Robocop Reboot (Pre-release)

Michael Bergeron said:
I think that's what Total Recall thought and that's why it flopped so hard. "As long as we use the name it doesn't matter what we do" isn't the right marketing strategy. Kids don't know anything about Robocop. Your marketing depends on people who do know the classic liking your new film and telling their friends. Otherwise why use the name?
Click to expand...
Because the "name" made money in the past; it's a recognizable brand (in the Hollywood mindset, anyway). Studios these days, for the most part, don't appear to be overly interested in pleasing the fans that made "Property X" such a hit in the first place. They're far more interested in attracting and creating the next generation of fans. The real problem is...well, more on that below.

Michael Bergeron said:
If you're rebooting you have to look at what made the original a hit and focus on that. It's of course not an exact science but generally what resonates with an audience will resonate again.
Click to expand...
As I was saying above, the real problem is that classic and well-loved movies and television shows were a "perfect storm" of sorts--a combination of writers, directors, performers, any number of behind-the-scenes talent, the mindset of the general public at the time it was produced (i.e. the societal climate), etc., all coming together at the right time. If the movie and television studios knew how to put all of those elements together, they'd produce hit movies and television series' every time.

Getting back to the societal climate for a moment, what resonated with movie audiences in 1987 probably won't resonate with movie audiences in 2013; it's a different era, a different audience, and a lot has changed in 26 years. Like many well-liked movies and television series', the 1987 version of Robocop was very much an element of it's time and probably wouldn't be nearly as popular if it were released today.

Whether it's a new idea or a remake/reboot, realistically the only thing movie and television studios can do is hire whoever they believe is the best person for each job, produce the movie or television show (hopefully in good faith), release it to the public, and hope it catches on.
 
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Nobody I know under 20 has more than a vague idea of what Robocop is. You NEED the original fans in order to spread the word. If Total Recall fans had come out of the theatre saying "that was awesome" they would have ushered in a new generation of fans. Instead you had a film that catered to a new market that wasn't there and had no recognition of the brand.

Zombie_61 said:
Getting back to the societal climate for a moment, what resonated with movie audiences in 1987 probably won't resonate with movie audiences in 2013; it's a different era, a different audience, and a lot has changed in 26 years. Like many well-liked movies and television series', the 1987 version of Robocop was very much an element of it's time and probably wouldn't be nearly as popular if it were released today.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. It's actually a very similar climate.

Corporations are seen to be running rampant. Executives are seen to be so far detached and aloof from the "little people". Folks are more aware about class than ever before (we are the 99%)...

I would argue that if Robocop was released today as an original film it would be just as popular as it was in 1987.
 
Zombie_61 said:
As I was saying above, the real problem is that classic and well-loved movies and television shows were a "perfect storm" of sorts--a combination of writers, directors, performers, any number of behind-the-scenes talent, the mindset of the general public at the time it was produced (i.e. the societal climate), etc., all coming together at the right time. If the movie and television studios knew how to put all of those elements together, they'd produce hit movies and television series' every time.
Click to expand...

It's not quite as mysterious as that. There's a formula for most things and as a behind the scenes guy I've seen it beaten to death so there is a science to it. This is why just about every chick flick has the exact same beats.

Is it a gamble with talent? Sure, but not nearly as much as you think. ;)
 
Everything in the entertainment industry now has formulas. The music industry always had them but tv and such followed up.
 
Yeah, it's amazing how so much has changed, yet stayed the same. It *does* depend on the subject matter - but RoboCop was about social issues that are just as important today. Sadly, we're even closer to the dystopia portrayed in the original (IMHO).

With reboots, I feel it's essential to (faithfully) offer some of the elements that made the original so successful. Case in point: I'm *really* digging the Hawaii Five-O reboot. There's enough of the old series' elements to make it familiar and comfortable, but the new take on things makes it fresh and enjoyable.

With RoboCop, it was Murphy and the way he looked after he was rebuilt. Whether you've seen the originals or not, the title of the film is RoboCop. If Murphy doesn't appear as a robot, you've lost everyone. The concept art that shows a character that is clearly robotic could work. *Evolve* him from the robot to an artificial human (go from robotic to RubberCop to synthetic-flesh-covered cyber-being) and it would also work. Show me a guy in a Batsuit with a bare hand, and I'll consider picking up the DVD when it hits the bargain bin three months after release.
 
