Yeah the fact it doesn't star Colin Farrell and isn't directed by Len Wiseman already puts it miles ahead of that remake.
ROBOCOP remake finds its director and star
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Yeah the fact it doesn't star Colin Farrell and isn't directed by Len Wiseman already puts it miles ahead of that remake.
Why does he have to get revenge on someone, just because it happened in the original film?
Good remakes / reboots / re-imaginings / re-whatevers take a concept, that may (Star Trek) or may not (Battlestar Galactica) have been done well in their original incarnations, and do something different with it.
The inclusion of Murphy's wife in the RoboCoppization, for lack of a better term, is a really cool spin on things. The best part of RoboCop 2 is exploring the body horror that was perpetrated upon Alex Murphy without his knowing consent; this could be a really interesting take, in that at some point he learns that his wife had him turned into a cyborg.
The other thing to keep in mind is the line, "The illusion of free will." That says everything about where this film is going, I think: What happens in an authoritarian, "You are free to do as we tell you" society? We're asking ourselves that question today in light of PRISM, drones, secret courts, the PATRIOT Act, etc. It's a very relevant theme, and I have faith in Padilha to really explore it.
Just because it doesn't hit the exact same beats as the original doesn't make it bad. Go watch the original film if that's what you want. In any event, "Murphy is out for revenge" isn't the central theme of RoboCop, it's "Murphy regains his humanity." To watch RoboCop and be all "hell yeah, killer robot goes out for blood" is to completely miss the point.
^With you on Wiseman, but I do like Colin.
I agree it's not the central point.... but I don't think one can deny that there's a very heavy revenge theme in the original movie, which is what really propels the film and makes it so thrilling to watch.
After watching Murphy be so brutally gunned down and humiliated by Clarence and his gang early on, it's hard not to root for him or get a huge thrill from watching him come back later as a badass cyborg and blow them all away.
The remake doesn't need to hit those same exact beats, but hopefully they at least find some way to make Robo a strong and badass presence like in the original.
That's true I suppose. I guess all I'm saying is I hope its not just another really bland modern Hollywood bang bang movie like Total Recall was.
And whatever happens, they better find a way to incorporate this line!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HOt0ZOcYk
Can't say as the trailer has me excited--looks a bit to sanitised to me--but I got to be honest I'll watch just about anything with the likes of Jackson, Keaton and Oldman in the line-up. Hell I'm usually sold just with Oldman alone.
Again though, it looks very watered down and over explained. I get the feeling there'll be lots of scenes with people explaining things to each other interspersed with expensive action sequences. I like that the original knew what it was and didn't care. It got the dumb action, but it also had surprising depth and subtlety.
That whole sequence with the crash team (which IIRC used an *actual* crash team) and Murphy's death felt raw and horrific, even more so than his torture and execution. From that point on we don't see him again until something like 10 or 20 minutes later. It's all from his perspective and we never see exactly how much is left of him. This new film makes it look like he's still like 80% organic, whereas the original was probably just a brain, the front of his skull along with what's left of his face and probably a spinal cord. Also, the original made a big thing of him slowly reclaiming his lost humanity--that's half the point of the story--but here it looks like it's the other way around. As in he starts out himself but finds the machine is gradually taking over.
I know it's not really fair to make these comparisons, we should really let the new film do it's own thing and the creep of technology is a (slightly) more relevant modern theme than capitalism as an end unto itself. However, if they insist on remaking old films, it's going to be unavoidable and if they really wanted to do their own thing...then they should have done their *own* thing.
Again though, it looks very watered down and over explained. I get the feeling there'll be lots of scenes with people explaining things to each other interspersed with expensive action sequences. I like that the original knew what it was and didn't care. It got the dumb action, but it also had surprising depth and subtlety.
That whole sequence with the crash team (which IIRC used an *actual* crash team) and Murphy's death felt raw and horrific, even more so than his torture and execution. From that point on we don't see him again until something like 10 or 20 minutes later. It's all from his perspective and we never see exactly how much is left of him. This new film makes it look like he's still like 80% organic, whereas the original was probably just a brain, the front of his skull along with what's left of his face and probably a spinal cord. Also, the original made a big thing of him slowly reclaiming his lost humanity--that's half the point of the story--but here it looks like it's the other way around. As in he starts out himself but finds the machine is gradually taking over.
I know it's not really fair to make these comparisons, we should really let the new film do it's own thing and the creep of technology is a (slightly) more relevant modern theme than capitalism as an end unto itself. However, if they insist on remaking old films, it's going to be unavoidable and if they really wanted to do their own thing...then they should have done their *own* thing.
I then said his skull is artificial, his face is left. That was the whole point. The make up in the original took away from the human skull, the new make up makes it look just like a head inside a helmet. The silly robot/cyborg semantics was never the point.
