NEW INTERVIEW with Dekker (but he still isn’t getting it)

[Spectrum Scarlet]

From January — THIS YEAR (2022):

A lengthy conversation about his works and entire career, “ROBOCOP 3” was discussed in a way that I haven’t heard Fred Dekker talk about it before. Along with the first 2 films and their nihilism, he states that had he been given the option to deliver an R-rating, he wouldn’t have necessarily taken it. And boy, does he (or did he) have some absolutely ridiculous ideas for what he WOULD have done (had he been given the chance to rectify it).

I’ve never heard of him disclose these before (it’s possibly his best interview on the movie as a whole) and unless he was being sarcastic, they’re far worse than the Hong Kong stunt team coming over to handle the action sequences. That, I had read before, but he also, quite fairly, expresses his anger at people criticising Robert Burke. Defending him personally and making a valid point that the Weller fans will never understand about other actors portraying when playing iconic roles.

I just would’ve liked Burke not to continually hold his free hand up when carrying either the Auto-9 or Weapon Arm. If he was doing that to maintain his balance, they should’ve modified the feet to make him feel more supported and kept the set floor clear.

You can read the whole interview at the link below, but for quickness, here’s the relevant responses (in reverse order, since I think those will be of more interest than his thoughts on “1” & “2”):


————————————————————————————————————————-
What was the moment when you knew the movie was not turning out the way you wanted?

That’s a great question. I have to be completely honest. Apart from the problems I had with it, like the effects and the fight choreography, I don’t know what I could have done differently at that time in my life, with the script that I had. Now, if someone gave me a time machine which would only allow me to go back and make ROBOCOP 3 all over again, I would do some of the things I just talked about, but I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end.

The ninja robot would beat the shit out of Robocop, in a Tsui Hark kind of way. Robo is down. His arm is off. His helmet is cracked. He’s completely fucked up. We know he’s gonna die. And then we hear [robotic sounds] and in comes this sixteen foot tall four armed robot with Nancy’s face. Everybody would go: The rest of this movie sucks, but man, that is great!

That would have been something.

And Nancy would have been happier. She was not a happy camper on this movie.

She didn’t liked the fact that her character was killed off, right?

She did not. And she didn’t have a good experience on the second movie either, because a lot of her stuff was cut out. That’s something I learned. If God willing I ever make another movie, I know that nurturing the actors is really important. It affects the whole thing. We got along fine on the set, although we had some wardrobe issues. She didn’t want to wear her police uniform. I said: But in every scene you’re on duty!

I think ROBOCOP 3 has an undeserved bad rep. I thought ROBOCOP 2 tried to outdo the original in its nihilism, but it felt forced and as a consequence the movie just feels a bit nasty to me. What I like about ROBOCOP 3, is that it does something different. It has more of a friendly spirit and even some genuine emotional moments. My question to you is: even if the studio had given you permission to make an R-rated movie, is that dark, cynical stuff even something you’re interested in?

I honestly don’t think so. This goes back to the beginning of our discussion, about not wanting to repeat something that we’ve already seen. I’m a huge fan of the first ROBOCOP. I love filmmakers whose work has a recurring sense of them. Paul Verhoeven is certainly an example of that. I completely concur with what you said about ROBOCOP 2. Irvin Kershner is a great director. Arguably the best STAR WARS movie was directed by him. But he was trying to do something he wasn’t born to do. All of the nihilism and over-the-top stuff and the little kid drug dealer, all of that was meant to shock, just like in the first movie. But there was an effortlessness about the first movie.

You can hear Verhoeven giggling. He’s having tremendous fun. Whereas I don’t get the impression that Kershner was having fun. It’s like he’s making the movie with a gun to his head. I know from people who have worked on that movie that there was friction on set. They were changing it a lot. I don’t think I could ever make a movie like Verhoeven’s. It’s not as nasty as the second, but it’s kind of nasty. For me, it goes against the grain to be mean. I like to have some heart and soul in my movies. But I will also tell you what I think is wrong with ROBOCOP 3, if you’re interested.

Absolutely.

