Robocop Remake Page 2

  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

  • jellyhead 6 Jan 2010 14:06:00 24,350 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Oh shit, maybe they want to remake Robocop 3.
    Robots - check.
    Ninjas - check,
    Ninja robots - check,
    Robocop - check.

    It can't fail.

    I think someone like Aronofsky would be able to have fun with the concepts in a clever way that would match the satire of the others. Guess, we'll never know.

    This signature intentionally left blank.

  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:06:42
    squarejawhero wrote:
    Looking up the producer she's actually been in charge of some decent stuff.
    Dude come on. She's been an exec on some decent stuff but that means absolutely zip. With some obvious notable exceptions, 'decent movies' are decent in spite of studio heads and execs, not because of them.
  • Popzeus 6 Jan 2010 14:06:58 8,427 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Everyone with a brain thinks Starship Troopers is awesome.

    I know, but there are a surprising number of forumites without a brain.

    Currently playing: Standing In A Car Park Simulator 2013

  • Whizzo 6 Jan 2010 14:07:40 43,358 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    More meat for the grinder.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • Maturin 6 Jan 2010 14:08:56 3,231 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    jellyhead wrote:
    Spanky, do you think Michael Bay isn't fapping himself stupid 24 hours a day wriiting Miami Vice 2? In 3D!

    Why would Michael Bay be writing a Miami Vice sequel?
  • RedSparrows 6 Jan 2010 14:10:09 24,248 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    PearOfAnguish wrote:
    Typical studio exec logic. Avatar was in 3D and was popular therefore 3D must be the reason it was popular so we'll pump out a shitload of 3D movies and $$CHA-CHING$$

    Ruthelessness and being a cunt are more important than ideas. Copycat this and that.

    PAGING KOTICK!
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:10:56
    Producers do actually wield a lot of power in the creative process in films. That she's persued some interesting projects is actually pretty nice. But she's still got to make films that make money, and if that takes a gimmick then so be it.

    Anyway, you could argue that the Fountain was in itself gimmicky - I certainly wasn't much of a fan, I found it rather wooden and empty. Strangely unemotional. Very pretty but left me incredibly cold.

    Anyway, people forget that films of this budget are there to make money and need directors to suit. Whilst I'm not saying that Ratner should leap on it, I really don't think he was the right man for the job anyway. I also find it strange that he doesn't embrace the technology, seeing that even the physical effects he used in the Fountain were actually quite modern compared to what had gone in the past.
  • RedSparrows 6 Jan 2010 14:11:03 24,248 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Read the thread title and thought "meh" till I say Aronofsky was involved. He does good stuff, he does.

    "He wants to do everything as real (organic) as possible just like The Fountain"

    The fountain was *real*?



    Models and stuff, the tree and um...the lab and er.. the snowy bits and the temple (they built it all).

    Shame about the cosmos bit, but you know, that's a bit tricky! ^^
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:11:58
    Maturin wrote:
    jellyhead wrote:
    Spanky, do you think Michael Bay isn't fapping himself stupid 24 hours a day wriiting Miami Vice 2? In 3D!

    Why would Michael Bay be writing a Miami Vice sequel?

    I was giggling at that. I think Michael Mann would be pretty mortified at that confusion.
  • Maturin 6 Jan 2010 14:12:45 3,231 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Maturin wrote:
    jellyhead wrote:
    Spanky, do you think Michael Bay isn't fapping himself stupid 24 hours a day wriiting Miami Vice 2? In 3D!

    Why would Michael Bay be writing a Miami Vice sequel?

    I was giggling at that. I think Michael Mann would be pretty mortified at that confusion.

    :)
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:13:11
    disc wrote:
    They chose the wrong guy for the job obviously, hopefully he can go back to doing interesting movies.
    What's to say this wouldn't have been an interesting movie in his hands?
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:13:39
    Isn't this exactly what happened with Aranofski's Batman as well?

    It's like they get into it then go "hang on, why the fuck have we just given a major bit of blockbuster property to a really gritty edgy indie filmmaker? ABORT ABORT!!!"
  • jellyhead 6 Jan 2010 14:13:49 24,350 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Maturin wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Maturin wrote:
    jellyhead wrote:
    Spanky, do you think Michael Bay isn't fapping himself stupid 24 hours a day wriiting Miami Vice 2? In 3D!