Arguing for arguing's sake are we?
Last edited:
Um yeah, SWAT teams go into buildings in those useful shiny silver vests and suits...
Not.I don't mind if a new Robocop changes the satire...that was the original's take on the subject. I actually think people are less cynical about the future now than they were in the 70s-90s as they have all the benefits of info-tech on an everyday basis. Same with commercialism, people accept it now because info-tech makes it more personalized and tailored.
I think we'll see not a satire, but an action movie with a secondary criticism of privacy issues and yes, of course they will keep the tortured Murphy angle.
There is no spinal cord
The face has also been debated back and forth as just as lab created one too.
So brain and probably just a heart.
All he needs is a cowardly lion looking for courage.
To the people complaining that the new Robocop looks too much like a guy in a suit, I think that's what it is for the most part this time around. Going by what's seen and heard in the trailer the scientists decided to salvage more organic components, I'm guessing his head, torso, and right arm, were permanently grafted into a robotic exoskeleton. I'm also guessing they ditched the remaining leg based on comments of paralysis and the fact that it would be much easier to have two robotic legs working together as opposed to fixing an injured leg and having that work with a robotic replacement.
Whereas the original Robocop was just a brain in a robot body, (whether or not his eyes, face, and parts of his skull are organic is up for debate).
I'd say worst case scenario is that it ends up another summer action/superhero movie and lacks the depth found in the first film, but I can't tell that based on a trailer. Robocop has been a franchise ever since the first cartoon was made, if the producers said that this was just more Robocop set in a different continuity as opposed to a reboot they might have less of an uphill battle trying to sell this thing. I also can't imagine this movie being any worse than the awful third movie.
Whereas the original Robocop was just a brain in a robot body, (whether or not his eyes, face, and parts of his skull are organic is up for debate).
I'd say worst case scenario is that it ends up another summer action/superhero movie and lacks the depth found in the first film, but I can't tell that based on a trailer. Robocop has been a franchise ever since the first cartoon was made, if the producers said that this was just more Robocop set in a different continuity as opposed to a reboot they might have less of an uphill battle trying to sell this thing. I also can't imagine this movie being any worse than the awful third movie.
Last edited:
There is no spinal cord
The face has also been debated back and forth as just as lab created one too.
So brain and probably just a heart.
I always took it he was, essentially, a brain inside a robot that they just plastered his face onto. That's why he needs such meager nutritional intake he only needs to maintain his brain and some skin. At the very most all he is is a skull/head. Otherwise his entire body is robotic.
I'm sure in your mind you thought you were being clear. But you said only the face was left and he's a robot. Two incorrect things.
No. Either you weren't being clear or you were wrong. You can pick.
How would he have felt pain when Boddicker stabbed him in the chest?
I believe part 1 he had some internal organs
Before part 2 they probably "upgraded" him and took out some organic material.
Here's a cross section of what people assume robocop looks like on the outside
Who says he "felt pain" if he's an effective machine pain shouldn't be a process he's capable of. That'd be inefficient for a machine. It's possible in "reaction" he had to being stabbed was due to internal machinery/components being damaged and he was reacting to that but I doubt it was, strictly speaking, "pain."
It was sort of Robocop's "Check Engine" light coming on.
One thing I never got, and this is a trope in all cyborg movies, is why he needs a HUD/GUI. We know it's not part of the visor as we see him with it when he loses the helmet so it's something being projected into his vision (which we're shown is a graphical representation of the world that can be scrambled and pixelated further suggesting he doesn't strictly have "eyes" so much as he has "vision processing." and his physical eyes are just more of the "make him look human as possible" thing.
But anyway, the HUD he has (along with the HUD/GUI the Terminators have in those movies) seems redundant for a machine that can "think" these things and already know them. Does Robocop with a computer memory and such really need a visual reminder in his "vision" on what his directives are?
Obviously not since the fourth one impacted his decision making without him knowing it. Same thing with things like the playback, he shouldn't need to see a video of this and just be able to "know" it or think it anytime he wants.
Again, this is a common trope in movies with characters like this but it doesnt make sense. Same deal with "Terminator" where we see a visual interface which, logically, they wouldn't need. Anymore than my CPU needs a monitor inside of it to see what's on my screen in order to know what's going on inside the active memory.
I take it you don't care much for Alpha Commando then?Ethros said:
I think it's for the audience if nothing else, to show there something more advanced and superhuman going on with the characters abilities, even though it doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint.Trekker4747 said:
You're being too literal with the HUD, it's just shorthand to show the viewer the targeting systems and computer processing visually without having to further explain it through exposition. Like I'm sure Terminators can see colors other than red.