Entertainment
How One PG-13 Sci-Fi Movie Destroyed An R-Rated Franchise
By Drew Dietsch
| Published
You know what I should talk about more? Sci-fi movies from the ‘90s. I feel like I haven’t given that niche genre enough attention.
Obviously, I love ‘90s cinema as many of our videos prove, and the sci-fi of the decade is a particular favorite genre. But I have another qualifier to add: franchise films. I find franchise filmmaking fascinating from a certain point of view.
While it can be fun and creatively stimulating to talk about canon and carryover characters and all the direct art involved in franchise films, it’s more intriguing to me to look at franchise movies from their strategic standpoints.
Specifically, what are these different movies attempting to do both collectively and individually when it comes to their franchise mindset?
Basically, what is an identifiable success point a franchise film entry is trying to achieve? Other than, you know, buttloads of cash.
Our subject today is a franchise sequel that many fans and casual audiences saw exactly what it was trying to achieve and rejected it, putting its movie franchise on ice for over two decades.
This is why RoboCop 3 failed.
RoboCop 3 And Why It Failed

Alright, let’s get personal real quick. RoboCop is my second favorite film of all time. It’s a movie that I could talk about forever and why it’s so personal to me, but we’ve got a failure to analyze. If you’d like to see that kind of video, make sure to mention that in the comments.
Suffice to say, RoboCop is a well-established genre classic that, if you haven’t seen it, you’re depriving yourself of an effects blockbuster that takes as much care with its story and characters as it does the action and comedy.
As far as RoboCop 2 is concerned, we’re only going to talk about it as it relates to RoboCop 3. If you’d like to hear my thoughts on RoboCop 2, check out the GenreVision movie club episode we did on it for our We Are the Robots theme month.

RoboCop 2 is important to the story of both RoboCop 3’s production and actual in-movie story. RoboCop 2 was mostly written by Frank Miller, one of the most celebrated comic book writers and artists of the ‘80s.
In June 1990, when Orion Pictures was about to release RoboCop 2, the studio gave the greenlight to two more movies. Since you won’t find a RoboCop 4 out there, you can guess how things are already headed.
Frank Miller had a tumultuous time during RoboCop 2’s production but returned for RoboCop 3, even though his screenplay would get handed to another writer, who would also end up directing the film.

Fred Dekker got the job and he was certainly qualified when it comes to being a legitimate genre fan. He had written and directed the delightful Universal Monsters homage, The Monster Squad, and Night of the Creeps, a movie I’ve recommended on this channel in a video pretty much nobody watched.
Basically, Fred Dekker was someone who genuinely loved this stuff. But, his script had another major creative influence, one that would end up being a significant factor in RoboCop 3 being disliked by fans.
Orion Pictures had been able to turn the success from the first RoboCop into a merchandise cash cow, capitalizing with toys, comic books, video games, and even an ‘80s cartoon.
By the time RoboCop 3 was underway, Orion wanted to better their chances at the box office by making sure RoboCop 3 could sell tickets to as many potential theater patrons as possible. That meant RoboCop 3 would be the first film in the franchise to actively aim for a PG-13 rating.
Real quick aside:

Moving on, RoboCop 3 would abandon the graphic violence of the first two films in favor of courting younger viewers. This was a prime directive from Orion to Fred Dekker. So, for all the problems people load on this movie, I have nothing but empathy when it comes to Dekker’s situation.
It didn’t help that RoboCop himself, actor Peter Weller, was not available for the sequel because he was busy making a wonderful David Cronenberg nightmare instead. And there are worthwhile reports about Weller being too expensive for Orion to afford for another sequel. I’m willing to believe some part of that considering the ultimate fate of Orion Pictures which ties directly to RoboCop 3.
RoboCop 3’s production began in February of 1991 and concluded in May that same year, with the film’s intended release set for mid-1992, giving the effects-heavy movie lots of post-production and marketing time.

However, Orion Pictures ended up having to close up shop and declare bankruptcy before they could facilitate the release of RoboCop 3, leaving the movie as part of an asset sale. Because of this, RoboCop 3 wouldn’t see a U.S. release until November 1993, debuting in international markets earlier that year thanks to a previous deal with Columbia Pictures.
As you can see, there were a lot of foundational issues RoboCop 3 had that were pretty much dooming it every step of the way. If the movie itself had been able to overcome those obstacles, maybe it would’ve found more appreciation.
And I’ll admit, when judging RoboCop 3 as its own singular thing, not as a RoboCop movie, it’s mostly okay for a kid’s sci-fi movie about the crossroads of capitalism and fascism.

