And the problem is that today, a "Hard R" doesn't sell.
Why is that?
Surely adults want more heavy cinematic issues displayed on screen without restriction. So the market is there and they have more money than the kids to spend, who likely get it from their parents or part-time jobs - though the answer may lay in the willingness to spend. It just seems odd that there aren't more avaliable today.
It's not that it doesn't sell. (the hard R/18)
It's just that the largest cinema going demographic fits into the under 16 category. So studios don't make their money on bigger budget productions in 15+ categories so have to go for the lowest rating possible with a 'happy medium'.
But they are wrong to do so in this case. The original story is a brutal one and should remain so.
Surely adults want more heavy cinematic issues displayed on screen without restriction. So the market is there and they have more money than the kids to spend, who likely get it from their parents or part-time jobs - though the answer may lay in the willingness to spend. It just seems odd that there aren't more avaliable today.
Look at all the people in this thread whinging and moaning and saying they'll wait for Sky to see this. Apparently this is made for teens as is everything these days. So it's teens spending money at the cinemas these days. Why make a movie for adults when they can't be bothered to get off their asses and pay to watch it? They just wait for Sky to show it or for it to end up in a bargain bin. They don't deserve films made for them.
Because the cinema audience in 2013 is biased. It is predimantly two segments - teenagers and dates. A teenager CANT see an 18 and requires an adult to see an R. And today it is enforced wheres 20 years ago it wasnt.
The date crowd doesn't want to see a lot of Hard R violence, you don't get your hole seeing a bullet make a hole.
Surely adults want more heavy cinematic issues displayed on screen without restriction. So the market is there and they have more money than the kids to spend, who likely get it from their parents or part-time jobs - though the answer may lay in the willingness to spend. It just seems odd that there aren't more avaliable today.
Its likely related to enforcement, I saw Total Recall (1990) when I was underage no-one asked me or the friends I was with. Today I don't think the same applies.
And adults very much DON'T make up the cinema audience, they watch movies at home.
And WORSE fanbois don't pay for movies AT ALL they download torrents and watch those. That's probably the biggest hit for the Hard R, you get the demand for it all over the internet, you make it, you put it out there and the people who asked for it watch it for free.
This is the nub of the problem, PG-13/12A sells, Hard R/18 doesnt. It's a very defined problem with the movie classification industry. It probably SHOULD be changed because, for example, Verhoeven's Robocop is a very anti-violence film. Its a film that should be part of school curricula.
Of course on the other hand, verhoeven's Starship Troopers is a very violent film but its violent for laughs, this makes it harder for the argument that cinema ratings for violence are broken. Even if the entire film was cartoon violence.
edit - btw just realised i was 18 when Total Recall (1990) came out but three of the five friends I was with weren't).
Robocop looks better in the grey/metallic suit. Did in the original, did in the trailer for this one.
But the thing that made Robocop such a good film was ultimately a revenge film, one of the best examples of one. And its starting point came from such a brutal murder, at the hands of some of the most vile villains ever, especially Clarence Boedecker.
So Alex Murphy doesn't even die in the new one. It didn't have to be as brutal and graphic as the original, but it should have happened. What a PG-13 cop out.
Surely adults want more heavy cinematic issues displayed on screen without restriction. So the market is there and they have more money than the kids to spend, who likely get it from their parents or part-time jobs - though the answer may lay in the willingness to spend. It just seems odd that there aren't more avaliable today.
Plenty of R rated films are being released, but outside of comedy, the market isn't there, According to Box Office Mojo 49.6% of films released in 2012 were rated R, but they accounted for only 27.2% of gross. Whereas 32.6% of 2012 films were rated PG-13 but they accounted for 51.6% of gross.
Looking at worldwide gross for the last year, the highest R rated film was Ted (charting 13), then The Intouchables (charting 16), the first non-comedy appears at no. 17 with Django Unchained. With Prometheus at no. 18. The next R rated film is The Expendables 2 at no. 28.
If Quentin Tarantino and Ridley Scott can't get two critically acclaimed films into the top 10 (one of which is a sequel to one of the most loved films of all time). What hope do studios have?
