New RoboCop suit revealed

Ah I see. Yeah the IMDB board is to the brim with naysayers. "José Padilha isn't half the stylish director that Verhoeven is WTF OMFG LAWL!!!" If anything they should be glad the studio isn't trying to go for a carbon copy homage of the film. They already did that once with Psycho, and no one wanted that to happen again.

I just showed the trailer to my ten year old (who, when you think about it, is almost old enough to BE the target audience for this movie...which makes me feel very, very old. Haha). He's never seen the original but he knows that it's one of my all time favorites. He shrugged and said "It looks OK, but they're kinda ripping off Iron Man."

Fat Freddy wrote:

I just showed the trailer to my ten year old (who, when you think about it, is almost old enough to BE the target audience for this movie...which makes me feel very, very old. Haha). He's never seen the original but he knows that it's one of my all time favorites. He shrugged and said "It looks OK, but they're kinda ripping off Iron Man."

This illustrates an unspoken point, though. The director for Robocop is a newcomer. With the Spiderman reboot it was Marc Webb, which was an odd choice since he was known only for 500 Days of Summer. With The Thing remake it was a newcomer. Total Recall was helmed by Len Wiseman, who's only movies beforehand was the Underworld series--the transition made sense but he hadn't done much of anything else. Most of these remakes happen to have unknown rookie directors. Not all, but most.

Yes, Paul Verhoeven wasn't a force to be reckoned with in 1987, but Flesh + Blood and The Fourth Man was already trending the cults at the time, and all eyes were on him. Not that this is my point, however.

Verhoeven had a distinct style that ran iconoclast to the standard formula of movie-making (especially in the violence department). Same with Cronenberg, Zemeckis (for a while, at least), Spielberg, Joe Dante, John Carpenter, James Cameron and so forth. That doesn't seem to be the case today.

Most newer filmmakers of big budget blockbusters tend to play it by the numbers when it comes to craft. Camera moves are pulled out of a hat and used excessively (RIP Static Shots). Soundtrack placement is constant, loud, and cued randomly. Tension is rarely mounted in unconventional methods. Dialogue is delivered with a 3/4 close-up (and not delivered very much these days). Of course, we still get the standard schlocky red herrings in the horror movies. All this to say that the director's job seems to have gotten lost to pre-packaging. Could we blame the studios? Maybe, but there's always been interference and pressure from that direction. Have directors gotten lazy? Did they not inherit the same unorthodox creativity that the veterans set into motion? There are some seasoned directors, such as Favreau and Nolan who tend to take a less common route, but still if you think about Nolan his only true stamp of originality is the gritty realism he frames the story in (Favreu likes to start of strong and then explode into comic book madness). And of course one could argue that directors do well in staging their actors, but the field is overflowing with superb talent these days. I suppose I'm thinking mostly in aesthetics.

Point being, you'd think these newcomers would have a special style or original angle (McG does not count; all he did was come in faster and louder than the others--as distinct a style as that may be, to call it effort is debatable at best). Most seem to come from the school of Bruckheimer and Bay. You'd think they would grapple with their projects with more grace.

Long post, I know, but Keith struck a nerve lol. Really wanting to know what you guys think about this, because I've never thought about it before (and I don't know why).

The newcomers probably have a special style, but they're puppets. Ever heard Kevin Smith talk about when he was working on the screenplay to one of the Batman films?

Take a look at any $100 million+ budget film and count the number of producers listed in the credits, don't be surprised when that number gets close to a dozen. The director answers to ALL of them.

Joss Whedon said when he signed onto The Avengers one of the first things he was given was a bullet point list of plot elements, scenes, conflicts and action sequences the producers wanted in the film. Whedon said his job was to write the script around those elements, incorporating all of them in a logical way. He was given free reign over the dialogue which is what he enjoys the most anyway.

And Whedon isn't just a director, he's under contract as the creative consultant for Marvel through the end of 2015. Even with that title he was not free to write just any script for The Avengers, he had to follow the wishes of the producers.

Another element that I think you're missing comparing the current crop of young directors to those of the late 70s and 80s is the rise of CGI. Many films these days have large sections where all that is really produced in front of the camera are some actors on a sound stage surrounded by green walls...because everything else will be added in post production. There are only so many options for camera setups in that type of environment. So much of what gets produced on the sound stage has to be approved by the animators, the director can be fairly hamstrung creatively trying to service the needs of the technology.

