Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Dream, Mar 4, 2012.
I'll catch this movie on DVD or blu-ray.
That's not a very good run for a $100m movie, you have to factor into that the cost of advertising and that the studio doesn't get every, single, cent of its boxoffice take.
In 11 days it's already made $144 million. It could get a sequel.
I doubt this gets a sequel. Its going to fall below Die Hard 6 (or whatever the hell that last one was) with a slightly higher budget. Its doing okay overseas but its opened in just about every major market except Russia and China. $200-250 is a pretty good ballpark . . . . maybe slightly over that . . . but that's hardly enough for that kind of tentpole production budget.
As for the movie itself, I thought it was okay but lacked the humor and heart of the first one. Plus the ending of the original was great and a lot of times its the ending that leaves us our final impression. My son also complained that he wanted to see Robocop actually catching more criminals. Those allowed some of the best scenes of the original too (especially humor wise).
The age old debate about whether or not there will be a sequel. Just wait and see, guys.
Moves faster, I'll give you. Has more heart, I'll give you. (While at first the jerky stop-motion ED-209s grated, but by the end their touches of personality that kept showing up won me over. Plus, the original's resolution to Directive 4 was a lot more fun than the remake's approach.)
But more action? The two seem pretty comparable to me on that score.
(I saw the first movie for the first time yesterday, and the remake today. Both were enjoyable; both had their moments. But ultimately they have such different takes on the material - one telling a story, one using the story to try to make a point about society - that it's not fair to compare the two. Each did what they set out to do.)
The original: 4= stars
The new one: 1 star. I almost walked out.
As we know well by now, the studio financial equation is not set in stone. no one really knows. if it makes 2.5 times its budget as the experts and i suggest, there is no reason it wont fit into the usual pattern and make a profit. Thats actually a good run for a $100 million movie.
$144 million in 11 days....
This may come as a shock to you, but "new is always better" is not, to the best of my knowledge, a universally agreed-upon maxim.
There is the wide gulf between not better and almost walking out. The question becomes is it because of the artistry itself or concerns that something was remade
To each their own. I didn't hate RoboCop (2014), and there are some aspects of it that are done very well (PG-13 body horror; the overall design aesthetic; Keaton playing Evil Steve Jobs), but the script is a mess and the pacing is so horribly janky, just all over the place. If it were handled by a less competent director, I can easily see it as a movie I would have considered walking out from.
The script was definitely the weakest element. It was quite a mess. However, that's what you get when you hire the scribe who wrote Quantum of Solace (much like RoboCop, the script for QoS was the weakest part of that movie).
Then again, I think the director is somewhat responsible for the script being somewhat good, so while I think Jose Padilha is very competent, I do question some of his storytelling decisions. For example, he set out from the very beginning not to have any identifiable villain. I am not sure if that was such a good decision. The Pat Novak segments were kinda pointless and weighed the story down heavily. I get what Padilha was trying to do, but they slowed down the pacing to a grinding halt. While not a storytelling decision, I'm not sure why you would bring back the classic theme but also use it during the opening logo sequence and then use it quietly when a character that's not RoboCop is talking (and use it so quietly that you barely hear it).
I could go on and on - but I will say the film was very polished and sleek at least on an aesthetic and visual level (even though the decision to make RoboCop black seemed very dumb - especially when he looked perfect before they made him black). The actors were all really good, even if their parts were somewhat underwritten. I think the most frustrating thing for me as a moviegoer was the script, though. The film started off in a really interesting fashion. I thought the movie was going to be a metaphor for drones and how the war on terrorism has affected the country in a post 9/11 world - but that went nowhere and was never really touched upon or explored beyond the opening scene. Then, there was a brilliant scene with Gary Oldman's character and a musician who lost his hands and got them replaced with robotic ones - there's a line Oldman has about "Repressing your emotions" and the guy says, to paraphrase, "I need emotions to play". At that point, I thought the movie was going to be about our dependence on technology and how that conflicts with human emotions - which works perfectly with a more grounded RoboCop movie exploring the ideology of what it means to be human - but even that storyline is sort of abandoned and not properly explored in favor of a very generic and ultimately useless sub-plot where Murphy tries to solve his own murder (and does so very quickly without much tension or intrigue).
So the movie was really frustrating because it felt like there was a really interesting film which was apparent at the surface, but never really became anything beyond that. Bottom-line, if they ever do a sequel, they need to hire a better writer. I also wouldn't be opposed if they brought on a different director - I liked Padihla, I liked some of his visual and aesthetic choices, he chooses good actors and gets decent performances out of them - but I wouldn't be upset if he was replaced. Then again, I don't really think a sequel is necessary, either. It's not like I'm crossing my fingers for one.
Damn, I wanted this to be a must see reboot! Then again could anyone top the great Peter Weller? I guess I should wait for it to be free on HBO?
It's really not a bad movie. When it gets stuff right, it nails it. It's just very flawed, particularly the pacing.
The important thing to remember when watching this is that it isn't the original movie, nor is it trying to be. In that respect, it does exactly what a good remake should do -- take the source material and spin it in a new direction, rather than tread ground that's already been done.
Thanks for the info Timby. I will watch it. Though I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.
$220 million and climbing so far! I smell sequel!
$220 million worldwide on a $100-million budget isn't that impressive when you factor in things like advertising and how much the studio actually sees from the BO take.
Everybody wants to build a franchise. In recent years, if a movie doubles its budget, it gets a sequel, even if it's not considered greatly successful. Kick Ass, Percy Jackson, etc.
Interesting! Kick Ass did $96 against its $30 budget, tripling it.
Kick Ass 2, which was considered a bomb, doubled its budget with a $60 gross.
Approaching $260 million now. $50 million alone in China. Will likely make close to $300 million with disc sales. Sequel pretty much assured just as I said.
Separate names with a comma.