What went wrong with RoboCop 2014

[Optimus]

Seven months have passed since the premier of RoboCop 2014 and I am still thinking about the big mistakes made by the creators (especially Padilha).

I don't say that the movie was a complete disaster, nay, it is a really good cyborg sci-fi movie, but based on the box office results and the mixed reviews, it is a fact that the movie has obviously underperformed. Everything was given to made this movie 2014's biggest blockbuster (or one of the biggest), but due to the "fatal errors" the result is a quickly forgettable and flavorless remake.

On this topic I want to discuss the reasons that led to this result.

PG-13 vs. R rating

I remeber when I first heard that the remake will be PG-13, I was very angry, but let's say I accept the PG-13 rating, because the movie can get bigger audience, but this did not happend. The reason is very simple: the movie is a good cyborg sci-fi movie, but a SHIT action movie. If I watch the original RoboCop movie and make it PG-13 by cutting out all the bloody-gory scenes, the movie is still a damn good action movie and this is can not be said from the remake. The RoboCop 2014 movie does not contain any real action scenes, they spent $130 million dollars on this movie and it doesn't have a real good action scene, but why?
The remake basically have four bigger action scenes: the restaurant shooting, the drug lab, Vallon's warehouse and the OmniCorp scene and all of them is shit, only the OmniCorp scene is a little bit exciting but after a few seconds it gets boring again.

Two things that I really don't understand:

RoboCop gets a new motorcycle which is really well designed, but he doesn't use it, I mean OK, Robo goes really fast on the streets, but the movie does not contain any car chasing scenes. I think car chasing scenes are key elements in a RoboCop movie (the original movie contained two car chasing scenes an both of them are really exciting). For good example see the motorcycle chase scene from DREDD 3D

I have the same problem with Mattox and his exo-suit, they created an exo-suit which is also well designed and gives man superhuman strength, but Mattox did not use it. Mattox is a military tactican expert, he knows Robo's weak points, in the OmniCorp scene Robo is really damaged when Mattox appears wearing the exo-suit, everything is given for a good battle scene, but no, Mattox is simply shot in the back by Lewis. Both ELYSIUM and EDGE OF TOMORROW are movies where exoskeleton has an important role but in RoboCop 2014 it is just movie prop nothing more.

Budget

I mentioned above that the remake was made from $130 million dollars which is also a great mystery for me, it is interesting that STAR WARS Episode III which is not an old movie (2005) was only made from $113 million and it is 99.9% CGI effects, or another interesting movie is AUTOMATA which is an upcoming (R-rated) sci-fi thriller movie with a budget of $15 million!!! The trailer really impressed me. (http://automata-movie.com/)

[Joined]

Seven months have passed since the premier of RoboCop 2014 and I am still thinking about the big mistakes made by the creators (especially Padilha).

I don't say that the movie was a complete disaster, nay, it is a really good cyborg sci-fi movie, but based on the box office results and the mixed reviews, it is a fact that the movie has obviously underperformed. Everything was given to made this movie 2014's biggest blockbuster (or one of the biggest), but due to the "fatal errors" the result is a quickly forgettable and flavorless remake.

On this topic I want to discuss the reasons that led to this result.

PG-13 vs. R rating

I remeber when I first heard that the remake will be PG-13, I was very angry, but let's say I accept the PG-13 rating, because the movie can get bigger audience, but this did not happend. The reason is very simple: the movie is a good cyborg sci-fi movie, but a SHIT action movie. If I watch the original RoboCop movie and make it PG-13 by cutting out all the bloody-gory scenes, the movie is still a damn good action movie and this is can not be said from the remake. The RoboCop 2014 movie does not contain any real action scenes, they spent $130 million dollars on this movie and it doesn't have a real good action scene, but why?
The remake basically have four bigger action scenes: the restaurant shooting, the drug lab, Vallon's warehouse and the OmniCorp scene and all of them is shit, only the OmniCorp scene is a little bit exciting but after a few seconds it gets boring again.

Two things that I really don't understand:

RoboCop gets a new motorcycle which is really well designed, but he doesn't use it, I mean OK, Robo goes really fast on the streets, but the movie does not contain any car chasing scenes. I think car chasing scenes are key elements in a RoboCop movie (the original movie contained two car chasing scenes an both of them are really exciting). For good example see the motorcycle chase scene from DREDD 3D

I have the same problem with Mattox and his exo-suit, they created an exo-suit which is also well designed and gives man superhuman strength, but Mattox did not use it. Mattox is a military tactican expert, he knows Robo's weak points, in the OmniCorp scene Robo is really damaged when Mattox appears wearing the exo-suit, everything is given for a good battle scene, but no, Mattox is simply shot in the back by Lewis. Both ELYSIUM and EDGE OF TOMORROW are movies where exoskeleton has an important role but in RoboCop 2014 it is just movie prop nothing more.