Jesus! In what wacky universe is Verhoeven a stylish director?

Starship Troopers and Robocop were ham fisted efforts considering the potential of the scripts, and have we forgotten Showgirls?

This is a good example of what is actually shot on the soundstage by the director vs. what it looks like after post-production has added in the other elements.

S.D. wrote:

Another element that I think you're missing comparing the current crop of young directors to those of the late 70s and 80s is the rise of CGI.  Many films these days have large sections where all that is really produced in front of the camera are some actors on a sound stage surrounded by green walls...because everything else will be added in post production.  There are only so many options for camera setups in that type of environment.  So much of what gets produced on the sound stage has to be approved by the animators, the director can be fairly hamstrung creatively trying to service the needs of the technology.  

Interesting thing about The Avengers is when you take out the dialogue and character interactions you don't have something really resembling a Whedon film. Just like with Serenity; the film may be technically solid but is remembered more for strong characters.

Anyway, yes that is a very vital element. I've always believed that CGI is more a limiter than an enhancer in many ways, not the least which is in scene composition.

Boris2008 wrote:

Jesus! In what wacky universe is Verhoeven a stylish director?

Starship Troopers and Robocop were ham fisted efforts considering the potential of the scripts, and have we forgotten Showgirls?

Stylish isn't a good word, but Verhoeven has a hyper-realistic (and sometimes hyper-violent) style that he employs with a heavy hand. It's not an elegant style, but it's a unique style nonetheless. Also it's all hammy but purposefully, and he even augments everything with biting satire and social commentary. Kind of like George Romero.

In other words, he's not just a flat b-movie director. Okay, Showgirls is an exception.

Eyesore wrote:

The newcomers probably have a special style, but they're puppets. Ever heard Kevin Smith talk about when he was working on the screenplay to one of the Batman films?

Good point, and SD is right about the number of producers, but I think we're al seeing a greater power in the producer's hands. Richard Donner's Superman had, what, fourteen screenwriters and twenty-two producers? Obviously I'm exaggerating, but the point is even then you could look at that film and recognize the same kind of flourishes that Donner exercised in The Omen...and Donner was a pretty straight-forward creator. The "new guys," I'll call them, usually carry impressive visual FX resumes but that's about all. Sometimes I wonder if they're being hired because the producers can see they are puppets, in a sense. No clout, no leverage, no bargaining chip. They've been answering to directors all along, now they gotta listen to us. Of course, at this point I'm also including more than just remakes.

I have to be honest, if I was stumping up 100 million bucks, I'd want a say in how it was spent too!!  

But maybe that's why movies should not cost $100,000,000

It would be awesome if one day there was a revolution, and every American director stood up and said no to the studios, so if one was fired over creative differences, the next one would face the same possibility without fear.

Of course, everyone would be out of a job and development hell would be perpetual.

With all this and Ben Affleck announced as the next Batman, it must be a sign of the Apocalypse.

Boris2008 wrote:

But maybe that's why movies should not cost $100,000,000

The average for a summer blockbuster is close to $190 million now.

You figure with a film like Iron Man III you have serious upfront costs like paying Robert Downey Jr.'s salary...and then paying him again because he has a 7% profit share in the gross. (He pocketed over $50 million for The Avengers) and all the other actors, director, crew, etc. But the majority of the budget goes to post-production and CGI. It is not uncommon for these movies to use as many as 20 different visual effects houses to complete the film, employing an army of thousands of animators. Take a look at the end credits for a movie these days, it literally takes 10 minutes to get past all the technical credits.

Iron Man III cost around $200 million to produce...but it made 1.2 billion at the global box office. A damn sound investment when it works.

When it doesn't work...Lone Ranger, Disney writes off around $190 million.

S.D. wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

But maybe that's why movies should not cost $100,000,000

The average for a summer blockbuster is close to $190 million now.

