Robocop (2014)

[DiFabio]

Yet I feel all that applies here too. Halfassed story, CG'd hero, etc. It's like they looked at RoboCop, took what would be easy to reproduce for the quick cash grab (superficial plot elements, basic, hollow representations of the principals), and halfassed the rest... just like they did with ASM.

Except they don't have **** Jones and Clarence Broddicker knock offs running around trying to turn the entire city of Detroit into them. Lizard was a blatant rip off of Norman Osborn, split personalities and all. They took the Raimi playbook and played it page by page, only for the worse (Chocolate milk killed Uncle Ben, yeah!). Now ASM 2 is doing a bit of the same, "this is bigger than you Peter", Harry Osborn, the freaking suit etc. etc.

This new Robocop? Seems original enough so far. Sounds like the only negatives for the film are little to no chemistry between Murphy and his wife (the original had none save for a flashback dream), no clear, stereotypical villain (can never top Clarence and the gang, so they know that and don't attempt it with "hollow representations") and big action sequences that aren't as good as the actual story, messages and philosophical ideas in the film.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. Kinneman is getting praise (especially for the scene that everyone is talking about . . . with that "hand"), Oldman and Keaton are getting praised (don't remember a scientist character in the original. There was that chick that kisses him during the Robo POV's but not a fleshed out character), Jackson sounds like a hoot as a sort of Fox News knock off, and there's ironic humor and nice messages throughout the picture.

It sounds like thought went into it, that there's actually a love and care that went into the picture. It could never live up to the original (the filmmakers state this), but, judging by the reviews and interviews, there seems to be a sincere interest in the character here. Not freaking Sony trying to capitalize on the franchise in a blatant attempt of rights control so Marvel and Disney can't get em.

You know that black rubber suit you hate?

Spoiler

According to the reviews, that "black, tactical" bull **** is a joke about modernity, and the filmmakers make fun of it. Something along the lines of what Verhoeven would do.They don't make fun of the original Robo or his look at ALL. They make fun of the '3.0' suit and embrace the original at the end.

That hand? That hand actually has a purpose in the story that mirrors the "total body prosthesis" of the original.

 

[jye4ever]

Fixed

Now we're talking.

 

[DiFabio]

Now we're talking.

Yeah, new material for your desktop *** folder.

Now you just need some of Nam on his alaskan bear skin rug and you're set for life. Just don't let the wife see that!

 

[jye4ever]

Perv.

 

[a-dev]

What's your end game? A better movie than Robocop? It sure didn't need an update in any way, and if this new one failed at major aspects like the villains that's even worse still. They copied the formula and couldn't trace over the lines?

Do you dislike the first movie? Do you like it so much you want more? But it's not more, it's not a sequel. And it's not new really. It's like a glorified fan remake.

Why would you make those assumptions? I don't think I've seen a single person in this thread who doesn't regard the original as an untouchable classic. I even jokingly threatened anyone who might dare suggest that the original was anything less than ****ing brilliant and that the remake was better.

The fact is though that Robocop, in its original incarnation, was a one-hit-wonder. 2 was average at best and everything else was irredeemable $h!te. The remake could potentially best everything but that original film. I'm OK with that.

 

[thenammagazine]

Except they don't have **** Jones and Clarence Broddicker knock offs running around trying to turn the entire city of Detroit into them. Lizard was a blatant rip off of Norman Osborn, split personalities and all. They took the Raimi playbook and played it page by page, only for the worse (Chocolate milk killed Uncle Ben, yeah!). Now ASM 2 is doing a bit of the same, "this is bigger than you Peter", Harry Osborn, the freaking suit etc. etc.

This new Robocop? Seems original enough so far. Sounds like the only negatives for the film are little to no chemistry between Murphy and his wife (the original had none save for a flashback dream), no clear, stereotypical villain (can never top Clarence and the gang, so they know that and don't attempt it with "hollow representations") and big action sequences that aren't as good as the actual story, messages and philosophical ideas in the film.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. Kinneman is getting praise (especially for the scene that everyone is talking about . . . with that "hand"), Oldman and Keaton are getting praised (don't remember a scientist character in the original. There was that chick that kisses him during the Robo POV's but not a fleshed out character), Jackson sounds like a hoot as a sort of Fox News knock off, and there's ironic humor and nice messages throughout the picture.

It sounds like thought went into it, that there's actually a love and care that went into the picture. It could never live up to the original (the filmmakers state this), but, judging by the reviews and interviews, there seems to be a sincere interest in the character here. Not freaking Sony trying to capitalize on the franchise in a blatant attempt of rights control so Marvel and Disney can't get em.