Budget

I mentioned above that the remake was made from $130 million dollars which is also a great mystery for me, it is interesting that STAR WARS Episode III which is not an old movie (2005) was only made from $113 million and it is 99.9% CGI effects, or another interesting movie is AUTOMATA which is an upcoming (R-rated) sci-fi thriller movie with a budget of $15 million!!! The trailer really impressed me. (http://automata-movie.com/)

[Post Count]

Seven months have passed since the premier of RoboCop 2014 and I am still thinking about the big mistakes made by the creators (especially Padilha).

I don't say that the movie was a complete disaster, nay, it is a really good cyborg sci-fi movie, but based on the box office results and the mixed reviews, it is a fact that the movie has obviously underperformed. Everything was given to made this movie 2014's biggest blockbuster (or one of the biggest), but due to the "fatal errors" the result is a quickly forgettable and flavorless remake.

On this topic I want to discuss the reasons that led to this result.

PG-13 vs. R rating

I remeber when I first heard that the remake will be PG-13, I was very angry, but let's say I accept the PG-13 rating, because the movie can get bigger audience, but this did not happend. The reason is very simple: the movie is a good cyborg sci-fi movie, but a SHIT action movie. If I watch the original RoboCop movie and make it PG-13 by cutting out all the bloody-gory scenes, the movie is still a damn good action movie and this is can not be said from the remake. The RoboCop 2014 movie does not contain any real action scenes, they spent $130 million dollars on this movie and it doesn't have a real good action scene, but why?
The remake basically have four bigger action scenes: the restaurant shooting, the drug lab, Vallon's warehouse and the OmniCorp scene and all of them is shit, only the OmniCorp scene is a little bit exciting but after a few seconds it gets boring again.

Two things that I really don't understand:

RoboCop gets a new motorcycle which is really well designed, but he doesn't use it, I mean OK, Robo goes really fast on the streets, but the movie does not contain any car chasing scenes. I think car chasing scenes are key elements in a RoboCop movie (the original movie contained two car chasing scenes an both of them are really exciting). For good example see the motorcycle chase scene from DREDD 3D

I have the same problem with Mattox and his exo-suit, they created an exo-suit which is also well designed and gives man superhuman strength, but Mattox did not use it. Mattox is a military tactican expert, he knows Robo's weak points, in the OmniCorp scene Robo is really damaged when Mattox appears wearing the exo-suit, everything is given for a good battle scene, but no, Mattox is simply shot in the back by Lewis. Both ELYSIUM and EDGE OF TOMORROW are movies where exoskeleton has an important role but in RoboCop 2014 it is just movie prop nothing more.

Budget

I mentioned above that the remake was made from $130 million dollars which is also a great mystery for me, it is interesting that STAR WARS Episode III which is not an old movie (2005) was only made from $113 million and it is 99.9% CGI effects, or another interesting movie is AUTOMATA which is an upcoming (R-rated) sci-fi thriller movie with a budget of $15 million!!! The trailer really impressed me. (http://automata-movie.com/)

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Optimus]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Josh]

I think MGM mainly although there are a few other things.

If Padilha had more control I think we would have had a darker more violent film. While I don't hold the reboot in much regard his Elite Squad films are good, they're violent with a nice slice of social commentary kind of like a certain 1987 film we all know and love.

I'm not saying a film has to be violent to succeed but the again certain films need violence and I think a RoboCop film is one of them. The whole thing with the Tazer being the primary focus jut threw me off because it smacks of trying to accommodate a younger and therefore wider audience. Sure he uses a sub machine gun but it was hardly the weapon everyone though about when it came to the reboot.

The design of the suit was poor too. There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, it's functional and all that but it's also generic and looks like the kind of suit/armour that a number of characters from other films or games would be seen in. If you take the head off of the original design people will recognise it but I don't think that's the case with the new one. The only reason people know it's supposed to be RoboCop is because of the visor, and that's something carried over from the original design. Saying that the silver suit was good but still not a patch on Bottin's masterpiece. Oh, and the hand. I don't think this needs explaining.

The story had some good ideas about how a person once turned into a machine or product, who's legally been signed away to a corporation cannot lead a normal life even if he and his loved ones want to. The problem is while we had glimpses of smart ideas they were never really followed through, instead being replaced by generic action scenes that failed to excite. I remember Padilha saying how he's going to explore how a man becomes a machine, and it's something I think we would have seen a lot more of had MGM not made some changes.

The acting from Kinnaman wasn't up to much either. He mumbled his way through the film, he didn't convey emotion well during scenes which were supposed to be emotional, and his general attitude went from stoic to surly. I could understand if Omnicorp wiped his memory but they didn't, and I understand it's depressing being torn away from your family and all that but still, I've seen better acting in some porn films.

The characters weren't anything special. Novak is Sam L Jackson being Sam L Jackson, Oldman is fine but I think would have benefited from really being torn between what's right and glory and fame for the work he's done, Clara want's Alex to see their son, David likes Hockey and Sellars want's to get nuts. In all seriousness I did like Keaton's performance most of all though.

There are so many reasons why this film went wrong but these are just off the top of my head. Sure there are some parts I enjoyed but unfortunately the bad heavily outweighed the good which ruins the overall movie.

[Joined]

I think MGM mainly although there are a few other things.

