|
Xenomrph posted:I re-watched Robocop 2 tonight, I still love the design and stop-motion for RoboCain. I agree with you, I think the reason its so cluttered is because they were trying to "tie up lose ends" from the first movie. It was just lazy. Does alex have a socail life, can he go home? can he quit his job? What about his wife? Or his person hood status? Might be interesting but also runs the risk of being boring. Having the OCP shrink gently caress with him just seems a way to make her a villain. Another thing the 2nd movie had too many of. Different tire drug dealers, anti ropocop, the shrink, cain, striking police, the mayor, OCP? They could have tied up lose ends easily. Since the ending of the first Murphy saved the ceo, OCP could have tried to "do right by murphy" have a scene where his wife and kid are in a different city and have a video call where you establish where their relationship stands, and write them out of the plot that way. Or hell make them a target for cain. Have Robocop good at his job the city is safer, than have that lead into escalation fulled by drug money. OCP cant reproduce its success, so you get the cain plot line.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Robocop 2 will always have a place in my heart because it the was the 1st R-rated movie I got to see in the theaters (my dad took me after pleading for weeks). What blows my mind is finding out that Irvin "I directed The Empire Strikes Back" Kershner directed this Frank Miller-penned film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
So apparently someone who just finished an early screening shared his thoughts with Reddit:quote:It definitely surpassed my expectations. I enjoyed the original and was worried that this PG13 remake would dumb down the cult classic. It actually did the opposite. While we obviously don't see anyone getting their limbs blown off with shotguns or any close ups of bullet impacts, there was a surprising amount of violence and plenty of action. The characters were all pretty fleshed out- I think this was the key difference from the original. You really empathize with the main character and his family but also understand the motivations of the supporting characters that drive the plot. It was fast paced too, they covered a lot in 100 minutes. It was relevant, exciting, and most importantly entertaining! I would absolutely recommend it. I will do my best to answer any questions you have spoiler free but message me if you have any spoilery plot related questions. Main takeaways: - There is satire, mostly from Samuel L. Jackson's CNN character, and it's too heavy-handed - Strong performances from the entire cast, Samuel L. Jackson is the worst part of the movie - Number of comparisons to Elysium, particularly action sequences - Ending is dumb, but sets up a sequel He was obviously accused of shill posting and denied it, but you probably shouldn't take any of the thing seriously anyway, it's Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Dang I was really fond of the subtle, barely there satire of RoboCop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Android Bicyclist posted:Robocop 2 will always have a place in my heart because it the was the 1st R-rated movie I got to see in the theaters (my dad took me after pleading for weeks). What blows my mind is finding out that Irvin "I directed The Empire Strikes Back" Kershner directed this Frank Miller-penned film. Kershner also directed "The Eyes of Laura Mars" so it's not like he was any stranger to directing bizarro pop-trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
G-III posted:Kershner also directed "The Eyes of Laura Mars" so it's not like he was any stranger to directing bizarro pop-trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:Samuel L. Jackson is the worst part of the movie I generally find him distractingly poor in virtually everything he's been involved with for the past 10 years or so. Often I've been excited by a film only to be put off finding out he's in it due to him playing the same angry dude in everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
quote:The characters were all pretty fleshed out- I think this was the key difference from the original. You really empathize with the main character and his family but also understand the motivations of the supporting characters that drive the plot. I don't know if I'd trust this reviewer if he didn't empathize or understand the motivations of the characters in RoboCop. Come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Only Cain was the criminal subject. The other Robocop prototypes were apparently law enforcement volunteers. The only difference between them and Murphy (and Cain) was that they had not lost everything and the cyborging was their only hope of survival and, either consciously or subconsciously, realized they couldn't go back. There's a bit of exposition from the doctor that explicitly states exactly this. The cops were 'macho and body-proud' and waking up as a brain inside a cold robotic frame made them snap. She theorizes that Murphy was a success because his strong Catholic upbringing gave him a strong sense of duty that overrode the desire to give up. They relied on Cain because he was already an insane megalomaniac with a messiah complex who would also be easily controlled thanks to his massive drug addiction. Also, I need to rewatch the scene but IIRC Robocop 2 was cobbled together with small pieces from all the failed prototypes. I distinctly remember the angular 'triangle' face and head from the skinny prototype that pulls his helmet off to reveal a googly-eyed screaming skull.