Look at all the people in this thread whinging and moaning and saying they'll wait for Sky to see this. Apparently this is made for teens as is everything these days. So it's teens spending money at the cinemas these days. Why make a movie for adults when they can't be bothered to get off their asses and pay to watch it? They just wait for Sky to show it or for it to end up in a bargain bin. They don't deserve films made for them.
That's just an excuse I'm afraid, the simple reason is that remakes or reimaginings are simpler and safer to produce for studios. This attitude from studios is actually sort of biting the hand that feeds of an existing audience. So the result will be disapointment and rightly so if important elements that created something original in the first place are omitted. In the case of RoboCop, as already stated it was made up as a revenge story that was both humourous and bleak at the same time. Take that away and what have you got left? You say only younger people will pay for seats, well they should therefore have something completely new and original for their generation. Bottom line is if more original movies were made with broader ratings then I think anyone of any age would get to the cinema more often. We need more variety plain and simple.
Plenty of R rated films are being released, but outside of comedy, the market isn't there, According to Box Office Mojo 49.6% of films released in 2012 were rated R, but they accounted for only 27.2% of gross. Whereas 32.6% of 2012 films were rated PG-13 but they accounted for 51.6% of gross.
Looking at worldwide gross for the last year, the highest R rated film was Ted (charting 13), then The Intouchables (charting 16), the first non-comedy appears at no. 17 with Django Unchained. With Prometheus at no. 18. The next R rated film is The Expendables 2 at no. 28.
If Quentin Tarantino and Ridley Scott can't get two critically acclaimed films into the top 10 (one of which is a sequel to one of the most loved films of all time). What hope do studios have?
It did annoy me that A Good Day to Die Hard and Taken 2 were 12A and I think both films should have been 15, Die Hard was R in America but was cut here to make it a 12A.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was probably the last successful 18 rated film, its only really horror that gets the 18 certificate and even then most horror films are 15 rated
It did annoy me that A Good Day to Die Hard and Taken 2 were 12A and I think both films should have been 15, Die Hard was R in America but was cut here to make it a 12A.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was probably the last successful 18 rated film, its only really horror that gets the 18 certificate and even then most horror films are 15 rated
I think Django Unchained should be considered, having grossed around 4 times it's $100m production budget.
Drive was also successful, but was fairly cheap, so probably shouldn't count.
Watched the trailer again...kind of in two minds about it.
On the downside, it looks like they have stripped down the bare elements of the original and gone for a generic action movie with a few nods for the fanboys.
I don't even mind the notion of the lack of satire present in the original, that was very much a thing of it's time and difficult to recreate in todays climate.
On the other hand the trailer is very brief and maybe there is more to it...though the dialogue scenes and the bits with Keaton, Jackson and Oldman do come across as quite generic mad scientist/greedy corporate type clichés, hardly original. Which is why I believe the plot and supporting cast may just be an excuse to hang a bunch of set pieces of mayhem and destruction.
But maybe there is more to it..a few brief scenes of Murphy with his family, there could be more there. We don't get much of a sense of Kinnaman's performance from the trailer.
I also believe think that the silver suit will return at the end of the movie, I can see it as Murphy resisting against the notion of turning him into a sleek, black rubber suited automaton and regaining some sense of identity, and considering the original suit as his own.
Watched the trailer again...kind of in two minds about it.
On the downside, it looks like they have stripped down the bare elements of the original and gone for a generic action movie with a few nods for the fanboys.
I don't even mind the notion of the lack of satire present in the original, that was very much a thing of it's time and difficult to recreate in todays climate.
Not that I think this one will have the satire of the original, but we can't rule out some satire/humour; interestingly there was no hint of it in the trailer for the original. Considering the music they used in that trailer, it actually hinted at a fairly humourless movie.
Not that I think this one will have the satire of the original, but we can't rule out some satire/humour; interestingly there was no hint of it in the trailer for the original. Considering the music they used in that trailer, it actually hinted at a fairly humourless movie.
It's standard for the humour to be played down in such trailers for big movies like that I guess...the original had a reputation for violence and so I suppose they want to give the impression there will be more of the same.
