Who could be so stupid to remake a masterpiece? - RoboCop (2014) Discussion

What masterpiece are you talking about? Sure isnt the flawed as hell original. Nostalgia has blinded you.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

What the fuck are you talking about? What hellish flaws do you see in Robocop? Poor judgement has blinded you.

reply

Shouldn’t you be shaving your neckbeard before mommy gets home? Put down the transformers and find a job that isn’t the video game store...

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He's got you there, hummusboy. Don't be such an easy prey and skip the classics.

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

Hi, I’d like one copy of a good movie? Something thought provoking, artistic, meaningful, groundbreaking, original...

...uh, I don’t want Robocop. I was thinking more along the lines of Andrei Tarkovsky?

Oh, all you got in your “alltime classics / flawless masterpieces” collection is campy 80’s nostalgia fests? Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Batman 89, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Even with all this, no Tremors?...

...you have a nice day.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Andrei Tarkovsky is not a movie but was a director. A pretty famous one, too. Enjoy finding out stuff and have a nice day, too

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

That’s clearly not what I meant, but I won’t be harsh on you. After all, you think Robocop is a flawless masterpiece, so you clearly have some challenges.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2123) 3 years ago

Seriously, answer the question. What flaws did you find in the original?

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

It’s a cheesy B movie about a robot man shooting bad guys. You nerds hold it like it’s some revolutionary arthouse film because you liked it when you were 12-years-old. If it is so hard to find flaws in fucking Robocop (seriously, the lamest name for a movie ever), I’d love to see your take on Andrei Rublev, Fitzcarraldo, The Leopard, Kagemusha, L’Enfant, Stalker, Eyes Wide Shut, etc.

It’s a solid 6/10. Not a terrible film, but Wellers is a mediocre actor, the characters aren’t very interesting, the satire is more flashy than it is meaningful, and the effects have mostly aged very poorly. How is this impossible to see?

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

EYES WIDE SHUT IS PRETENTIOUS GARBAGE.

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

Can’t be any worse than your capslock.

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

MY CAPSLOCK IS GREAT...HASN'T FAILED ME YET.😎

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

Yeah, because your english teachers did.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You're crass and unobservant. Seems that won't change soon.

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

All this pent up anger because I find some crappy 80’s film to not be my cup of tea. I’d say log off and hang out with your friends but you clearly don’t have any.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2123) 3 years ago

What's with your anger? You can hold a different opinion than someone else without sounding like a pretentious, elitist snob. It is possible. I was rather interested in your opinion as to why you didn't think the original was a classic, but your condescending post makes you lose all credibility. You may want to work on that.

reply

[–] Hummusboy1 (473) 3 years ago

And you may want to work on not being a virgin who still obsesses over crappy meathead pop culture action flicks from the 80’s. Your post came off as very aggressive and pushy. “No, seriously, answer the question” as if this is a courtroom or something.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2123) 3 years ago

SMH

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

IT IS TRUE..COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL THIS FILM IS EASILY THE LESSER...TAKEN ON IT'S OWN MERITS THOUGH...IT'S A PRETTY TIGHT ACTION FLICK THAT TACKLES THE FAMILY ANGLE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL DID.

reply

[–] Anotherday (7199) 3 years ago

I'm not a fan, but I liked the ED 209 update.

Did it drag for you in a few scenes? That's my experience.

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

SOME DRAG BETWEEN SCENES...YEAH,THATS FAIR.

reply

[–] Anotherday (7199) 3 years ago

On a bright note, I like Joe Kinnaman. It's hard to follow in Peter Weller's shoes. He certainly wasn't an issue.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

Why do some people always assume the purpose of a remake is to improve on the original, like there was something wrong with it?

Films are remade because studios own the property and can do what they want with it. It has nothing to do with what the public want or don't want.

Remaking a movie after some 20 years can take advantage of new technology, changes in social attitudes etc. Setting it in modern day with the same basic premise can work.

