Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: RoboCop (2014)

This is topic RoboCop (2014) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002021

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-12-2014, 09:46 PM:

I was anticipating this movie, I didn't see much of the previews and I did not follow much of the press or anything like that.

Overall, it was good, but not great.

The bad: Right off the bat, the MGM logo lion does not roar, it actually sounds like the lion is meowing until you find out what is making the noise. (I thought there was something wrong with the projectors, some people in the theatre were laughing)

Not sure why officer Lewis is now a man. The original RoboCop outfit looked better.

It seemed like every time the movie was going to go in the direction of being great, it just ends up being a let down.

Special effects are pretty good but nothing special.

The good: The few original references from the original movies were good. Joel Kinnaman who played Alex Murphy and his wife were good. The first half was pretty interesting.

Overall, nowhere near as good as the original. I can understand why they took the movie in this direction, but I don't think this reboot will do very well.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 02-13-2014, 09:55 AM:

Funny how opinions differ.

I quality checked this movie yesterday and was pleasantly surprised. I guessed because it was a February opening, it was going to be bad - and it wasn't bad at all. I now realize that they released it on a Wednesday to build up buzz for the weekend.

From a guy's perspective (and a fan of the original) - I liked it. I found myself clapping during one particular scene.

It is definitely a movie for the modern, no attention span, 20 something males though.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-14-2014, 10:08 PM:

The box office is not looking for good for RoboCop.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-28-2014, 06:28 PM:

I have a question.

Why is the weapons trainer guy designated as a Red Asset who can't be aimed at at the end of the show, but it was ok to blast him earlier on when they were in that big barn? Was Robocop reprogrammed somewhere in between and I somehow missed that part?

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-01-2014, 12:52 AM:

Got it. The Red Asset thing isn't tied to a person. You are a Red Asset if you're wearing the lighted bracelet doodad. So all the trainer had to do was put the bracelet on at some point.

Mystery solved.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-01-2014, 11:02 AM:

The red bracelet doodad was stupid, in the original there was prime directive 4 built into his prime directives.

I guess the new generation needed things to be dumbed down a bit.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-19-2014, 06:18 AM:

So, what's next? A Starship Troopers remake..? Really? There are millions of stories out there... Do we really need the second, third and even fourth iteration of everything?

And do you know what makes Paul Verhoeven's movies special? His cynical take on the stuff at hand, sometimes even falsely interpreted as fascism by the mentally challenged.

While this was a generally better end result than the lackluster remake of Total Recall a year or two back, it still lacked much of the cynicism of the first one, now being replaced by an always-in-your-face motherfucking Samuel L. Jackson...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2014, 12:10 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Do we really need the second, third and even fourth iteration of everything?

I think it all comes down to the marketing department. They know they have brand recognition on these old titles so it's easy to get the public excited about the remakes. Then they take the original good story and heap on so many ridiculous over-the-top special effects and hyped-up dialog and ruin it. ("The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3" was a good example.)

If they want to save money on story development, it would be better if they'd find old movies that had good stories but weren't hits. Change the title and get some good talent behind the camera and do 'em right the second time.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-19-2014, 01:08 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, what's next? A Starship Troopers remake..? Really? There are millions of stories out there... Do we really need the second, third and even fourth iteration of everything?

And do you know what makes Paul Verhoeven's movies special? His cynical take on the stuff at hand, sometimes even falsely interpreted as fascism by the mentally challenged.

While this was a generally better end result than the lackluster remake of Total Recall a year or two back, it still lacked much of the cynicism of the first one, now being replaced by an always-in-your-face motherfucking Samuel L. Jackson...

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think it all comes down to the marketing department. They know they have brand recognition on these old titles so it's easy to get the public excited about the remakes. Then they take the original good story and heap on so many ridiculous over-the-top special effects and hyped-up dialog and ruin it. ("The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3" was a good example.)

If they want to save money on story development, it would be better if they'd find old movies that had good stories but weren't hits. Change the title and get some good talent behind the camera and do 'em right the second time.

Marcel and Mike, the RoboCop remake was a very good idea for SONY, it has now grossed $233 million worldwide on a $100 million budget. The problem with the remake is that it did not resonate with a North America audiences.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2014, 01:13 PM:

That's still a money-loser. Half of that gross goes to the exhibitors, remember. Then there is marketing, shipping, etc etc to think about which can easily top $100 million on a super-hyped release of this type. They're probably still at least $50 million in the hole on it. They need it to be a big hit on video.

The problem in this country is, most people saw the old one and liked it, and saw no need to get excited about an update. Most people I talked to said something like "Robocop? Again?" and that was about the extent of their excitement.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-19-2014, 01:24 PM:

Mike, unless you work for SONY, you really have no idea if they made any money on it. My guess is that is broke even or somewhere in there.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem in this country is, most people saw the old one and liked it, and saw no need to get excited about an update. Most people I talked to said something like "Robocop? Again?" and that was about the extent of their excitement.