If Padilha had more control I think we would have had a darker more violent film. While I don't hold the reboot in much regard his Elite Squad films are good, they're violent with a nice slice of social commentary kind of like a certain 1987 film we all know and love.

I'm not saying a film has to be violent to succeed but the again certain films need violence and I think a RoboCop film is one of them. The whole thing with the Tazer being the primary focus jut threw me off because it smacks of trying to accommodate a younger and therefore wider audience. Sure he uses a sub machine gun but it was hardly the weapon everyone though about when it came to the reboot.

The design of the suit was poor too. There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, it's functional and all that but it's also generic and looks like the kind of suit/armour that a number of characters from other films or games would be seen in. If you take the head off of the original design people will recognise it but I don't think that's the case with the new one. The only reason people know it's supposed to be RoboCop is because of the visor, and that's something carried over from the original design. Saying that the silver suit was good but still not a patch on Bottin's masterpiece. Oh, and the hand. I don't think this needs explaining.

The story had some good ideas about how a person once turned into a machine or product, who's legally been signed away to a corporation cannot lead a normal life even if he and his loved ones want to. The problem is while we had glimpses of smart ideas they were never really followed through, instead being replaced by generic action scenes that failed to excite. I remember Padilha saying how he's going to explore how a man becomes a machine, and it's something I think we would have seen a lot more of had MGM not made some changes.

The acting from Kinnaman wasn't up to much either. He mumbled his way through the film, he didn't convey emotion well during scenes which were supposed to be emotional, and his general attitude went from stoic to surly. I could understand if Omnicorp wiped his memory but they didn't, and I understand it's depressing being torn away from your family and all that but still, I've seen better acting in some porn films.

The characters weren't anything special. Novak is Sam L Jackson being Sam L Jackson, Oldman is fine but I think would have benefited from really being torn between what's right and glory and fame for the work he's done, Clara want's Alex to see their son, David likes Hockey and Sellars want's to get nuts. In all seriousness I did like Keaton's performance most of all though.

There are so many reasons why this film went wrong but these are just off the top of my head. Sure there are some parts I enjoyed but unfortunately the bad heavily outweighed the good which ruins the overall movie.

[Post Count]

I think MGM mainly although there are a few other things.

If Padilha had more control I think we would have had a darker more violent film. While I don't hold the reboot in much regard his Elite Squad films are good, they're violent with a nice slice of social commentary kind of like a certain 1987 film we all know and love.

I'm not saying a film has to be violent to succeed but the again certain films need violence and I think a RoboCop film is one of them. The whole thing with the Tazer being the primary focus jut threw me off because it smacks of trying to accommodate a younger and therefore wider audience. Sure he uses a sub machine gun but it was hardly the weapon everyone though about when it came to the reboot.

The design of the suit was poor too. There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, it's functional and all that but it's also generic and looks like the kind of suit/armour that a number of characters from other films or games would be seen in. If you take the head off of the original design people will recognise it but I don't think that's the case with the new one. The only reason people know it's supposed to be RoboCop is because of the visor, and that's something carried over from the original design. Saying that the silver suit was good but still not a patch on Bottin's masterpiece. Oh, and the hand. I don't think this needs explaining.

The story had some good ideas about how a person once turned into a machine or product, who's legally been signed away to a corporation cannot lead a normal life even if he and his loved ones want to. The problem is while we had glimpses of smart ideas they were never really followed through, instead being replaced by generic action scenes that failed to excite. I remember Padilha saying how he's going to explore how a man becomes a machine, and it's something I think we would have seen a lot more of had MGM not made some changes.

The acting from Kinnaman wasn't up to much either. He mumbled his way through the film, he didn't convey emotion well during scenes which were supposed to be emotional, and his general attitude went from stoic to surly. I could understand if Omnicorp wiped his memory but they didn't, and I understand it's depressing being torn away from your family and all that but still, I've seen better acting in some porn films.

The characters weren't anything special. Novak is Sam L Jackson being Sam L Jackson, Oldman is fine but I think would have benefited from really being torn between what's right and glory and fame for the work he's done, Clara want's Alex to see their son, David likes Hockey and Sellars want's to get nuts. In all seriousness I did like Keaton's performance most of all though.

There are so many reasons why this film went wrong but these are just off the top of my head. Sure there are some parts I enjoyed but unfortunately the bad heavily outweighed the good which ruins the overall movie.

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Stan The Man]

As has been brilliantly yet aptly said several times, the main problem is that this is a dumb movie thinking it's smart - Pretending it's powerful and harsh when it's really superficial and without any real grit, depth, or hell any true feeling to it.

I do agree that that a big problem with this film (as it has been with pretty much almost every piece of RoboCop media made since the first) was clearly a lack of creative control. Granted I understand the studio's making an investment and all that but as has been pointed out we don't really get much for that $100+ million. I'm not sure how much better it could have been but I would have have liked to see what a looser leash on Padhila might have gotten us.