    Why would Michael Bay be writing a Miami Vice sequel?

    I was giggling at that. I think Michael Mann would be pretty mortified at that confusion.

    :)
    I hate you all ;__;

    This signature intentionally left blank.

  • morriss 6 Jan 2010 14:14:40 71,286 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Isn't this exactly what happened with Aranofski's Batman as well?

    It's like they get into it then go "hang on, why the fuck have we just given a major bit of blockbuster property to a really gritty edgy indie filmmaker? ABORT ABORT!!!"
    Well, Nolan isn't exactly run-of-the-mill mainstream is he?

    But you've got a point.
  • Spanky 6 Jan 2010 14:16:06 14,610 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Shame about the cosmos bit, but you know, that's a bit tricky! ^^
    I thought this was done using compositing and models, trumbull style?

    Plubs

  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:17:09
    morriss wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Isn't this exactly what happened with Aranofski's Batman as well?

    It's like they get into it then go "hang on, why the fuck have we just given a major bit of blockbuster property to a really gritty edgy indie filmmaker? ABORT ABORT!!!"
    Well, Nolan isn't exactly run-of-the-mill mainstream is he?

    But you've got a point.

    Nolan is somewhere between Aranofsky and your common and/or gardern director. Memento and Insomnia are gritty but pretty accessible as well, especially compared to Pi and Requiem for a Dream.
  • chopsen 6 Jan 2010 14:17:56 16,290 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    morriss wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Isn't this exactly what happened with Aranofski's Batman as well?

    It's like they get into it then go "hang on, why the fuck have we just given a major bit of blockbuster property to a really gritty edgy indie filmmaker? ABORT ABORT!!!"
    Well, Nolan isn't exactly run-of-the-mill mainstream is he?

    But you've got a point.

    I was a bit suprised at hearing Raimi got Spiderman and Peter Jackson was doing a mahoosive budget LORT trilogy, and that turned out ok.

    That's why I'm not a movie exec.
  • figgis 6 Jan 2010 14:18:15 7,382 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:18:58
    morriss wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Isn't this exactly what happened with Aranofski's Batman as well?

    It's like they get into it then go "hang on, why the fuck have we just given a major bit of blockbuster property to a really gritty edgy indie filmmaker? ABORT ABORT!!!"
    Well, Nolan isn't exactly run-of-the-mill mainstream is he?

    But you've got a point.

    Nolan proved that he could do intelligent, accessible and moneymaking movies before Batman, though, that also looked like their budget. Certainly uncomparable to what Aronofsky has produced.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:19:33
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.
  • RedSparrows 6 Jan 2010 14:20:22 24,248 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well colour me wrong. I love that film.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:21:35
    Personally I would have loved to have seen Aranofskii's Year One, and was looking forward to his Robocop.

    At least if it's 3D then I get to troll it on here I guess.
  • morriss 6 Jan 2010 14:21:44 71,286 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Key word is "run-of-the-mill," but nevermind.
  • Hunam 6 Jan 2010 14:21:47 20,674 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:22:18
    Hehe, I love spelling Aronovski slightly differently everytime I type it.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:22:37
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.
    Aye but there's a difference between compositing stuff that's actually been shot on film and sticking a fairly empty scene into a computer and turning it into an all singing all dancing explosion of robots and whatnot. I mean look at the original Star Wars compared to just the Special Edition stuff, let alone the new ones. With the originals that was all compositing but the X-wings and the Death Star and the mammoths the Sand People ride and all that stuff, it's all real. And then Lucas spunks a great big sodding computer-generated Mos Eisley all over it and the magic is gone in one fell swoop.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:23:13
    morriss wrote:
    Key word is "run-of-the-mill," but nevermind.

    Sorry, in what way did I not respond to your post?
  • figgis 6 Jan 2010 14:24:17 7,382 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.

    True. But like Moon it's one of those films that looks better for using real stuff rather than CGI. (Both done on the cheap as well.)
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:25:13
    kalel wrote:
    morriss wrote:
    Key word is "run-of-the-mill," but nevermind.

    Sorry, in what way did I not respond to your post?
    He's trying to have a go at anyone who didn't respond as well as you did - I think squarejawhero is in his sights.

    ;)
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:26:34
    Fair enough, I have everyone else on the whole forum apart form morriss on ignore.
  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

Log in or register to reply