ROBOCOP remake finds its director and star

[Dream]

Timby wrote:

---

Downey, Jr., hasn't worn the "full" suit outside of a few select shots in the first Iron Man film.

I've read that it is even dangerous for him to wear the suit. In an Avengers intereview in EW, he has said if when he falls forward he has to tuck in his arms or he will break them if he doesn't.

[Agent Richard07]

I like some of the actors involved, but otherwise, I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far.

I wonder what the soundtrack will be like. The one we got in the original was fantastic and made the movie. I can't imagine it being topped.

[Reverend]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

"Come quietly or there will be...trouble"

While I admit the helmet looks better than I had originally thought, I'm still not sold on the body design. Not because it looks too much like a cross between Iron Man and Nolan's Batman (which of course it does) but because to me it looks like a bloke in a suit.

Now before anyone says "duh, that's 'coz it is!", remember that the original design looked like a *mechanism*, not high-tech riot gear. The arms and legs looks like separate pieces, that were bolted onto a ball joint, indeed the whole thing have a very utilitarian look, yet with very few hard edges and a very attractive finish.

Of course none of this matters either way if there isn't a solid script and performance to back it up. Unfortunately nothing I've seen or read up till now makes me hopeful for a worthy remake.

P.S. I thought the arm was a nich touch. IIRC the original film had a line in there that they could have saved Murphy's right (?) arm but matey-bloke who's name escapes me insisted on total body prosthesis.

[USS Mariner]

RAMA wrote:

---

I never thought i'd see the day when fanboys would complain because a cool suit looks like someone else's cool suit...guys they couldn't even to these design/FX 10-15 years ago, so relax.

RAMA

Zombie Stan Winston is coming to shit in your heart.

[RAMA]

USS Mariner wrote:

---

Zombie Stan Winston is coming to shit in your heart.

The suit was bulkier and Weller hated it, the new suit looks much easier to move around in. Doesn't matter who designed if the tech is better.

RAMA

[Samurai8472]

It was such a dark age for those kinds of suits. Actors needed to have hoses with cold air piped into the suit.

Now with advancements in technology people can move around.





The lower half of these kinds of suits can now be all CGI

[Dream]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

The lower half of these kinds of suits can now be all CGI

It's pretty funny to see Iron Man pantless!

[JarodRussell]

Dream wrote:

---

I've read that it is even dangerous for him to wear the suit. In an Avengers intereview in EW, he has said if when he falls forward he has to tuck in his arms or he will break them if he doesn't.

The problem is that, at least in Iron Man 1, it shows that the suit is mostly CG. That film won't age that well.

[USS Mariner]

RAMA wrote:

---

The suit was bulkier and Weller hated it, the new suit looks much easier to move around in.

Looks can be deceiving, especially since it's, you know, a [i]prop[i] and not a functional robotic body.

All costumes, be there theatrical or motion picture, are designed first and foremost to look good. Ergonomics are secondary unless the suit puts the wearer in unnecessary harm. This is the reason that RDJ (and Welker) would wear as little of the suit as possible.

The only difference that time makes is what and how often they could get away with this; it's the difference between the motion-capture work for RDJ's limbs in IM/IM2/Avengers (see Samurai8472) and Weller having his legs hidden by the car doors in Robocop when he enters/exits the Taurus. Both films had and used full-body versions of the suits, but their use was determined by the requirements of the script.

In short, "modernity" is not an excuse for poor art design.

[USS Mariner]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The problem is that, at least in Iron Man 1, it shows that the suit is mostly CG. That film won't age that well.

I admit to rewatching IM on a borderline religous schedule, and that's kinda true, though it's more noticeable for the Mark III. The tip-off is the inconsistent lighting/color of the red parts of the suit between live-action and full-cg. In scenes where they added elements to RDJ they had to color match what was already filmed in the frame, which makes the CG invisible.

I'm almost certain that the Mark I was never filmed in as a full-body costume because it's impossible to move like a superhero in something that bulky without it actually being a powered suit. All of the scenes were the Mark I moves more than two feet is CG motion capture.

Robocop could get away with having something that chunky because Weller just had to be able to move, and we're talking move as lawyers define the word.

Search for "The Visual Effects of Iron Man" on YT. It's really fascinating stuff.

[Samurai8472]

Dream wrote:

---

It's pretty funny to see Iron Man pantless!

Let's face it, this is not the worst thing we've caught him doing.

[RAMA]

USS Mariner wrote:

---

Looks can be deceiving, especially since it's, you know, a [i]prop[i] and not a functional robotic body.

All costumes, be there theatrical or motion picture, are designed first and foremost to look good. Ergonomics are secondary unless the suit puts the wearer in unnecessary harm. This is the reason that RDJ (and Welker) would wear as little of the suit as possible.

The only difference that time makes is what and how often they could get away with this; it's the difference between the motion-capture work for RDJ's limbs in IM/IM2/Avengers (see Samurai8472) and Weller having his legs hidden by the car doors in Robocop when he enters/exits the Taurus. Both films had and used full-body versions of the suits, but their use was determined by the requirements of the script.

In short, "modernity" is not an excuse for poor art design.

Except I liked the suit right away, and in fact, it IS less bulky, and we know suits like Iron Man and the new RObocop could not have been designed they way they are now, the bulkiness of the legs and joints of the first Robocop suit were apparent, and necessary because they couldn't do any better. From what I understand, the suit for Robocop 3 made in 1992-93 (a mere 5 years later)actually made improvements, its stands to reason the new suit would too. Material creation and fabrication have come a long why since the 80s.

[Timby]

RAMA wrote:

---

From what I understand, the suit for Robocop 3 made in 1992-93 (a mere 5 years later)actually made improvements

Hm? Not in the slightest. RoboCop 3 went into pre-production almost immediately after RoboCop 2 wrapped, and because the budget was non-existent, Robert John Burke was crammed into the suits made for Weller. The problem was that Burke has a solid three or four inches over Weller, so he was packed into a suit that was already uncomfortable for the guy it was actually made for, and as a result it didn't fit him at all. You can see Burke's turtleneck through the neckpiece parts of the makeup (especially in the helmet-less makeup) and through the shoulder / elbow pieces, and you can see the sneakers he's wearing (instead of the bottom portion of the boots) when he gets blown off his feet by the grenade.

Some small improvements were made in the suit between RoboCop and RoboCop 2 to increase Weller's comfort, and near the end of production on the first film they had cut the suit-on / suit-off time to something like an hour and a half, but ... yeah, no, the RoboCop 3 suit was not an example of improvements in any way, shape or form.

[Reverend]

^And even if it was, it'd be irrelevant since it would have had little if any impact on the aesthetic design, which is what we're really discussing when we compare the new design with the original.

[Samurai8472]

The Robocycle