I don't believe it's better or maybe even as good as the original, but in its own right it's a good movie.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

OK so if REmaking a movie means that you don't want to improve over it, but you just want to shoot it again, why would anybody want to watch this new unimproved version and give you money for it?

I've seen this done only once, ever, for Psycho, and that was ALSO a retarded idea.

But then you contradict this nonesense by implicitly admitting instead that the new technology/setting could potentially improve it.
Which, like this turd demonstrates, is a bad idea when the original worked so well.

Like I said in my OP, no need to remake it, no way to improve it.

reply

[–] Abed303 (282) 3 years ago

So do you look at every remake of every movie and reduce any changes to improved/unimproved? If in the end there are more "improvements" its OK to remake, otherwise it's trash?

Things can just be... different. Just because a movie is a remake doesn't mean it's competing for supremacy of the IP. A movie isn't made to compete with its source material, even if that's another movie. Many remakes have been my "gateway movies" into the originals that inspired them.

Given enough time, every single movie in existence will be fair game for a remake.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 3 years ago

Why do people still go see Shakespeare plays or revivals of other plays? Because they enjoy one adaptation and want to see someone else's take on the material they enjoy. It may be better, it may be worse, but it's something familiar and for many that's enough.

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

THAT^...A MILLION TIME THAT....WELL SAID.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

Let's throw something else into the mix shall we...there are millions of people who never saw the original and are not aware of it. They were too young.

Like most remakes, this is primarily aimed at that new generation.

Now a lot of people will say but the youth of today need to educate themselves and watch the original. Frankly, it's not something you can force anyone to do. And it's also quite possible they would find the original old fashioned, and think the effects are dated.

Remakes are not aimed at fans of the original. They are not going to watch a remake in droves, the filmmakers and studios need to tap into today's cinemagoing youth, because that's where the money is.

People like you need to stop treating such movies like one of your own children, and being fiercely protective of them, and then becoming angry when someone dares to make a new version.

If you are that bothered by it, then ignore it and don't watch it.

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

I LIKE YOUR REPLY TOO...A LOT OF WELL STATED,RATIONAL OPINIONS ON THIS THREAD...I AM SHOCKED.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

People like you have never heard the secret "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".
I bet you would still be reasoning and justifying Babe Ruth's trade. I'm sure there are LOTS of good reasons for bad decisions, but, as you can see with this total fucking turd of a movie, results are all that matters: this is shit, Robocop is awesome, remaking a still ruling classic leads to bad movies like this abortion.

Not only that, but in the rare case when a remake is a decent film, comparisons are inevitable, and since the previous one is a classic, it's always a hindrance. That's why there should be at least a logic behind a remake, like "the original is very old or dated" or "we have something to add to it to improve it". Clear?

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

Nope, you are still fixated on the notion that the point of a remake is to improve on the original. Its not.

In fact such decisions are largely financial, if studios can see a way to make money on a new version, they will make it. Nothing you can do about it. Like I said, they own the property.

I really don't get your anger...just ignore the remake. Stick to the original.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

I appreciate your well thought responses and your open mindedness to even the turdiest remake. Seriously, it's commendable.

But I'm not fixating on remakes only to improve upon the original. They can also add something different, or reinterpret them. They have to do something, they cannot be just an exact copy, to justify their existance.

This crapfest adds a lot in many directions, as anybody can see. They clearly thought "we can do this and that to make it BETTER". I doubt they were deliberately trying to make it worse. Yet, that is the final result.

It is obvious that the ultimate decision is a financial one for crap like this. It's a money grab, clearly a "Robocop is a classic but we have digital fx now, let's remake it and get rich". But some true inspiration and a degree of good ideas SHOULD be behind coughing up millions, making such a huge production effort and expecting people to give you their hard earned money to see something that they cannot already see in their perfectly good copy of the original. Otherwise, especially if your goal is a financial one, you're gonna be disappointed. N'est-ce pas?