You figure with a film like Iron Man III you have serious upfront costs like paying Robert Downey Jr.'s salary...and then paying him again because he has a 7% profit share in the gross.  (He pocketed over $50 million for The Avengers) and all the other actors, director, crew, etc.  But the majority of the budget goes to post-production and CGI.  It is not uncommon for these movies to use as many as 20 different visual effects houses to complete the film, employing an army of thousands of animators.  Take a look at the end credits for a movie these days, it literally takes 10 minutes to get past all the technical credits.  

Iron Man III cost around $200 million to produce...but it made 1.2 billion at the global box office.  A damn sound investment when it works.

When it doesn't work...Lone Ranger, Disney writes off around $190 million.  

In regards to FX, I've always wondered if CG really is all that cost-effective. Once upon a time it was one or two VFX houses and a quarter of the time, right? And IMO more convincing.

Quote :

Verhoeven has a hyper-realistic (and sometimes hyper-violent) style that he employs with a heavy hand.

That's what makes his stuff so awesome. Whatever genre he's doing, he goes balls-to-the-wall. If it's an action flick ("Robocop") it's gonna be the most ridiculously violent over the top action flick ever. If he does an erotic thriller ("Basic Instinct,") it's gonna be borderline porno.

He might not always be successful ("Showgirls" anyone?) but even his failures are fun to watch!

Showgirls was hilarious because all of the erotic content was completely un-erotic and just funny, like the pool scene. I never thought two girls kissing could be so...groan-inducing. And not that type of groan lol.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't hold the original RoboCop in such high esteem to begin with (Sorry, Freddy). They can do whatever the hell they want with this franchise.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't hold the original RoboCop in such high esteem to begin with (Sorry, Freddy).

No biggie. I realize that it's kind of a random movie for someone to pick as their "all time favorite" but I just fell in love with the whole concept when I first saw it back in the day. It had everything I liked it about movies in it...dystopian sci-fi vibe, dark-as-hell black comedy, over the top violence, cool FX....it was like they'd made the movie especially for me!! Haha.

Fat Freddy wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't hold the original RoboCop in such high esteem to begin with (Sorry, Freddy).

:lmao:No biggie. I realize that it's kind of a random movie for someone to pick as their "all time favorite" but I just fell in love with the whole concept when I first saw it back in the day. It had everything I liked it about movies in it...dystopian sci-fi vibe, dark-as-hell black comedy, over the top violence, cool FX....it was like they'd made the movie especially for me!! Haha.

Oh I liked it well enough to watch it a few times over, no objections there. But I don't know that it would crack "MetalGuy's Top 100 Greatest Movies Ever List", if such a list existed. Not enough dick and fart jokes.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't hold the original RoboCop in such high esteem to begin with (Sorry, Freddy).

:lmao:No biggie. I realize that it's kind of a random movie for someone to pick as their "all time favorite" but I just fell in love with the whole concept when I first saw it back in the day. It had everything I liked it about movies in it...dystopian sci-fi vibe, dark-as-hell black comedy, over the top violence, cool FX....it was like they'd made the movie especially for me!! Haha.

Oh I liked it well enough to watch it a few times over, no objections there. But I don't know that it would crack "MetalGuy's Top 100 Greatest Movies Ever List", if such a list existed. Not enough dick and fart jokes.

Definitely on mine because of all the exploding jugular and mutant men and guy getting shot up for what seems like a good portion of the running time and turns into bloody, incoherent Swiss cheese jokes.  

I will say Robocop is Verhoeven's finest hour. I'm hoping for an uncut version of Total Recall to see the light of day, but even then that movie suffered some awkward moments (and really bad science).

Who knows, it still might be good....but of course as others have mentioned there is the looming threat of too many cooks in the kitchen. Another great example of what happens when a newer director plus many other chefs takes on a project like that... "Alien 3".

corplhicks wrote:

I'm hoping for an uncut version of Total Recall to see the light of day, but even then that movie suffered some awkward moments (and really bad science).

Still better than that crappy remake.  

DallasBlack wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

I'm hoping for an uncut version of Total Recall to see the light of day, but even then that movie suffered some awkward moments (and really bad science).

Still better than that crappy remake.  

I own the remake on blu-ray and haven't even touched it. I think I'm gonna spin it tomorrow just to get it over with lol.

The primary issue with the Total Recall remake is there are no actual characters...just caricatures. I watched it, but honestly it was so forgettable that I barely remember a thing about it. That usually happens when there are no characters to identify with.