Thankfully the satirical humour in the original was welcome if unexpected on first viewing.
Interesting they use the Terminator theme for that trailer, I guess to draw comparison with that movie was favourable, and the themes are kind of similar.
And I guess you could also say that the 80's was also a time when there was a proliferation of buddy-buddy cop type movies, and generic action movies which introduced more humour into these genres than we had previously seen, so the interjection of more comedy in the Terminator and Robocop movies increased as the series went on.
The reason why they used Terminator music for the 1987 RoboCop's trailer is because Orion made both films and the score wasn't finished in time for when the trailer was being made so they cheated and put it in instead.
And of course, there is no trace of dark humour or satire in the original trailer and there isn't any in the new one either. But Jose Padhila has said that the new film does contain both.
Also, the trailer is not as it seems. I'm pretty sure some of the scenes and dialogue don't actually match and have been put that way to throw people off. Padhila and the cast have said this is not the kind of movie people will be expecting. The scenes of him fighting other robots is from his training which is near the start of the film. There has been no mention in the trailer of the villains of the film or his partner, the (now male) Lewis.
Bottom line is if more original movies were made with broader ratings then I think anyone of any age would get to the cinema more often. We need more variety plain and simple.
There's enough variety/originality out there if you look hard enough. The problem lies with distribution.
There's enough variety/originality out there if you look hard enough. The problem lies with distribution.
No doubt about that, hence why many will hardly go to a mainstream cinema. I suppose it's easy to forget that films made in the 80's also had the novelty of video tape to fall back on to gather it's audience more slowly if it failed to gather a large following initially in the cinema. But it still had that chance in the cinema in the first place. We do have much more at our disposal now so it's easy to miss so much unless you delve deep. But as far as a genuine fully rounded cinema experience goes, it did seem that many types of films use to at least get given a chance. The remake machine is getting faster each year when it used to be a rarity. Also not just a rarity but radically different and more extreme (The Thing or The Fly). They're going the opposite way now like with RoboCop, too safe. I'm waiting to see if this Oldboy remake replaces the octopus eating scene with just a hotdog or a twinkie!
"From the outset, the trailer that was released should convey that this is a very different Robocop. The set pictures that surfaced online showed the black suit everybody is in an uproar about. First off, there’s very little CG in that trailer. What was immediately apparent was that the screens of the suit look different than was reflected in cut we saw. Also in the movie industry, a different person mixes the trailers than the movie. Secondly, nobody stops to think, why did they film those outdoor scenes first? I’ll tell you now, there are quite a few surprises in store for you. If you even paid half attention to the trailer that was released, you would see that the original suit makes at the very least a brief cameo (and I’m perplexed by the bulkiness of the still they released of the old suit… it didn’t look like that in the cut we were screening).
I’m writing this to tell you to relax. Seriously, breathe, and stop wanting to hate this movie before you even give it a chance. This film does not have the hyper-violence of the original, nor the comedic quotability of the Verheoven classic. It won’t replace the 1989 film, and GUESS WHAT: It doesn’t try to. It’s a new interpretation of the character that is faithful to the essence of what the original concept of the character was.
This “reboot” (and I really hate to label this as such) is a sophisticated take on the story of Alex Murphy. What GORE this movie lacks in it’s PG13-Rating, it more than compensates in substance over style. This is a much, much more psychological version in which emotional acting and intelligent writing takes priority over realistically brutal executions.
Let’s discuss what’s realistic now in a movie like Robocop (2014) and it’s original counterpart. We are now a society that holds our police force completely accountable for their decisions and actions. If unnecessary force is taken, we expect those officers to be handed disciplinary action and in some cases be indefinitely suspended and/or resign from duty. Look at Facebook for instance, people freak out about a dog being shot when an officer was simply defending themselves. Whether it was excessive or not is not what’s in question, what is in question is: how would you react if that police officer wasn’t a man at all, but instead a robot? These are questions the movie asks of the viewer, and not directly, but through subtext. So to answer what I’ve seen many people wonder on various sites’ comment/message boards, there is more subtext in this movie (both socio-political and ethical) than in the original. Even the lack of violence itself serves as commentary. This movie, in that regard, is very realistic.
