Did Robocop die after the events of the third film???
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
Hard disagree. I love the weekly series. It's my favorite incarnation, including the original movie. Richard Eden is a better RoboCop than Peter Weller was; Eden pulled off subtle, internalized emoting in a superficially deadpan performance better than anyone since Leonard Nimoy. Most actors just play RoboCop as Alex Murphy in a metal suit, but Eden and the show's writers did a fantastic job creating a RoboCop who was an amalgam of Murphy's fragmentary memories and Robo's programming.
Sure, the show was sometimes overly campy and broad, but it reined that in over time. And it made the right choice by taking a more kid-friendly approach. The fact was that RoboCop was highly popular with children despite originating in an R-rated movie. When I went to see RoboCop 2 in theaters, there were several kids in the audience despite it being R-rated, and the parents of the youngest one or two kids had to take them out crying midway through. On free commercial TV, there was no way kids weren't going to be watching, and the producers did the responsible thing by making the show suitable for them. Sure, they misfired a bit at first with the cute kid Molly being too much the precocious center of attention, but they reined that in pretty soon as well.
The show also benefited from being showrun by former MacGyver executive producer Stephen Downing, who was an ex-cop, so the show handled police procedure more authentically than most RoboCop productions.
I'm of the opinion that just because kids take a liking to something, doesn't mean you have to warp it to cater to them.
Personally speaking, RoboCop's hard edge is one of the essential elements.
Personally speaking, RoboCop's hard edge is one of the essential elements.
Weller certainly didn't. He considered Murphy and Robo as two separate characters.
@Christopher you're the first person I've ever seen say something positive about a none Weller Robocop, makes a nice change.
That's an irresponsible attitude in this context. We're not talking about an R-rated movie or premium-cable show where children's access is controlled by their parents. We're talking about a syndicated TV show on free broadcast channels, which local stations might have chosen to air at any hour, so there was no way to prevent children from watching it. And children loved RoboCop, whether adult fans wanted them to or not. It was a simple, undeniable fact that children would watch the show, and it would've therefore been irresponsible not to take that inevitability into account. For the purposes of a syndicated commercial TV series, they made the right choice, regardless of what might be best for the character in different formats.
Except that Verhoeven exaggerated that "hard edge" to satirize '80s American cinema's addiction to violent action heroes. And the sequel took it way too far, embracing gratuitous ultraviolence as an end in itself and mistaking excess for satire.
If you look at the original film, despite all the bloodshed, Robo never takes a fatal shot if he doesn't have to. He usually shoots people in what, by movie logic, are non-vital areas, and he chooses to bring in Boddicker alive the first time when he has the chance, because he's a cop and has the training not to use deadly force unless necessary (something that used to be more axiomatic in American police work than it seems to be these days). That was in deliberate contrast to ED-209's cartoonishly excessive use of lethal force, and was actually more consistent with the TV series, where Robo relied on his computer-precise aim to take nonlethal trick shots, than with the second movie, where pretty much every single shot Robo took was gratuitously lethal except for the one time he wanted a suspect alive to interrogate.
Anyway, the violence was just one facet of the movie's satirical commentary on a corporate dystopia where human lives and rights were disregarded in the name of profit and corruption. The TV series picked up that satirical angle and ran with it in its own way -- a more family-friendly, broader and campier approach, but still capturing the essential satire and social commentary, and doing some pretty nifty character drama along the way.
In the earlier parts of the movie, yeah, but by the end of the original film, he seemed to be completely Murphy again.
It's personal preference, but I just don't find Weller as impressive as other people seem to. He's not bad, just kind of a middle-of-the-road actor. And Richard Eden gave such a subtle and rich performance, though of course in a weekly series he had a lot more to work with.
Oh no!
I'm not saying the TV show should have been R-rated. I'm saying I personally have no interest in it existing in the first place. It's like the Rambo, Highlander, or Toxic Avenger cartoons to me.
Which is why I said 'hard edge', not violence. The adult nature of RoboCop runs through every facet of the storytelling, so (again, for me) when you kid-friendly the property, everything suffers. It's not just "There's no blood any more..."
I'll agree with you where the two animated series were concerned, but no blanket generalization is always right. The live-action series had enough strengths to be worthwhile despite the changes to the premise -- effective writing, a terrific cast, good music, clever futurism, and a good sense of humor (occasionally overly silly, but they reined that in more as they went).
Look -- if Batman can work as both "This is an operating room and I'm the surgeon" and "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb," then there's no reason RoboCop can't work in both darker and lighter versions. The fundamental cores of RoboCop are the satire of an amoral corporate dystopia and the character story of a man turned into a machine and striving to recover his humanity, and the live-action series handled both those aspects very well, certainly far better than any other sequel, adaptation, or remake has managed to do.
Some of his victims were kind of ambiguous. Like the convenience store robber he punched, them walked out. Suggesting that the guy was dead.
