Promo video for the reboot of Robocop. No scenes from the movie, but it does feature interviews with some of the cast and crew, as well as stills from the movie and concept art. It looks as if they're just going to be doing a simple remake, without a lot of mucking about with the original story. Not sure if that's a good thing or not.
Probably the usual PG13 crap, like all remakes lately. Films like TOTAL RECALL (2012) really reveal their weak, leaky stories when you take away the relentless physical action and replace it with sterile large scale CGI.
So, who is this guy playing Robocop? He's been in two films I've seen (both of which I've more than once, actually) and he made almost no impression. Couldn't they have found, y'know, an established actor for this role?
I didn't know this until recently, but that's a reference to the old SF story The Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth. The premise of the story is essentially that of the movie Idiocracy, where a man from the present wakes up centuries in the future and discovers that humanity has gotten dumber. His solution to the problem is a little more "final" than the one in Idiocracy, however.
Peter Weller, I don't think, was all that established when he was cast as the original Robo, and he did OK. Also, the role isn't really the most demanding of an actor. Murphy's life as Murphy is a very short part and then he's basically a robot for half the film with glimmers of humanity trying to break through. I am curious if they are going to have Robocop be the big clunky and slow type robot or if he will be more streamlined and human in his movements. Incidentally, I kind of want Peter Weller to have not just a cameo but to play either the Old Man or Dick Jones if they can get him.
Why does everything need an established actor? Peter Weller was hardly a big movie star when he took on Robocop. Christopher Reeve is Superman?
Actually, Weller had around a dozen feature films--not the least of which is the cult classic Buckaroo Banzai--under his belt when he became Robocop. I think you underestimate acting. Portraying "humanity breaking through" is not an easy task for an actor. Why risk rebooting a well-regarded franchise with an unknown? Weller wasn't (and never became) an A-lister, but he was hardly unknown when he made RoboCop. Superman's a different case. The physical requirements for the role (square jaw, 6'2" or taller, athletic, muscular, etc.) are so particular that casting an unknown is almost inevitable.
A known quantity? Hey, I may be completely wrong. Maybe this guy in RoboCop's going to be really good. But, like I said: I've seen him in his two highest profile performances to date and they didn't really leave any kind of mark on me.
What were they thinking with the suit? It looks like Batman got ahold of Judge Dredd's helmet and repainted it.
Dredd was the inspiration for the original Robocop suit so that would be full circle. Anyway, why waste somebody who'll want ten million dollars under that mask. It's really not a role you absolutely need a superstar for. The name RoboCop will get enough butts in cinema seats and sell enough DVDs even though it will most definitely suck. The problem with remakes is that their writers often don't understand what the original was about. Especially in films by Paul Verhoeven, satire flows in very liberal quantities, which was completely ignored by the makers of TOTAL RECALL (2012). I fear the day STARSHIP TROOPERS gets the remake treatment... because, you know, it's 15 years old so it's time for more CGI...
What I mean by "established" is a household name. Of Weller's credits before Robocop, I doubt the average person would have heard of any of them beyond "Buckaroo Banzai." And the average person would not have heard of that. By contrast, the actor playing Robo 2.0 is not particularly famous either. But his role in "The Killing" was described as one of the few things about that show that didn't suck, if memory serves. He played an emotionally damaged cop, so that at least gives him some precedence for what he might do in Robo 2.0. Never said it was. But I would also say that there's a limit to how successful one needs to be at that aspect, in the context of RoboCop. Was Peter Weller's performance groundbreaking, Academy-Award worthy in the way he conveyed that RoboCop was really Murphy underneath all the metal and in the face of all the killing? Not really. I personally don't really expect or want a more sophisticated performance out of Robo 2.0 on this point. It is, after all, a popcorn action movie that has some social satire, but doesn't aim particularly high in the acting arena. In fact, I'm encouraged by the supporting cast, who do have to be more than the lead (again, assuming it's the same sort of stuff as Robo 1.0): Gary Oldman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael Keaton are all pretty darn good actors and usually are fun to watch.
