Joel Kinnaman talks - Why the Remake failed

[Archive]

The 2014 RoboCop remake had a lot of problems but the cast and crew have been surprisingly quiet about their real opinions about the movie through the years. Until now.
In a short audio interview with "The Playlist" podcast, Joel Kinnaman speaks about some of his problems with the remake and his view on why it failed.

[Joined]

The 2014 RoboCop remake had a lot of problems but the cast and crew have been surprisingly quiet about their real opinions about the movie through the years. Until now.
In a short audio interview with "The Playlist" podcast, Joel Kinnaman speaks about some of his problems with the remake and his view on why it failed.

[Post Count]

The 2014 RoboCop remake had a lot of problems but the cast and crew have been surprisingly quiet about their real opinions about the movie through the years. Until now.
In a short audio interview with "The Playlist" podcast, Joel Kinnaman speaks about some of his problems with the remake and his view on why it failed.

[RoboPimp]

It is good to finally hear someone involved in that movie admit it was a failure, but this seems to be more making excuses to justify his role than admitting anything he himself did wrong. And this is why we are going to keep getting shitty remakes as long as someone is willing to take the paycheck to do it. From what he said here, it seems Kinnaman could tell from the start that something was wrong about this movie. But he stuck with it for the sake of his career... and how did that work out, byt the way? The only big name movie I can remember him being in since then was Suicide Squad, which was also a mess that left fans disappointed. And he did not bring much to either role. He had like 10x as much screentime as Alex Murphy as Peter Weller, and yet Weller was able to bring 10x more personality to the character in the scant few minutes he had to work with. Kinnaman does say "and me included didn't know how to do it the right way" so at least he can admit to that much, but then he goes on to say it is a 'solid film' which it really is not. If it was a solid film then it would have been well regarded by the general public, even if we superfans hated the changes. But nobody cared for the movie and it was quickly forgotten. Everything Kinnaman said was true but I also think he failed to see the bigger problems of the movie.

[Joined]

It is good to finally hear someone involved in that movie admit it was a failure, but this seems to be more making excuses to justify his role than admitting anything he himself did wrong. And this is why we are going to keep getting shitty remakes as long as someone is willing to take the paycheck to do it. From what he said here, it seems Kinnaman could tell from the start that something was wrong about this movie. But he stuck with it for the sake of his career... and how did that work out, byt the way? The only big name movie I can remember him being in since then was Suicide Squad, which was also a mess that left fans disappointed. And he did not bring much to either role. He had like 10x as much screentime as Alex Murphy as Peter Weller, and yet Weller was able to bring 10x more personality to the character in the scant few minutes he had to work with. Kinnaman does say "and me included didn't know how to do it the right way" so at least he can admit to that much, but then he goes on to say it is a 'solid film' which it really is not. If it was a solid film then it would have been well regarded by the general public, even if we superfans hated the changes. But nobody cared for the movie and it was quickly forgotten. Everything Kinnaman said was true but I also think he failed to see the bigger problems of the movie.

[Post Count]

It is good to finally hear someone involved in that movie admit it was a failure, but this seems to be more making excuses to justify his role than admitting anything he himself did wrong. And this is why we are going to keep getting shitty remakes as long as someone is willing to take the paycheck to do it. From what he said here, it seems Kinnaman could tell from the start that something was wrong about this movie. But he stuck with it for the sake of his career... and how did that work out, byt the way? The only big name movie I can remember him being in since then was Suicide Squad, which was also a mess that left fans disappointed. And he did not bring much to either role. He had like 10x as much screentime as Alex Murphy as Peter Weller, and yet Weller was able to bring 10x more personality to the character in the scant few minutes he had to work with. Kinnaman does say "and me included didn't know how to do it the right way" so at least he can admit to that much, but then he goes on to say it is a 'solid film' which it really is not. If it was a solid film then it would have been well regarded by the general public, even if we superfans hated the changes. But nobody cared for the movie and it was quickly forgotten. Everything Kinnaman said was true but I also think he failed to see the bigger problems of the movie.

