Requiem For a Robocop

Out of context: Reply #10

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 12 Responses
  • keithrondinelli0

    I agree with Kelpie – they're just dishing out what the public wants to eat. Most people (especially Americans) are so moronic, that their movie-going decision making begins and ends with "Uh, I heard of that". That's the thing with remakes – and it's quite genius from a purely business standpoint – name recognition is already built-in. No need to spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to get asses in seats.

    These leads me to a similar story: I remember when "Children of Men" was first being advertised in theaters. My fiancee and I (avid film buffs) thought the setup for the film shown in the first 30 seconds or so of the trailer was enough. They sold me with the premise of "in the near future women stop having babies, no on knows why, and therefore chaos ensues". That's intriguing, no? And then the trailer goes on to show that a woman who can get pregnant is found, giving away most of the suspense and mystery of the movie.

    A short while later, I read an interview with the editor who edited the trailer, and he said his shop – which only edits trailers – did a whole bunch of focus-group audience testing of trailers and they found out this:

    MOST PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE WHOLE STORY BEFORE THEY SEE THE MOVIE.

    There you go. If you need any more evidence of how feeble-minded people have become, I can't think of better.

    Therefore, sequels and remakes and "re-imaginings" are the perfect product. Everyone already knows the story. No risk, no thought, just totally passive consumption of empty entertainment.

    • it's just a trailer dude calm downbrandelec
    • I've said it before and I'll say it again - the general public are a bunch of cunts.Wolfboy

View thread