Robert Burke stands in for Peter Weller and it’s just not happening. Again, I also don’t envy Burke having to step in for the series’ lead actor. And the role can often be a thankless and effectively faceless one, but he just doesn’t have the spark of Alex Murphy in him.
There are positive elements worth highlighting in RoboCop 3. We get a number of great character actors like Stephen Root, the awesome CCH Pounder, and my personal favorite, Rip Torn. Plus, maestro Basil Poledouris is back after not being used for RoboCop 2, so at least we’ve got that iconic theme back and another score from one of cinema’s greatest composers.
There’s a lot going on in RoboCop 3’s story and that’s certainly one of its problems, like when it’s trying to shove an android assassin into the mix, but the best and key plot centers around the poor of Detroit being forcibly thrown out of their homes for the eventual construction of a proposed utopia called Delta City.

This is the movie’s best bit of commentary as we see fascist soldiers called Urban Rehabilitation a.k.a. Rehabs being nothing but stormtroopers, and then seeing them portrayed as heroic action figures in one of the franchise’s trademark in-world commercials.
But as poignant as that story thread could be, the rest of the movie is a mess. There’s an oddly resonant plot for Orion Pictures themselves where OCP, the evil mega-corporation from the first two films, is being sold off and taken over by another company. This does lead to a few moments of welcome dark comedy but it doesn’t really matter to the story.
There’s also a stereotypical brainy kid character in this that’s annoying, and RoboCop spends a lot of the movie on the sidelines, and they kill Nancy Allen’s Lewis for no good reason.
Look, there’s just a lot about RoboCop 3 that either doesn’t work or is dumb but not in a fun way. And after sitting on the shelf for too long, it was clear audiences could smell something was up.
RoboCop 3 unfortunately but somewhat appropriately opened at #3 at the box office in 1993 behind a #1 movie in its third week of wide release, The Nightmare Before Christmas. I guess Schoolhouse Rock was right: three is a magic number.
It ended its run in North America with only $10 million dollars to show for it, less than half of its reported budget. And the fallout from the film’s failure would see Fred Dekker sent to director jail from whence he has never returned. Yes, RoboCop 3 killed Fred Dekker’s directing career.

It would also kill the future of RoboCop movies for over twenty years until a reboot hit theaters in 2014.
RoboCop 3 failed for so many reasons. The studio imposed bad creative decisions at the same time they were falling apart financially, the series lead got recast, and the final movie simply didn’t offer anything more than audiences felt they’d already got out of the franchise.
When it’s all said and done, I don’t think RoboCop 3 is a horrendous movie but it feels like a weak episode of a RoboCop TV series. Oh no, please don’t make me watch the RoboCop TV series. Am I going to see a bunch of comments begging for a video on the RoboCop series? Will you liking this video put that evil on me?
If you do enjoy torturing me, you better subscribe to the channel. That’s the only way you can ensure my continued RoboCop suffering. Thank you for your cooperation and we’ll see you next time here on Giant Freakin Robot.
Entertainment
How Stargate SG-1 Used A Classic Trope To Emotionally Wreck Its Fans
By Jonathan Klotz
| Published

Garfield and Friends said it best: “Oh no, we’ve resorted to an evil twin storyline.” Star Trek: The Original Series did it the best with Mirror Universe Spock, and ever since, it’s been a lazy excuse for every series to use when they run out of ideas. The exception is Stargate SG-1’s sixth episode, “Cold Lazarus,” which plays with the trope by making the twin less evil and more confused.
When fans say they skip this episode when rewatching, it’s not because it’s a lazy, poorly written episode. In fact, it’s the opposite. The ending of “Cold Lazarus” is a pivotal character moment for Jack O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson) and a gut punch to the audience.
Stargate SG-1’s First Evil Twin

“Cold Lazarus” opens with the SG-1 team on a planet that doesn’t look like Vancouver (it was a giant pile of sulfur at the port of Vancouver). The desert landscape is dotted with shattered blue crystals that look like the remnants of a civilization until we see a crystal eye-view of O’Neill, a mysterious light knocks him out, and all of a sudden, a second O’Neill is looking down at the first. Turns out, the crystals are the civilization.
Fake O’Neill is trying to figure out who O’Neill is and what SGC is all about. When he pulls out photos of his family, it takes Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) by surprise. O’Neill’s never mentioned his wife, Sara, or his son, Charlie. Confused, the Fake O’Neill goes to the home, where Sara is disgusted he’d come by and thinks it’s a sick joke that he’s asking about Charlie. If you’re wondering if you missed a key part of O’Neill’s backstory, don’t worry, this is the first time that either Sara or Charlie is mentioned, and tragically, we soon learn why.
No One Ever Dies

Charlie shot himself with O’Neill’s gun. Fake O’Neill starts to piece this together when he goes into Charlie’s old room and breaks down, prompting Sara and him to finally have the conversation about their shared grief. Back in SGC, the crystal’s nature is revealed to be an energy alien calling itself Unity, which accidentally killed a Jaffa, and the Goa’uld shattered them in retribution. That’s when O’Neill stumbles back through the Stargate, and the team realizes the mistake they made.
The Fake O’Neill is soon captured at a local hospital, suffering from Earth’s radiation, where he explains that he sensed O’Neill’s pain after he took his form and wanted to help ease the suffering, as nothing ever truly dies to Unity. To prove its point, Unity transforms into Charlie, giving O’Neill and Sara one last chance to see their child. Fans who haven’t lost a child can understand the emotion, but for fans who have, this scene is emotional torture, in the best way possible.