One thing that happened was that the release was held up because the studio was filing chapter eleven. So, between the time we finished the movie and the time we released it, two other movies had hit the market place that changed everything: JURASSIC PARK and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY, both of which had made the quantum leap from special photographic effects to computer generated effects. Any movie thereafter is going to pale by comparison. Although, there’s a lot of bad CGI in the nineties that just looks terrible.

If the studio had given me the opportunity to do whatever I wanted, I don’t think I necessarily would have made an R-rated movie. It would not have been nastier. I would have hired Jackie Chan’s stunt team and give the movie a Hong Kong sensibility. This was before THE MATRIX and before this became common in Western action movies. I wanted that ninja to be the most fucking amazing thing you had ever seen. The action scenes were the important thing, but I got too wrapped up in the transition between scenes and working with the actors. That movie needed to be more exciting.

But I stand by Robert John Burke. I’m so sick of people saying: But you didn’t have Peter Weller. So what? ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE didn’t have Sean Connery and it’s pretty fucking good. This isn’t the first time they’ve switched an actor in an important part.

https://www.flashbackfiles.com/fred-dekker-interview

[Joined]

From January — THIS YEAR (2022):

A lengthy conversation about his works and entire career, “ROBOCOP 3” was discussed in a way that I haven’t heard Fred Dekker talk about it before. Along with the first 2 films and their nihilism, he states that had he been given the option to deliver an R-rating, he wouldn’t have necessarily taken it. And boy, does he (or did he) have some absolutely ridiculous ideas for what he WOULD have done (had he been given the chance to rectify it).

I’ve never heard of him disclose these before (it’s possibly his best interview on the movie as a whole) and unless he was being sarcastic, they’re far worse than the Hong Kong stunt team coming over to handle the action sequences. That, I had read before, but he also, quite fairly, expresses his anger at people criticising Robert Burke. Defending him personally and making a valid point that the Weller fans will never understand about other actors portraying when playing iconic roles.

I just would’ve liked Burke not to continually hold his free hand up when carrying either the Auto-9 or Weapon Arm. If he was doing that to maintain his balance, they should’ve modified the feet to make him feel more supported and kept the set floor clear.

You can read the whole interview at the link below, but for quickness, here’s the relevant responses (in reverse order, since I think those will be of more interest than his thoughts on “1” & “2”):


————————————————————————————————————————-
What was the moment when you knew the movie was not turning out the way you wanted?

That’s a great question. I have to be completely honest. Apart from the problems I had with it, like the effects and the fight choreography, I don’t know what I could have done differently at that time in my life, with the script that I had. Now, if someone gave me a time machine which would only allow me to go back and make ROBOCOP 3 all over again, I would do some of the things I just talked about, but I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end.

The ninja robot would beat the shit out of Robocop, in a Tsui Hark kind of way. Robo is down. His arm is off. His helmet is cracked. He’s completely fucked up. We know he’s gonna die. And then we hear [robotic sounds] and in comes this sixteen foot tall four armed robot with Nancy’s face. Everybody would go: The rest of this movie sucks, but man, that is great!

That would have been something.

And Nancy would have been happier. She was not a happy camper on this movie.

She didn’t liked the fact that her character was killed off, right?

She did not. And she didn’t have a good experience on the second movie either, because a lot of her stuff was cut out. That’s something I learned. If God willing I ever make another movie, I know that nurturing the actors is really important. It affects the whole thing. We got along fine on the set, although we had some wardrobe issues. She didn’t want to wear her police uniform. I said: But in every scene you’re on duty!

I think ROBOCOP 3 has an undeserved bad rep. I thought ROBOCOP 2 tried to outdo the original in its nihilism, but it felt forced and as a consequence the movie just feels a bit nasty to me. What I like about ROBOCOP 3, is that it does something different. It has more of a friendly spirit and even some genuine emotional moments. My question to you is: even if the studio had given you permission to make an R-rated movie, is that dark, cynical stuff even something you’re interested in?