I personally agree with the point on the non-'R' rating - I have always said this franchise has (or at least should have) a particular tone that does not fit in a PG-13 rating. There indeed is no real action, exposition, humor, or in fact anything much at all that is truly memorable about this whole piece. I accepted the suit (barely) but still dislike the design, and never got how they showed/used the two versions of the suit. The hand and bike were more pointless and superfluous than I ever feared they'd be in the movie, Kinnaman's performance was poor, other major actors/characters were overbearing, Vallon was unnecessary, story drops the ball on it's themes and points, and the rest is just a jumble of bullshit. Add to that how they flubbed expectation management and promotion and in some ways it's a wonder how it did as well as it did.

Despite trying to have an open mind the bottom line is this film let me down considerably. Hell, it was a let down even if one didn't have high expectations. We've all gone over this extensively throughout but I think Josh outlines most of it as nicely as could be done here.

It is a decent film, quite watchable and even enjoyable and good in places. But as Josh rightly concluded, too much bad that outweighed and out-shined the good, which only strongly reinforced what the movie ultimately is, generic and 'whatever'.

Bah, this has been dissected quite a lot over the last half-year. I really don't see the import of going back into it frankly. Whatever though.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

As has been brilliantly yet aptly said several times, the main problem is that this is a dumb movie thinking it's smart - Pretending it's powerful and harsh when it's really superficial and without any real grit, depth, or hell any true feeling to it.

I do agree that that a big problem with this film (as it has been with pretty much almost every piece of RoboCop media made since the first) was clearly a lack of creative control. Granted I understand the studio's making an investment and all that but as has been pointed out we don't really get much for that $100+ million. I'm not sure how much better it could have been but I would have have liked to see what a looser leash on Padhila might have gotten us.

I personally agree with the point on the non-'R' rating - I have always said this franchise has (or at least should have) a particular tone that does not fit in a PG-13 rating. There indeed is no real action, exposition, humor, or in fact anything much at all that is truly memorable about this whole piece. I accepted the suit (barely) but still dislike the design, and never got how they showed/used the two versions of the suit. The hand and bike were more pointless and superfluous than I ever feared they'd be in the movie, Kinnaman's performance was poor, other major actors/characters were overbearing, Vallon was unnecessary, story drops the ball on it's themes and points, and the rest is just a jumble of bullshit. Add to that how they flubbed expectation management and promotion and in some ways it's a wonder how it did as well as it did.

Despite trying to have an open mind the bottom line is this film let me down considerably. Hell, it was a let down even if one didn't have high expectations. We've all gone over this extensively throughout but I think Josh outlines most of it as nicely as could be done here.

It is a decent film, quite watchable and even enjoyable and good in places. But as Josh rightly concluded, too much bad that outweighed and out-shined the good, which only strongly reinforced what the movie ultimately is, generic and 'whatever'.

Bah, this has been dissected quite a lot over the last half-year. I really don't see the import of going back into it frankly. Whatever though.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

As has been brilliantly yet aptly said several times, the main problem is that this is a dumb movie thinking it's smart - Pretending it's powerful and harsh when it's really superficial and without any real grit, depth, or hell any true feeling to it.

I do agree that that a big problem with this film (as it has been with pretty much almost every piece of RoboCop media made since the first) was clearly a lack of creative control. Granted I understand the studio's making an investment and all that but as has been pointed out we don't really get much for that $100+ million. I'm not sure how much better it could have been but I would have have liked to see what a looser leash on Padhila might have gotten us.

I personally agree with the point on the non-'R' rating - I have always said this franchise has (or at least should have) a particular tone that does not fit in a PG-13 rating. There indeed is no real action, exposition, humor, or in fact anything much at all that is truly memorable about this whole piece. I accepted the suit (barely) but still dislike the design, and never got how they showed/used the two versions of the suit. The hand and bike were more pointless and superfluous than I ever feared they'd be in the movie, Kinnaman's performance was poor, other major actors/characters were overbearing, Vallon was unnecessary, story drops the ball on it's themes and points, and the rest is just a jumble of bullshit. Add to that how they flubbed expectation management and promotion and in some ways it's a wonder how it did as well as it did.

Despite trying to have an open mind the bottom line is this film let me down considerably. Hell, it was a let down even if one didn't have high expectations. We've all gone over this extensively throughout but I think Josh outlines most of it as nicely as could be done here.

It is a decent film, quite watchable and even enjoyable and good in places. But as Josh rightly concluded, too much bad that outweighed and out-shined the good, which only strongly reinforced what the movie ultimately is, generic and 'whatever'.

Bah, this has been dissected quite a lot over the last half-year. I really don't see the import of going back into it frankly. Whatever though.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

As has been brilliantly yet aptly said several times, the main problem is that this is a dumb movie thinking it's smart - Pretending it's powerful and harsh when it's really superficial and without any real grit, depth, or hell any true feeling to it.

I do agree that that a big problem with this film (as it has been with pretty much almost every piece of RoboCop media made since the first) was clearly a lack of creative control. Granted I understand the studio's making an investment and all that but as has been pointed out we don't really get much for that $100+ million. I'm not sure how much better it could have been but I would have have liked to see what a looser leash on Padhila might have gotten us.

