Robocop Reboot (Pre-release)

[Scareb]

Did you really just talk about lack of realism when discussing a film based on a character that is shot to death and is turned into a walking talking cyborg that eats baby food?

 

[jmgrice]

I thought he survived because he was wearing a bulletproof vest. Obviously it didn't stop everything, but you could assume it stopped a great deal of the bullets. But I do agree, the time it would take for his partner to drag his body down and out of the warehouse, plus the time it would take for the ambulance ride, he would have been brain dead for awhile.

I think what people are getting upset about is that he's standing a foot away from a car bomb and doesn't get a scratch on his face, the only unprotected part of his body besides his hands. Doubtful, but I've seen stranger things in Afghanistan (my buddy survived a mortar round impacting 10 feet from him and only had a small rock in his back).

I get that. But would counter the amount of times robo is blown up and shot in the original. .. not one bit of damage around his mouth?

Indeed. Closely followed by "lack of realism".

My post poinred out lack of realism in the original. Its like 2 posts above yours. How is you argument even valid when comparing? Or are you talking about robo cop in general? Because then I would understand. ..(sorry if you were veing sarcastic I didnt pick it up)

Did you really just talk about lack of realism when discussing a film based on a character that is shot to death and is turned into a walking talking cyborg that eats baby food?

Exactly.

J


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[The Terminator]

My post poinred out lack of realism in the original. Its like 2 posts above yours. How is you argument even valid when comparing? Or are you talking about robo cop in general? Because then I would understand. ..(sorry if you were veing sarcastic I didnt pick it up)

I never mentioned realism regarding the original Robocop
Mainly I just meant I don't dislike a film just because it lacks realism, then I wouldn't be such a fan of Terminator, Star Wars and so on

 

[jmgrice]

I never mentioned realism regarding the original Robocop
Mainly I just meant I don't dislike a film just because it lacks realism, then I wouldn't be such a fan of Terminator, Star Wars and so on

I know. I thought you ment you didnt like the look of the new one because it looked un realistic. Then I pointed to my post about the origional being unrealistic. As if to say why would it be a problem in the new one if it wasnt in the old....?

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[The Terminator]

I know. I thought you ment you didnt like the look of the new one because it looked un realistic. Then I pointed to my post about the origional being unrealistic. As if to say why would it be a problem in the new one if it wasnt in the old....?

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Oh okay. Yeah, no.. it could look as unrealistic as possible or as realistic as possible and it wouldn't make a difference one way or another.

 

[Robiwon]

The problem is that the original Robocop was the first of it's kind. Like many movies back in the 70'-80's that are being remade/rebooted today. The remakes don't hold the same magic as the originals because we have all seen that/been there/done that with the movies. The originals were epic in the fact that, while the ideas may not have been new, the way the movies were made was. There have been cyborg movies in the past but Robocop was the first to be "serious" and not a children's movie.

Horror movie remakes have died out and now the studios are turning to the action movies to remake. With the popularity of "superhero's" now we should expect more. The Freddie's, Jason's, Michael's, zombies, etc have all been remade/booted. Now I'm just waiting until they try an remake Jaws or CE3K, or....

 

[rodneyfaile]

At least if Lucas had directed it he would have had the sense to know that 4th degree burns tend to singe your eyebrows off.

I believe the original Robocop to be one of the finest films ever made. Not in a 'fan-loving-special-effects-shooty' way, but as a piece of art in its own right. It was an aching story of identity and loss, portraying Peter Weller as America's version of ******. The entire film operated on two levels in that it was a very beautiful story masquerading as a dumb action film - knowingly so as well. In fact, a lot of the satire is poking fun at mindless Hollywood action films. It lulls people in by promoting all the action, and 'look how cool and testosterone-fuelled this is' but you leave with something far more powerful. The only other film director I can think of who managed to do this to great success was Stanley Kubrick.

