Location: The Sarah Connor Chronicles Discussion Forum

Discussion: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3

Category: Discussion Forum / T3/T4/Etc. Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

1 2 3 4 | Next

The_GodfatherSJP	Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 15 2012, 2:44 PM EST Netflix is a wonderful thing. I'm watching a bunch of movies I haven't seen in years, among these is Robocop followed by Robocop 2. I know, I know, some of you are thinking "Why would you want to rewatch that piece of **** after Robocop?" Because I liked, and still enjoy, the Robocop vs. RoboCain fight. It's in claymation and looks like something out of a 60's monster movie, but it's still fun. Thing is, as I watched I started thinking about all the fan rage that Terminator 3 provoked, and then how people reacted to Robocop 2 (and 3). Now if you've been here awhile you'll know I don't think T3 is a bad movie at all. It's an enjoyable Popcorn Summer Action movie. Of course it's not up to T2, but it's not actually a bad film, like...Robocop 2. And Robocop 2 is a bad film. You want to look at an example of a franchise killer, like Neverending Story 2, this is a good one. On a lot of levels Robocop 2 just fails. Mind you, the guy directing it is Irvin Kershner, the guy who directed The Empire Strikes Back, and it was written by first Frank Miller then Walon Green (who wrote my all time favorite Western, The Wild Bunch). And it's a complete mess. You can blame the studio for this if you want, but if Frank Miller's Robocop really is the comic version of the screenplay Miller originally wrote, then they actually had to salvage a really bad script. But Robocop 2 completely derailed the franchise, and that's what I want to talk about. Which movie was actually worse for it's series, Terminator 3 or Robocop 2? You know which side of this I come down on, but what about you guys? Post reply Do you find this valuable? Keyword tags: None
DAVlD	1. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 15 2012, 5:52 PM EST "Netflix is a wonderful thing. I'm watching a bunch of movies I haven't seen in years, among these is Robocop followed by Robocop 2. I know, I know, some of you are thinking "Why would you want to rewatch that piece of **** after Robocop?" Because I liked, and still enjoy, the Robocop vs. RoboCain fight. It's in claymation and looks like something out of a 60's monster movie, but it's still fun. Thing is, as I watched I started thinking about all the fan rage that Terminator 3 provoked, and then how people reacted to Robocop 2 (and 3). Now if you've been here awhile you'll know I don't think T3 is a bad movie at all. It's an enjoyable Popcorn Summer Action movie. Of course it's not up to T2, but it's not actually a bad film, like...Robocop 2. And Robocop 2 is a bad film. You want to look at an example of a franchise killer, like Neverending Story 2, this is a good one. On a lot of levels Robocop 2 just fails. Mind you, the guy directing it is Irvin Kershner, the guy who directed The Empire Strikes Back, and it was written by first Frank Miller then Walon Green (who wrote my all time favorite Western, The Wild Bunch). And it's a complete mess. You can blame the studio for this if you want, but if Frank Miller's Robocop really is the comic version of the screenplay Miller originally wrote, then they actually had to salvage a really bad script. But Robocop 2 completely derailed the franchise, and that's what I want to talk about. Which movie was actually worse for it's series, Terminator 3 or Robocop 2? You know which side of this I come down on, but what about you guys?" r2 is a bigger derail because t3 can just be a differnt timelien and just fuggedabowdit Post reply Do you find this valuable?
