How Did This Get Made?

Chopping Mall LIVE! w/ Mary Holland (HDTGM Matinee)

October 28, 2025

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The 1986 film *Chopping Mall* was originally titled *Killbots* before being pulled from theaters and re-released under its current title due to poor reception. 
  • The film features gratuitous nudity, which the hosts noted was unusually explicit compared to modern filmmaking standards. 
  • The malfunctioning robots in *Chopping Mall* are inexplicably equipped with military-grade weaponry like lasers and C4, despite being designed only for basic mall security. 
  • The film *Chopping Mall* was originally released under the title *Killbots* but was retitled for better commercial success. 
  • Audience members suggested alternate titles for the film, including "Laserbots" and "Chop Till You Drop," noting the robots primarily used lasers or stabbing rather than chopping. 
  • One audience member pointed out that the TV broadcast version of the 77-minute film was extended by 20 minutes, reportedly by adding footage of the virgins watching an old movie in the furniture store. 

Segments

Introduction and Guest Welcome
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The Chopping Mall episode of How Did This Get Made? features guest Mary Holland and was recorded live at Largo at the Coronet.
  • Summary: The episode opens with advertisements for Claude AI, Xfinity Wi-Fi, and Paramount Plus before introducing the film Chopping Mall and welcoming guest Mary Holland. The hosts note that the film has been on their agenda for a long time and thank Amazon Prime for making it available. The live audience setting at Largo at the Coronet is established.
Poster Reaction and Gore Level
Copied to clipboard!
(00:06:04)
  • Key Takeaway: The poster for Chopping Mall is misleadingly scary, suggesting more graphic dismemberment than the actual film delivers.
  • Summary: June Diane Raphael initially refused to watch the film based on the poster, which depicted a decomposing hand holding a shopping bag with limbs emerging. The hosts agree the poster implies a level of gore, like a Sweeney Todd scenario, that the movie ultimately does not reach. Head explosions in the film happen quickly, which June found less disturbing than slow, graphic depictions of insides being exposed.
Film Premise and Character Age
Copied to clipboard!
(00:09:04)
  • Key Takeaway: The central premise involves three malfunctioning robots killing people after a ‘fuck sesh,’ though the characters involved are not actual teenagers.
  • Summary: The film’s plot centers on teenagers (though the actors and characters appear older) trapped in a mall after hours, targeted by security robots. The description on Amazon misleadingly labels the victims as ’eight teenagers.’ The mall setting is portrayed as highly important, featuring stores selling dynamite and requiring a doctor’s presence at the robot introduction meeting.
Robot Design and Logic Flaws
Copied to clipboard!
(00:11:42)
  • Key Takeaway: The mall’s ‘Protectors’ robots are poorly conceived, moving slowly, having overly aggressive capabilities (lasers, C4), and being activated when no one is present.
  • Summary: The robots are introduced by snarky mall employees who are revealed to be characters from the Roger Corman film Eating Raoul, suggesting a shared cinematic universe. The robots only patrol after the mall closes, making their presence unnecessary for catching nighttime thieves. Their design features comical plastic pincers, yet they are equipped with lasers capable of cutting debris and C4 explosives.
Disgusting Mall Patrons
Copied to clipboard!
(00:22:29)
  • Key Takeaway: The supporting characters in Chopping Mall exhibit bizarre and unsanitary behaviors, including a chef wiping his spatula on his chest and a patron demanding to eat sticks of butter.
  • Summary: The hosts catalog the disgusting behavior of various mall employees and patrons, including a chef who contaminates food and janitors who bully a coworker. A restaurant patron asks for more butter and is described as ‘real handsy,’ while another character is noted for constantly chewing gum, even during intimate moments.
Furniture Store Orgy Scene
Copied to clipboard!
(00:27:07)
  • Key Takeaway: The film features an extended, bizarre orgy scene in a furniture store involving multiple couples, which the hosts found deeply uncomfortable and strange for adults.
  • Summary: The scene involves a married couple and others engaging in group sex on floor models, prompting the hosts to vow never to buy floor models again. One character hums a blues ballad during the act, which the guest theorizes was an actress’s improvisation to enhance the scene’s romance. Another couple’s interaction involves the woman complaining about finding gum in her vagina from her partner’s constant chewing.
Character Reactions and Logic Gaps
Copied to clipboard!
(00:39:11)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivors’ reactions to violence, such as watching a friend burn without intervening, and their poor tactical decisions highlight the script’s illogical nature.
  • Summary: The characters fail to utilize basic survival tactics, such as hiding effectively or allowing the skilled shooter to use her weapon, instead cowering behind mannequins during a gunfight. One character has a mental breakdown while hiding, calculating the financial liability for the mall damage rather than focusing on immediate escape. The film’s logic breaks down when characters hide in heating vents that are impossibly large and hot.
Original Title Reveal
Copied to clipboard!
(01:01:00)
  • Key Takeaway: A member of the audience confirms that Chopping Mall was originally released as Killbots but was pulled from theaters shortly after due to negative reception.
  • Summary: An audience member named Tim provides the key piece of trivia that the movie’s original title was Killbots. This title was apparently too off-putting for audiences, leading the distributor to pull it and re-release it a few months later as Chopping Mall.
Anticlimactic Ending Analysis
Copied to clipboard!
(00:59:38)