It is no accident that Murphy dies in the way he does; tortured and put through trial before being reincarnated. And that at the end of the film when he avenges Boddiker he appears to be walking on water. This is high art, intelligent, sensitive, knowing and is using film to portray a compelling message. Not an easy feat to do, and no remake will ever be able to touch it.

I could go on and on.

By the way:

RoboCop Speaks to Detroit - YouTube

Now I have to watch the bluray again.

I will still go see the remake, but I don't expect it to be anywhere near the original, for all the reasons mentioned in the quote above and elsewhere in this topic.

 

[jmgrice]

Never ceases to amaze me what people go through and say to remain loyal to the original.

They complain about things such as realism and *****ing over the original. Yet fail to see the similar points about the original. Then when you point it out they say things like 'yeh it has faults. But its got some good points' which considering they havent even seen a reboot yet but have already judged it leads on to believe they are not open minded or even willing to like it from the off. How do you know the reboot wont still be good?
Cos your a grumpy old person thats why. Like my dad when he goes on about rocky and rambo being the best films ever lol. Taking everything personal and whining avout things when the original was just as ridiculous in places.

Therefore im out cos you cant discuss with someone who isnt willing to actually listen and debate. It takes the whole purpose away.

Ill leave you with another ridiculous scene from the originals. Not that it still wasnt a good movie.

Robocop is blown up twice with a rocket launcher. Face still unscarred. Where his brain would be accessible to target. As hes still murphy as some have pointed out. So his brain must still be in control. Thus destroying it would ensure his demise. Im sure a rockeet launcher explosion would do so.

So go on. Complain that its an insult that they slag off the original design to explain why its changed. Which lets be fair is true. Nowadays it would be too clunky and a serious design flaw. Complain about what degree burns would do what damage in real life then big up the original which did just as many ridiculous innaccurate things. Then reply after saying yeh well the script was great and then pre judge the reboot before knowing the script. Cos it makes all your basis for a debate useless and pointless. Thus I cease to continue.
I dont see why if you not slightly interested or even going to watch that you would participate.


Hope its good but ill see.

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[Father]

What it boils down to is the original Robocop became a classic because everything worked, everything clicked into place.

Peter Weller was perfect as Murphy and Nancy Allen was great as Lewis, Ronnie Cox was good and slimy as Dick Jones and Kurtwood Smith was absolutely amazing as Clarence Boddicker. The supporting cast was just as good especially Miguel Ferrer and Dan O'Herlihy (boy did they screw up his character in the sequel).

The action was gritty, brutal and never boring, the dialogue had so many memorable quotes you might as well memorize the whole movie.

Most of all the story made us care about a man who had everything taken from him. His life, his wife and child, his body, most of his memories, his free will, and yet he still holds onto his humanity. He perseveres and overcomes every obstacle thrown at him and in the end manages to smile as if to say "You can do whatever you want to me but I will always be Alex Murphy."

Awesome points. Casting for this movie was perfect. And I think it was really during a period (at least from my perspective)

You can't duplicate what made Robocop what it is just as you cannot duplicate what made Star Trek, The Thing, Psycho, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, etc, what they are. These movie aren't all perfect but to a degree they all caught lightning in a bottle and they endure and have become part of our culture!

Some remakes have been entertaining but none of them have captured on ounce of that "magic" thing that made the original so memorable.

Are we talking about John Carpenter's The Thing vs. The Thing 2011 or The Thing (from Another World) vs. JC's The Thing? The 2011 movie wasn't a remake so I wouldn't count that, and JC's movie was one of the best sci-fi horror movies ever made to date.

TCM, NotLD, Psycho... meh. Never did much for me. Guess I missed something there.
LOVED Dawn of the Dead and the remake definitely didn't hold up but was good in its own right.
Star Trek.. comparing the new movies to the original series cast is tough because it started out as a series with plenty of time to build on the characters before they even started getting into movies.

However... I'm kind of digressing from the original point of this topic.

I'm open minded enough to see this movie knowing it'll never hold up to the original.