I.Join	2. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 15 2012, 8:34 PM EST I don't watch Robocop by MANY years, and I don't remember the second movie... BTW, I remember I watched some random eps of the show on TV, and I remember they weren't that bad (it's rated 5.2 on IMDB): does someone remember it? It came to my mind while reading Neuromancer (William Gibson)... Robocop has a cyberpunk background, but I realized this only many years after watching it. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
MMM.MIND	3. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 15 2012, 8:41 PM EST "But Robocop 2 completely derailed the franchise, and that's what I want to talk about. Which movie was actually worse for it's series, Terminator 3 or Robocop 2? You know which side of this I come down on, but what about you guys?" Terminator was like superman in Movies-----> T3 was really bad Terminator 1 Production Budget: $6.4 million Worldwide: $78,371,200 Box Office - More that 10 its Budget Plus it is a clasic, they sale VHS, DVD, TV right.... and keep selling http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=terminator.htm Terminator 2 Production Budget: $102 million Worldwide: $519,843,345 Box Office, about 5 times its budget Plus it is a clasic, they sale VHS, DVD, TV right.... and keep selling http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator2.htm Terminator 3 Production Budget: $200 million Worldwide: $433,371,112 Box Office --------Key Point about 2 times Its Budget------- Terminator 3 was just a fine movie, and get just a fine Box Office for a 200 million Budget movie.... T1 &T2 are great movies and get a great Box Office for its budgets.... Key point, Great Terminator movie = great profit Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	4. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 16 2012, 10:19 AM EST Erm, Mind, you have to adjust those numbers for inflation. All those budgets are for when the movies were actually made. Terminator 1's budget, for example, wouldn't be 6.4 million today, it would be about 14 million (excluding marketing costs). That's still pretty cheap. The grosses would be about 162 million. T2 would cost about $162 million today, again I don't think this includes marketing, and It would make about $822 million back. T3 would be about $236 million for its budget and would have made $512 million back. And of course we have T4's numbers. T3 actually qualifies as a hit movie, and a profitable one, as it made double it's budget back. And then the rights were sold because the two producers behind it, Kassar and Vajna, had a falling out. Not to mention Schwarzenegger also received 20% of the profits as part of his contract, significantly impacting the bottom line of the film. But if this really was a bomb and derailed the franchise, T4 wouldn't have gotten the big grosses it did ($370 million). Yeah, down from T3, but not what you'd see if T3 was poorly received. Robocop 2, on the other hand, was never given the budget T2 or T3 was. Its budget was just $14 million in 1990, about $23 million dollars today, and it grossed $45 million ($75 million today). Definitely qualifies as a hit, despite the poor quality. And then Robocop 3 comes out. It's even worse than Robocop 2, and because people hear how bad it is, no one goes to view it in theaters as there are no "fans" left from the Robo 2 fiasco. Budget was $22 million ($33 million today). Gross? $10.7 million ($15.9 million today). Definitely a box office bomb. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
I.Join	5. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 16 2012, 11:26 AM EST \| Post edited: Feb 16 2012, 6:55 PM EST "Erm, Mind, you have to adjust those numbers for inflation. All those budgets are for when the movies were actually made. Terminator 1's budget, for example, wouldn't be 6.4 million today, it would be about 14 million (excluding marketing costs)"" This is not the first time you write it: what do you exactly mean for "marketing costs", and who pays for them? I figure you're talking about advertising for a movie (on TV, posters on the streets, posters to be freely sent to theaters, etc). Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	6. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 16 2012, 3:12 PM EST "This is not the first time you write it: what do you exactly mean for "marketing costs", and who pays for them? I figure you're talking about advertisements for a movie (on TV, posters on the streets, posters to be freely sent to theaters, etc)." Not just advertising, it's also throwing parties and inviting journalists, registering/operating/running forum panels at various conventions, etc. Pretty much anything to raise awareness of a film is called marketing. Studios sometimes include these costs in production budgets for a film, so while Box Office Mojo may list Terminator 3's budget as $200 million, it could be they spent $170 to make the film and $30 million to market it, then lumped everything together. Why do that? Accounting trick. If you say your budget was $200 million, that's about $30 million more in money you can claim as cost, meaning the "profit" from grosses is claimed as $233 million ($433 - 200), when in reality it's $263 million ($433 - 170). Why does this matter? Remember that bit I said about Schwarzenegger getting a percentage of the profits? If the marketing is included in the budget cost, he gets less money and the studio pockets the difference. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
MMM.MIND	7. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 16 2012, 4:48 PM EST \| Post edited: Feb 17 2012, 2:27 PM EST "Erm, Mind, you have to adjust those numbers for inflation. All those budgets are for when the movies were actually made. Terminator 1's budget, for example, wouldn't be 6.4 million today, it would be about 14 million (excluding marketing costs). That's still pretty cheap. The grosses would be about 162 million. T2 would cost about $162 million today, again I don't think this includes marketing, and It would make about $822 million back. T3 would be about $236 million for its budget and would have made $512 million back. And of course we have T4's numbers. " 1- Erm, Mind, you have to adjust those numbers for inflation--- Ok is good idea, however my key data is a proportion T1 Box Office / Budget = about 10 = Home Run T2 Box Office / Budget = about 5 = Home Run T3 Box Office / Budget = about 2= Hit Edit--- I make a mistake---- Terminator was a Home Run Franchise until T3. T3 change Terminator direction. A nice point is cost Quality With Godfather Data T1 today cost= 14 millions T2 today cost= 162 million T1 & T2 great movies, fans and critic opinions, with home run Box Office, but T3 cost more, is just a hit + just good Box Office Terminator Movies Quality is not in big budget, they need great plot, great action, Great actor work, Good / Great visual For Example Transformer need big Budget, some plot, some nice actor work, a lot of action and many high cost Special effect Post reply Do you find this valuable?
