Robocop 3 (1993)

nTitle: Robocop 3 (1993)

nDirector: Fred Dekker

nWriters: Frank Miller & Fred Dekker

nCast: Robert Burke, Nancy Allen

nReview:

nSo every now and again a franchise becomes mega successful, andntakes over the world. It churns out a sequel or two and then dies when one of saidnsequels becomes what I like to call ‘The Franchise Killer’. It happened withnSpiderman 3 (2007), it happened with Batman and Robin (1997) and it happenednwith Terminator Salvation (2009). The only solution that studios are left withnis to reboot the entire series; start from scratch, make believe the previousnfilms never happened. This is exactly what happened to the Robocop franchise. PaulnVerhoven’s Robocop was a huge hit that instantly turned the robotic cop into anpop cultural icon. The sequel, Robocop 2 (1990) got a lot of heat because itnwas such a violent film, it had a 12 year old kid running a drug cartel,nwielding machine guns and cursing like a sailor. Plus, the body count was evennhigher then that of the first movie! But it was filled with action and thatndark sense of humor that the first film was so known for, it wasn’t a disappointingnRobo-sequel in my book. Then came the third film, The Franchise Killer. What wentnwrong here?

nWell, a couple of things went wrong here. Number one, thenstudio had decided to turn Robocop into a series of films for kids. But wasnRobocop a series of films made for kids? No, far from it; if you rememberncorrectly, since inception Robocop was a violent series of films. I justnre-watched the first film, and that’s a violent, gory piece. I mean, Murphyngets his hand blown clean off! He gets blown away by shotguns! He gets a bulletnin the head! And we get front row tickets to the whole thing, we got to see itnall. Hell, a man gets toxic waste spilled on him and melts into a bloody pulp! FornChrist sake, we see Robert Morton -Robocop’sncreator- hanging out with two whores as he sniffs cocaine from their barenbreasts! Point is, the first Robocop was not a film intended for children. Neithernwas the second film, that one was centered around drug addiction. Ever stoppednto count how many people died on Robocop 2? A lot that’s how many! So why turn the third film in the series intona vehicle to sell video games and action figures? There was money to be made and the studio knew it that’snwhy. So sad they decided to turn Robocop into a nanny. How was this PG-13 versionnof Robocop when compared to the previous two films? For starters, the bodyncount was low, there’s no nudity, no blood, no gore, no foul language. Robocopngets a sidekick, and she’s a little girl who is a computer whiz. This is whatnRobocop was reduced to.

nRobocop 2 was written by Frank Miller, the renowned comicnbook artist behind Sinn City and 300. WritingnRobocop 2 was a bad experience for him because the script he wrote and the filmnwe ended up seeing where two different beasts all together. So different werenthey, that in 2003 Frank Miller released a comic book called Frank Miller’snRobocop 2 which stuck close the original script for the film. Miller’s scriptnwas so convoluted that the studio deemed it “un-filmable” and so they broughtnin a team of writers to rework it. Robocop 2 was a sour experience for FranknMiller, but, like a resilient cockroach, Miller came back anyways to write partn3, thinking he could teach Hollywood a thing or two. Instead Hollywood taught him something. In his ownnwords: “Don’t be the writer. The directors got the power. The screenplay is anfire hydrant and there’s a row of dogs around the block waiting for it” Sonaccording to Miller, his screenplays got pissed on by Hollywood. Fred Dekker was the guy who pissednon Millers script, Dekker took Miller’s script and reworked it under studionorders to make it more kid friendly. So if we have to point a finger atnsomeone, it’s the studio who wanted to turn Robocop into a Saturday morningncartoon. Dekker was just playing ball, excited to be playing with the Robocopnfranchise and willing to do anything he could to make the film.