I honestly don’t think so. This goes back to the beginning of our discussion, about not wanting to repeat something that we’ve already seen. I’m a huge fan of the first ROBOCOP. I love filmmakers whose work has a recurring sense of them. Paul Verhoeven is certainly an example of that. I completely concur with what you said about ROBOCOP 2. Irvin Kershner is a great director. Arguably the best STAR WARS movie was directed by him. But he was trying to do something he wasn’t born to do. All of the nihilism and over-the-top stuff and the little kid drug dealer, all of that was meant to shock, just like in the first movie. But there was an effortlessness about the first movie.

You can hear Verhoeven giggling. He’s having tremendous fun. Whereas I don’t get the impression that Kershner was having fun. It’s like he’s making the movie with a gun to his head. I know from people who have worked on that movie that there was friction on set. They were changing it a lot. I don’t think I could ever make a movie like Verhoeven’s. It’s not as nasty as the second, but it’s kind of nasty. For me, it goes against the grain to be mean. I like to have some heart and soul in my movies. But I will also tell you what I think is wrong with ROBOCOP 3, if you’re interested.

Absolutely.

One thing that happened was that the release was held up because the studio was filing chapter eleven. So, between the time we finished the movie and the time we released it, two other movies had hit the market place that changed everything: JURASSIC PARK and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY, both of which had made the quantum leap from special photographic effects to computer generated effects. Any movie thereafter is going to pale by comparison. Although, there’s a lot of bad CGI in the nineties that just looks terrible.

If the studio had given me the opportunity to do whatever I wanted, I don’t think I necessarily would have made an R-rated movie. It would not have been nastier. I would have hired Jackie Chan’s stunt team and give the movie a Hong Kong sensibility. This was before THE MATRIX and before this became common in Western action movies. I wanted that ninja to be the most fucking amazing thing you had ever seen. The action scenes were the important thing, but I got too wrapped up in the transition between scenes and working with the actors. That movie needed to be more exciting.

But I stand by Robert John Burke. I’m so sick of people saying: But you didn’t have Peter Weller. So what? ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE didn’t have Sean Connery and it’s pretty fucking good. This isn’t the first time they’ve switched an actor in an important part.

https://www.flashbackfiles.com/fred-dekker-interview

[Post Count]

From January — THIS YEAR (2022):

A lengthy conversation about his works and entire career, “ROBOCOP 3” was discussed in a way that I haven’t heard Fred Dekker talk about it before. Along with the first 2 films and their nihilism, he states that had he been given the option to deliver an R-rating, he wouldn’t have necessarily taken it. And boy, does he (or did he) have some absolutely ridiculous ideas for what he WOULD have done (had he been given the chance to rectify it).

I’ve never heard of him disclose these before (it’s possibly his best interview on the movie as a whole) and unless he was being sarcastic, they’re far worse than the Hong Kong stunt team coming over to handle the action sequences. That, I had read before, but he also, quite fairly, expresses his anger at people criticising Robert Burke. Defending him personally and making a valid point that the Weller fans will never understand about other actors portraying when playing iconic roles.

I just would’ve liked Burke not to continually hold his free hand up when carrying either the Auto-9 or Weapon Arm. If he was doing that to maintain his balance, they should’ve modified the feet to make him feel more supported and kept the set floor clear.

You can read the whole interview at the link below, but for quickness, here’s the relevant responses (in reverse order, since I think those will be of more interest than his thoughts on “1” & “2”):


————————————————————————————————————————-
What was the moment when you knew the movie was not turning out the way you wanted?

That’s a great question. I have to be completely honest. Apart from the problems I had with it, like the effects and the fight choreography, I don’t know what I could have done differently at that time in my life, with the script that I had. Now, if someone gave me a time machine which would only allow me to go back and make ROBOCOP 3 all over again, I would do some of the things I just talked about, but I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end.

The ninja robot would beat the shit out of Robocop, in a Tsui Hark kind of way. Robo is down. His arm is off. His helmet is cracked. He’s completely fucked up. We know he’s gonna die. And then we hear [robotic sounds] and in comes this sixteen foot tall four armed robot with Nancy’s face. Everybody would go: The rest of this movie sucks, but man, that is great!

That would have been something.

And Nancy would have been happier. She was not a happy camper on this movie.