Some random thoughts: 1) You might as well remake "Predator" or "The Wizard of Oz". "Robocop" is about perfect and there's really nothing you can do to improve on it. 2) I remember, when the first film came out, Weller talking about the acting that was involved in wearing that suit. There was some old film (Russian, I think) where character had really exaggerated movements that Weller studied to convey the artificiality of Robocop. He put a lot of thought into how the cyborg would move and look. 3) From what I understand, Verhoeven felt that a lot of the satire and commentary was misunderstood in "Robocop." I gather that he is a very liberal person and he was commenting on capitalism and fascism and such things that American audiences took differently--I don't think we were as appalled by OCP or some of the other things. I'm told he tried to address that in "Starship Troopers" by laying it on even more heavily. And I feel that "Starship Troopers" is a weaker film for it (not that it wasn't terrible in its own right). That said, however one feels about Verhoeven's political views and using film to advance them, I bet the current director won't put any thought into that all one way or another and the whole thing will suffer as a result.
Let's say for the sake of argument it was. Could you see The Academy giving even a nod to a flick called "Robocop"? An academy that's been largely overlooking sci-fi ever since fucking "King-Kong"? I mean, you do realize, if LOTR hadn't hung on for three films, it would have gotten nothing? Sorry, Oscars is a weak argument to throw out there.
You ain't gotta be a commie to see corporations can get out of hand with their greed, and power grabs. Even you righties acknowledge the wickedness of bailout banks, and Enron, and that some of the "security contractors", were scum. Been some spooky shit the past decade, that makes "Robocop", prophetic.
I fear what may have been satirical 20 years ago is slowly becoming the norm. And I agree: I don't see much point in remaking this film. The original holds up just fine. So the dates are anachronistic...so what?
You fellas are forgetting that Hollywood's addiction to remakes and reboots isn't even sort of driven by artistic perfectionism. It's the almighty dollar. Why isn't there a reboot of the Fibber McGee and Molly franchise? Or The Six Shooter? No fanbase to serve as a guaranteed return on the studios' investment in producing a reboot. They learned their lessons from trying it with The Shadow and The Saint -- reboots don't work unless there's still at least a residual fanbase out there to stir up the hype for. But back on target... yeah. Reboots are all about a guaranteed return on production costs and maybe relaunching a dead franchise to milk it some more. It's California's answer to voodoo.
Uh, The Wizard of Oz has[/i] been remade. For what it's worth, I actually kind of liked Pushing Tin, though it wasn't particularly memorable. There's also a new movie coming out that centers on the title wizard making his initial journey to Oz.
I realize that even if reincarnated Marlon Brando/Laurence Olivier/whoever you want to say is the greatest actor ever were to play Robo, it would not translate into an actual Oscar (unless, perhaps, he were to immediately drop dead after filming the role a la Heath Ledger or some other really narrow circumstances). My point was more that as long as there is basically competent acting by the lead in playing Robo, I at least (and I would think most fans) would be satisfied. There is a point beyond which for a film like RoboCop, a nuanced and sophisticated performance for the lead is not necessary. Peter Weller was fine as Robo but there really were only a few moments in the original that required anything of him as an actor that I think a random person off the street couldn't pull off.
Based on the just released trailer, I'm going to say I was wrong about this. [YT="See if you can spot Michael Keaton in the trailer."]jBeSfnIT_Bw[/YT] Nothing that overtly screams, "This is gonna suck!", IMHO.
Hmmm. Earlier, I got a quick look at the trailer--without sound--and thought the film was a flashy remake without much substance. Re-watching it now with sound, it seems like there may actually be a message.
Yep. Looks like something worth checking out. I hold the original RoboCop close to my heart, but there's no reason why this can't be damn good.