He also seemed to have a sense of poetic justice, given what he did to that would-be rapist.
I just checked a clip of the scene on YouTube. Robo didn't actually punch the guy; he clotheslined the charging robber with an extended arm, and the robber's own momentum caused him to crash into a freezer case and knock himself out. It's hard to believe that could be fatal, certainly not by movie logic.
Also, I don't see how his walking out would suggest that the guy was dead. It's more likely he was just walking out to his car to request an ambulance or a transport van for the incapacitated suspect. The movie jumped forward in time to the next crime before Robo even reached the store exit, so we can't make any assumptions about what he did or didn't do in the skipped period.
Robo killing random thugs would be inconsistent with the story beat of Robo choosing to bring Boddicker in alive because he's a cop first. Why would he be less willing to use lethal force against someone he has every reason to hate than against some random robber? One reason the second film is so stupid is that the filmmakers didn't understand that RoboCop was not just a killing machine, but a good, honest cop at heart. Unfortunately, a lot of the audience has made that mistake too.
Let's not forget when Robo punched a former senator out of a window.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I didn't make one.
And everything I did say was as a statement of personal preference, so there's no actual argument to be had here. You liked the TV show more than the original movie and I thought it was dogshit. C'est la vie.
Which ones, specifically?
Last edited:
So out of curiosity, I decided to look into the idea that Robo is a murder machine in RoboCop 2.
My results are fairly rudimentary, so allow a little leeway. I counted only what one would normally consider a "movie kill". (The kind of thing that is normally meant to indicate death unless shown otherwise.)
RoboCop
One man punched head-first out of a second-story window.
Sixteen men shot in the drug factory. (This includes Boddicker gang member Steve Minh.)
Joe Cox shot.
Clarence fatally stabbed in the neck.
Dick Jones shot out of a skyscraper.
Total: Twenty kills.
RoboCop 2
Eight men shot in drug hideout. (With a handful more softly implied by distant gunfire.)
Sniper shot in the eye.
Four Cain goons shot.
Smashed Cain's still-living brain into the ground.
Total: Fourteen-ish kills.
Just for the fun of it, I also looked at RoboCop 3
Three punks shot.
Two OCP rehab troopers shot.
One OCP rehab trooper blown up in an armored vehicle.
Nine people shot (a mix of rehab troopers and punks) in the street.
Total: Surprisingly, fifteen kills.
Hopefully this is informative enough to warrant me having two posts in a row.
Edited to correct some numbers.
My results are fairly rudimentary, so allow a little leeway. I counted only what one would normally consider a "movie kill". (The kind of thing that is normally meant to indicate death unless shown otherwise.)
RoboCop
One man punched head-first out of a second-story window.
Sixteen men shot in the drug factory. (This includes Boddicker gang member Steve Minh.)
Joe Cox shot.
Clarence fatally stabbed in the neck.
Dick Jones shot out of a skyscraper.
Total: Twenty kills.
RoboCop 2
Eight men shot in drug hideout. (With a handful more softly implied by distant gunfire.)
Sniper shot in the eye.
Four Cain goons shot.
Smashed Cain's still-living brain into the ground.
Total: Fourteen-ish kills.
Just for the fun of it, I also looked at RoboCop 3
Three punks shot.
Two OCP rehab troopers shot.
One OCP rehab trooper blown up in an armored vehicle.
Nine people shot (a mix of rehab troopers and punks) in the street.
Total: Surprisingly, fifteen kills.
Hopefully this is informative enough to warrant me having two posts in a row.
Edited to correct some numbers.
Last edited:
Yes, but mostly in the shoulders, legs, that sort of thing -- which in real life could be fatal if a major artery is struck, but by movie logic is generally presumed to be survivable. I'm taking into account the cartoonish exaggeration built into Verhoeven's action style. If you look at it narratively, the point of that scene is that Robo chooses not to kill Boddicker despite his desire for revenge, because he's a good enough cop not to kill if he doesn't have to. The kills he does inflict are unavoidable in the circumstances, which is the difference from the sequel. In the original, he doesn't kill every criminal he confronts, just those that he has to. In the sequel, the only criminal he spares is the one he wants to interrogate. It's not the raw numbers that matter here, it's the percentage.
I'm not really sure that's relevant? Does the fact that they're shooting at him mean he can't incapacitate them verus killing them?
I suppose we can assume that in Robocop 3 other people died when he shoots missiles left and right into the crowd of bad guys. Then I don't know whether to blame him for the deaths in the building explosion at the end. I guess not?So out of curiosity, I decided to look into the idea that Robo is a murder machine in RoboCop 2.
My results are fairly rudimentary, so allow a little leeway. I counted only what one would normally consider a "movie kill". (The kind of thing that is normally meant to indicate death unless shown otherwise.)
RoboCop
One man punched head-first out of a second-story window.
Sixteen men shot in the drug factory.
One man fatally stabbed in the neck.
One man shot out of a skyscraper.