I.Join	8. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 16 2012, 6:54 PM EST "Not just advertising, it's also throwing parties and inviting journalists, registering/operating/running forum panels at various conventions, etc. Pretty much anything to raise awareness of a film is called marketing. Studios sometimes include these costs in production budgets for a film, so while Box Office Mojo may list Terminator 3's budget as $200 million, it could be they spent $170 to make the film and $30 million to market it, then lumped everything together. Why do that? Accounting trick. If you say your budget was $200 million, that's about $30 million more in money you can claim as cost, meaning the "profit" from grosses is claimed as $233 million ($433 - 200), when in reality it's $263 million ($433 - 170). Why does this matter? Remember that bit I said about Schwarzenegger getting a percentage of the profits? If the marketing is included in the budget cost, he gets less money and the studio pockets the difference. " So Arnie is like taxes, that's why he was a politician! LOL Thank you for explaining. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
intrepid	9. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 17 2012, 5:10 PM EST T3 was proceeded by two good movies and would have gotten the benefit of “that” built in fan base somewhat, plus while it’s a terrible “Terminator” film is isn’t a terrible “action” film so while it dropped numbers it wasn’t a franchise killer but cracks were starting to show; T4 continued the trend in piffing off the fans but still being “good enough” for the non-fans. Robocop 2 was just a train wreck in every sense of the word; it was terrible for the fans and just a terrible film in general. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	10. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 17 2012, 8:15 PM EST Intrepid, it's the "non-fans" who actually matter for the success or failure of a franchise. If you told a studio that they'd make $300 million by pleasing fans, or $400 million by pissing the fans off but pleasing the crowd, they'll take the second option every single time. Hollywood views fans as a built in marketing aid and a base, who will come out to watch a film no matter what. Just look at how much money Lucas made with the prequel trilogy for Star Wars. You think he really cared about the fans? They all went out to see the films anyway, regardless of quality. He was much more concerned about making new converts from the kids. The fans don't make the money for the films. It's the casual audience who matters. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
I.Join	11. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 17 2012, 8:52 PM EST \| Post edited: Feb 17 2012, 9:17 PM EST "1. Intrepid, it's the "non-fans" who actually matter for the success or failure of a franchise. If you told a studio that they'd make $300 million by pleasing fans, or $400 million by pissing the fans off but pleasing the crowd, they'll take the second option every single time. 2. Hollywood views fans as a built in marketing aid and a base, who will come out to watch a film no matter what. Just look at how much money Lucas made with the prequel trilogy for Star Wars. You think he really cared about the fans? They all went out to see the films anyway, regardless of quality. He was much more concerned about making new converts from the kids. The fans don't make the money for the films. It's the casual audience who matters. " 1. If the proportions were the one you just wrote, they could actually chose the fist option, because fans are those who buy DVD/BD/gadgets/action figures/etc, while the others only buy the ticket (or maybe they'll rent the DVD once in 5 years)... so, in a long term, the first choice should produce more money than the second. The problem is that the proportions are rarely so in favour of the first option... Of course, if they wanted to emphasize the grosses, they'd chose the second option, but splitting the incoming for a work in more than a fiscal year usually reduces the total taxes payed for that money. 2. ... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
DAVlD	12. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 17 2012, 9:24 PM EST hey im a fan too Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