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Wild T posted:There's a bit of exposition from the doctor that explicitly states exactly this. The cops were 'macho and body-proud' and waking up as a brain inside a cold robotic frame made them snap. She theorizes that Murphy was a success because his strong Catholic upbringing gave him a strong sense of duty that overrode the desire to give up. They relied on Cain because he was already an insane megalomaniac with a messiah complex who would also be easily controlled thanks to his massive drug addiction. Yeah, it's been awhile, but I remember the exposition regarding that although I wasn't sure what made the difference between RoboCop and RoboCain and the other prototypes. Wild T posted:Also, I need to rewatch the scene but IIRC Robocop 2 was cobbled together with small pieces from all the failed prototypes. I distinctly remember the angular 'triangle' face and head from the skinny prototype that pulls his helmet off to reveal a googly-eyed screaming skull. You don't really need to. There's been plenty of photos taken of the prototype models since then. Prototype A - "Head chopped off and stuffed into a diving bell"    Prototype B - "Person encased in metal"   I'm going to link RoboCain gallery from the RoboCop Archive, since someone had the privilege of going to the Tippett studio and photograph in detail one of the three stop-motion models. That said, I don't see the face plate, but the helmet is definitely a reused piece.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like my recollection wasn't exactly what I thought. It'd be kind of interesting to see if there are any echoes of this scene in the remake, where we would see failed earlier versions of Robocop from other maimed cops or soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
G-III posted:Kershner also directed "The Eyes of Laura Mars" so it's not like he was any stranger to directing bizarro pop-trash. The Eyes of Laura Mars owns pal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I'm curious what Frank Miller's original script was for Robocop 2. I gotta admit, I really enjoyed Robocop 2 and wondered what the Frank Miller version would have been. Robocop 3-levels of bad? I thought RoboCain was a badass looking model. I loved how OCP never learned their lesson with leaving ammunition in their robots during public demos. "Its okay, he's not even armed." *Robocain snatches remote out of Dr. Fax's hand, arms himself, and crushes remote then starts spraying bullets everywhere*
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I'm curious what Frank Miller's original script was for Robocop 2. Bad:http://www.i-mockery.com/comics/longbox24/
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
I just slogged through this dreck. Wow, they polished themselves quite a turd with that original script. But I just realized that a lot of the comic's plot overlapped with Robocop 3 (Rehab guys, OCP demolishing buildings to make way for Delta City). What I liked about RoboCain is that he was an analogue to Murphy- while Murphy is able to keep it together in a cyborg body, Cain survives by believing he is above a human being and embracing his new robot body. But you do see bits where he realizes his fate- that scene where he flips out on his former girlfriend I had interpreted as him suddenly realizing he isn't human anymore, and he can't pretend his existence is going to be the same as it was before. Also: Pringles really missed out on an opportunity to do a movie tie-in with this film. I'd love to see a commercial where a potato chip-jonesing RoboCain grabs a tube of Pringles out of the Old Man's hands and 'consumes' it they way he does with Nuke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Something tells me they wouldn't really enjoy being put on quite the same level of addiction as a drug that was however many times more addictive than Heroine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:54
|
|
Panfilo posted:I loved how OCP never learned their lesson with leaving ammunition in their robots during public demos. This is probably my favorite recurring gag in the entire series.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Something tells me they wouldn't really enjoy being put on quite the same level of addiction as a drug that was however many times more addictive than Heroine. Bet you can't eat just one! Cyborg druglord approved!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
The more I think about it, the most impressive part of RoboCain as an entity is how well Cain's mind was able to control an arguably non-human body. With Robocop, he's basically a human - 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. granted they'd have to work out ways for Murphy to control his gun holster and data spike with his mind, but he's got nothing on Cain. Cain had 4 arms and a ton of onboard weaponry that he's commanding with the power of thought. In a purely technical level, Cain is a way more impressive achievement than Robocop. Aside from him being a violent psychopath, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Well like psycho shrink lady said, they needed a mind that would welcome and revel in the power the cyborg offered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Aside from him being a violent psychopath, of course.  "He's perfect!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