This movie has something for new and old fans. I (impersonally) guarantee that you get the old Robocop you loved and a new Robocop that can fully be embraced. Some people want an R-rated Robocop film, but R-rated action films are not what people flock to see anymore. Is it more important to see a single film that’s violent for no reason, or a sequel to an intelligent action/thriller that doesn’t highlight excessive violence but what it takes to use restraint?
I, for one, can’t recommend this movie enough to people. I feel confident in verifying that, personally, I think this is a SUPERIOR movie, when you take into account the score, cinematography, action choreography, editing, costuming, makeup, acting, directing and writing.
I can say is that Kinnaman as Murphy provides much more depth and charisma than Weller did with his TJ Lazer impersonation, Samuel L Jackson is the lovable asshole he usually plays SO well, Gary Oldman is… best left unsaid at this point, Keaton makes us wonder why he isn’t in more movies, and Cornish makes us feel for the Murphy family. Have faith, this is one “reboot” done right."
That trailer was given a 15 rating by the bbfc, I'm guessing the film may also be 15, in spite of the PG-13, and the fact the bbfc are stricter on trails than features.
Comments
Why is that?
Surely adults want more heavy cinematic issues displayed on screen without restriction. So the market is there and they have more money than the kids to spend, who likely get it from their parents or part-time jobs - though the answer may lay in the willingness to spend. It just seems odd that there aren't more avaliable today.
It's just that the largest cinema going demographic fits into the under 16 category. So studios don't make their money on bigger budget productions in 15+ categories so have to go for the lowest rating possible with a 'happy medium'.
But they are wrong to do so in this case. The original story is a brutal one and should remain so.
Look at all the people in this thread whinging and moaning and saying they'll wait for Sky to see this. Apparently this is made for teens as is everything these days. So it's teens spending money at the cinemas these days. Why make a movie for adults when they can't be bothered to get off their asses and pay to watch it? They just wait for Sky to show it or for it to end up in a bargain bin. They don't deserve films made for them.
Because the cinema audience in 2013 is biased. It is predimantly two segments - teenagers and dates. A teenager CANT see an 18 and requires an adult to see an R. And today it is enforced wheres 20 years ago it wasnt.
The date crowd doesn't want to see a lot of Hard R violence, you don't get your hole seeing a bullet make a hole.
Its likely related to enforcement, I saw Total Recall (1990) when I was underage no-one asked me or the friends I was with. Today I don't think the same applies.
And adults very much DON'T make up the cinema audience, they watch movies at home.
And WORSE fanbois don't pay for movies AT ALL they download torrents and watch those. That's probably the biggest hit for the Hard R, you get the demand for it all over the internet, you make it, you put it out there and the people who asked for it watch it for free.
This is the nub of the problem, PG-13/12A sells, Hard R/18 doesnt. It's a very defined problem with the movie classification industry. It probably SHOULD be changed because, for example, Verhoeven's Robocop is a very anti-violence film. Its a film that should be part of school curricula.
Of course on the other hand, verhoeven's Starship Troopers is a very violent film but its violent for laughs, this makes it harder for the argument that cinema ratings for violence are broken. Even if the entire film was cartoon violence.
edit - btw just realised i was 18 when Total Recall (1990) came out but three of the five friends I was with weren't).
Robocop looks better in the grey/metallic suit. Did in the original, did in the trailer for this one.
But the thing that made Robocop such a good film was ultimately a revenge film, one of the best examples of one. And its starting point came from such a brutal murder, at the hands of some of the most vile villains ever, especially Clarence Boedecker.
So Alex Murphy doesn't even die in the new one. It didn't have to be as brutal and graphic as the original, but it should have happened. What a PG-13 cop out.
Looking at worldwide gross for the last year, the highest R rated film was Ted (charting 13), then The Intouchables (charting 16), the first non-comedy appears at no. 17 with Django Unchained. With Prometheus at no. 18. The next R rated film is The Expendables 2 at no. 28.
If Quentin Tarantino and Ridley Scott can't get two critically acclaimed films into the top 10 (one of which is a sequel to one of the most loved films of all time). What hope do studios have?
