Anything Goes : Robocop? by Charlie Allenson

Hellz Yes! Can't beat original though.

I don't many of us here do. But I think there's an audience out there and HW really does seem to need to sell movies people are already familiar with. Just look at the exposure the remake is getting simply on the basis it's being remade, that's a huge amount of free marketing.

It is. Will Peter Weller and Molly Ringwald get cameos (even though the film still really doesn't need to be remade)? Can't wait for the remake of Gone with Wind.

I'm probably going to get a lot of "bashing" here... I went along to the cinema to see it the other day with an open mind. I absolutely loved it! was very entertaining. Is that not what film is about? entertainment? The first moving pictures were of nothing in particular, people only watched them because they were moving! Film is and always has been for the masses. Sure some films are masterpieces and should be recognized as such, others are just a source of entertainment. Just my two cents :)

Rob you are spot on there.

Why would Molly Ringwald get a cameo?

even though i did not mind it, i thought it was unnecessary..I would take the original any day over the reboot

The way I see it if a movie makes a profit, it was worth making.

But is it worth seeing?

That's really up to resonate taste. If it makes money then it is generally worth seeing to enough people to turn a profit. With no intention of sounding condescending, I think a more appropriate question to ask may be "HOW MUCH is it worth seeing" lol

I wish they would just re release old classics to newer audiences rather than reinventing them. I know the effects have moved on but just going by what I have seen so far it doesn't seem enough reason to make another Robocop that now looks shallow, empty and too much like everything else. Here is a review I made of the original Robocop where I explain why the Paul Verhoven violent sci fi is one of my favorite films. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj8pTWGLmjQ&list=PLFF07BDBC6E27D949&featu...

And Im not sure I agree with you Archie - a good film doesn't necessarily make money - to me any film made by a large corporation with the money to get the film advertised and distributed on a massive scale (especially one aimed at a young target audience with a blatant link to a previously successful franchise) is bound to make some money. Its a poor shout if it doesnt. However, there are many great films that go under the radar because the money isnt there to finance distribution and advertising and yet, if they have something to say and even if they only reach a small yet appreciative audience, well, then I think that that type of movie was worth making, probably more so than a rip off cash in.

I stand corrected. Please forgive my more businesslike than artsy perspective. That's not to say I believe movies are good just because they make money just that they were worth making...for the producer...I should have said I suppose?

A lot films make money. Doesn't make them good films. If anyone has ever attended a non-hyped festival like Telluride, you'll see a lot of amazing films that never get picked up. A few years ago London River with Brenda Blethyn is such an example.

I think if you are a fan of the originals you need to go in there and decide for yourself, I grew up watching the films on video, so It was interesting watching it on the big screen with a modern twist. but yeah…hardcore fans might complain a bit… I give it a 60% fresh

Archie, I guess from a producers / business point of view they are worth making - and you're probably right about the artsy vs business - isnt that always the two forces battling each other in film production? The director and producer fighting over final cut with different perspectives. And Charlie, you're so right, I havent actually seen London River, but there are so many small films that make much more of an impression than glossy, CGI action films. Juan, I guess you're right too, I am going off of the assumption that the film will fall flat on its face, gathering reviews from friends and professionals alike who claim that the film is pampering to a younger audience and failing to capture the satire and comedy of the 1989 classic.

No. The Verhoeven version is not only excellent, it was proven to be prophetic, as well. The remake, although the VFX are certainly fantastic, will be run of the mill.

any film is attached to the particular space and time. once that phase is gone, the film appeal is gone. its not a film remake. actually its the popularity of the film character that is used again and again.

Like batman lol

WE don't, no. I'm hoping they'll make a sequel to this one, though.... something that tells the other side of the story. Like, "Roborobber."

It's all about how well you can entertain the masses. If you have an original idea that is boring then it won't make money. A used idea that everyone likes is better. Film is about entertainment after all.

If it's successful on an entertainment level then it has served it's purpose. I watch films because of the entertainment value and the story it's telling. From my experience many filmmakers don't make it because the consider filmmaking art first and entertainment second. I look at it as art that is meant to entertain. It can have all the artistic value in the world but if it flops then it's not really worth much at all is it? Also comparing film to a painting doesn't work. They are two completely separate art forms.

Lol you just came to the dark side with your last sentence and you would be right. The audience does know what it wants to see and if they are willing to pay to see it then it must be good art! If people are not willing to pay to see it then how good is it? Wether it's a remake or original, if it is good enough that people are willing to pay to see it then it is a good film.

Also I never said filmmaking was only about money but entertainment. If a film flops at the box office then one could say it is not likely entertaining. I for one can't wait to see a robocop remake. Sure the idea isn't original but it's nice to introduce the concept to the next generation with a slightly different approach. Look how much money and how many jobs and opportunities were created when they remade batman. Funny how somebody involved in the "art world" can be so dogmatic and closed minded. Shame on you I say!

Some valid points are made here that I cannot objectively disagree with. I would imagine filmmaking to be a mixed bag. I however would never collaborate with anyone putting art before entertainment value. To me it would simply be a waste of time and effort and resources. Not to mention 90% of executive producers wouldn't caugh up a dime to make art.

I do disagree about remakes not as good as originals. The batman remakes in my opinion were much better. Also the second one was better than the first of the three. I say don't knock a remake unless you see it. You never know when the next "artist" will make an old film better.

Not really.... Lol :-)

If I made a film that only one person liked I would rethink my career path

Also I think my definition of art and your definition of art are not the same. I believe art to be creative works to be enjoyed. If people don't enjoy it then I don't consider it art. Film isn't simply art. Creating a film is creating an enjoyable experience. You can use all the artistic technique you like, if a film sucks then it sucks. Any film that has one fan I consider to be made by somebody NOT doing their job. I still would not work with anyone with this kind of attitude. They only bring mediocrity to the table and I hate mediocrity.

Hey I'm just defending the robocop remake. Your the one who calling it unoriginal and lacking creativity and it hasn't even been released yet. So to call me closes minded is calling the kettle black. For the record some of the greatest directors in the industry never went to school. In fact I believe James Cameron, creator of some of the top grossing films in history, stated and I quote, "one of the best things that happened to me was that I never went to film school". I'm only stating the facts, you're the one carrying on about how film is art, bla bla bla.

I never disagreed that film is art. I am simply stating that film is primarily entertainment. Reality sucks but whatever, that's the way the world works.

Also I'd rather be a 5 yo at heart than my physical age. It keeps my imagination fresh.

Here is a quote from an actual art teacher "An artwork is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it"

I'll agree with that quote 100%

depends if it is a scene for scene lifted dialog film then no if it offers something different then possibly

Have since seen the new Robocop remake and it was fantastic! I was waiting so long for a good movie to come out (in my opinion anyway). I am glad they rebooted it. It was great. I would pay to see it multiple times. Then again almost every movie with Gary Oldman in it is a sure thing...