You know that black rubber suit you hate?

Spoiler

According to the reviews, that "black, tactical" bull **** is a joke about modernity, and the filmmakers make fun of it. Something along the lines of what Verhoeven would do.They don't make fun of the original Robo or his look at ALL. They make fun of the '3.0' suit and embrace the original at the end.

That hand? That hand actually has a purpose in the story that mirrors the "total body prosthesis" of the original.

The hand? I don't see that as mirroring so much as mocking. The whole...

Spoiler

disassembly deal shows they're catering to the idiots who actually need to physically see something to understand it.

The same point was made in the original, in an intelligent way that didn't insult the integrity and intellect of the audience. Even Lucas didn't stoop to that level, showing Anakin killing younglings. Instead, he merely inferred it and everybody watching, from 7 to 70, understood. It's sad when Lucas, loooooooooong past his prime, and hated as a "poor film maker" post PT and KOTCS, has a better understanding of his audience, than the idiots behind these nonsensical remakes.

 

[Niltusk]

The remake could potentially best everything but that original film. I'm OK with that.

You could have just said, you are correct, Deckard.

 

[DiFabio]

I don't think that's holding the audiences hand. Sounds like a horrific scene to me.

Spoiler

Imagine you think you're you, that you're trapped in a "suit". Then these people are like, "nope, that's your body, you're essentially dead with the implanted memories". B-b-b-but my hand is real? "No it's not, let me show you". Then they prop you up in a mirror and show you what you really are. That your hand is just a meat glove and you're really synthetic, man made parts.

Remember, this version of Robocop starts out awake, he isn't a zombie that slowly starts to find his humanity like the original. They do the opposite. As soon as he wakes up, they try to demoralize him and break him down, which I guess happens after the training scene. (At one point I guess he's in full "zombie/cyborg" mode for the presentation and doesn't even recognize his wife and son anymore).

Going into a different direction isn't "spelling it out" to the audience. It's a different direction. In the original, we knew he was mostly a brain and not much else (though, everyone, including myself would like to know how much of him was actually organic vs. man made). That "total body prosthesis, lose the arm" is great, sad and twisted with Bob Morton. Throughout the film, Robocop slowly starts to find his past self. This film does something similar but in a different way for the audience. It does the reverse. It takes YOU, then shows you being controlled while you have to sit through the process. It's like the philosophy of Descrates, "am I me, or am I being controlled". In the original, Robo doesn't realize it until Lewis and the dreams. What's wrong with that? It's not knocking off the original and is playing with a different idea.

The ROTS comparison? Huh? How about he actually SHOWS what parts of Anakin are real and which parts are false during the Frankenstein Vader scene. Instead of letting it be a mystery like the great scene in Empire where we just see a disfigured head? Besides, that's a bad point you make about the younglings because it SHOWS Anakin killing older youngling kids and jedi in the hologram video when Obi-Wan watches it and it doesn't even look that bad.

 

[a-dev]

You could have just said, you are correct, Deckard.

Not sure what your point is. Deckard didn't seem to be allowing for any possibility of this film being good or being in any way worthwhile. I was disagreeing with that so no, I would not have said he was 'correct'.

Like others have said, it could end up being crap and I will have no problem admitting that if I think its the case after I've seen it. I didn't go into Man of Steel wanting it to be as $h!t as I thought it was when I came out.

 

[jye4ever]

Robocop remake brings out the good in people.

 

[DiFabio]

Not sure what your point is. Deckard didn't seem to be allowing for any possibility of this film being good or being in any way worthwhile. I was disagreeing with that so no, I would not have said he was 'correct'.

Like others have said, it could end up being crap and I will have no problem admitting that if I think its the case after I've seen it. I didn't go into Man of Steel wanting it to be as $h!t as I thought it was when I came out.

That's the difference though, they want it to be crap, so therefor it is. Same with most of the internet. Don't forget that this is an evil, money grubbing, reboot that seeks to take a big ole' **** on the original. That's the intention of everyone involved with the project, because remember, as long as you're making money (which is up in the air considering it hasn't been released yet), you don't care about your reputation and you most certainly want YOUR work to bomb. The director that has made some pretty damn good documentaries and independent film WANTS this to kill his reputation, as long as he gets the big fat paycheck that I guess, the remake of a 27 year old classic provides. The actors too. Keaton, Oldman and Jackson, they're in this to knowingly lose it. That's why they signed up.