nIn a scene during Robocop 2, when they are injecting Robocopnwith all these useless new directives one of the directives read: “Directiven262: Avoid Orion Meetings”, funny they should put that there because OrionnPictures was going bankrupt around this time! So you can add that to the listnof things that went wrong during Robocop’s 3 production; Orion Pictures, thenstudio that financed and distributed the film was going bankrupt. As a resultnmany films where put on hold while the studios gargantuan debt was being resolved.nReportedly, the debt had risen to the vicinity of 690 million dollars! This wasna studio in trouble, no doubts about that! And it was sad too, Orion Picturesnhad produced so many Oscar winning films like Silence of the Lambs (1991),nPlatoon (1986) and Dances with Wolves (1990). They were behind fun films likenthe Bill and Ted movies, The Terminator (1984) and even Return of the LivingnDead (1985)! So, Robocop 3 was made during the last days of Orion. Robocop 3 hadnbeen finished in 1991, but ended up being released a couple of years later, inn1993, which of course led to speculation about the studios integrity. When anstudio holds a film back like that, it’s because of something, and usually itnaint good. Movie buffs such as myself can smell a troubled production fromnmiles away! Situations like this can put a dark cloud over a film, making itsntarget audience suspicious about the films quality.

nFred Dekker on the set for Robocop 3 (1993)

nFinally, the saddest part of the whole Robocop 3 ordeal isnthat it was made by a director whose work I’ve enjoyed very much. The man isnFred Dekker. Strangest part about the whole thing is that Dekker says thatnworking on Robocop 3 was “the most enjoyable movie making experience I’ve had, andnfor me, the most accomplished work I’ve done as a director” That commentnbaffles the mind, considering he is the guy behind such great sci-fi horrornclassics as Monster Squad (1987) and Night of the Creeps (1986), two far betternpictures in my opinion, but it’s what the man thinks, you gotta respect that. Inguess Dekker is actually referring to working with a bigger budget and havingnall the equipment necessary to make a film; this was his biggest film ever andnhe was excited to be working with all these professionals. Frank Miller, thencomic book god and Rob Bottin the make up effects god, these are all greatnindustry professionals respected in their fields, hey, I’d be excited to benworking with them too. For Robocop 3, Dekker was working with a budget of 23.5nmillion dollars, of course he was enjoying himself! All his previous films werenmade under the 12 million dollar mark. On the positive side of things, Dekker doesnaccept the blame for the film not working and recognizes the mistakes he made. Hensays part of the films failure was that it was a story about Robocop sidingnwith the poor guys (a very left wing message) at a time when the country wasnmostly right wing. He also admits to having shot himself in the foot bynfollowing studios order to make the film more kid friendly. Gone were thenviolence and cynicism that made the first two films successful. Dekker alsonwishes he’d put more action in it, I agree right there too, the action fallsnflat on this one.

nSo there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the reasons whynRobocop 3 failed to lift off at the box office. I personally didn’t mind thatnthis was a story about Robocop siding with the poor and the needy, because younknow, this world is filled with evil corporations wanting to kick the poor outnof their homes so they can make their expensive condos that only the rich cannlive in; spreading their Ivory towers around the world, and that sucks in mynbook. There should be space for all of us in this world, “this could be heavennfor everyone”, but it isn’t because of corporations like Robocop’s OmninConsumer Products. Yeah, it’s a tired story, but apparently it keeps happening innthe world because films with these themes do not stop getting made. I personallynenjoyed that angle of the story. The human characters had heart to them,nunfortunately, though Robocop was siding with them, he had no emotion or heartnhimself. On this film Robocop was more robotic than ever! I mean, didn’t Robocopnturn a bit more human in previous films? He’s supposed to be thinking on hisnown now! He’s supposed to be more Murphy than Robo, but he isn’t. On this thirdnfilm he speaks in a colder fashion, with a whole lot less emotion, he’s notnMurphy and that was one of the biggest problems for me with the film. And whennRobocop flies through the air, it just looks so cheesy, so fake. All thingsnconsidered, at the end of the day I can’t bring myself to completely hate thisnfilm because it’s Robocop and I’ve always loved the character. Let’s hope thisnnew reboot that is on the horizon does the character some justice! Let’s hopenthe series doesn’t loose that cynicism, that violence and that edginess that thenprevious films had. But I digress, in all honesty this new Robocop film willnprobably be PG-13. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

nRobo Rating: 2 1/2 out of 5