That's just an excuse I'm afraid, the simple reason is that remakes or reimaginings are simpler and safer to produce for studios. This attitude from studios is actually sort of biting the hand that feeds of an existing audience. So the result will be disapointment and rightly so if important elements that created something original in the first place are omitted. In the case of RoboCop, as already stated it was made up as a revenge story that was both humourous and bleak at the same time. Take that away and what have you got left? You say only younger people will pay for seats, well they should therefore have something completely new and original for their generation. Bottom line is if more original movies were made with broader ratings then I think anyone of any age would get to the cinema more often. We need more variety plain and simple.
It did annoy me that A Good Day to Die Hard and Taken 2 were 12A and I think both films should have been 15, Die Hard was R in America but was cut here to make it a 12A.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was probably the last successful 18 rated film, its only really horror that gets the 18 certificate and even then most horror films are 15 rated
I think Django Unchained should be considered, having grossed around 4 times it's $100m production budget.
Drive was also successful, but was fairly cheap, so probably shouldn't count.
On the downside, it looks like they have stripped down the bare elements of the original and gone for a generic action movie with a few nods for the fanboys.
I don't even mind the notion of the lack of satire present in the original, that was very much a thing of it's time and difficult to recreate in todays climate.
On the other hand the trailer is very brief and maybe there is more to it...though the dialogue scenes and the bits with Keaton, Jackson and Oldman do come across as quite generic mad scientist/greedy corporate type clichés, hardly original. Which is why I believe the plot and supporting cast may just be an excuse to hang a bunch of set pieces of mayhem and destruction.
But maybe there is more to it..a few brief scenes of Murphy with his family, there could be more there. We don't get much of a sense of Kinnaman's performance from the trailer.
I also believe think that the silver suit will return at the end of the movie, I can see it as Murphy resisting against the notion of turning him into a sleek, black rubber suited automaton and regaining some sense of identity, and considering the original suit as his own.
Not that I think this one will have the satire of the original, but we can't rule out some satire/humour; interestingly there was no hint of it in the trailer for the original. Considering the music they used in that trailer, it actually hinted at a fairly humourless movie.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c3W5HUz7vyY
It's standard for the humour to be played down in such trailers for big movies like that I guess...the original had a reputation for violence and so I suppose they want to give the impression there will be more of the same.
Thankfully the satirical humour in the original was welcome if unexpected on first viewing.
Interesting they use the Terminator theme for that trailer, I guess to draw comparison with that movie was favourable, and the themes are kind of similar.
And I guess you could also say that the 80's was also a time when there was a proliferation of buddy-buddy cop type movies, and generic action movies which introduced more humour into these genres than we had previously seen, so the interjection of more comedy in the Terminator and Robocop movies increased as the series went on.
And of course, there is no trace of dark humour or satire in the original trailer and there isn't any in the new one either. But Jose Padhila has said that the new film does contain both.
Also, the trailer is not as it seems. I'm pretty sure some of the scenes and dialogue don't actually match and have been put that way to throw people off. Padhila and the cast have said this is not the kind of movie people will be expecting. The scenes of him fighting other robots is from his training which is near the start of the film. There has been no mention in the trailer of the villains of the film or his partner, the (now male) Lewis.
No doubt about that, hence why many will hardly go to a mainstream cinema. I suppose it's easy to forget that films made in the 80's also had the novelty of video tape to fall back on to gather it's audience more slowly if it failed to gather a large following initially in the cinema. But it still had that chance in the cinema in the first place. We do have much more at our disposal now so it's easy to miss so much unless you delve deep. But as far as a genuine fully rounded cinema experience goes, it did seem that many types of films use to at least get given a chance. The remake machine is getting faster each year when it used to be a rarity. Also not just a rarity but radically different and more extreme (The Thing or The Fly). They're going the opposite way now like with RoboCop, too safe. I'm waiting to see if this Oldboy remake replaces the octopus eating scene with just a hotdog or a twinkie!
glad they kept the villain machine from robocop 1, that was cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrXNltxBxOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPLSpmAtc1Q