Michael Bergeron said:
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Nobody I know under 20 has more than a vague idea of what Robocop is. You NEED the original fans in order to spread the word. If Total Recall fans had come out of the theatre saying "that was awesome" they would have ushered in a new generation of fans. Instead you had a film that catered to a new market that wasn't there and had no recognition of the brand.
Click to expand...
I suppose the real question then becomes, "Do people under the age of 20 really care about the opinions of people who are old enough to have seen a movie that was made before they were born?" Would they really care if a bunch of 40-something people came out of the theater ranting and raving about any particular movie, or would they give more weight to the opinions of people their own age who had seen the movie? Based on my interactions with people under the age of 20 (I'm 51 years old) I'd say they might take it into consideration, but would probably decide for themselves whether or not they like said movie regardless of the opinions of fans of the original movie, or anyone else for that matter.

For this discussion, I think the 2009 Star Trek movie is a good example. A lot of die-hard fans of the original Star Trek television series thought the movie was rubbish, yet it was very popular and did quite well at the box office. And I've read numerous comments on the various forums I frequent to the effect of, "I don't like Star Trek, but I really liked the movie." Clearly the opinions of fans of the original Star Trek had little or no impact on the success of the 2009 movie.

Michael Bergeron said:
It's not quite as mysterious as that. There's a formula for most things and as a behind the scenes guy I've seen it beaten to death so there is a science to it. This is why just about every chick flick has the exact same beats.
Click to expand...
Considering the ratio of the number of movies produced during a given year to the number of those movies eventually deemed "successful" (excluding the foreign market and subsequent DVD/Blu-Ray sales), I'd say the "formula" isn't foolproof. But then, my opinion is that of an "outsider" (someone not working in the movie/television industry), so I'm probably wrong.
 
Last edited:
Zombie_61 said:
I suppose the real question then becomes, "Do people under the age of 20 really care about the opinions of people who are old enough to have seen a movie that was made before they were born?" Would they really care if a bunch of 40-something people came out of the theater ranting and raving about any particular movie, or would they give more weight to the opinions of people their own age who had seen the movie? Based on my interactions with people under the age of 20 (I'm 51 years old) I'd say they might take it into consideration, but would probably decide for themselves whether or not they like said movie regardless of the opinions of fans of the original movie, or anyone else for that matter.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the opinion of older fans it's the opening Box Office numbers based on them. These things steam roll if done properly but you have to get the base excited. If you get rave reviews and big box office you create buzz. Buzz gets people into theatres.

For this discussion, I think the 2009 Star Trek movie is a good example. A lot of die-hard fans of the original Star Trek television series thought the movie was rubbish, yet it was very popular and did quite well at the box office. And I've read numerous comments on the various forums I frequent to the effect of, "I don't like Star Trek, but I really liked the movie." Clearly the opinions of fans of the original Star Trek had little or no impact on the success of the 2009 movie.
Click to expand...

You're right about the result but not about the cause. ;)

A lot of die hard fans did indeed think it was rubbish (I wasn't a fan but didn't hate it either). HOWEVER, all of them went opening weekend. They were excited enough to go, it did very well at the BO and that enticed more people to go. That's where you get the "I don't like ST but I liked this". If it weren't for the base none of those people would have gone in the first place. :)
 
Michael Bergeron said:
It's not so much the opinion of older fans it's the opening Box Office numbers based on them. These things steam roll if done properly but you have to get the base excited. If you get rave reviews and big box office you create buzz. Buzz gets people into theatres.
Click to expand...
How do you determine if the money spent at the box offices came from core fans, non-fans, or indifferent moviegoers who simply thought the trailers looked interesting? If anything, before Star Trek opened the "base" was anything but excited. Curious or adamantly against the movie on principle, but not excited. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the negative buzz generated by older fans resulted in ticket sales out of simple curiosity of non-fans to see what all the fuss was about. :lol

Michael Bergeron said:
You're right about the result but not about the cause. ;)

A lot of die hard fans did indeed think it was rubbish (I wasn't a fan but didn't hate it either). HOWEVER, all of them went opening weekend. They were excited enough to go, it did very well at the BO and that enticed more people to go. That's where you get the "I don't like ST but I liked this". If it weren't for the base none of those people would have gone in the first place. :)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "all" of the fans went opening weekend. I know some Star Trek fans who still haven't seen it, yet continue to comment on how bad it was. :rolleyes

If anything, I think the "sheeple" factor (people who go to see a movie simply because it appears to be popular or successful) was more responsible for Star Trek's success (the 2009 movie, that is) than the fan base. "It made a lot of money, it must be good. Let's go see it!"

