|
Edit: Edit is not quote.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
He also starts wise-cracking ("they fix everything") and smirks when he blows away ED-209, so I'd say he's a lot more than just a robot with a dead face glued to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:He also starts wise-cracking ("they fix everything") and smirks when he blows away ED-209, so I'd say he's a lot more than just a robot with a dead face glued to it. Yeah, it's exactly that illusion of autonomy that makes him easy to manipulate. In that sense, this remake is a sequel that picks up where the original ended: a new liberal-capitalist CEO, Robo believing he's a free human, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
How is he easier to manipulate at the end of the movie, though? It seems like he's well aware of his limitation (directive 4) and is able to work around it by at least publicly exposing Dick Jones' corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
One of the interesting parts of the original Robocop is that OCP is as strong as ever when the movie ends. A particularly nefarious CEO and an obnoxious upper management guy both get their just deserts but the corporation itself is as strong as ever and, as has been pointed out, Robocop never actually 'overcomes' Directive 4, he's just given access to an extremely narrow one time loop hole. I assume that they'll make at least some nods to the satirical tone of the original but I wonder if the director will have the courage to actually make an action movie where the heroic bloodshed of the protagonist doesn't actually solve any of society's problems. Steve Yun posted:How is he easier to manipulate at the end of the movie, though? It seems like he's well aware of his limitation (directive 4) and is able to work around it by at least publicly exposing Dick Jones' corruption. He's basically just doing a favour for OCP itself by taking down a particularly unhinged and power hungry executive. Its sort of like saying that the US Department of Justice isn't in the thrall of Wall Street because they happened to take down Bernie Madoff. There's no point in the movie that I can recall where there's an implication that OCP's plans to run the city police force or to gentrify Old Detroit have actually been slowed down significantly by the events of the movie. Helsing fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
One thing I don't really like about RC2 is the Old Man is straight up bad guy while in RC1 he's just the big man upstairs and we have two other antagonists to deal with. Also "Nice shootin' son..." is an awesome line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:True, true. I guess it's more correct to say that he's become a third being now, not Murphy, not Robocop, but Robomurph So what you're saying is that he's part man, part machine, all cop? Incredible. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:One thing I don't really like about RC2 is the Old Man is straight up bad guy while in RC1 he's just the big man upstairs and we have two other antagonists to deal with. I think Robocop 2 was where OCP started their "urban renewal project aka Delta City. The Old Man was the big proponent of this plan. What's funny is he was very excited about RoboCain, he supported Dr. Fax much to the protest of the other scientist (he was the poor scientist that got shot in the arm by Diving Bell Robocop 2.) Then when RoboCain goes apeshit at the end he sides with his cronies again plotting to blame it all on Dr. Fax to avoid wrongful death lawsuits. Another detail I saw after a few viewings is the Old Man taking about the demand for RoboCain as a law enforcement unit, and "that means jobs!" Could you imagine Detroits chief export being crazy drug addicted cyborgs? I'd buy that for a dollar!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I suppose they never really explored it, but Murphy was unique and so was Cain while other candidates went way of other Robocop 2s. What were they thinking for any sort of militarization or mass production? Is this somehow related to something like Universal Soldier where a military asset can die and then turned into a machine? Like a Starcraft Dragoon? Do they need deaths to make these drones? Or somehow just machines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
It's possible they didn't plan on revealing that RC2 was a cyborg to the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Yeah I always thought RC2 was never supposed to even show his "face" if it was working properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I suppose they never really explored it, but Murphy was unique and so was Cain while other candidates went way of other Robocop 2s. What were they thinking for any sort of militarization or mass production? Is this somehow related to something like Universal Soldier where a military asset can die and then turned into a machine? Like a Starcraft Dragoon? Do they need deaths to make these drones? Or somehow just machines. Even in death, I serve and protect. Rhyno posted:It's possible they didn't plan on revealing that RC2 was a cyborg to the public. I believe the same can be said of RoboCop himself. Outside of Lewis, I don't think anyone even acknowledges whoever is inside the suit. They realize about the time SWAT moves in after the bungled Dick Jones bust that there's an actual man inside there, but not that he's was one of their own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Robocop was one of my favorite franchises while growing up (saw RC2 in the theater with my dad), so I watched the new one despite the crappy trailers and PG-13 rating... and it's not that bad. There were a couple of moments that I really enjoyed, like the Tehran scene and the ten minutes where Robocop actually got to be a cop. It was also surprisingly gruesome for a PG-13 film wait till you see what's under that suit.  Unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives: -the attempts at satire fell flat. I actually got sick of hearing Samuel L. Jackson's voice. -the action scenes were too CGI and videogamey for my tastes. -Robocop is practically clairvoyant thanks to bullshit psuedo-science. -Robocop? More like Robodad. They made him way too human in this version. -In the first movie, Robocop circumvented the 4th directive by getting Dick Jones fired. This movie's equivalent of the 4th directive was defeated because human soul is stronger than computers. I'd probably enjoy this movie a lot more if it was named something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I believe the same can be said of RoboCop himself. Outside of Lewis, I don't think anyone even acknowledges whoever is inside the suit. They realize about the time SWAT moves in after the bungled Dick Jones bust that there's an actual man inside there, but not that he's was one of their own. It's a lot harder to hide that RC1 is a man when his lower face is showing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Fishmonkey posted:There were a couple of moments that I really enjoyed, like the Tehran scene and the ten minutes where Robocop actually got to be a cop.  This has me hopeful though: Fishmonkey posted:It was also surprisingly gruesome for a PG-13 film wait till you see what's under that suit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Fishmonkey posted:-the attempts at satire fell flat. I actually got sick of hearing Samuel L. Jackson's voice. So pretty much what the "NOT MY ROBOCOP  " people were saying? Despite being one of them I was hoping for a hail mary. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I'm not trying to be funny but I honestly never got why the level of gore in a move is so important. I've seen the same thing every time a PG13 remake or sequel comes out. Surely there's vastly more important stuff in a movie than whether there's blood or tits in it?WarLocke posted:So pretty much what the "NOT MY ROBOCOP I'm skeptical as gently caress about this movie but that's a list of bullet points that says pretty much nothing. The satire fell flat? Why? How? In what way does the ending that he describes happen? It might be thematically brilliant or it might be hokey poo poo. The post tells us nothing TomWaitsForNoMan fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Feb 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:I'm not trying to be funny but I honestly never got why the level of gore in a move is so important. I've seen the same thing every time a PG13 remake or sequel comes out. Surely there's vastly more important stuff in a movie than whether there's blood or tits in it? Also, after seeing their coworker get shot to pieces and gore fly everywhere, the OCP boardroom members jump right to "This project was a failure.", not "Oh holy gently caress, we just watched a man die in front of us.", showing the desensitization to gore in this movie's world. It helps the atmosphere become more believable. If a person dies like that, there's going to be gore. PG-13 doesn't show that so it's like how is the world the movie presents supposed to be as believable as one that shows what actually happens? Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Guess what came in the mail today? Oh lord oh lord so excited.       I like it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Well yeah, but more often than not, characters are allowed to be more menacing if a movie doesn't have the constraints of shooting for a PG-13 rating and showing gore can go a long way towards furthering that. Boddicker and co. more than likely would not have been the same as they were if the original had been PG-13. Would Murphy's death scene in the original have had the same impact without the gore? That's why I didn't like the cut version of the original as much, because it didn't portray Murphy's physical condition during the death scene as well as the uncut version. In the uncut version, you really get the sense that "Okay, wow, this person is damaged beyond repair." That true, but there are ways to work around it if a lower rating is desired
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:That true, but there are ways to work around it if a lower rating is desired
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Absolutely, and working around it usually makes the movie turn out to be a joyless slog to watch for the viewer. There are certainly exceptions, but that's kind of the rule. But in those cases isn't the problem that the filmmakers aren't good enough to work around it properly? Who's to say the same people would be able to make something better simply because they were targetting a higher rating? Paul Verhoeven with a PG13 limit may well make something wonderful. Len Wiseman with a hard R on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
This "more intense ratings = more mature media" argument has gone on for video games and the same general result happens - despite any philosophical waxing about how it allows people to express themselves more, 99% of the time it just leads to blood & guts for the sake of blood & guts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
People don't understand why they like things, so they say the film is good because of the gore. No one says the gore is good because of the film, although that's obviously more accurate. In the mutant scene in Robocop, you are very literally seeing a dude turn into a pile of latex and paint. The actor is trapped under the layers of material. CGI means something different, since there is no material, and no 'underneath'. The actor is partly or entirely erased, and replaced with animation. See the T2 for that type of melting and morphing effect. The T-1000 is not 'worse', but must be understood as something different. Instead of being trapped in a body, there's nothing underneath. That's a shift we've already seen recognized here, with the transition from the human brain in a robot shell to the human face over circuitry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:Guess what came in the mail today? This is awesome. I want the Hot Toys one but I can almost guarantee that buying it would cause divorce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:Guess what came in the mail today? Niceeeee. I really want one of these guys. But I have to find a Robo first. I passed because all the ones I found in the store were pretty bad...now I can't find any, so I'd take a messy RoboCop at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:People don't understand why they like things, so they say the film is good because of the gore. No one says the gore is good because of the film, although that's obviously more accurate. There's certainly quite a few scenes that could be cut out in order to make