I rewatched Robocop for the first time since I was a tiny baby, and it's great. Also, the soundtrack is so good. I'm super interested in the remake now, because there are so many obvious and definitely-intentional changes to the story that it must be doing something. The ED-209 effects all look great to me but I love stopmotion more than life itself. Something wonderful about the guy's arms getting bigger is, how did they possibly gently caress that up? What happened? WHAT? HOW? It's amazing and I'm so glad they left it in. My memories of the original were just as a pretty good action movie about a robert cop, and nowhere near as good as the other two verhoeven action satires, but on a rewatch it's way up with the rest of them. Love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Also, the soundtrack is so good. There's a reason this was selected as the example on his Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Poledouris
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Re-watched the first movie against last night on the new blu - I had forgotten how quick this movie moves! The new transfer is beautiful as well! Also it finally dawned on me after all these years that Murphy is truly DEAD. I always thought he got past his programming and gained his humanity back - but no, the scene where he takes his helmet off and he's referring to himself in the third person, "did Murphy...." it hit me. As others said, its just his face plastered onto some machine. At least that is how I see it - he showed some genuine personality but that could just be Peter Weller being awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
I suppose it can be a question, did they put Murphy's mind into the machine or is it all programming that thinks it is Murphy having his brain patterns and whatnot? Or perhaps...his very soul... But yeah, I think the first movie's arc is the machine regaining some humanity and in the second realizing he can't have a normal life and coming to some kind of acceptance of his dual state by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
That's what I find endlessly fascinating about Robocop: is he a man resurrected in the body of a robot, or is he a robot in a dead human brain, burdened by all the memories and thoughts that aren't really his? Is there really a difference, and how would either Murphy or the people around him know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
I think that's his main identity crisis - he feels like he's still Murphy or at least feels that on some level he's 'supposed to be' Murphy. This makes the understanding that Murphy was killed - or very-close-to-killed - and is effectively dead according to any records earth-shattering. "He's a cop-killer" is by far one of the best lines in the film, and Weller gives it suitable personal weight.Gatts posted:I suppose it can be a question, did they put Murphy's mind into the machine or is it all programming that thinks it is Murphy having his brain patterns and whatnot? This is precisely why a remake seems interesting. The corporation is now directly saying 'but there's a man on the inside, we promise! See, we saved his human arm!' and trying to convince Murphy's reanimated cyborg corpse that he's really Murphy and is in control of himself. That's a fantastic way of responding to the themes of the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:This is precisely why a remake seems interesting. The corporation is now directly saying 'but there's a man on the inside, we promise! See, we saved his human arm!' and trying to convince Murphy's reanimated cyborg corpse that he's really Murphy and is in control of himself. That's a fantastic way of responding to the themes of the original. I don't see how changing the tack of OCP's PR machine makes for a departure large enough to require a remake to explore. The fundamental question of Murphy's state of life/autonomy remains basically unchanged. Even in Robocop 'Murphy' believes him/itself to possess a given amount of autonomy, seeing as he only has 3 broadly worded directives that allow him an incredible amount of freedom in doing what he wanted to do in the first place - be a cop. The directives even let him undermine the efforts of OCP's progress to a certain point, until it becomes clear that he is not truly autonomous (Directive 4). Think about the questions and themes presented by the original, and ask yourself is the remake actually a response or just the same questions re-phrased.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
We'll find out soon enough and I can't wait for the discussion. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:We'll find out soon enough and I can't wait for the discussion. Like Vintersorg is saying, the film isn't out yet to really make a call on whether the film itself explores the themes well. I'm just reading the trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Like Vintersorg is saying, the film isn't out yet to really make a call on whether the film itself explores the themes well. I'm just reading the trailer. I'm saying that the trailer doesn't seem to support the argument you're making. If your points can't be supported or countered without seeing the film, why are you bringing them up now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Robocop is one of my favorite movies of all time and when I heard they were rebooting it and that the reboot would be PG-13, I cringed. Luckily, reading this thread has made me cautiously optimistic and I had no idea it was coming out so soon! I figured it'd be a summer action flick or