[Comment]

It is good to finally hear someone involved in that movie admit it was a failure, but this seems to be more making excuses to justify his role than admitting anything he himself did wrong. And this is why we are going to keep getting shitty remakes as long as someone is willing to take the paycheck to do it. From what he said here, it seems Kinnaman could tell from the start that something was wrong about this movie. But he stuck with it for the sake of his career... and how did that work out, byt the way? The only big name movie I can remember him being in since then was Suicide Squad, which was also a mess that left fans disappointed. And he did not bring much to either role. He had like 10x as much screentime as Alex Murphy as Peter Weller, and yet Weller was able to bring 10x more personality to the character in the scant few minutes he had to work with. Kinnaman does say "and me included didn't know how to do it the right way" so at least he can admit to that much, but then he goes on to say it is a 'solid film' which it really is not. If it was a solid film then it would have been well regarded by the general public, even if we superfans hated the changes. But nobody cared for the movie and it was quickly forgotten. Everything Kinnaman said was true but I also think he failed to see the bigger problems of the movie.

[Sean_001]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ChAnOoD]

I really dig when he asked the podcast guy if he was one of these who hated it

I find it interesting he´s aware of the reaction from the film. Maybe he does because he was the main character on it, but I remember when people like Oldman or Keaton said that this one was the good one instead of the original

It´d be great to know more about his opinions of the Verhoeven one, since he claimed he was a Robo-Nerd himself (like Cornish also claimed). If he really was/is, I wonder how it´d feel having the chance to play Robo when you know it won´t be anything closer to the original character.

[Joined]

I really dig when he asked the podcast guy if he was one of these who hated it

I find it interesting he´s aware of the reaction from the film. Maybe he does because he was the main character on it, but I remember when people like Oldman or Keaton said that this one was the good one instead of the original

It´d be great to know more about his opinions of the Verhoeven one, since he claimed he was a Robo-Nerd himself (like Cornish also claimed). If he really was/is, I wonder how it´d feel having the chance to play Robo when you know it won´t be anything closer to the original character.

[Post Count]

I really dig when he asked the podcast guy if he was one of these who hated it

I find it interesting he´s aware of the reaction from the film. Maybe he does because he was the main character on it, but I remember when people like Oldman or Keaton said that this one was the good one instead of the original

It´d be great to know more about his opinions of the Verhoeven one, since he claimed he was a Robo-Nerd himself (like Cornish also claimed). If he really was/is, I wonder how it´d feel having the chance to play Robo when you know it won´t be anything closer to the original character.

[Mindchamber]

that was a pretty safe answer,

the movie tried to be a bit more cerebral than the original since it didn't have any bite, but it was too shallow to pull that off as well.

[Joined]

that was a pretty safe answer,

the movie tried to be a bit more cerebral than the original since it didn't have any bite, but it was too shallow to pull that off as well.

[Post Count]

that was a pretty safe answer,

the movie tried to be a bit more cerebral than the original since it didn't have any bite, but it was too shallow to pull that off as well.

[JohnBoyAdvance]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[artuditu]

I give them credit for trying to do something different, it was not a lame remake like Total Recall or an unapologetic cash grab like Die Hard 5, they really thought there was a story to tell about the future of AI, robotics, and law enforcement.

Their main flaw was to go for a serious tone, take it at face value style, ignoring the fun satire and over-the-top action and violence of the original.

Eventually, they did not know which type of movie they wanted it to be, a cerebral essay on the advent of law enforcement A.I. robotics (serious tone) or a superheroesque movie that could sell toys for kids and teenagers (light tone), these 2 movies clashing against each resulted in a very weak ending and resolution.

As a nitpicky fan, I don't dislike that much the black suit as I did when the first pictures leaked, in fact, I actually prefer it over their metallic suit version, although the hand always bothered me, it was distracting and did not make sense, and the screenplay did not even address it or made anything with it (you would expect others commenting on it or a scene where Murphy looks at his hand and that brings him back some kind of reckoning).

However, the biggest change I felt came from not killing Murphy. And it makes sense from a more realistic take that they departed from the "resurrecting a brain" idea, however they just did not know what to do with the robodad story, which is further more depressing than the original death and lost family theme.