I personally agree with the point on the non-'R' rating - I have always said this franchise has (or at least should have) a particular tone that does not fit in a PG-13 rating. There indeed is no real action, exposition, humor, or in fact anything much at all that is truly memorable about this whole piece. I accepted the suit (barely) but still dislike the design, and never got how they showed/used the two versions of the suit. The hand and bike were more pointless and superfluous than I ever feared they'd be in the movie, Kinnaman's performance was poor, other major actors/characters were overbearing, Vallon was unnecessary, story drops the ball on it's themes and points, and the rest is just a jumble of bullshit. Add to that how they flubbed expectation management and promotion and in some ways it's a wonder how it did as well as it did.

Despite trying to have an open mind the bottom line is this film let me down considerably. Hell, it was a let down even if one didn't have high expectations. We've all gone over this extensively throughout but I think Josh outlines most of it as nicely as could be done here.

It is a decent film, quite watchable and even enjoyable and good in places. But as Josh rightly concluded, too much bad that outweighed and out-shined the good, which only strongly reinforced what the movie ultimately is, generic and 'whatever'.

Bah, this has been dissected quite a lot over the last half-year. I really don't see the import of going back into it frankly. Whatever though.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[vegasrobo]

I really don't think Padhila had anything in him for Robo even if he was given control,Clearly he had no idea regarding the character whether as Murphy or Robocop he was the wrong choice to helm the film,The right director could have made a compelling case for an "R" rating among a host of other "control" issues..Jose was not up to the task of helming this film to here him speak about "how big a fan he was" and to deliver a completely disjointed non compelling generic ass film falls squarly on him not knowing what made Robocop work to begin with "a problem not unique to him I.E. every Robocop since 87'"...

[Joined]

I really don't think Padhila had anything in him for Robo even if he was given control,Clearly he had no idea regarding the character whether as Murphy or Robocop he was the wrong choice to helm the film,The right director could have made a compelling case for an "R" rating among a host of other "control" issues..Jose was not up to the task of helming this film to here him speak about "how big a fan he was" and to deliver a completely disjointed non compelling generic ass film falls squarly on him not knowing what made Robocop work to begin with "a problem not unique to him I.E. every Robocop since 87'"...

[Post Count]

I really don't think Padhila had anything in him for Robo even if he was given control,Clearly he had no idea regarding the character whether as Murphy or Robocop he was the wrong choice to helm the film,The right director could have made a compelling case for an "R" rating among a host of other "control" issues..Jose was not up to the task of helming this film to here him speak about "how big a fan he was" and to deliver a completely disjointed non compelling generic ass film falls squarly on him not knowing what made Robocop work to begin with "a problem not unique to him I.E. every Robocop since 87'"...

[Comment]

I really don't think Padhila had anything in him for Robo even if he was given control,Clearly he had no idea regarding the character whether as Murphy or Robocop he was the wrong choice to helm the film,The right director could have made a compelling case for an "R" rating among a host of other "control" issues..Jose was not up to the task of helming this film to here him speak about "how big a fan he was" and to deliver a completely disjointed non compelling generic ass film falls squarly on him not knowing what made Robocop work to begin with "a problem not unique to him I.E. every Robocop since 87'"...

[artuditu]

Not sure if this has been quoted before in the forum, Joel Kinnaman a few months ago:

"Jose Padilha had a really interesting vision for that. But, then, at the same time, when doing these kind of comic book, these beloved characters, you also have to be really aware of what about it the fans love so much. And you have to understand that and sort of build your new idea on that.

What we did wrong on RoboCop, we just did something new and didn’t really take into account what the fans really loved about the original. I think that we should have gone and found more humor and more charm in it. And it’s tricky doing a movie like RoboCop at PG-13. Maybe we shouldn’t have changed the suit and we should have done it rated R and do it with a smaller budget – I think people would have given it a much bigger chance. But, with all that said, as a film, I’m really proud of it. I think it’s a really good movie that has really interesting concepts."

http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/03/joel-kinnaman-suicide-squad-run-all-night/

[Joined]

Not sure if this has been quoted before in the forum, Joel Kinnaman a few months ago:

"Jose Padilha had a really interesting vision for that. But, then, at the same time, when doing these kind of comic book, these beloved characters, you also have to be really aware of what about it the fans love so much. And you have to understand that and sort of build your new idea on that.

What we did wrong on RoboCop, we just did something new and didn’t really take into account what the fans really loved about the original. I think that we should have gone and found more humor and more charm in it. And it’s tricky doing a movie like RoboCop at PG-13. Maybe we shouldn’t have changed the suit and we should have done it rated R and do it with a smaller budget – I think people would have given it a much bigger chance. But, with all that said, as a film, I’m really proud of it. I think it’s a really good movie that has really interesting concepts."

http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/03/joel-kinnaman-suicide-squad-run-all-night/

[Post Count]

Not sure if this has been quoted before in the forum, Joel Kinnaman a few months ago:

"Jose Padilha had a really interesting vision for that. But, then, at the same time, when doing these kind of comic book, these beloved characters, you also have to be really aware of what about it the fans love so much. And you have to understand that and sort of build your new idea on that.