So I suppose that takes us back to my previous question about how you determine an individual's motives for deciding whether to see or not see a given movie. The only thing I know in that regard is that the Los Angeles Times conducted an informal poll several years ago and determined, by a rather large margin, that the number one factor people use when deciding which movie to go see was "What time it starts", as in "We really wanted to see Lincoln, but the start time for Gangster Squad fit our schedule better." :lol
 
Zombie_61 said:
How do you determine if the money spent at the box offices came from core fans, non-fans, or indifferent moviegoers who simply thought the trailers looked interesting?
Click to expand...

You don't. Which is why you try and cling to any market you can get. The key to good buzz about a remake is in the classic fans. Evil Dead is a good example, it's got great buzz because they've been teasing it for years. The name of the Evil Dead thread here on the forum? "Bruce Campbell says it's great!"... That's the kind of buzz you need. It's using the brand as a proper foothold to begin with.

If anything, before Star Trek opened the "base" was anything but excited. Curious or adamantly against the movie on principle, but not excited. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the negative buzz generated by older fans resulted in ticket sales out of simple curiosity of non-fans to see what all the fuss was about. :lol
Click to expand...

I would say that the base (from my experience anyway) was cautiously curious. We'd been starved for quality Trek for years and this was an exciting opportunity. It was that buzz and phenomenon that made people take notice.

I know some Star Trek fans who still haven't seen it, yet continue to comment on how bad it was. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

We call these people morons. It's alright to hate it but WATCH it so that your argument has merit!

If anything, I think the "sheeple" factor (people who go to see a movie simply because it appears to be popular or successful) was more responsible for Star Trek's success (the 2009 movie, that is) than the fan base. "It made a lot of money, it must be good. Let's go see it!"
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point though. For that to happen though you need the numbers to begin with, you get those from the fans. ;)

So I suppose that takes us back to my previous question about how you determine an individual's motives for deciding whether to see or not see a given movie. The only thing I know in that regard is that the Los Angeles Times conducted an informal poll several years ago and determined, by a rather large margin, that the number one factor people use when deciding which movie to go see was "What time it starts", as in "We really wanted to see Lincoln, but the start time for Gangster Squad fit our schedule better." :lol
Click to expand...

These people are also called morons. :lol

That proves though that a huge part of it is that you need people who are dedicated to see your film. Those are the fans and what set in motion the sheeple later.

That way when the couple is looking at movie times and see that they could either see "Robocop" or "Gangster Squad" they'll pick the one with the bigger apparent following. If fans reject it you won't have that image.
 
Michael Bergeron said:
The key to good buzz about a remake is in the classic fans. Evil Dead is a good example, it's got great buzz because they've been teasing it for years. The name of the Evil Dead thread here on the forum? "Bruce Campbell says it's great!"... That's the kind of buzz you need. It's using the brand as a proper foothold to begin with.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree positive buzz is beneficial to a movie's success, just as negative buzz can be detrimental. The difficulty I'm having is with your position that good buzz must come from the core fan base, because in my experience the majority of die-hard fans loyal to any given franchise or property are steadfastly against the studios remaking that which they feel so passionately about, and have no qualms about voicing their opinions in an attempt to dissuade others from contributing to that remake's potential box office success.

Michael Bergeron said:
I would say that the base (from my experience anyway) was cautiously curious. We'd been starved for quality Trek for years and this was an exciting opportunity. It was that buzz and phenomenon that made people take notice.
Click to expand...
In part, I have to agree with this. I say "in part" because, admittedly, some Trek fans were optimistic about the 2009 reboot (myself included), and those who were against it (in my experience) were often dismissed and labeled as "Trekkies" or "Trekkers" (or whatever euphemism is being used these days) who wouldn't be satisfied regardless of what Paramount did with the franchise. But of the Trek fans I know, the "definitely against it" fans far outnumbered the "optimistic" fans.

Michael Bergeron said:
That proves though that a huge part of it is that you need people who are dedicated to see your film. Those are the fans and what set in motion the sheeple later. That way when the couple is looking at movie times and see that they could either see "Robocop" or "Gangster Squad" they'll pick the one with the bigger apparent following. If fans reject it you won't have that image.
Click to expand...
Again, your position is that the fans are dedicated to see the movie. In my experience, the opposite is true (for the most part).