Anyway, back to topic, Joel talking trash of a failed movie of his is not that uncommon, Tarantino has trashed Death Proof and Scorsesse has trashed New York New York, Kyle MacLachlan has talked harshly of Showgirls and blame it for killing his career; all these movies I think deserve more credit than they get and yet their creators and actors are happy to bury them now. It's easy, human and even liberating for an artist to look back at something that was a failure and take part of the public bonfire.

[Joined]

I give them credit for trying to do something different, it was not a lame remake like Total Recall or an unapologetic cash grab like Die Hard 5, they really thought there was a story to tell about the future of AI, robotics, and law enforcement.

Their main flaw was to go for a serious tone, take it at face value style, ignoring the fun satire and over-the-top action and violence of the original.

Eventually, they did not know which type of movie they wanted it to be, a cerebral essay on the advent of law enforcement A.I. robotics (serious tone) or a superheroesque movie that could sell toys for kids and teenagers (light tone), these 2 movies clashing against each resulted in a very weak ending and resolution.

As a nitpicky fan, I don't dislike that much the black suit as I did when the first pictures leaked, in fact, I actually prefer it over their metallic suit version, although the hand always bothered me, it was distracting and did not make sense, and the screenplay did not even address it or made anything with it (you would expect others commenting on it or a scene where Murphy looks at his hand and that brings him back some kind of reckoning).

However, the biggest change I felt came from not killing Murphy. And it makes sense from a more realistic take that they departed from the "resurrecting a brain" idea, however they just did not know what to do with the robodad story, which is further more depressing than the original death and lost family theme.

Anyway, back to topic, Joel talking trash of a failed movie of his is not that uncommon, Tarantino has trashed Death Proof and Scorsesse has trashed New York New York, Kyle MacLachlan has talked harshly of Showgirls and blame it for killing his career; all these movies I think deserve more credit than they get and yet their creators and actors are happy to bury them now. It's easy, human and even liberating for an artist to look back at something that was a failure and take part of the public bonfire.

[Post Count]

I give them credit for trying to do something different, it was not a lame remake like Total Recall or an unapologetic cash grab like Die Hard 5, they really thought there was a story to tell about the future of AI, robotics, and law enforcement.

Their main flaw was to go for a serious tone, take it at face value style, ignoring the fun satire and over-the-top action and violence of the original.

Eventually, they did not know which type of movie they wanted it to be, a cerebral essay on the advent of law enforcement A.I. robotics (serious tone) or a superheroesque movie that could sell toys for kids and teenagers (light tone), these 2 movies clashing against each resulted in a very weak ending and resolution.

As a nitpicky fan, I don't dislike that much the black suit as I did when the first pictures leaked, in fact, I actually prefer it over their metallic suit version, although the hand always bothered me, it was distracting and did not make sense, and the screenplay did not even address it or made anything with it (you would expect others commenting on it or a scene where Murphy looks at his hand and that brings him back some kind of reckoning).

However, the biggest change I felt came from not killing Murphy. And it makes sense from a more realistic take that they departed from the "resurrecting a brain" idea, however they just did not know what to do with the robodad story, which is further more depressing than the original death and lost family theme.

Anyway, back to topic, Joel talking trash of a failed movie of his is not that uncommon, Tarantino has trashed Death Proof and Scorsesse has trashed New York New York, Kyle MacLachlan has talked harshly of Showgirls and blame it for killing his career; all these movies I think deserve more credit than they get and yet their creators and actors are happy to bury them now. It's easy, human and even liberating for an artist to look back at something that was a failure and take part of the public bonfire.

[Comment]

I give them credit for trying to do something different, it was not a lame remake like Total Recall or an unapologetic cash grab like Die Hard 5, they really thought there was a story to tell about the future of AI, robotics, and law enforcement.

Their main flaw was to go for a serious tone, take it at face value style, ignoring the fun satire and over-the-top action and violence of the original.

Eventually, they did not know which type of movie they wanted it to be, a cerebral essay on the advent of law enforcement A.I. robotics (serious tone) or a superheroesque movie that could sell toys for kids and teenagers (light tone), these 2 movies clashing against each resulted in a very weak ending and resolution.