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

NO MOVIES ARE MADE WITH MONEY NOT IN MIND...I ALSO KNOW THAT ANYBODY WHO CAN HOLD THEIR FEELINGS FOR THE ORIGINAL AT BAY FIND THE REMAKE TO BE A DECENT SCI FI ACTIONER...NOT GREAT BUT ENTERTAINING.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

Ultimately both of our views on the movie are merely opinions, they are not fact. You hated it, I thought it was OK.

I also disagree that they thought they could do better...how do you know this? You don't, again it's only your opinion.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

I doubt you can call it an opinion. You want to tell me that they added all this unsuccessful shit purposefully thinking "hey, let's make it worse!"?

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

It is an opinion, both yours and mine. Neither of which have any validity outside of our own perceptions.

As for making it worse, again that's only your opinion.

My opinion is that they didn't make it better, but neither did they make it worse.

You need to stop dealing in these absolutes dude, some people like this movie and some don't. There is nothing set in stone that defines it as bad outside of personal opinions.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

I am sure that a piece of horse shit can be great tasting to someone.

Also I am sure that it absolutely tastes like horse shit, no matter how hard this shit loving fella wants to convince me that it is only a subjective matter.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

There is a glimmer of hope here, solely because you used the word subjective...but ultimately it seems that you are hell bent on defining the remake as shit and not willing to accept that others may disagree with you.

And sadly you now feel it necessary to resort to personal insults...a sure sign that not only have you lost credibility, but also any semblance of an argument you might have had.

Why is it so hard to accept that not everyone shares your opinion.

It's not like I am championing or supporting tge remake anyway, I clearly said I thought it was OK, but not as good as the original.

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

DECENT SCI FI ACTION FLICK...NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME LEAGUE AS THE ORIGINAL BUT STILL ENJOYABLE IN ITS OWN WAY....I AGREE.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

1 what personal insult?
2 YOU are hell bent on making others (me) accept your opinion, that this shit is not shit.
3 So, this turd takes a classic, uses lots of its original recipe, adds stupid elements here and there ruining itself and the original recipe, but you want others to accept it as ok?
Only those original bits are ok, but just take away the good stuff it stole, you are left with the essential mix to turn chocolate into shit.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

1. Shit loving fella?

2. I am not asking anyone to accept my opinion, merely that people have differing opinions. You seem hell bent on wanting me to agree that the remake is shit. Not going to happen.

3. Now you're just repeating yourself.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

1 I was talking in general
2 you have already asked me 10 times to accept YOUR opinion, which is "people have different opinions, it is ok if they like shit, and the very fact that they like it makes it not shit".
3 I am replying to your question, explaining why your opinion is wrong. Imagine that, opinions CAN be wrong!

reply

[–] Kowalski (59486) 3 years ago

IT BEING SHIT TO BEGIN WITH IS YOUR OPINION THOUGH...AN OPINION THAT YOU CAN'T SEE PAST,WHICH MAKES IT USELESS.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

Simple facts: if it smells like shit, it tastes like shit, it looks like shit, than it IS shit.
NOT an opinion.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1565) 3 years ago

You don't get it...YOU think it smells, tastes and looks like shit. Therefore that's an opinion. Your opinion.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

I am quite sure that this discussion is not moving forward, since your preposterous stance is to transform facts into opinions and then refusing to debate such facts because you see them as opinions.

With such a cynical and obtuse approach you could make right Hitler and virtuous the lowliest crack whore. But the cherry on top is posting on a movie chatting site about the undebateability of art, since YOU believe that any shitlover's opinion is important and justifiable and not criticizable.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

Never bothered to watch it since it looks fucking shit.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

I know, I went in against my best judgement, I got my comeuppance.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (943) 3 years ago

"Who could be so stupid to remake a masterpiece?"

Hollywood. Plain and simple.

What the logic? It's a recognizable movie from the 1980s. Therefore, they expected guaranteed audience as opposed to actually creating something original. It's laziness and greed, a lethal combination.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6367) 3 years ago

Ok, that makes sense. The result of such logic is this abortion on celluloid.

reply

[–] Anotherday (7199) 3 years ago

I tend to look at movies like this:

Movies used to be films.

Now they're closer to products produced in a factory.

reply