Total: Nineteen kills.
RoboCop 2
Eight men shot in drug hideout. (With a handful more softly implied by distant gunfire.)
Sniper shot in the eye.
Smashed Cain's still-living brain into the ground.
Total: Ten kills.
Just for the fun of it, I also looked at RoboCop 3
Three punks shot.
Two OCP rehab troopers shot.
One OCP rehab trooper blown up in an armored vehicle.
Nine people shot (a mix of rehab troopers and punks) in the street.
Total: Surprisingly, fifteen kills.
Hopefully this is informative enough to warrant me having two posts in a row.
Otherwise great analysis!
Which he seemingly changes his mind about at the end of the film. "I'm not arresting you any more..."
In RoboCop 1, he kills people that he doesn't have to. In RoboCop 2, he kills fewer people that he doesn't have to.
In both movies, he abstains from killing people that he could have if he wanted to.
I thought about it, but decided that not saving someone doesn't count as a kill. But an argument could be made...
I went through Robo 1 and 2 again, this time looking for kills that Robo holds back from. Trickier to quantify on some, but for what it's worth:
RoboCop
Shop robber
Two would-be rapists
Clarence Boddicker...but then he does kill him later anyway.
I'm not counting Emil, because even though Robo never actually kills him himself, he doesn't particularly not kill him either. He basically "almost" kills him twice. A line ball. Others may disagree.
Total: Two or Three-ish?
RoboCop 2
One robber.
Three drug hideout goons.
There's also two more that I'm loathe to count.
Hob. The movie makes it fairly explicit that his programming is at least partially involved: TARGETING DENIED_
That's not to say Robo would have blown him away otherwise, just that there's enough doubt to maybe not count it.
And the Little League coach robbing the store. Robo is compromised by OCP's new programming at that point. He's not remotely himself.
Total: Four.
I also found new kills that I completely missed before. Joe Cox in RoboCop, and four goons in the raid on Cain's place in RoboCop 2. So brings the kill counts to 20 and 14.
So with those (admittedly still not rock-solid) numbers, it currently (to my eyes) looks like Robo kills more people in RoboCop, and holds back from killing very slightly more often in RoboCop 2.
Last edited:
But the point is that he doesn't default to that. He only goes there once driven to emotional extremes at the end of an arduous battle; it is not his automatic first response with every criminal.
I disagree. I think you're interpreting ambiguous evidence in a way that fits your argument, though admittedly, so am I.
I think you're missing some. There's the guy who's knocked off the motorcycle in the crimefighting montage; I'm pretty sure he survives, or at least it's ambiguous.
And again, the question is not simply the binary of whether or not RoboCop kills someone, but whether the specific situation warranted lethal force. I'm talking about the difference between a version of RoboCop that reserves lethal force for situations where there are no viable alternatives, as police officers are supposed to do and as showrunner/ex-cop Stephen Downing had Robo do in the live-action series, and a version that defaults to blowing bad guys away for the sake of gratuitous movie violence.
Okay, if so, then I missed some too.
I think that's a large part of what I'm going on. It does strongly imply that killing was his default preference unless he was prevented, which is a gross misreading of how a good cop like Alex Murphy would operate. I think that's the case where he avoided killing the subject purely in order to interrogate him, rather than out of any basic consideration for human life.
Again, this supports my point, which is that R2 showed him defaulting to lethality unless prevented, which is profoundly different from the original, where his standard operating procedure was to use less lethal methods where feasible.
Again, I couldn't care less about the numbers. My point has never been about the numbers.
I don't think I am, or am at least trying hard not to be...when I went through the films I fully expected Robo to be more trigger happy in R2, but I suspected that he might not be quite so hyper-violent as was being claimed. I did not expect the result I got. I've tried not to unconsciously fudge anything, even leaving off two "Didn't Kill in R2" instances that someone could potentially argue should count. But I fully acknowledge the possibility of bias and error.
That's Emil. I mentioned him in the text you quoted.
Which instances in Robo1 and 2 do you personally feel he should have withheld lethal force when he didn't, if any?
You're asking me to tell you what I've already been telling you for days, which only makes me think you didn't bother to pay attention, in which case there's no point trying again.
It was worse than that.
1) Page Fletcher consciously chose not to watch any prior RoboCop works and instead developed his own movement style for Prime Directives ... and he decided that RoboCop should just flail like he was having an epileptic seizure.
2) Because of the low budget and the goodwill that he felt towards the people making the miniseries, Rob Bottin loaned the production one of the original Robosuits from the first movie (this was used not only for Fletcher, but also to make the mold for RoboCable), on the condition that it be returned exactly in the same pristine condition as it was when the production received it. When Fletcher first tried it on, he was several inches too short, so director Julian Grant ordered part of the legs to be hacksawed off so the leg armor actually fit on Fletcher.
Bottin was, shall we say, less than pleased when the Robosuit was returned to him.
Similar threads