that movie PG-13, but they're all key scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:I'm skeptical as gently caress about this movie but that's a list of bullet points that says pretty much nothing. The satire fell flat? Why? How? In what way does the ending that he describes happen? It might be thematically brilliant or it might be hokey poo poo. The post tells us nothing This movie tries to satirize how large corporations can get whatever they want, like circumventing laws through loopholes or using Fox News-style political commentators to manipulate the public's opinion. My main beef is that these Fox News scenes were missing the wittiness and jokes that were present in the original movie's news segments. Samuel L. Jackson basically stood in front of a CGI backdrop and shouted plot points at the camera for 3 or 4 scenes. Super spoilers ahead: Robocop can't shoot people who wear special wristbands. Michael Keaton is wearing one. Robocop's body is paralyzed when he tries to arrest him, but he grits his teeth and raises his hand just enough to shoot Michael Keaton. Not nearly as satisfying as "Dick, you're fired!" I have to admit that the last scene is kinda clever: Robocop gets a new gray suit. Get it? The black suit represents his loss of humanity, and he regains it by the end of the movie! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
For me, the gore in RoboCop is both horrifying and cathartic. It has two specific tones for it's violent sequences. When the scene is meant to be cathartic, and comedic, it becomes over the top so you can't help but laugh or cheer. But then you get a scene like Murphy's death, which is just so brutal and graphic it makes you squirm, or at least feel sorry for the guy. The scene where Kenny dies in the board room is the perfect example of the comedic violence in the film. Especially with the punchline - "CAN SOMEONE CALL AN AMBULANCE!?" The scene where Emile dies is also incredibly over the top, and cathartic because he's such a piece of poo poo. Those elements of violence help make the film entertaining to watch, and that is why it still ends up having an audience today. Not every film needs gore, mind you...but when people think RoboCop, they think of one of the most violent action films of all time. That's why the PG-13 rating feels wrong. Like when they did AvP. Merging together 2 very violent franchises together into a film for children doesn't work. But that doesn't mean the film will be good or bad based off the rating. Not every film needs to R-Rated. But sometimes it helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I didn't mean to imply that Robocop is only good because of the gore, because that's not how I feel. The gore was just an added bonus on top of a strong foundation of other elements. Though I do feel like if the original Robocop had been rated PG-13 and had to shoot so that it aimed for that rating, it would not have been as good of a movie and wouldn't have had nearly the same legacy as it does. LeJackal posted:[On what is lost with the new PG-13 rating which is designed solely to garner wider market share] Cartoon-like action/violence is going to lead to a cartoon-like response. Nobody gasps when Bugs Bunny replaces Daffy's cigar with dynamite because they know Daffy will have a black beak and be okay in the next scene. When Jack Strongjaw shoots Terrorist Joe and he falls bloodlessly, we discount him as merely a set-piece. Nobody cares, because he's essentially inhuman. When visceral, real imagery is used appropriately it makes the audience more likely to consider a character beyond just a prop. Its harder to pretend that someone is a non-human when they are pleading breathlessly with god for one more day of life as they desperately attempt to staunch the flow of blood and organs coursing from their abdomen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
So Fishmonkey, what you're saying is that the movie is just like the trailer presents it and not much else, and the parts that are different are disappointing for the most part?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
13 year old males account for the largest ticket-purchasing demographic in the United States. That's literally all there is to it. A financing studio doesn't give a poo poo how violent your vision is or how it complements the theme of your work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Fishmonkey posted:I'd probably enjoy this movie a lot more if it was named something else. TechnoDad: A SciFi original.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
It's heavily implied that the sequel will have scenes of RoboDad watching hockey games with his son. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:Guess what came in the mail today? Don't you DARE buy this for a 15 year old!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:This is awesome. I want the Hot Toys one but I can almost guarantee that buying it would cause divorce. And if it does result in divorce, how much did she really love you anyway if she couldn't support getting an ED-209? If that's not "irreconcilable differences", I don't know what is. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Well she let me get the Robo with chair, so I felt like I'd pushed it enough with the multiple-hundred-dollar dolls. I just had to promise not to criticize her if they made a Demolition Man line and she bought Simon Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
Who wouldn't buy a Simon Phoenix toy? What's your boggle with Simon Phoenix? Also, I'm watching RoboCop 3 for the first time...and I'm so happy that Basil came back to do the theme. I have a new soundtrack to get now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Who wouldn't buy a Simon Phoenix toy? What's your boggle with Simon Phoenix? My boggle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
You got a 15 day waiting period? How about I just take one now! Mutha fucka! Also...RoboCop 3 was embarrassing. The score was good though. That kept me some what engaged. But even thinking about if I watched this movie as a kid I would've been really bored through out. Not much happens in the film. Plus, RoboCop doesn't fight any cool robots. No, those robot ninjas don't count because they were pretty much just people who I guess were also robots. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 13:11
|
|