Elite that wants portray the violent situation in Brazil can do it without portraying violence, just as little as Saving Private Ryan could portray D-day without it. The Longest day on the other hand could portray D-day without Gore and Blood, its still a good movie.


Robocop on the other hand is a science fiction movie subjected to Verhoevens violent style. While the violence wasn't pointless in the movie, I don't see why you couldn't do a Robocop without that amount of violence. The violence didn't save Robocop 2.

As for Tropa de Elite/Elite Force

You really should watch it.
post #145 of 303
As a kid, I loved Robocop, and as much as I have fond memories of the movie, none of it is based on how copious/realistic the violence was. In the right director's hands, a violent script could be deftly handled without onscreen gore and violence. But it is a hard act to pull off, and I am willing to give a movie a try irrespective of its rating. If it gets a good word-of-mouth, I will see it.
post #146 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


If I want to see the original films, I have them on disk and unopened 10 ft. from my HT.wink.gif

Fixed that for ya. wink.gif
post #147 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Fixed that for ya. wink.gif
Sometimes you can be so cruel....tongue.gif
post #148 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Haven't read.
I'll make a judgement on the movie when I see the movie.
I only read it because I felt it couldn't be as bad as people were claiming. It was actually so bad I couldn't finish it.
post #149 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I don't think a film like Tropa de Elite that wants portray the violent situation in Brazil can do it without portraying violence, just as little as Saving Private Ryan could portray D-day without it. The Longest day on the other hand could portray D-day without Gore and Blood, its still a good movie.


Robocop on the other hand is a science fiction movie subjected to Verhoevens violent style. While the violence wasn't pointless in the movie, I don't see why you couldn't do a Robocop without that amount of violence. The violence didn't save Robocop 2.
The problem, as I suggested above and you confirmed, is that the film you used as a reason to give this neutered PG-13 version a chance would not have been nearly as effective if it had been similarly neutered in order to obtain a PG-13.

Robocop is a violent, bloody story - one that, imo, can not be told properly within the guidelines of a PG-13 film.

I really don't like to acknowledge any of the crappy sequels that were made to the original Robocop, so I don't have much to say about Robocop 2, other than it was disappointing and pretty terrible, if memory serves. And no, violence can not "save" a crappy movie, but arbitrarily cutting violence, language, and adult content in general in order to secure a lower rating can definitely hurt a film, especially one like this.
post #150 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

The problem, as I suggested above and you confirmed, is that the film you used as a reason to give this neutered PG-13 version a chance would not have been nearly as effective if it had been similarly neutered in order to obtain a PG-13.

Robocop is a violent, bloody story - one that, imo, can not be told properly within the guidelines of a PG-13 film.

The core of Robocop is still not its violence.

This is one of my favourite scenes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Robocop to be remade!