Zero interest. If they make the same movie, then why should I bother. If they make it different enough for it to be intriguing, then why use the same name? To paraphrase Egon Krentz, “Film is dead.”
“If they make it different enough for it to be intriguing, then why use the same name?” Do I really need to answer that? Movies are like any other product- they sell better if you attach a familiar brand name to them. Many of the sequels & prequels we’ve been seeing lately started out as original scripts, but rather than take a chance on them, the studios tweaked them just enough to make them part of an existing franchise. It happens all the time.
It actually looks like they might have updated the story a bit. I’ll be interested to find it if they kept it set in Detroit or if they decided that that was too on the nose.
Brett, I think I’ll try to offer an exception that may help prove your rule. The Coen brothers remake of True Grit really blew my socks off (seriously, it took like two weeks to find both of them), and it just doesn’t seem right for them to have changed the title.
And my childish made-up quote-o-the-day — Film: “Krentz is dead.”
Pubicus, I think that’s a good example of the very few times “re-makes” are done rightly. You’re right; since the Coens were using the Portis novel there was no real reason to change the movie title. They had an advantage in that the first movie made from the book was changed enough that they could truly create a different version from the same source. Sure, for Robocop, all we’ve got so far is a trailer, but I’ve yet to feel like this is something I’d want to spend money on.
Great points, and a very good article – thanks for sharing!
Well, they missed the whole point of the first RoboCop…
While I won’t call the first one a classic–it hasn’t aged particularly well–the underlying premise was the man trapped inside of a machine, and the central drama came from the question of whether or not he was still human. In reclaiming his humanity, it serves as a metaphor for the individual reclaiming their identity from the corporate machine, or the culture of consumerism, or the military-industrial complex, or take your pick. You aren’t supposed to see much of his face, or strong emotion, or to immediately think of him as human, hence Peter Weller’s understated performance. In that regard, it was “smart.” This new one is just a generic action movie.
Points well taken, DM, but I’m just happy to see Michael Keaton in anything where he’s not playing a generic dad. So, obviously, I’ll see this one for a dollar + twelve or thirteen.
The first one also had unexpected humor….it seems at least superficially this once is playing it straight.
Samuel L. Jackson is no Ronny Cox.
Seriously. And whenever I see a bald actor in a wig that bad, it’s a bad sign.
This actually reminds me of “Dredd” a lot. Kinda liked the new Dredd, btw. If you can get past the slow-mo bullet hits, it’s pretty good.