something. Count me in as excited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I'm saying that the trailer doesn't seem to support the argument you're making. If your points can't be supported or countered without seeing the film, why are you bringing them up now? I am responding to what I saw in the trailer. Deciding whether or not the themes are actually 'just rephrased' versions of the original is the sort of judgment call I wouldn't make until I'd seen the film itself, but those themes certainly appear to be in the trailer. You're welcome to disagree with me about what themes appear to be present in the film based on the trailer, but judging the execution or how large a 'departure' the changes might be from only the trailer seems fallacious. At some point you have to watch the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I always thought he got past his programming and gained his humanity back - but no, the scene where he takes his helmet off and he's referring to himself in the third person, "did Murphy...." it hit me. As others said, its just his face plastered onto some machine. At least that is how I see it - he showed some genuine personality but that could just be Peter Weller being awesome. Counterpoint to that is the very last line of the movie though, the CEO asks what his name is and he says "Murphy" He's not the same Alex Murphy he was before, but he's more Alex Murphy than Robocop. This is also why his helmet stays off for the last third of the movie, the film is trying to humanize him again. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Counterpoint to that is the very last line of the movie though, the CEO asks what his name is and he says "Murphy" Counter-counterpoint: this happens to coincide with Robocop's moment of false freedom, where he's distracted from truly escaping Directive 4. Robocop does become 'more human', but the joke is that this makes him easier to manipulate than ever before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I am responding to what I saw in the trailer. As am I. Hbomberguy posted:You're welcome to disagree with me about what themes appear to be present in the film based on the trailer I am. Hbomberguy posted:.......judging the execution or how large a 'departure' the changes might be from only the trailer seems fallacious. Then why are you so certain that the film will distinguish its themes so dramatically based on the trailer? It is becoming tiresome when people defend "[X] is conclusion I drew from the trailer," with "You can't draw conclusions from trailers, MAN."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It is becoming tiresome when people defend "[X] is conclusion I drew from the trailer," with "You can't draw conclusions from trailers, MAN." That isn't what I said at all. I am trying to point out the obvious difference between seeing something in the trailer that might entail something in the film, for example the presence of his human arm, then speculating on what the film might be doing, and making a judgment call about whether or not the film itself, as in the actual film we haven't seen yet, has themes that aren't large enough a 'departure' to warrant its existence at all. For me there's a core difference in the foundations of those two points of view. The focus the trailer and various promotional materials places on his human hand, after the amount of sheer disdain for Murphy's human biology the OCP Vice Pres displayed (he explicitly made them remove his remaining human arm) has implications. Saying "that change isn't big enough, therefore the film is needless and bad" is just not something I can agree with until the film itself does or doesn't manage it. Aren't all films needless?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That isn't what I said at all. No, you're hypocritically drawing on the trailer to make broad statements about what the movie will do, basing a conclusion on that, and then complaining when others do the same. Hbomberguy posted:This is precisely why a remake seems interesting..... That [OCP's altered PR direction] is a fantastic way of responding to the themes of the original. See, here you are using the trailer to make assumptions about how the movie is going to be 'interesting' because its going to 'respond to thematic elements of the original'. Then I made a post or two about how how the trailer does not suggest new and interesting themes or answers, and essentially poses the same questions as the original, and then you started saying I couldn't make a valid response without seeing the film. Hbomberguy posted:Saying "that change isn't big enough, therefore the film is needless and bad" is just not something I can agree with until the film itself does or doesn't manage it. Aren't all films needless? Then after dipping back into the 'you have to see the film!' non-counter-argument you got all hyperbolic and pissy, as if I suggested there was no such thing as a valid exercise of philosophical exploration in art, instead of actually explaining how OCP's new collection of contradictory PR lies represented a thematic response to the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
I...disagree?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Counter-counterpoint: this happens to coincide with Robocop's moment of false freedom, where he's distracted from truly escaping Directive 4. True, true. I guess it's more correct to say that he's become a third being now, not Murphy, not Robocop, but Robomurph Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:12
|
|