  • Key Takeaway: The ending of Chopping Mall is criticized for being anticlimactic, particularly the lack of a major twist involving the limping woman.
  • Summary: The ending is deemed anticlimactic, failing to deliver a ‘Usual Suspects’ style twist where the limping woman reveals herself as the mastermind or a robot. A key observation is that only the characters who did not have sex survived the film.
Audience Q&A: Original Title
Copied to clipboard!
(01:00:39)
  • Key Takeaway: The film was originally titled Killbots but was renamed Chopping Mall after its initial theatrical release failed.
  • Summary: An audience member named Tim revealed the film’s original title was Killbots. It was released under this name but pulled from theaters, later succeeding when re-released as Chopping Mall a few months later. Tim also questioned if Dr. Carrington was related to Michael Carrington from Grease 2, suggesting a shared universe, which was dismissed due to differing nationalities.
Audience Q&A: Alternate Titles
Copied to clipboard!
(01:01:45)
  • Key Takeaway: Audience members proposed alternate titles like “Laserbots” because the robots rarely performed actual chopping actions.
  • Summary: Chris suggested the title “Laserbots” because the robots primarily used lasers or punctured throats, not chopping. The group agreed that the robots’ methods were more akin to puncturing or slicing than chopping.
Audience Q&A: Product Placement Lawsuits
Copied to clipboard!
(01:02:23)
  • Key Takeaway: The film featured prominent brand advertisements, such as GE and Coca-Cola, but no lawsuits were reported, possibly because the companies were happy with the representation, despite the flammable paint explosion.
  • Summary: A question arose regarding potential lawsuits from the numerous brand advertisements featured in the movie. The hosts noted that the paint company’s product was shown to be highly flammable and contributed to the store’s explosion, yet no legal repercussions were covered.
Audience Q&A: Crossover Potential
Copied to clipboard!
(01:03:17)
  • Key Takeaway: The discussion entertained the idea of crossover characters from other ‘mall-based’ or robot films improving Chopping Mall, specifically mentioning a living mannequin from Mannequin 2.
  • Summary: Bree asked which guest appearance from another HDTGM movie would improve the film, contrasting Gene Simmons from Robots with Hollywood the mannequin from Mannequin 2. The hosts favored the idea of a living mannequin coming to life during the furniture store scene to fight the robots, creating a ‘Mannequin versus Robot’ scenario.
Audience Q&A: Robot Motivation
Copied to clipboard!
(01:04:43)
  • Key Takeaway: The robots’ behavior suggests they are not purely evil but act like spoiled, misunderstood white male teenagers seeking attention.
  • Summary: Roberts questioned if the robots were possessed due to their seemingly playful tormenting of the security guard. The hosts concluded the robots did not feel evil but rather acted like spoiled, mischievous teens who felt excluded from the ’teen fuck fest’ happening elsewhere.
Audience Q&A: Shared Universe Connections
Copied to clipboard!
(01:06:17)
  • Key Takeaway: The song ‘Street Walking’ playing during the furniture store scene connects Chopping Mall to Roger Corman’s Street Walking movie, suggesting a Corman shared universe.
  • Summary: Bill noted that the song playing during the furniture store dance scene, ‘Street Walking,’ is the theme for Roger Corman’s Street Walking movie, implying a connection to the ‘Corman verse.’ The segment also highlighted the bizarre PA announcement for a lost child named ‘Steven’ in the lingerie department.
Audience Q&A: Extended TV Version
Copied to clipboard!
(01:08:06)
  • Key Takeaway: The 77-minute film was extended by approximately 20 minutes for television broadcasts to fill a standard two-hour slot, adding footage of the virgins watching a monster movie.
  • Summary: Cecily shared that the film’s Wikipedia page mentioned it was extended by about 20 minutes for TV airings to fill a 90-minute slot. This extension reportedly included showing 11 minutes of the third act of the monster movie playing on the television in the furniture store.
Audience Q&A: Mall Promotion Details
Copied to clipboard!
(01:09:43)
  • Key Takeaway: The bikini-clad women at the beginning of the film were walking advertisements for the mall, bearing sashes with slogans like ‘The Park Plaza Mall, the future is now’ and ’take the kids.’
  • Summary: Brian pointed out the sashes worn by the women in bikinis at the start of the film, which promoted the mall with slogans. The hosts joked about the implications of seeing a woman wandering independently with a sash reading ’take the kids.'
Second Opinions Performance
Copied to clipboard!
(01:11:00)
  • Key Takeaway: David and Kate performed original songs for the ‘Second Opinions’ segment, both receiving high praise from the hosts.
  • Summary: David and Kate performed their original songs for the ‘Second Opinions’ segment, which were enthusiastically received by Paul, June, and Jason. The hosts noted that the audience members who brought lyrics were highly prepared.
Second Opinions: Positive Reviews
Copied to clipboard!
(01:12:43)
  • Key Takeaway: Some viewers considered Chopping Mall an ‘A-plus grade’ unforgettable enjoyment and one of their all-time favorite 80s horror movies, despite the hosts’ negative assessment.
  • Summary: Robin B. McGorm’s 2013 review rated the film an A-plus, describing the robots as ’little terrors’ and the action as marvelous. Another submission from 2017 called it a guilty pleasure, noting the enjoyment of seeing robots kill teenagers, which Paul flagged as a ‘red flag.’
Plugs and Thank Yous
Copied to clipboard!
(01:15:54)
  • Key Takeaway: Guest Mary Holland is appearing on Veep this season and is promoting her show Drive Share on Go 90.
  • Summary: Mary Holland plugged her Twitter handle (@MHolland85) and mentioned her upcoming appearances, including an episode of Veep and the show Drive Share with Rob Huebel on Go 90. The hosts concluded by thanking the live audience, the production staff, and the contributors who provided the second opinions.