In the end, I think we might have to agree to disagree as you mentioned earlier. But if we were having this conversation face-to-face rather than through this imperfect communication medium, I honestly think we would probably have more common ground than is apparent through these posts.
 
Zombie_61 said:
I definitely agree positive buzz is beneficial to a movie's success, just as negative buzz can be detrimental. The difficulty I'm having is with your position that good buzz must come from the core fan base, because in my experience the majority of die-hard fans loyal to any given franchise or property are steadfastly against the studios remaking that which they feel so passionately about, and have no qualms about voicing their opinions in an attempt to dissuade others from contributing to that remake's potential box office success.
Click to expand...

I think I see where the miscommunication is on this. I never said that good buzz must come from the core fan base, just that the easiest and best way to get it is the core fan base. There will always be dissenters but these are the people who are going to go see your movie first, at the very least out of curiosity. Their reaction to the film will be the strongest "word of mouth" buzz you have at the start. If you please them you're ahead of the game.

In part, I have to agree with this. I say "in part" because, admittedly, some Trek fans were optimistic about the 2009 reboot (myself included), and those who were against it (in my experience) were often dismissed and labeled as "Trekkies" or "Trekkers" (or whatever euphemism is being used these days) who wouldn't be satisfied regardless of what Paramount did with the franchise. But of the Trek fans I know, the "definitely against it" fans far outnumbered the "optimistic" fans.
Click to expand...

Which is a fair point but I would argue that the definitely against it crowd has more to do with post viewing than pre viewing. That's my experience anyway.

Again, your position is that the fans are dedicated to see the movie. In my experience, the opposite is true (for the most part).
Click to expand...

Dedicated isn't the word. They're the most likely to go and see it out of the gate. Either from excitement, or revulsion, or curiosity. Because of that they have a strong voice in the buzz of your film. No matter why they go see it if you can sway them with the film you're golden. It's an opportunity.

In the end, I think we might have to agree to disagree as you mentioned earlier. But if we were having this conversation face-to-face rather than through this imperfect communication medium, I honestly think we would probably have more common ground than is apparent through these posts.
Click to expand...

Likely so. :thumbsup
 
Michael Bergeron said:
I think I see where the miscommunication is on this. I never said that good buzz must come from the core fan base, just that the easiest and best way to get it is the core fan base. There will always be dissenters but these are the people who are going to go see your movie first, at the very least out of curiosity. Their reaction to the film will be the strongest "word of mouth" buzz you have at the start. If you please them you're ahead of the game.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, yes, that is a bit different from the way you previously phrased it. And in that respect I agree; if you can get the core fan base on board they're likely to be your best promoters. In my experience that's a big risk, as most of the die-hard fans I know don't want their particular "favorite" tampered with in any way and tend to approach remakes and/or reboots with closed-minded negativity. In this thread alone most of the posts about the Robocop reboot have been rather negative, and all we've had to go on so far is a handful of photos taken out of context and one brief promotional video. :lol So, yeah, this thread mirrors my experience with most fans. I'll admit I haven't yet seen anything about the Robocop reboot that has impressed me, but I'll wait until I've actually seen the movie before I pass judgement on it.
 
It usually takes me 5-6 posts to actually get my point across. :lol

Indeed there's always a lot of negativity prior to the release but I'll bet $ that many of us here are the ones that will see it in theatre. And that experience could end up being positive. We'd go into it much more optimistic (if still a little disgruntled, personally I think Robocop is perfect reboot material) if there was a robotic man somewhere in that released material. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JOATRASH FX
Interest ROBOCOP 1 -accurate- Auto-9 Addon kit
Replies
8
Views
2,108
JOATRASH FX
JOATRASH FX
Wakeem
Is Star Trek Dying?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
11,609
publiusr
P
Vmasterbuilder
Robocop 1:1 Silicone Reveal Bust
Replies
2
Views
1,777
SERRASALMUS
SERRASALMUS
DarkHelmet
Interstellar...you love it but you also have issues...
Replies
2
Views
743
greenmachines
greenmachines
IkonicArtifacts
Daredevil Billy Clubs
Replies
7
Views
917
smithjohnj
S
Back
Top