First Picture of new Robocop uniform

**Tom Guycott** · 09-22-2012, 12:59 AM

I'm getting sick of having my posts implode and having to re-form my ideas from scratch...

This is my 3rd time writing this response. Each time, it gets less concise because once I write it, the idea is out of my head. I kind of remember the gist, but... ugh.

Firstly "but making it look 100%" was a sentence fragment. Thus, it didn't make sense. It was supposed to be more like "... but making it look 100% different from the original, established source doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

The impression is kind of like someone going:

"Hey, we're making a new "Raiders" movie... but we're casting Terry Crewes as Indy, giving him a modern set of weapons in place of his pistol and whip even though it's the 1940's, and nixing the fedora and jacket." That sounds like a decent movie (like, as "The Expendables"), as Indiana Jones however, that same visual is suddenly horrible.

It's like my theory on the debackle that was Square Pictures. One simple solution to avoiding disaster was simply not throwing "Final Fantasy" in the name of "The Spirits Within". It was a decent story, the animation was top notch, and all in all it wasn't a bad movie. However, by adding "Final Fantasy" to try to ride their success off years of making the games, they ushered in a whole slew of expectations on what exactly the movie should be instead of letting it be it's own thing. I think you shouldn't call it a Robocop movie if Robocop doesn't look like Robocop, as the idea isn't really pulled out of thin air. I mean, could you imagine the shitstorm if that same photo were supposed to be of, say, Batman?

@KK - It won't intially impact attendance, no. The idea of "blockbuster" is to recoup the budget AND make an inisane profit on the opening weekend. The problem I was referring to here is that it's like nobody looks past that. If the movie isn't that good, word gets around. You'll make a quick buck, but it'll get forgotten and you won't make nearly as much as "ZOMG, DID YOU SEE ___?! YOU NEED TO!" movies in the long run.

Hey, it might turn out to be a decent flick. I realize one pic isn't really enough to doom the entire project to failure. However, that one pic already looks to be a step in the wrong direction.

09-22-2012, 12:59 AM	#11
Tom Guycott Wrestling Marks Rejoice! Posts: 10,166	I'm getting sick of having my posts implode and having to re-form my ideas from scratch... This is my 3rd time writing this response. Each time, it gets less concise because once I write it, the idea is out of my head. I kind of remember the gist, but... ugh. Firstly "but making it look 100%" was a sentence fragment. Thus, it didn't make sense. It was supposed to be more like "... but making it look 100% different from the original, established source doesn't make a whole lot of sense." The impression is kind of like someone going: "Hey, we're making a new "Raiders" movie... but we're casting Terry Crewes as Indy, giving him a modern set of weapons in place of his pistol and whip even though it's the 1940's, and nixing the fedora and jacket." That sounds like a decent movie (like, as "The Expendables"), as Indiana Jones however, that same visual is suddenly horrible. It's like my theory on the debackle that was Square Pictures. One simple solution to avoiding disaster was simply not throwing "Final Fantasy" in the name of "The Spirits Within". It was a decent story, the animation was top notch, and all in all it wasn't a bad movie. However, by adding "Final Fantasy" to try to ride their success off years of making the games, they ushered in a whole slew of expectations on what exactly the movie should be instead of letting it be it's own thing. I think you shouldn't call it a Robocop movie if Robocop doesn't look like Robocop, as the idea isn't really pulled out of thin air. I mean, could you imagine the shitstorm if that same photo were supposed to be of, say, Batman? @KK - It won't intially impact attendance, no. The idea of "blockbuster" is to recoup the budget AND make an inisane profit on the opening weekend. The problem I was referring to here is that it's like nobody looks past that. If the movie isn't that good, word gets around. You'll make a quick buck, but it'll get forgotten and you won't make nearly as much as "ZOMG, DID YOU SEE ___?! YOU NEED TO!" movies in the long run. Hey, it might turn out to be a decent flick. I realize one pic isn't really enough to doom the entire project to failure. However, that one pic already looks to be a step in the wrong direction.