Personally, I hope this film succeeds in what it sets out to do. It's been dissed and **** on since it was announced (which I even contributed to). You got people like that youtube comic book girl irrationally raging about it without having ever seen it first, like it somehow threatens the existence of the original. As long as audiences (especially younger people) don't start the whole "the remake is better than the original" BS trend, I hope this film proves everyone wrong. It's the movies that usually go through struggle and harsh beginnings (either from studios or audiences) that come out on top. After seeing everyone rip the director to shreds, I'd love to see this movie get the last laugh.

If I think it sucks and don't like it next week, I'll admit it and say as much. I still have the original Robocop on my shelf and in my brain. What I don't get is this predetermined judgement from people. How do you know it sucks? I thought things looked grim after that one clip, then three more appeared and it looked good. I hated the black rubber suit and the hand thing when that was first shown, now these reviews provide insight that make sense of it. It's not like this is the new X-Men movie or Spider-Man movie where we've seen what these guys have done previously with the material. This? I've never seen a José Padilha Robocop film with the cast and crew this has. I don't know what I'm in store for, other than the regrettable plot points I've read that confirm . . . that my fears about superficial things weren't as major as I thought. I thought they were going to rip the original, make a parody of it, especially the original suit. It appears that isn't the case.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

That's the difference though, they want it to be crap, so therefor it is. Same with most of the internet.

Seems to be the case. I'm like A-Dev, willing to give it a shot & will judge it based purely on the actual final movie.

 

[Leon 911]

Not sure what your point is. Deckard didn't seem to be allowing for any possibility of this film being good or being in any way worthwhile. I was disagreeing with that so no, I would not have said he was 'correct'.

Like others have said, it could end up being crap and I will have no problem admitting that if I think its the case after I've seen it. I didn't go into Man of Steel wanting it to be as $h!t as I thought it was when I came out.

Tick Tock never has a point... Dont worry about it...

 

[a-dev]

And like everyone I'll still (at least inside my head) punch anyone in the face who says ''the original wasn't all that good anyway''.

 

[EndoSickness]

I know plenty of guys who don´t like it one bit.
But those are more simple and average movie goers wo don´t see the polical & social satirical/critical parts in this and just see that he looks like a bucket or a can and the action isn´t fast enough.
Those prolly will like the new one, but totally miss the qualities of the old.

 

[BuGz]

Bri

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Normally I would agree with a-dev and suggest giving the film a chance, but then I imagine it being an Alien or Predator reboot. Predator and Alien are already perfect films that could never, ever, be improved in a remake, and a reboot is completely unnecessary and almost insulting.

Why not simply make more Robocop-related movies? Why can't this new Robocop be a different Robocop? Why must they completely wipe the slate clean and start over as if the original was never good enough, or is "dated"?

It feels like they're taking something so special and meaningful that has been a huge part of many peoples' lives and tossing it out the window.

I understand that the original will still always be there, and it will still remain great, but to think that a whole generation of people are going to grow up thinking of this remake as "the" Robocop, and will probably never see the original is sad.

 

[Niltusk]

Why not simply make more Robocop-related movies? Why can't this new Robocop be a different Robocop? Why must they completely wipe the slate clean and start over as if the original was never good enough, or is "dated"?

It feels like they're taking something so special and meaningful that has been a huge part of many peoples' lives and tossing it out the window.

Bingo!

Why would they remake the original with the same exact character? It didn't need redone. Hell, if anything say its a reboot starting after Robo 1.

As Deckard stated no one truly expects this to be better than the original do they?

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I'd like to see that more in movies.

Look at the Alien movies.

Ripleys story ended in the third installment, yet Resurrection brought her back to continue the same character. Would've been much better to delve into new characters set in the same universe instead. Predators did it.

 

[Niltusk]

Not sure what your point is. Deckard didn't seem to be allowing for any possibility of this film being good or being in any way worthwhile. I was disagreeing with that so no, I would not have said he was 'correct'.

Like others have said, it could end up being crap and I will have no problem admitting that if I think its the case after I've seen it. I didn't go into Man of Steel wanting it to be as $h!t as I thought it was when I came out.

He asked what the end game to remaking the original is? His whole rant was based on why scorch earth Robo 1 when its a great movie. You then respond with this new movie could be better than anything in the franchise EXCEPT Robo 1, which was his point exactly, why remake it? Why not set it 20 years post Robo 1 with better tech, etc.. or if they want the character so badly, reboot this with Murphy post Robo 1 leaving Robocop 1 as the centerpiece to build on.