Have you seen RoboCop? The new RoboCop was not made for the old people who saw the original in 1987. The movie was made to draw in a new generation of viewers who likely were never even born when the original was released. The movie simply did not connect with the under 30 crowd in North America.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2014, 02:50 PM:

I don't work for Sony, but I have been around this business long enough to know how it works. It's not a matter of "knowledge," it's just simple math.

- I know that the studios get about half of the boxoffice gross. That's a fact.

- I know that they OFTEN spend around $100 million or more to market a movie, especially when it's a movie they hope to blow out with a huge opening weekend. (Which this one was.) Even if they skimped out on the marketing (which they didn't) it would still have cost them $40 million or more.

There is no way they're in the black yet on this movie if it's grossed $233 million worldwide. With that gross, they've taken in about $116 million in rentals. Do you actually think they marketed and distributed the movie for $16 million?

You apparently also know the ages of all the people I have talked to about Robocop, or you think that I only talk to people my own age. Believe it or not, we get customers of all age groups. I also have 8 teenage employees who I do talk to on a regular basis about movies, and who are a great gauge of how popular something is going to be with the teen crowd. The "excitement" level about "Robocop" was the same regardless of what age people I visited with. Also not one person has asked me "when are you getting Robocop?" which is another very reliable popularity indicator for me. As a contrast, people left and right are asking me when "Divergent" is coming.

Do you think only "old" people have seen the original? It's been around on video for quite a number of years. Some people do watch old movies on video, y'know. Old movies are also on TV all the time -- in fact they probably played the old "Robocop" on various TV services during the weeks leading up to the new one's release. I believe that's why a lot of remakes flop.... because everybody's seen the old one to death and they don't care about a new one.

I do agree with you that they might break even on this movie, but it won't be until after video and other ancillary sales are added to the mix. That doesn't make it a "good idea" for them -- I doubt that anyone's going to win "employee of the month" over this flick.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-19-2014, 03:36 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I know that they OFTEN spend around $100 million or more to market a movie, especially when it's a movie they hope to blow out with a huge opening weekend. (Which this one was.) Even if they skimped out on the marketing (which they didn't) it would still have cost them $40 million or more.

Do you really think SONY spent $100 million to promote a movie with a $100 million budget?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2014, 03:43 PM:

I have no idea. I never said they did. I said studios OFTEN spend that much. Sometimes more.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-19-2014, 03:45 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel and Mike, the RoboCop remake was a very good idea for SONY, it has now grossed $233 million worldwide on a $100 million budget. The problem with the remake is that it did not resonate with a North America audiences.

I guess Mike rather eloquently explained why it's all but sure if this movie will ever put money in the bank for Sony. And while it is important for the whole industry to make money, is that the gold standard for the quality of a movie?

Historically, the companies that dared to differ are those that made the most profit. Those companies stuck in a world of legacy will eventually find themselves holding the bag. (And I guess Sony, the company as a whole, might be the perfect example.)

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-19-2014, 04:01 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I have no idea. I never said they did. I said studios OFTEN spend that much. Sometimes more.

I highly doubt that a movie with a February release would get a $100 million marketing budget. There was nothing all that special about the marketing of RoboCop that would make anyone suggest it was close to $100 million.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-20-2014, 10:35 AM:

I saw the movie last night, as today is the last day it's showing in the area.

I really liked the original movie, and buying the original on Blu-ray got me $7.50 off the ticket to see the new one. I went in with low expectations, and I have to say that it was barely worth the $2.50 and my time.

It was enjoyable enough, so audiences unaware of what made the original what it was probably would not be unhappy, but aside from the commentary about talk shows leaning heavily on an agenda and corporations using them as a mouthpiece, there wasn't much of an edge to it. Yet another movie from the past that has been recycled, only without much of what made the original enjoyable.

One thing that struck me was how large Robocop's suit was in relationship to his head. There were times when he was walking, and his head looked shrunken.

This was also a one-man show. Whereas I recall the original featuring more of Murphy's partner Lewis, that dynamic was tossed aside as soon as Robocop is on the scene.

So, here we have another movie that looks nice, but doesn't have what it takes to make an impression on audiences. Even though the original is dated by comparison, this new version can join the ranks of the many remakes/reboots that suffer where it really matters.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-20-2014, 01:36 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
One thing that struck me was how large Robocop's suit was in relationship to his head. There were times when he was walking, and his head looked shrunken.

What I didn't like was that RoboCop would walk around without his visor/mask down and it would only go down when he was threatened. The original got it right in that you only saw Murphy's face in the final 10 minutes.

quote: Scott Jentsch
This was also a one-man show. Whereas I recall the original featuring more of Murphy's partner Lewis, that dynamic was tossed aside as soon as Robocop is on the scene.

I don't understand what they were thinking having Lewis as man instead of a woman, then he is missing in action for part of the movie and then all of sudden he saves the day for RoboCop near the end.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-03-2014, 12:06 AM:

on the whole I thought it was an interesting retelling of the Robocop story - but ultimately I thought the lack of a villain (i.e, 'Clarence') hurt the film. Gary Oldman was great, the film technically (image and audio) were great - the script: weak.