Robocop (2014)

[Deckard]

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

This is the gist of the entire post I made that I'm too busy to respond to Difabs reponse post of atm. But basically exactly. My point is no one thinks this is going to be better, in fact we all know damn well it wont so whats the end game. My rhetorical question remains, I mean chances are this will do poorly and not get a sequel so what was the ultimate point of it all? To remake an awesome movie slightly differant and ultimately worse in every way so you could have a chance to maybe make one aspect seem a little better than it was handled in the 80s?. Of course I understand it's a way to kill 2 hours, but my point is they aren't going to top the original, they aren't going to start a new series with this. If they went their own way they'd have had a shot at that, if they had done a resurrection of the program contiuation of part 1 theyd have had a chance at keeping something going without dismissing Part 1 as no longer relevant in anyway. Right now this is going to be some bastard thing that nobody needed. One and done so whats the point? It's not a revival, they arent going into this like Avengers with a gameplan for 3 more... Gimme a break.

Murphy isn't James Bond or Spiderman. He's not a generic action star you just drop into any plot with guns and explosives and it works.

 

[thenammagazine]

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.

We'll agree to disagree then. If the original film was wholly capable of drawing an emotion from the audience by merely implying that and letting the audience fill in the gaps, then a film that physically shows it, is taking the low road because they're either incapable of achieving that same implication, believe their audience so incompetent as to not be able to grasp the idea, or banking on the cheap thrill - or all 3.

As for the Vader sequence, you're using it completely out of context. That was utilized to foreshadow (from a linear perspective) the "He's more machine now, than man.." remark from the OT. We see the transformation during, it wasn't used later to get a cheap shock from the audience.

 

[jye4ever]

So many paths a new movie could take.

Starts at Murphy's funeral.
Starts with Murphy as the CEO of a company that converts kids to robots.
Starts with Murhpy's grown up kid getting shot dead by Murphy in a bank robbery, not realizing its him until a computer scan.

 

[Deckard]

How about this... Murphy is taken off line because his contract for his hardware from Morton ran it's course. He was the only one the program ever got right and so now they have to try to figure it out again and how to replace him with basically an upgraded version of himself. Allows you to start over with a new actor and tell the same story they want to without completely dismissing the first movie from existance as though it's not worthy or outdated.

 

[jye4ever]

How about this... Murphy is taken off line because his contract for his hardware from Morton ran it's course. He was the only one the program ever got right and so now they have to try to figure it out again and how to replace him with basically an upgraded version of himself. Allows you to start over with a new actor and tell the same story they want to without completely dismissing the first movie from existance as though it's not worthy or outdated.

Like I said, Murphy's funeral.

RoboWindowscop 8.1.

 

[Deckard]

They just open with a shot of Murph's torso being tossed into a dumpster with a bunch of 80's IBMs.

 

[a-dev]

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.

I thought you guys were saying that nothing should be made at all, not ''by all means make a new Robocop but keep it within the existing continuity, Weller's Robocop and the events of that film would be the backstory of the new film''. I guess I wouldn't have minded seeing something like that - especially considering that's pretty much my stance on Superman. Their reboot Man of Steel really annoys me quite frankly because I think the potential for continuing the Donner-verse and making that the shared DC superhero universe is much greater than what they've done now.

I can't see myself being quite as upset in this Robocop scenario though since, to date, there hasn't been a single worthy follow-up to the first film (nor is there any crossover potential with anything else ala Superman). As Difabio has said that first film is perfectly acceptable as one self-contained film. Its a pity they could never make a sequel to match it but not tragic. If this Robocop reboot is crap, so be it. We've been used to that since 1989/90 anyway.

 

[thenammagazine]

"Detroit Knight Rises": https://www.teefury.com/

 

[DiFabio]

Is that supposed to be his auto 9?

 

[jye4ever]

If this movie takes off I will audition my son for the ninja roll in the sequel.

 

[Centurion]

Like I said, Murphy's funeral.

RoboWindowscop 8.1.

LOL! Microsoft's new OS.