The_GodfatherSJP	13. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 18 2012, 9:20 AM EST I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not insulting fans, I'm trying to explain how Hollywood looks at fan groups when it comes to blockbusters. They spend so much money on making a blockbuster film ($140-$150 million dollars), that they naturally try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Even if you're not dealing with a blockbuster, Hollywood knows that broadening your appeal means for money for the film. That's not some "evil" thing, it's a smart business decision. Your franchise doesn't survive unless you make a profit. No, they don't want to intentionally tick off fans, but if you give them the choice of satisfying fans, or making a movie with broader appeal (that will likely make more money), they'll pick option 2 every time. Because there is no fanbase that's large enough to support the money needed to make a blockbuster film. That's the "curse" of T2 in a way: because it was successful as a blockbuster, casual viewers become more important to the success of the franchise than its actual fans. It's one thing if you're making a movie for 30-40 million. Then, if you've got a large enough fanbase, you can churn a movies and make a sizable profit because the fans go to see it. Good example: Star Trek, which never had a "blockbuster" treatment until J.J. Abrams came along. Highest budgets were for Star Trek Insurrection and Nemesis ($58 and $60 million a year), and they'd gross, at best, some $120 million for the biggest movies (counting inflation). Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	14. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 12:19 PM EST \| Post edited: Feb 20 2012, 12:27 PM EST The other thing about T3 is that I think it falls victim to what I call "Augustus Syndrome." The term is named after the Emperor Augustus, who founded the Roman Empire. He was such a good ruler, and so beloved by the people, that anyone who followed him could not possibly measure up to his standard (in this case, Emperor Tiberius, one of the few Roman rulers who actually left more money in the treasury when he died than when he started; he wasn't a bad emperor, just an average one), and as a result people hated his successor. I think the case is true, to an extent, with T3. It's not made by James Cameron and it has to follow a movie which began the "blockbuster" summer movie phenomenon that started in the 90's. It's a movie that critics and audiences loved in 1991 and still do. Now how can you possibly top it? You can't really. So because T3's not as good, fans trash it like crazy. But it's not a bad movie at all. It's just not a 4 star film. Robocop is a very good 80's action flick, but it certainly wasn't greeted with the universal acclaim T2 was. It's really a part of a long line of franchises where Hollywood produces a hit movie that's very good, then follows it up with a sequel which, well, isn't. The list is endless: Pirates of the Caribbean 2, The Hangover Part 2, Beverly Hills Cop 2, etc. These are 3 star films that are followed up by a 1 star or 1.5 star movie, because the people making the sequels don't understand what makes the first film good to begin with. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Gusar	15. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 12:39 PM EST "But it's not a bad movie at all." It is. It's maybe half hour of story and one hour of meaningless, and therefore boring, action. It's a rehash of T2, except with stupid jokes, like the glasses. It tries to use a female termie as titillation, but instead of being turned on, I just cringed when she orgasms at discovering John's blood. It tried to modernize by making Skynet an internet entity instead of a central mainframe, but this means that by launching the nukes, Skynet lobotomizes itself. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	16. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 1:03 PM EST "1) It's maybe half hour of story and one hour of meaningless, and therefore boring, action. 2)It's a rehash of T2, except with stupid jokes, like the glasses. 3)It tries to use a female termie as titillation, but instead of being turned on, I just cringed when she orgasms at discovering John's blood. " 1) I wouldn't say boring and I did not and do not find it meaningless. It's a chase movie. Main characters have to go from Point A to Point B, and these are the intervening events of how they get there. You're going to have to explain why a lot of the action sequences are meaningless. T3 actually has the best chase sequence (with the crane) and best terminator fight of the entire series. 2) You mean like most sequels are rehashes of what came before? And Hollywood has never done that for a franchise before? Actually I think the humor is an outgrowth of a lot of T2's humor too. Why do you think Arnold glares at the hospital attendant in T2 after she breaks his sunglasses (while he's rescuing Sarah)? The whole point of that glare is him thinking "you did not just break my shades, *****." How about "Bad To The Bone" at the biker stop? For the record, I laughed at the "porno glasses" and "talk to the hand" bit a lot. 3) Again, hardly a surprise and a natural direction that Hollywood would go. Studio was looking at the franchise and thinking the one element it was missing was sex appeal. Linda Hamilton certainly wouldn't be described as beautiful in T2. As I said before, broad appeal means more money. Only reason this wasn't done for T2 was that James Cameron had complete control. Actually the T-X never bothered me either, and I rather liked the concept. It's a natural evolution: Connor begins converting endos so Skynet's response is to build this. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Gusar	17. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 1:10 PM EST \| Post edited: Feb 20 2012, 1:14 PM EST "1) T3 actually has the best chase sequence (with the crane) 2) You mean like most sequels are rehashes of what came before? And Hollywood has never done that for a franchise before? 3) How about "Bad To The Bone" at the biker stop? 4) Again, hardly a surprise and a natural direction that Hollywood would go. Studio was looking at the franchise and thinking the one element it was missing was sex appeal. " 1) See, I found that meaningless. All I did during it was waiting for the movie to actually start! 2) So because Hollywood does it a lot, it makes T3 not bad? Sorry, but no. 3) That's a whole different level of humor than porno glasses. At least IMHO. 4) And again, just because it's the usual MO, it does not make the movie not bad. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	18. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 1:23 PM EST "4) It tried to modernize by making Skynet an internet entity instead of a central mainframe, but this means that by launching the nukes, Skynet lobotomizes itself." 4) Perhaps not. This is a computer program that achieves sentience by gaining access to every computer, everywhere in the world, including the entire mainframe in, say SAC NORAD, correct? I don't see why it's such a leap of logic that Skynet could decide to launch the nukes, then download itself as an entity in a vast network in a nuclear fallout bunker (and retain access to, say, a robotics factory). This, actually, is a logical fallacy of the entire Terminator series, not just T3, and it's something James Cameron never dealt with (because he couldn't explain it well either). If Skynet launches nukes that blow up the entire world, how can it then gain access to the industrial capacity to build i's machines? How can it build it's own robots? Automotive factories and the like aren't normally found in rural areas, they're in industrial areas near cities. Meaning: they go up with the nukes. So by destroying human civilization, Skynet would also deprive itself of the means to build an army. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
The_GodfatherSJP	19. RE: Robocop 2 vs. Terminator 3 Feb 20 2012, 1:37 PM EST "1) See, I found that meaningless. All I did during it was waiting for the movie to actually start! 2) So because Hollywood does it a lot, it makes T3 not bad? Sorry, but no. 3) That's a whole different level of humor than porno glasses. At least IMHO. 4) And again, just because it's the usual MO, it does not make the movie not bad. " 1) How is it meaningless? You need to explain how and why. It's the opening chase when the protector character means with his wards and his to protect them initially, setting the stakes for the movie. If this is meaningless, than the T-1000 chasing John in a truck for T2 is also meaningless. Same exact concept and same results: the protector makes contact, saves his wards, drives off, pursuer follows. 2&4) See, here's the thing: I'm not going to judge T3 by the standards of T2. Not now, not ever. I judge it relative to the rest of Hollywood cinema, not the prior entry in the series. Yeah, I know fans are going to judge it by the former, not the latter, but here's why it's always a bad mistake to do this for a franchise: except in very rare cases, you will never get the same writer and director team working on later entries. Now a later entry may be better than the first, for example, the James Bond series or reimagined Battlestar Galactica, but often the opposite is true, as we all know. And given how well T2 did, it was actually unreasonable, from the get go, to expect that T3 would be the same quality despite the fact that a different director, writer, and producing team was in place. If you thought otherwise, you were fooling yourselves. I knew that walking into theaters at age 21, I was not expecting T3 to be as good as T2. But I was glad I saw it in theaters and I enjoyed watching it. It was a fun movie to view. 3) I don't really make a distinction. I found the humor to be in the same vein. And it's common for most franchises to have self referential jokes like that, which "Bad To The Bone" and the sunglasses both qualify as. Terminator is no different, nor was there ever a point at any time when it would have been different. Post reply Do you find this valuable?

1 2 3 4 | Next