What we did wrong on RoboCop, we just did something new and didn’t really take into account what the fans really loved about the original. I think that we should have gone and found more humor and more charm in it. And it’s tricky doing a movie like RoboCop at PG-13. Maybe we shouldn’t have changed the suit and we should have done it rated R and do it with a smaller budget – I think people would have given it a much bigger chance. But, with all that said, as a film, I’m really proud of it. I think it’s a really good movie that has really interesting concepts."

http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/03/joel-kinnaman-suicide-squad-run-all-night/

[Comment]

Not sure if this has been quoted before in the forum, Joel Kinnaman a few months ago:

"Jose Padilha had a really interesting vision for that. But, then, at the same time, when doing these kind of comic book, these beloved characters, you also have to be really aware of what about it the fans love so much. And you have to understand that and sort of build your new idea on that.

What we did wrong on RoboCop, we just did something new and didn’t really take into account what the fans really loved about the original. I think that we should have gone and found more humor and more charm in it. And it’s tricky doing a movie like RoboCop at PG-13. Maybe we shouldn’t have changed the suit and we should have done it rated R and do it with a smaller budget – I think people would have given it a much bigger chance. But, with all that said, as a film, I’m really proud of it. I think it’s a really good movie that has really interesting concepts."

http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/03/joel-kinnaman-suicide-squad-run-all-night/

[Stan The Man]

Nice read. I read the whole piece on the link, though artu quoted pretty much most all that's relevant - The only other thing that was noted by Kinnaman was the somewhat cynical money-making motive behind remakes, which is fine but hardly anything new to say by, well, anyone.

That said, I appreciate his fair analysis.. His points are all pretty much spot-on really. Especially about the lack of humor and charm. I gotta say his statement here smacks of seeming a bit appeasing, but that might be the more cynical part of me talkin'.. Either way at least he realizes. His performance might not have been what I had hoped or much to my liking but it could have been worse.. I can understand him still taking pride in the role. And he is right that the film had some interesting concepts.. just a shame they didn't go anywhere.

Bah, like I said before, we've gone over all this and pretty much well-know what the problems with the film are, all this tells me is that Joel Kinnaman has figured it out too to an extent. Still, good to read - I think I had heard he made a couple of remarks about the remake months ago, but I guess I wasn't bothered to check into it at the time. So thanks for that, artuditu.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

Nice read. I read the whole piece on the link, though artu quoted pretty much most all that's relevant - The only other thing that was noted by Kinnaman was the somewhat cynical money-making motive behind remakes, which is fine but hardly anything new to say by, well, anyone.

That said, I appreciate his fair analysis.. His points are all pretty much spot-on really. Especially about the lack of humor and charm. I gotta say his statement here smacks of seeming a bit appeasing, but that might be the more cynical part of me talkin'.. Either way at least he realizes. His performance might not have been what I had hoped or much to my liking but it could have been worse.. I can understand him still taking pride in the role. And he is right that the film had some interesting concepts.. just a shame they didn't go anywhere.

Bah, like I said before, we've gone over all this and pretty much well-know what the problems with the film are, all this tells me is that Joel Kinnaman has figured it out too to an extent. Still, good to read - I think I had heard he made a couple of remarks about the remake months ago, but I guess I wasn't bothered to check into it at the time. So thanks for that, artuditu.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

Nice read. I read the whole piece on the link, though artu quoted pretty much most all that's relevant - The only other thing that was noted by Kinnaman was the somewhat cynical money-making motive behind remakes, which is fine but hardly anything new to say by, well, anyone.

That said, I appreciate his fair analysis.. His points are all pretty much spot-on really. Especially about the lack of humor and charm. I gotta say his statement here smacks of seeming a bit appeasing, but that might be the more cynical part of me talkin'.. Either way at least he realizes. His performance might not have been what I had hoped or much to my liking but it could have been worse.. I can understand him still taking pride in the role. And he is right that the film had some interesting concepts.. just a shame they didn't go anywhere.

Bah, like I said before, we've gone over all this and pretty much well-know what the problems with the film are, all this tells me is that Joel Kinnaman has figured it out too to an extent. Still, good to read - I think I had heard he made a couple of remarks about the remake months ago, but I guess I wasn't bothered to check into it at the time. So thanks for that, artuditu.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

Nice read. I read the whole piece on the link, though artu quoted pretty much most all that's relevant - The only other thing that was noted by Kinnaman was the somewhat cynical money-making motive behind remakes, which is fine but hardly anything new to say by, well, anyone.

That said, I appreciate his fair analysis.. His points are all pretty much spot-on really. Especially about the lack of humor and charm. I gotta say his statement here smacks of seeming a bit appeasing, but that might be the more cynical part of me talkin'.. Either way at least he realizes. His performance might not have been what I had hoped or much to my liking but it could have been worse.. I can understand him still taking pride in the role. And he is right that the film had some interesting concepts.. just a shame they didn't go anywhere.

Bah, like I said before, we've gone over all this and pretty much well-know what the problems with the film are, all this tells me is that Joel Kinnaman has figured it out too to an extent. Still, good to read - I think I had heard he made a couple of remarks about the remake months ago, but I guess I wasn't bothered to check into it at the time. So thanks for that, artuditu.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Archive]

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that interview.