Jack knows this isn’t Charlie, but he talks to him like he is, and then they walk together through the Stargate back to Unity’s planet. It’s a beautiful moment that explains so much about O’Neill’s throwing himself into work and how even his friendships remain professional. “Cold Lazarus” may have started out with the “evil twin” trope in full effect, but the ending is proof that even early during its run, Stargate SG-1 was going to be the greatest.
Entertainment
Star Trek’s Scariest Episode Secretly Answered Fans’ Oldest Complaint
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published

Star Trek is a long-running franchise filled with tropes, some of them more annoying than others. For many fans, the dumbest trope that keeps popping up is when there’s only one ship that can save Earth from one catastrophe or another. It always begs the question: why isn’t the seat of the United Federation of Planets better protected? It certainly feels like such an important planet would have its own fleet for protection rather than relying on a long-range vessel like the Enterprise to warp in and save the day.
However, it seems that Star Trek’s scariest episode might have secretly answered fans’ oldest complaint about the franchise. Over on Reddit, user u/Wallname_Liability presented a compelling theory: that in the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter “The Best of Both Worlds,” the collection of Starfleet vessels lost fighting the Borg at Wolf 359 was the home fleet. This theory would help explain that Earth was typically better-defended than we might imagine and why there were fewer ships to protect the planet in later movies and shows.
My Borg Friend’s Back (And There’s Gonna Be Trouble)

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of the adventures take place in deep space because the intrepid crew has an ongoing mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and (come on, you know you’re already saying it out loud) boldly go where no one has gone before. But in “The Best of Both Worlds,” a Borg Cube starts heading directly for Earth. The Enterprise crew tries to develop a weapon that can defeat this implacable foe, one who seems nearly unstoppable after they assimilate Captain Picard. Meanwhile, a fleet of Starfleet ships assembles at Wolf 359 for one last stand against the Borg.
Unfortunately, that entire fleet is wiped out. The Borg makes it to Earth, but the Enterprise manages to stop these bionic baddies after rescuing Captain Picard. Data exploits Picard’s connection to the Collective and puts the cube to “sleep,” and it explodes soon after that. Picard and his crew get a mostly happy ending, but the same can’t be said for the crew of the ships that fought at Wolf 359. All vessels were lost, and only a handful of people survived, including Benjamin Sisko and Liam Shaw.
Resistance Was Futile

According to this Redditor’s theory, the fleet that assembled at Wolf 359 was the home fleet assigned to (among other things) protect Earth. Some of the ships were likely already at Earth (possibly undergoing repairs or retrofits), and others might have been located near some of humanity’s older colonies. But everyone would have had to have been close enough to Earth to quickly warp to Wolf 359, a real star system that is only eight light-years from humanity’s home planet.
Why is the idea that this was the home fleet so important? In various Star Trek episodes and films, there has often only been one ship (usually the Enterprise) close enough to save Earth. In Star Trek: Generations, for example, the Enterprise-B is on a shakedown cruise, but it’s the only ship close enough to save the El-Aurian refugees from the threat of the Nexus. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, only the Enterprise can intercept V’ger. In Nemesis, the Enterprise is the only Starfleet ship capable of preventing Shinzon from killing everyone on Earth, and so on.
The Best Of Trope Worlds

This trope can get frustrating when you start comparing Starfleet to, say, the United States Navy. How insane would it be if the whole country had to keep relying on a single ship to save us from major existential threats? Star Trek asks us to repeatedly believe that there’s only one ship within spitting distance of the entire solar system that can take care of the crisis du jour. It’s completely unbelievable, but this Wolf 359 home fleet theory helps make these frustrating moments make more sense.
It’s entirely possible that, in the time of Star Trek: The Original Series and its spinoff movies, there wasn’t a home fleet. Starfleet was a lot smaller back then. Remember, the original Enterprise was one of only 12 Constitution-class vessels. However, both The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home had Earth being attacked by seemingly unstoppable alien forces. In each case, the only man who could stop things was James T. Kirk, but Starfleet must have known he wouldn’t be around forever. Therefore, sometime before The Next Generation premiered, they developed a home fleet that could protect the Earth from overpowered alien attackers.
The Worst Massacre In Starfleet History