As a nitpicky fan, I don't dislike that much the black suit as I did when the first pictures leaked, in fact, I actually prefer it over their metallic suit version, although the hand always bothered me, it was distracting and did not make sense, and the screenplay did not even address it or made anything with it (you would expect others commenting on it or a scene where Murphy looks at his hand and that brings him back some kind of reckoning).

However, the biggest change I felt came from not killing Murphy. And it makes sense from a more realistic take that they departed from the "resurrecting a brain" idea, however they just did not know what to do with the robodad story, which is further more depressing than the original death and lost family theme.

Anyway, back to topic, Joel talking trash of a failed movie of his is not that uncommon, Tarantino has trashed Death Proof and Scorsesse has trashed New York New York, Kyle MacLachlan has talked harshly of Showgirls and blame it for killing his career; all these movies I think deserve more credit than they get and yet their creators and actors are happy to bury them now. It's easy, human and even liberating for an artist to look back at something that was a failure and take part of the public bonfire.

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[RoboJOF]

I liked Joel and his contribution to the RoboCop story. The movie itself has some issues, but Joel's acting is not something that I see as part of the problem. The movie had a lot of the RoboCop story hallmarks, but I think that it gets lost in some of the details. Some of the choices made by the director/writers annoy us because they were either too similar or too different than the original that we love. It can be so distracting that we end up missing the things that the movie got right AND the things that are thought provoking (the use of technology to sedate the human part of RoboCop as a way to make him less human is a completely novel interpretation of a cyborg's nature. In the RoboCop films and many others, the humanity was always the elusive and unknown factor. In this movie, Murphy is still Murphy, but OCP is making him a robot with their technology). There are also a number of evils in this movie, gangsters, crooked cops, military jerks, corporate criminals, etc. But the one evil that is really downplayed is Murphy's loss of humanity, which he suffers with in the original. I think that it ends up losing some of the heart of the original film.
Joel did a great job in the role of Murphy (especially in the scenes before his death with Lewis) and as RoboCop, but there is so much action injected into the movie (and other characters and their activity, dialogue, etc.), you don't get many chances to see him "in character."

[Joined]

I liked Joel and his contribution to the RoboCop story. The movie itself has some issues, but Joel's acting is not something that I see as part of the problem. The movie had a lot of the RoboCop story hallmarks, but I think that it gets lost in some of the details. Some of the choices made by the director/writers annoy us because they were either too similar or too different than the original that we love. It can be so distracting that we end up missing the things that the movie got right AND the things that are thought provoking (the use of technology to sedate the human part of RoboCop as a way to make him less human is a completely novel interpretation of a cyborg's nature. In the RoboCop films and many others, the humanity was always the elusive and unknown factor. In this movie, Murphy is still Murphy, but OCP is making him a robot with their technology). There are also a number of evils in this movie, gangsters, crooked cops, military jerks, corporate criminals, etc. But the one evil that is really downplayed is Murphy's loss of humanity, which he suffers with in the original. I think that it ends up losing some of the heart of the original film.
Joel did a great job in the role of Murphy (especially in the scenes before his death with Lewis) and as RoboCop, but there is so much action injected into the movie (and other characters and their activity, dialogue, etc.), you don't get many chances to see him "in character."

[Post Count]

I liked Joel and his contribution to the RoboCop story. The movie itself has some issues, but Joel's acting is not something that I see as part of the problem. The movie had a lot of the RoboCop story hallmarks, but I think that it gets lost in some of the details. Some of the choices made by the director/writers annoy us because they were either too similar or too different than the original that we love. It can be so distracting that we end up missing the things that the movie got right AND the things that are thought provoking (the use of technology to sedate the human part of RoboCop as a way to make him less human is a completely novel interpretation of a cyborg's nature. In the RoboCop films and many others, the humanity was always the elusive and unknown factor. In this movie, Murphy is still Murphy, but OCP is making him a robot with their technology). There are also a number of evils in this movie, gangsters, crooked cops, military jerks, corporate criminals, etc. But the one evil that is really downplayed is Murphy's loss of humanity, which he suffers with in the original. I think that it ends up losing some of the heart of the original film.
Joel did a great job in the role of Murphy (especially in the scenes before his death with Lewis) and as RoboCop, but there is so much action injected into the movie (and other characters and their activity, dialogue, etc.), you don't get many chances to see him "in character."

