Sequels, prequels, adaptations, reboots, and spinoffs. That seems to be all Hollywood knows how to make. But is that necessarily bad?

Movie studios saw a seven-year fall in home video sales alongside the rise of Internet streaming and illegal downloading. In order to combat that loss of revenue, studios have invested most of their resources into franchises they can bet on.

And we hand over our money, so it can’t possibly be all that bad. These cinematic retreads are part of our culture now, and even if they aren’t the same as the original, they are often quite good. Maybe we should give these movies a fair shake.

Outside of Footloose and The Amazing Spider-Man, no reboot has received as much criticism before its release as RoboCop, which opened in American theaters this week. José Padilha’s attempt at telling the tale of the first robotic police officer was hardly even announced when fans of the 1987 original began denouncing the film. The original is a classic, they argue. And perhaps they are right. However, the original is older than I am, and it should be acceptable for a story to be retold for every generation.

Even if you disagree with repeating old stories, fear not: the new RoboCop flick is a completely different movie, with the only similarities to the original being tons of satire and lots of shooting.

The 2014 edition begins with a look into a near future that seems far too real. The United States has grown excessively belligerent in its foreign policy and has morphed its unmanned drone program into one of full humanoid robots. These machines operate brilliantly, being able to assess threats in seconds before taking action. The robots are shown “keeping the peace” in Tehran, where it is evident the United States has finally decided to invade.

From the beginning, it becomes clear the filmmakers are not glorifying the advanced drone program. The robot warriors, manufactured by OmniCorps, are promoted heavily by an obnoxious, biased political pundit, played by Samuel L. Jackson, despite the drones causing more problems than they are solving.

The robots are initially shown to be efficient and infallible, but events quickly go awry. Iranian freedom fighters try to fight off the invading mechanical army and, in a heartbreaking scene, one of the robots sees a child wielding a knife, determines he is a threat, and fires on the young boy. The message is clear: without a human element, drones cannot be trusted to implement fair and merciful policy.

Public sentiment against the robots causes OmniCorp’s CEO, Raymond Sellars, to issue a new directive: put a human in the machine. Alex Murphy, a Detroit police officer looking to root out corruption in his department, is chosen for the procedure. Murphy, played by Joel Kinnaman, is left with only his original brain, lungs, and right hand as he becomes the RoboCop. Again the message is obvious: regardless of how much of the RoboCop is machine, a human hand is still pulling the trigger.

The rest of the movie raises questions about the morality of drones and the distance being placed between the American public and American wars. The film also warns of a future when drones could be used on American soil — a future for which Jackon’s character lobbies hard.

Setting aside the scathing satire, the movie’s MVPs are two Batman veterans: Sellars is played by Michael Keaton, the man who originally brought the crime fighter in black to the silver screen; and Gotham’s Commissioner Gordon, Gary Oldman, portrays Dr. Dennett Norton. Both men play their roles to perfection.

Keaton is the prototypical evil CEO character, determined to make money no matter the cost in human lives and suffering. While Sellars is a bit of a shallow character, Keaton still shines when using his fake sincerity to manipulate everyone around him. Still, I found myself wondering if OmniCorps’s CEO was actually guilty of committing any crimes. The most chilling aspects of this movie were how possible all of it is, and how legal culpability does not always line up with moral responsibility.

Giving another tremendous performance, Oldman continues to prove his worth. (Hopefully, Lucasfilm is taking notes and the rumors will prove true about Oldman being cast in Star Wars 7.) Oldman’s Dr. Norton character is easily the best-written of the movie. A man who obviously began work in robotics to give second chances to the suffering, Norton is the embodiment of the slippery slope argument. At first, Norton is concerned about the morality of OmniCorp’s actions. Then, Norton gradually consents to worse and worse actions, slowly removing more and more of Murphy’s humanity until the officer of the law becomes more machine than man.

The 2014 RoboCop is a movie that would benefit from having a unique identity to avoid drawing comparisons to the original. However, Hollywood needs familiar names tagged onto big releases to feel safe in taking the financial risk. That doesn’t mean there is a lack of artistic risk in new movies; it just means we are more likely to see that fresh perspective pasted on a rehashed character.

The original RoboCop, released 27 years ago, was an entirely different work from the current version. The film, starring Peter Weller, was a thematic portrayal of Reagan-era America and all of its associated problems. Showcasing the fears of liberals and conservatives alike, this dystopian Detroit is riddled with white-collar and blue-collar crime that are both terribly out of hand, requiring a new type of hero to rein in the trouble.

Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop antagonists were almost cartoonishly evil people, leaving no room for audience sympathy. When Murphy’s robotic hands pulls the trigger, you are never left wondering if the criminal’s gruesome demise was justified.

The original and the reboot both tackle the problems inherent in defense contracting and privatization of public services. The original goes much further in showing the profit-over-morality mentality of Omni Consumer Products, with a board member blatantly stating the company’s goal to profit off “markets traditionally regarded as non-profit: hospitals, prisons, space exploration.”

Both movies have fun taking shots at the media. In the 1987 movie, news anchors casually discuss terrible tragedies with no regard for the human suffering. Today, Jackson’s Pat Novak character is a perfect stand-in for Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity as the modern news pundit demanding that the world change to adhere to his beliefs. Jackson, of course, kills it, with his over-the-top anger that would look perfectly at home on the Fox News Channel.

Fans of the original movie will immediately notice a distinct lack of blood in the reboot. Many would argue that’s a good thing, but aren’t we all a little nostalgic for a simpler time, when movies were filled with eviscerations and exploding body parts?

Padilha did a good job creating a compelling satire of the military-industrial complex and U.S. drone policy that is more relevant to 2014 audiences than the 1987 baddies are. At times, the satire is a bit heavy-handed, but that is the case in the original as well. Ultimately, RoboCop is a reflection of the times, which is necessary for any successful story, especially when it’s being retold in a fresh perspective.

In that respect, 2014’s RoboCop movie is a success. Still, don’t feel the need to rush to your nearest theater. A nice DVD rental should suffice.