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."

The amount of remakes Hollywood is coming up with is a sure sign of unoriginality and greed, Most Hollywood films are remakes and books. Screenwriters with new unique ideas don't have a chance. Something has to change in Hollywood or soon they will realize creativity always wins and they're own greed will destroy them from the inside out like the death star from "Star Wars"

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.

I agree its about entertainment, but I also think of it as an Art. Its like someone trying to recreate the Mona Lisa. Why touch a masterpiece, when you can create your own? Sure everyone likes it, because they already know what to expect. Hollywood is teaching this generation to not take chances on new ideas and new stories. I believe it can handicap our generation from being creative and unique. I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather see a masterpiece thn a recreation of the leonardo da vinci's Mona Lisa. Afterall the fake is never worth as much in the end. Sure you paid good money for it, but money is cheap. Creativity and originality is priceless, and that's what separates the ARTIST, selling you a masterpiece from the SCAM ARTIST trying to sell you a copy.

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.

If your only purpose is to make money - it hasn't served its purpose. Entertainment is a visual art. Photography is also a visual art, theater too. And yes paintings are visual. I am not the first to compare films to Art. George lucas a great filmmaker mentions it in several interviews as well as other big names such as Steven Spielberg. They were successful because originality and they're own experiences reflected what was on the screen. The audience respected them for it. Remakes have a place in filmmaking, but a 100 years from now it wont be the remakes that make an impression for film history. It will be the one of a kind masterpieces that mankind will remember. the audience knows what they want to see... it's my job as a filmmaker to surprise them.

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!

We have two separate opinions and I am stating mine. The audience only pays to see what gets press coverage or what they know will be good. An audience judges a book by its cover/trailer sadly. Why you may ask? because they don't want to waste money on a bad movie. Just because movies flop at the box office does not make it a bad movie it could be because they didn't get enough press coverage. Many academy award winning films flunked the box office, but audiences still enjoyed them after they discovered it won an award. Like I said before remakes have a place in Hollywood, but mostly that place is for profit. The Big six as many call it... runs as a business - they only distribute products (in this case films) that they know can bring in a profit. They're to scared to take a chance, but the innovators and leaders in filmmaking usually were the ones to take the road not taken. The ones to take chances and take leaps of faith. Sometimes taking a chance is what we need to open an audience to a whole new world of possibilities. I'm sure the Robo cop is a very creative awesome movie, but its sadly not a masterpiece. I, too will go and see this movie, but I know the money it makes in the box office is only the sign of an audience that is hungry for more. Hungry for something unique, but because Hollywood can't deliver, they have to settle for something they know won't be a disappointment. After all a Mona Lisa copy is nice to look at, but its never worth as much as an original masterpiece. I highly respect your opinion, but film is and always will be Art first and entertainment second. Think about all the artists it takes to make one film? Its amazing. I didn't come on this site to make enemies I came to make friends. One small disagreement should not make us think of each other as enemies, but rather two artists that have different takes on filmmaking. In filmmaking sometimes a disagreement can take the collaboration to a whole new level of creativity. I will shake your hand friend and respectfully disagree.

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.

Well I look at it this way. Artists have to create the film before it becomes valuable entertainment. You always keep your fans and audience in mind, but never loose the sight of your own likes and preferences. When you put your personality into a film it shows through so much more and people love that. I think our disagreement is just a play on words and our approach. But you shouldn't say you will never work with someone like me because chances are you might have to. A lot of executive producers are old directors that made it big... not just rich fat guys who own studios and stocks. A lot will put up money to have it produced... its just a matter of getting approved for theaters, and not all executive producers have that power, but rather the shareholders in the studios. The reason I put art first is so I don't loose track of the story and my own personal vision. If I kept thinking about if the audience will like it or not I will just get a huge headache. If I enjoy it and if I think at least a small portion of people will enjoy it that's all I need to have satisfaction for my film. I don't need huge box office numbers... I just need at least one fan, then I know I did my job.

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.

You said and I quote "If people don't enjoy it then I don't consider it art." Pablo Picasso was frowned upon in his time yet look at his work now? Picasso's work is worth huge amounts of money. If all you are only interested in is having a career with film that's not enough. Where's the passion? The drive? The artistic vision. Filmmaking is more than a career its an art and way of life for me. You once called me close minded yet you said and I quote " I still would not work with anyone with this kind of attitude." that's being close minded. Filmmaking is a collaboration not a one man band, and sometimes in life you have to work with people you don't like. Seems to me I'm not the one being close minded... I'm willing to work with anyone to get the job done as long as its to the director's vision. You on the other hand is not. If you think being artistic in a film is being mediocre then maybe you should have a talk with George Lucas, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola because all of them put art first. If you did research in the school known as "USC" which has some of the most highly acclaimed filmmaking graduates - The professors in this school make sure to instill a since of humbleness and understanding that not everyone will make it and you should put the art form first. They also instill its not about having a job, but doing something you love. Its the passion that's important not the money. You should possibly Revaluate your research my filmmaking Friend. Oh... btw If I had to work with you I would gladly do so. After all I will work with anyone willing to get the directors vision finished. I have a very open mind for working with all kinds of people. So as I said before I am not here to make enemies I am here to make friends, and if you want to continue to argue in a childish behavior its not my problem. This website is for filmmakers to support each other not tear each other down. Its one thing to have a disagreement... its another not to respect someone else's disagreement. I respect your disagreement my filmmaking friend, but I also disagree. Maybe you should revaluate why you are here. To tear people down, or help others rise up. I'm here to help others. Seems like you just want to have an argument. I like to act like I'm older then 5. I can disagree with someone and shake hands with them to go my separate ways. You just want to prove your opinion is right. Your attitude is telling me you cant shake someone's hand you disagree with, and I'm really sorry you're like that. I just hope that works out for you in a collaborative situation. :) ttyl my filmmaking friend. Wish the best for you Archie McIsaac.

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"

(quote) "If you can't enjoy your own art... what's the point in making it in the first place?" James Cameron and Walt Disney never had any form of film school nothing wrong with that. Glad you have an imagination hope you use it to the best of your abilities. Good luck.

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...