Or so they thought. The Borg wiped the floor with the fleet at Wolf 359, which helps to explain why the admiralty needed to assemble an ersatz fleet in First Contact. They were still rebuilding from earlier losses, and most spare vessels were probably being ordered to areas of interest as the Dominion War loomed near. Speaking of which, that war is the most likely reason that the Enterprise was the only ship that could help in Nemesis. The movie took place four years after the Dominion War ended, and once more, Starfleet would have needed time to fully rebuild its fleet.
Obviously, these are only theories, but they are compelling ones. It makes sense that Starfleet would have learned its lessons from V’ger and the Alien Probe and developed a home fleet, only for it to be destroyed by the Borg at Wolf 359. Afterward, the next big Borg attack and the Dominion War destroyed many vessels, all while requiring the existing fleet to stretch that much thinner. Fortunately, Earth was in good hands. No matter how bad the war with the Dominion got, Captain Sisko and Admiral Ross ensured that there was always a fleet or two close enough to protect paradise, even from those pesky Breen.
Entertainment
Ben Stiller Makes The Same Screwball Comedy For The Fourth Time In New Trailer
By TeeJay Small
| Published

Paramount Pictures dropped an announcement trailer for their upcoming film, Focker In-Law, last week, and it immediately caught my attention. As you can probably tell from the title alone, the film is the fourth installment in the Meet The Parents film series, which originally kicked off in 2000. While I loved the original film and enjoyed parts of the 2004 sequel, I can’t help but feel frustrated that we’re getting the exact same movie for the fourth time. From the trailer, it looks like Focker In-Law promises to add some comedic beats from Ariana Grande, but little else.
A Strong Start And Slow Decline
In case you’re not hip to the franchise, the original Meet the Parents tells a very straightforward comedic story of an obnoxious, anxious man named Gaylord Focker (Ben Stiller), as he encounters his girlfriend’s family for the very first time. Focker wants to take this opportunity to get the family’s blessing to propose, but he’s mired by a series of misunderstandings and social faux pas at every turn. To make matters worse, Focker must contend with his girlfriend’s domineering ex-CIA father, Jack (Robert De Niro).
The second film, Meet The Fockers, introduces some fresh talent, flips the script on Jack a little bit by taking him out of his comfort zone, and ratchets up the tension as the happy couple navigate their upcoming wedding and a premarital pregnancy. It’s sort of unnecessary, but it’s a harmless way to squeeze more laughs out of a pretty simple premise. Then, in 2010, we got Little Fockers, which produced absolutely no memorable moments whatsoever. Seriously, Ben Stiller even took to X this week to say “I stand by the first two” installments in the franchise, ignoring the third film entirely.
The Same Old Jokes For A New Generation

Now, it looks like we’re due for the same material a fourth time with Focker In-Law. Greg Focker is still an awkward, bumbling mess, while the aging Jack flexes his people skills and dunks on his son-in-law for having a stupid last name. Meanwhile, a new generation of Focker men have emerged, with Greg’s son Henry (Skyler Gisondo) planning to propose to his girlfriend, Olivia Jones (Ariana Grande). From the trailer, it looks like Grande plays an FBI hostage negotiator, who wishes to pry Focker Jr. away from his emotionally topsy-turvy family in favor of a life of relative normalcy.
Will I watch this movie as soon as it comes out? Almost certainly. But will I have any memory of seeing it within hours of leaving the theater? I’ve got my doubts. The truth is, Focker In-Law could have been an opportunity to completely reshape the characters in fun and exciting ways. We could have had Greg really come into his own with age, assuming a more confident and bullish attitude. We could have even seen him and Jack get on the same page for once, and work together to test Ariana Grande’s worthiness to enter the coveted “circle of trust.”

Instead, it seems like we’re due for another 90 minutes of Robert De Niro rolling his eyes at Ben Stiller, and conflicts driven by characters who refuse to sit down and explain themselves in plain English. The trailer reveals that even minor side characters from the other film are returning to do their same schtick. I’m not mad about Focker In-Law basically recycling the Meet The Parents script for the fourth time, but I am a bit disappointed, since I know for a fact that Stiller, De Niro, and the others are capable of putting out something much stronger.
In fairness, this is all a reaction to a single trailer. There’s an extremely minute chance that Focker In-Law subverts all my expectations, and delivers a new comedy classic that can hold its own. There’s a similarly likely chance that the earth is obliterated by a meteor before the film hits theaters, but I won’t be holding my breath either way. If this film is what Ben Stiller needs to finance a third season of Severance, then I’m content to buy 50 tickets and give Focker In-Law the best damn opening weekend I can.