She didn’t liked the fact that her character was killed off, right?

She did not. And she didn’t have a good experience on the second movie either, because a lot of her stuff was cut out. That’s something I learned. If God willing I ever make another movie, I know that nurturing the actors is really important. It affects the whole thing. We got along fine on the set, although we had some wardrobe issues. She didn’t want to wear her police uniform. I said: But in every scene you’re on duty!

I think ROBOCOP 3 has an undeserved bad rep. I thought ROBOCOP 2 tried to outdo the original in its nihilism, but it felt forced and as a consequence the movie just feels a bit nasty to me. What I like about ROBOCOP 3, is that it does something different. It has more of a friendly spirit and even some genuine emotional moments. My question to you is: even if the studio had given you permission to make an R-rated movie, is that dark, cynical stuff even something you’re interested in?

I honestly don’t think so. This goes back to the beginning of our discussion, about not wanting to repeat something that we’ve already seen. I’m a huge fan of the first ROBOCOP. I love filmmakers whose work has a recurring sense of them. Paul Verhoeven is certainly an example of that. I completely concur with what you said about ROBOCOP 2. Irvin Kershner is a great director. Arguably the best STAR WARS movie was directed by him. But he was trying to do something he wasn’t born to do. All of the nihilism and over-the-top stuff and the little kid drug dealer, all of that was meant to shock, just like in the first movie. But there was an effortlessness about the first movie.

You can hear Verhoeven giggling. He’s having tremendous fun. Whereas I don’t get the impression that Kershner was having fun. It’s like he’s making the movie with a gun to his head. I know from people who have worked on that movie that there was friction on set. They were changing it a lot. I don’t think I could ever make a movie like Verhoeven’s. It’s not as nasty as the second, but it’s kind of nasty. For me, it goes against the grain to be mean. I like to have some heart and soul in my movies. But I will also tell you what I think is wrong with ROBOCOP 3, if you’re interested.

Absolutely.

One thing that happened was that the release was held up because the studio was filing chapter eleven. So, between the time we finished the movie and the time we released it, two other movies had hit the market place that changed everything: JURASSIC PARK and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY, both of which had made the quantum leap from special photographic effects to computer generated effects. Any movie thereafter is going to pale by comparison. Although, there’s a lot of bad CGI in the nineties that just looks terrible.

If the studio had given me the opportunity to do whatever I wanted, I don’t think I necessarily would have made an R-rated movie. It would not have been nastier. I would have hired Jackie Chan’s stunt team and give the movie a Hong Kong sensibility. This was before THE MATRIX and before this became common in Western action movies. I wanted that ninja to be the most fucking amazing thing you had ever seen. The action scenes were the important thing, but I got too wrapped up in the transition between scenes and working with the actors. That movie needed to be more exciting.

But I stand by Robert John Burke. I’m so sick of people saying: But you didn’t have Peter Weller. So what? ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE didn’t have Sean Connery and it’s pretty fucking good. This isn’t the first time they’ve switched an actor in an important part.

https://www.flashbackfiles.com/fred-dekker-interview

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Spectrum Scarlet]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[HOB888]

I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end


_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[Joined]

I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end


_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[Post Count]

I would also bring back Nancy Allen’s character as a cyborg at the end


_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[NukeLord]

I like Fred, he's a really nice guy - but the concept of bringing back Nancy Allen as a female RoboCop at the end is so goofy.

The original movie even went to great lengths to shoot the scene with Lewis in the hospital at the end, because they didn't want audiences to think this goofy concept was a reality.

[Joined]

I like Fred, he's a really nice guy - but the concept of bringing back Nancy Allen as a female RoboCop at the end is so goofy.

The original movie even went to great lengths to shoot the scene with Lewis in the hospital at the end, because they didn't want audiences to think this goofy concept was a reality.

[Post Count]

I like Fred, he's a really nice guy - but the concept of bringing back Nancy Allen as a female RoboCop at the end is so goofy.

The original movie even went to great lengths to shoot the scene with Lewis in the hospital at the end, because they didn't want audiences to think this goofy concept was a reality.

