The word "remake" stirs a lot of hatred in reference to comic book movies, and movies in general. An enormous case in point is the upcoming revitalization of
Robocop, starring Joel Kinnaman and being a remake of the 1987 film of the same name. A fan favorite, the '87 movie featured a robotic-man hybrid sweeping crime off the streets in a futuristic and dystopic Detroit. So far as we know, the remake is taking note, revamping the elements, upgrading the special effects, and giving the dead-in-the-water franchise a new voice.
And "fans" of the original material couldn't be more detrimental to the progress this movie is making.
Their complaints are pretty merry-go-round. The most senseless one is their claim that Hollywood has "run out of ideas" and can't produce anything original anymore. That it can't leave older movies alone. Now, of course, there are articles and graphs like
this one that paint a pretty grim picture:
But let's also not forget that Hollywood remaking
any film has been going around since the medium first got started. You might ask yourself, "What was the first film that got remade?" "When did it come out?" 1967? 1954? Probably in the 1930s, knowing Hollywood, right?
Wrong.
1904. The first ever remake was of the first ever narratively structured motion picture. The release of the original movie?
1903. So, literally a year after the first movie (with full narrative, plot, and defined character) debuted, it was immediately remade. This "remake" bonanza has been happening since the industry started up, and it should be noted that anyone who thinks that Hollywood is a single entity and not an enormous congregation of unique, different people, is simply ignorant.
But what really sucks is how a great stand-alone character can have such a fantastic original debut, and then be in horrific sequels, only to be left alone for a lengthy amount of time. By the way, I'm not yet talking about
Robocop. I'm talking about
Batman. And if you turn your argument to how the Batman sequels got much more exposure than the Robocop ones, then doesn't that just give the debate that
Robocop deserves a remake more ammunition?
And, really, just looking back at the '87 movie, isn't it a film that would find its remakes major successes in a revamp of special effects, and robotic designs? Unlike
Total Recall, this is a movie of character over plot. That puts it more in the
Dredd genre than it does anything else.
So, are we being too hard and unfair on
Robocop the remake? I certainly think so. We've got next to nothing from the studios but some set pictures (which, when have those ever been truly reliable)? Let's give it some breathing room and wait for some official footage.
I'm not saying it won't suck. I'm saying that it certainly doesn't have to, merely because of the fact that it's a remake.