It's good that we are now at a point where actors (and hopefully soon the director) can talk more about the remake in a new light.

We were so knee deep into the promo talk during the release it's nice to finally hear the good AND the bad.

[Joined]

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that interview.

It's good that we are now at a point where actors (and hopefully soon the director) can talk more about the remake in a new light.

We were so knee deep into the promo talk during the release it's nice to finally hear the good AND the bad.

[Post Count]

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that interview.

It's good that we are now at a point where actors (and hopefully soon the director) can talk more about the remake in a new light.

We were so knee deep into the promo talk during the release it's nice to finally hear the good AND the bad.

[NOF]

I had a few problem with the film (from memory):

Suit

Horrible, thin and plastic looking. I cringed whenever Robo was shot at. A pea shooter could have inflicted maximum damage.

Acting

Kinnaman played Murphy as a cocky arsehole who you could imagine having an affair while pretending to be the family man. Completely the wrong approach. Murphy is meant to be a decent person in a world of scumbags. As a result, I felt no sympathy for him.

Concept

The idea of Robo being there for his family does not work, for me. As Holzgang says in R2 "do you think you could ever be a husband...", and certainly the movie reinforced this. The scenes involving the family were more than a little awkward and did little to further the characters.

If it had been called something else, I probably would have enjoyed it as a no brainer action film. But it has the name Robocop, so it comes with certain expectations. And it failed to deliver.

There's only one moment in the movie that justifies the name Robocop. One moment that could fit into the first two no problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXOhIJg4B7k

[Joined]

I had a few problem with the film (from memory):

Suit

Horrible, thin and plastic looking. I cringed whenever Robo was shot at. A pea shooter could have inflicted maximum damage.

Acting

Kinnaman played Murphy as a cocky arsehole who you could imagine having an affair while pretending to be the family man. Completely the wrong approach. Murphy is meant to be a decent person in a world of scumbags. As a result, I felt no sympathy for him.

Concept

The idea of Robo being there for his family does not work, for me. As Holzgang says in R2 "do you think you could ever be a husband...", and certainly the movie reinforced this. The scenes involving the family were more than a little awkward and did little to further the characters.

If it had been called something else, I probably would have enjoyed it as a no brainer action film. But it has the name Robocop, so it comes with certain expectations. And it failed to deliver.

There's only one moment in the movie that justifies the name Robocop. One moment that could fit into the first two no problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXOhIJg4B7k

[Post Count]

I had a few problem with the film (from memory):

Suit

Horrible, thin and plastic looking. I cringed whenever Robo was shot at. A pea shooter could have inflicted maximum damage.

Acting

Kinnaman played Murphy as a cocky arsehole who you could imagine having an affair while pretending to be the family man. Completely the wrong approach. Murphy is meant to be a decent person in a world of scumbags. As a result, I felt no sympathy for him.

Concept

The idea of Robo being there for his family does not work, for me. As Holzgang says in R2 "do you think you could ever be a husband...", and certainly the movie reinforced this. The scenes involving the family were more than a little awkward and did little to further the characters.

If it had been called something else, I probably would have enjoyed it as a no brainer action film. But it has the name Robocop, so it comes with certain expectations. And it failed to deliver.

There's only one moment in the movie that justifies the name Robocop. One moment that could fit into the first two no problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXOhIJg4B7k

[Comment]

I had a few problem with the film (from memory):

Suit

Horrible, thin and plastic looking. I cringed whenever Robo was shot at. A pea shooter could have inflicted maximum damage.

Acting

Kinnaman played Murphy as a cocky arsehole who you could imagine having an affair while pretending to be the family man. Completely the wrong approach. Murphy is meant to be a decent person in a world of scumbags. As a result, I felt no sympathy for him.

Concept

The idea of Robo being there for his family does not work, for me. As Holzgang says in R2 "do you think you could ever be a husband...", and certainly the movie reinforced this. The scenes involving the family were more than a little awkward and did little to further the characters.

If it had been called something else, I probably would have enjoyed it as a no brainer action film. But it has the name Robocop, so it comes with certain expectations. And it failed to deliver.

There's only one moment in the movie that justifies the name Robocop. One moment that could fit into the first two no problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXOhIJg4B7k

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Edd 209]

Well I am going to say I like Robo2014. I think it deserves it spot on my DVD shelf. I've enjoyed watching it a lot.

Yes, there are minimum blood and gut scenes, but I have got R1 and R2 for that.

A tazer? That's alright. As Robo did say at the police briefing he wanted detention vehicles to move in on his request. He'd just walk in, taze everyone, sustain minimum damage, then the police move in and capture everyone, until 50 calibre weapons come into play. A bit more of a humane approach for this day and age, even though it is nice to see some fictional bad guys get splattered now and again!!

I think Murphy finds out for himself that his house is not the place for him anymore and confirms that to Jack. I actually really enjoyed the scene of Robo confronting David - thought that was really powerful. Just how a sequel would follow on from this would need to tread carefully...

