It is a single picture from a film that is likely to exceed 2 hours. That might not be "Robocop" as we expect; it could be before Murphy was murdered...that could just be a normal Detroit cop in his "futuristic" cop gear.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will be anywhere near the original, but casting doubts on the film from a single picture is a little silly
LawL wrote:In before GONNAGRILLYA rages with hatred about this remake then watches it at the first opportunity.
lol no...this is a franchise I never cared for and the remakes will never stop so long as morons keep paying to see it, so I don't care if they ruin it or any of the other 50 remakes in production right now. Why fight against an endless tide of stupidity?
But you can go ahead and keep defending creative stagnation.
I'll say it. Looks cooler to me. I hate older movies and don't have any sentiment towards the ones I do like. Remaking the movie doesn't delete the original from existence or erase my memories.
LawL wrote:In before GONNAGRILLYA rages with hatred about this remake then watches it at the first opportunity.
lol no...this is a franchise I never cared for and the remakes will never stop so long as morons keep paying to see it, so I don't care if they ruin it or any of the other 50 remakes in production right now. Why fight against an endless tide of stupidity?
But you can go ahead and keep defending creative stagnation.
I don't see anything to defend. Remakes comprise about .000001% of Hollywood films made, that doesn't indicate creative stagnation as far as I'm concerned.
shaft wrote:Because remakes account for such a HUUUUUUUUGE percentage of Hollywood.
You'd probably have a tough time finding high-budget films that aren't book or comic adaptations, or in some way retellings of a story already laid down. That's essentially the same as a remake of a film.
it's a good business model to be honest.. the only way to make sure the millions you're gonna dump in it, will atleast have a solid base in a tried and proven product.