[Comment]

I like Fred, he's a really nice guy - but the concept of bringing back Nancy Allen as a female RoboCop at the end is so goofy.

The original movie even went to great lengths to shoot the scene with Lewis in the hospital at the end, because they didn't want audiences to think this goofy concept was a reality.

[HOB888]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[NukeLord]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[WeKilledYou]

I respectfully disagree with him on Robocop 2. I understand it’s not praised by many, he’s with the majority there. But I love the hard R & nihilism. AND the murderous drug dealing kid! 😆

Nancy coming back as a sixteen foot tall robot with her face on it is a strong no thanks from me. But I agree she could have had way more screen time.

[Joined]

I respectfully disagree with him on Robocop 2. I understand it’s not praised by many, he’s with the majority there. But I love the hard R & nihilism. AND the murderous drug dealing kid! 😆

Nancy coming back as a sixteen foot tall robot with her face on it is a strong no thanks from me. But I agree she could have had way more screen time.

[Post Count]

I respectfully disagree with him on Robocop 2. I understand it’s not praised by many, he’s with the majority there. But I love the hard R & nihilism. AND the murderous drug dealing kid! 😆

Nancy coming back as a sixteen foot tall robot with her face on it is a strong no thanks from me. But I agree she could have had way more screen time.

[Comment]

I respectfully disagree with him on Robocop 2. I understand it’s not praised by many, he’s with the majority there. But I love the hard R & nihilism. AND the murderous drug dealing kid! 😆

Nancy coming back as a sixteen foot tall robot with her face on it is a strong no thanks from me. But I agree she could have had way more screen time.

[NOF]

I understand that not everyone will appreciate the nihilism on display in R2, but I do think it is a logistical extension of the first film, which ends with the police on strike and a multi-national corporation preparing to wreck havoc on the city for profit. If the script had been tighter, I genuinely feel it would have gotten the acclaim that The Dark Knight received due to Robo being put through the wringer and coming out all the stronger for it. Which would have given the nihilism a purpose.

In R3, I did enjoy the idea of a community bounding together, but Dekker didn't seem to understand the character. Leaving aside RoboLewis, writing the Old Man as a blundering, naïve fool and then expecting Dan O'Herlihy to play him is insane.

[Joined]

I understand that not everyone will appreciate the nihilism on display in R2, but I do think it is a logistical extension of the first film, which ends with the police on strike and a multi-national corporation preparing to wreck havoc on the city for profit. If the script had been tighter, I genuinely feel it would have gotten the acclaim that The Dark Knight received due to Robo being put through the wringer and coming out all the stronger for it. Which would have given the nihilism a purpose.

In R3, I did enjoy the idea of a community bounding together, but Dekker didn't seem to understand the character. Leaving aside RoboLewis, writing the Old Man as a blundering, naïve fool and then expecting Dan O'Herlihy to play him is insane.

[Post Count]

I understand that not everyone will appreciate the nihilism on display in R2, but I do think it is a logistical extension of the first film, which ends with the police on strike and a multi-national corporation preparing to wreck havoc on the city for profit. If the script had been tighter, I genuinely feel it would have gotten the acclaim that The Dark Knight received due to Robo being put through the wringer and coming out all the stronger for it. Which would have given the nihilism a purpose.

In R3, I did enjoy the idea of a community bounding together, but Dekker didn't seem to understand the character. Leaving aside RoboLewis, writing the Old Man as a blundering, naïve fool and then expecting Dan O'Herlihy to play him is insane.

[Comment]

I understand that not everyone will appreciate the nihilism on display in R2, but I do think it is a logistical extension of the first film, which ends with the police on strike and a multi-national corporation preparing to wreck havoc on the city for profit. If the script had been tighter, I genuinely feel it would have gotten the acclaim that The Dark Knight received due to Robo being put through the wringer and coming out all the stronger for it. Which would have given the nihilism a purpose.

In R3, I did enjoy the idea of a community bounding together, but Dekker didn't seem to understand the character. Leaving aside RoboLewis, writing the Old Man as a blundering, naïve fool and then expecting Dan O'Herlihy to play him is insane.