[Comment]

I liked Joel and his contribution to the RoboCop story. The movie itself has some issues, but Joel's acting is not something that I see as part of the problem. The movie had a lot of the RoboCop story hallmarks, but I think that it gets lost in some of the details. Some of the choices made by the director/writers annoy us because they were either too similar or too different than the original that we love. It can be so distracting that we end up missing the things that the movie got right AND the things that are thought provoking (the use of technology to sedate the human part of RoboCop as a way to make him less human is a completely novel interpretation of a cyborg's nature. In the RoboCop films and many others, the humanity was always the elusive and unknown factor. In this movie, Murphy is still Murphy, but OCP is making him a robot with their technology). There are also a number of evils in this movie, gangsters, crooked cops, military jerks, corporate criminals, etc. But the one evil that is really downplayed is Murphy's loss of humanity, which he suffers with in the original. I think that it ends up losing some of the heart of the original film.
Joel did a great job in the role of Murphy (especially in the scenes before his death with Lewis) and as RoboCop, but there is so much action injected into the movie (and other characters and their activity, dialogue, etc.), you don't get many chances to see him "in character."

[RoboFan]

I have never watched RoboCop 2014 all the way through.

I found it to be a really bland movie that cut it's own balls off not being an 18 rated picture.

[Joined]

I have never watched RoboCop 2014 all the way through.

I found it to be a really bland movie that cut it's own balls off not being an 18 rated picture.

[Post Count]

I have never watched RoboCop 2014 all the way through.

I found it to be a really bland movie that cut it's own balls off not being an 18 rated picture.

[RoboLewis]

And isn’t Joel Kinnaman in the Suicide Squad? And it’s funny to see Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson together again in The Protégé.

[Joined]

And isn’t Joel Kinnaman in the Suicide Squad? And it’s funny to see Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson together again in The Protégé.

[Post Count]

And isn’t Joel Kinnaman in the Suicide Squad? And it’s funny to see Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson together again in The Protégé.

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[Fummelcop]

I liked that movie a lot more than Robocop 3.
It's just that it could have been so much more.
What I really hated was his unmasked look. Especially compared to the original unmasked Robo head.
That looked absolutely badass while in the new movie he looked like some Doofus in a scuba suit. Eyebrows and everything.
That was just weak.
If you look at all the cool cyborg designs they had in Alita Battle Angel, it makes me sad how half assed this one was.

It did have some cool fight scenes but even those were pretty bland compared to the original.

[Joined]

I liked that movie a lot more than Robocop 3.
It's just that it could have been so much more.
What I really hated was his unmasked look. Especially compared to the original unmasked Robo head.
That looked absolutely badass while in the new movie he looked like some Doofus in a scuba suit. Eyebrows and everything.
That was just weak.
If you look at all the cool cyborg designs they had in Alita Battle Angel, it makes me sad how half assed this one was.

It did have some cool fight scenes but even those were pretty bland compared to the original.

[Post Count]

I liked that movie a lot more than Robocop 3.
It's just that it could have been so much more.
What I really hated was his unmasked look. Especially compared to the original unmasked Robo head.
That looked absolutely badass while in the new movie he looked like some Doofus in a scuba suit. Eyebrows and everything.
That was just weak.
If you look at all the cool cyborg designs they had in Alita Battle Angel, it makes me sad how half assed this one was.

It did have some cool fight scenes but even those were pretty bland compared to the original.

[Comment]

I liked that movie a lot more than Robocop 3.
It's just that it could have been so much more.
What I really hated was his unmasked look. Especially compared to the original unmasked Robo head.
That looked absolutely badass while in the new movie he looked like some Doofus in a scuba suit. Eyebrows and everything.
That was just weak.
If you look at all the cool cyborg designs they had in Alita Battle Angel, it makes me sad how half assed this one was.

It did have some cool fight scenes but even those were pretty bland compared to the original.