 

[Niltusk]

If this movie takes off I will audition my son for the ninja roll in the sequel.

View attachment 91547

Hmmmmmmm....

 

[tylerdurden]

I guess to clarify a little; grappling with one's identity, the drones thing, free will - sure, all relevant topics in the here & now.. but did they need to remake RoboCop to cover those things? They could've handled that kind of subject matter in many other ways.

The original RoboCop is masterfully multi-layered - it made a bold statement, took the piss out of America, had an all star team of artists etc, & gave us a robot cop with kick@iss classic 80s excess in spades. It's unique in that way.

There are some films that just do not need to be remade, sorry.

this reply is in overall reference to the debate that's been going on...

well, i am in the camp that believes every film deserves a chance to prove its worth. and that applies to remakes/reboots as well. much as been said about the validity of tackling something with as much geek cache as verhoeven's "robocop". and while i do agree that a follow-up with a new character instead of murphy might have seemed like a way to respect the original, in all honesty i do not think there are any feathers being ruffled as far as artistic ownership goes. to me it's like a great song by a great singer being sung by another singer. if it is poorly sung then yes it might slightly embarrass the original singer & songwriter but the new singer will be the one to receive full criticism for the awful performance. it doesn't tarnish the reputation or quality of the orginal singer and song. but if the new singer performs it well, and puts his own flourishes into it then everyone benefits, artiste and audience.

and let's be brutally honest here. the reason we're getting all these remakes is down to brand name value. the studios are in this to make money because they're in a business. for films with lasting pop cultural impact like "robocop", the studios are trading on that familiarity the general public has with the property, no matter how vague. it has value. so that's why they keep the original premise and main characters.

BUT. having said all that, it does not mean the new filmmaker cannot have a fresh, valid, relevant take on the material. unfortunately, most of the time the studio system suppresses the filmmakers' artistic voice and we get watered down, pale versions of the original. or they hire journeymen directors who are just in it for the paycheque. then we get soulless crap. in the case of jose padilha's "robocop", i think the guy genuinely had something to say in the context of the premise of a half-human, half-machine policeman. his vision wasn't in the context of a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist who has a high-tech suit of armor, cos otherwise he'd have pitched for "iron man". he wanted to say something about the duality of the situation alex murphy was caught in. he also had some observations about the present-day media and the use of drones where there is no human accountability. all these issues fit the context of a "robocop" for today's audiences. was it definitively explored? not nearly as much as i'd have liked, but it sure makes padilha's version something that isn't merely a cynical business decision.

(Edit: Wait a tick, you didnt metion a data streamer pike coming from his hand...)

sadly, we do not get a data spike middle finger in this version.

 

[Jaycepticon]

Just saw a commercial where Keaton's looking at the original Robocop designs on a screen. Pretty cool, I guess.

 

[Snakey Jones]

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

I personally found the scene quite disturbing.

Spoiler

I took it as a bit of character establishment; murphy's robot body is slowly de constructed until there's nothing left but a head connected to lungs and a heart. Now murphy is awake throughout all this and as audience members we put ourselves in his shoes and it hits how horrifying the situation is for him. He then requests to die but doctor norton convinces him otherwise by pointing out his death would only hurt his family. So murphy resolves to live out this hellish existence through sheer love for his family. This gets revisited a lot throughout the film and ultimately it's this love that brings him back when the AI threatens to take over. I'm not saying this is an intelligent and subtle movie; many of the things they were trying to say felt really ham handed and forced, particularly some of the political satire; but there is a lot more to the deconstruction scene then shock value in my opinion.

 

[Jason Marko]

This new Robocop is just an updated version of Android Cop.

 

[thenammagazine]

This new Robocop is just an updated version of Android Cop.

Reminds me of that Bollywood Terminator movie.

 

[banthafett]

This new Robocop is just an updated version of Android Cop.

Why couldn't I get movie cash for this instead of ****tycop, when I bought the real Robocop blu and other movies?

 

[DiFabio]

 

[a-dev]

So is that what he looks like at the end? Not bad