One thing that I would have really liked to see would have been Robo crime fighting in the silver suit. All we got was a simulated scene.

The remake wasn't what I was origianlly hoping for. Any remake would never be as good as R1, but what was produced is still an enjoyable movie, and I'd like a sequel to it.
_________________
Roobocop // The future of Australian justice...

[Joined]

Well I am going to say I like Robo2014. I think it deserves it spot on my DVD shelf. I've enjoyed watching it a lot.

Yes, there are minimum blood and gut scenes, but I have got R1 and R2 for that.

A tazer? That's alright. As Robo did say at the police briefing he wanted detention vehicles to move in on his request. He'd just walk in, taze everyone, sustain minimum damage, then the police move in and capture everyone, until 50 calibre weapons come into play. A bit more of a humane approach for this day and age, even though it is nice to see some fictional bad guys get splattered now and again!!

I think Murphy finds out for himself that his house is not the place for him anymore and confirms that to Jack. I actually really enjoyed the scene of Robo confronting David - thought that was really powerful. Just how a sequel would follow on from this would need to tread carefully...

One thing that I would have really liked to see would have been Robo crime fighting in the silver suit. All we got was a simulated scene.

The remake wasn't what I was origianlly hoping for. Any remake would never be as good as R1, but what was produced is still an enjoyable movie, and I'd like a sequel to it.
_________________
Roobocop // The future of Australian justice...

[Post Count]

Well I am going to say I like Robo2014. I think it deserves it spot on my DVD shelf. I've enjoyed watching it a lot.

Yes, there are minimum blood and gut scenes, but I have got R1 and R2 for that.

A tazer? That's alright. As Robo did say at the police briefing he wanted detention vehicles to move in on his request. He'd just walk in, taze everyone, sustain minimum damage, then the police move in and capture everyone, until 50 calibre weapons come into play. A bit more of a humane approach for this day and age, even though it is nice to see some fictional bad guys get splattered now and again!!

I think Murphy finds out for himself that his house is not the place for him anymore and confirms that to Jack. I actually really enjoyed the scene of Robo confronting David - thought that was really powerful. Just how a sequel would follow on from this would need to tread carefully...

One thing that I would have really liked to see would have been Robo crime fighting in the silver suit. All we got was a simulated scene.

The remake wasn't what I was origianlly hoping for. Any remake would never be as good as R1, but what was produced is still an enjoyable movie, and I'd like a sequel to it.
_________________
Roobocop // The future of Australian justice...

[Comment]

Well I am going to say I like Robo2014. I think it deserves it spot on my DVD shelf. I've enjoyed watching it a lot.

Yes, there are minimum blood and gut scenes, but I have got R1 and R2 for that.

A tazer? That's alright. As Robo did say at the police briefing he wanted detention vehicles to move in on his request. He'd just walk in, taze everyone, sustain minimum damage, then the police move in and capture everyone, until 50 calibre weapons come into play. A bit more of a humane approach for this day and age, even though it is nice to see some fictional bad guys get splattered now and again!!

I think Murphy finds out for himself that his house is not the place for him anymore and confirms that to Jack. I actually really enjoyed the scene of Robo confronting David - thought that was really powerful. Just how a sequel would follow on from this would need to tread carefully...

One thing that I would have really liked to see would have been Robo crime fighting in the silver suit. All we got was a simulated scene.

The remake wasn't what I was origianlly hoping for. Any remake would never be as good as R1, but what was produced is still an enjoyable movie, and I'd like a sequel to it.
_________________
Roobocop // The future of Australian justice...

[RoboHell]

I think Murphy the character in general is a little cocky. In the original he displayed this a few times, (pretty neat to Lewis, taking the wheel when breaking in a new partner, him showing off his gun twirl, even being defiant in the face of death with Clarence, I think your slime) but he didn't seem arrogant, he had a silent confidence about him.

That's the difference between the two actors, one can portray so much through the screen without muttering a word, and the other couldn't.
_________________

[Joined]

I think Murphy the character in general is a little cocky. In the original he displayed this a few times, (pretty neat to Lewis, taking the wheel when breaking in a new partner, him showing off his gun twirl, even being defiant in the face of death with Clarence, I think your slime) but he didn't seem arrogant, he had a silent confidence about him.

That's the difference between the two actors, one can portray so much through the screen without muttering a word, and the other couldn't.
_________________

[Post Count]

I think Murphy the character in general is a little cocky. In the original he displayed this a few times, (pretty neat to Lewis, taking the wheel when breaking in a new partner, him showing off his gun twirl, even being defiant in the face of death with Clarence, I think your slime) but he didn't seem arrogant, he had a silent confidence about him.

That's the difference between the two actors, one can portray so much through the screen without muttering a word, and the other couldn't.
_________________

[Comment]

I think Murphy the character in general is a little cocky. In the original he displayed this a few times, (pretty neat to Lewis, taking the wheel when breaking in a new partner, him showing off his gun twirl, even being defiant in the face of death with Clarence, I think your slime) but he didn't seem arrogant, he had a silent confidence about him.

That's the difference between the two actors, one can portray so much through the screen without muttering a word, and the other couldn't.
_________________