 

[Solo4114]

Ultimately, it's your nickel, so spend it how you like. But I would remind folks that every time they pay for a ticket to a mediocre remake that's surviving largely on the strength of its brand name rather than the content of the film, they're just telling Hollywood "More please!"

 

[Mola Rob]

Awesome points. Casting for this movie was perfect. And I think it was really during a period (at least from my perspective)

Are we talking about John Carpenter's The Thing vs. The Thing 2011 or The Thing (from Another World) vs. JC's The Thing? The 2011 movie wasn't a remake so I wouldn't count that, and JC's movie was one of the best sci-fi horror movies ever made to date.

TCM, NotLD, Psycho... meh. Never did much for me. Guess I missed something there.
LOVED Dawn of the Dead and the remake definitely didn't hold up but was good in its own right.
Star Trek.. comparing the new movies to the original series cast is tough because it started out as a series with plenty of time to build on the characters before they even started getting into movies.

However... I'm kind of digressing from the original point of this topic.

I'm open minded enough to see this movie knowing it'll never hold up to the original.

I'm taking about John Carpenter's The Thing. An incredible movie that again got everything right. You can remake it, sequelize it, prequelize it, rebootitize it, but you can't recreate the chemistry and magic.

I'm open minded enough to see the new Robocop as well I just doubt they will have success in mixing up all new elements, new actors, new music, and all the rest, and coming out with that special formula that makes a movie a classic. It may be entertaining but it will probably be a typical by the numbers remake.

 

[rodneyfaile]

How do you know the reboot wont still be good?

I am not a remake/reboot/sequel/prequel hater. I say give it a chance. If it sux, then you still have the original. But I can understand people being skeptical, because for the most part, it doesn't appear that studios understand what made the original so good in the first place.

Ultimately, it's your nickel, so spend it how you like. But I would remind folks that every time they pay for a ticket to a mediocre remake that's surviving largely on the strength of its brand name rather than the content of the film, they're just telling Hollywood "More please!"

I agree, but its just so hard to stay away. Im always optimistic. I guess I am part of the problem.

 

[Wes R]

We wouldn't have teenagers going to these remakes as if it's something new if parents would teach their kids to appreciate the past. I wish i'd learned that sooner as i realized i missed a lot of good stuff on TCM and in general movie/tv wise. This country has some kind of aversion to anything older that the current generation whether people, music, movies or anything else.

 

[dbalschi]

It's not just teenagers going to see remakes. Total Recall was rated R and brought in 200 million. I highly doubt that was all teenagers.

 

[Father]

I'm taking about John Carpenter's The Thing. An incredible movie that again got everything right. You can remake it, sequelize it, prequelize it, rebootitize it, but you can't recreate the chemistry and magic.

Yes, the prequel Thing didn't have the same look, feel and chemistry as the JC version by any stretch, but I still loved it. I think movies from the JC period just worked well somehow. The chemistry of the casts seemed more organic. Can't quite explain it. Not that there aren't movies out there today that don't work, just that movies today seem more forced. Good example being the Red Dawn movies. The acting wasn't necessarily better in the 80's version, but the cast just seemed to work better together. The remake was painful to watch and retardedly formulaic.

 

[Wes R]

Chemistry between cast members is a massive part of making a movie work. Even if the movie isn't good the chemistry they have at least makes it tolerable.

 

[Mola Rob]

Yes, the prequel Thing didn't have the same look, feel and chemistry as the JC version by any stretch, but I still loved it. I think movies from the JC period just worked well somehow. The chemistry of the casts seemed more organic. Can't quite explain it. Not that there aren't movies out there today that don't work, just that movies today seem more forced. Good example being the Red Dawn movies. The acting wasn't necessarily better in the 80's version, but the cast just seemed to work better together. The remake was painful to watch and retardedly formulaic.

"retardedly formulaic"...I like that. It perfectly describes everything wrong in the entertainment industry today. :lol

 

[Father]

"retardedly formulaic"...I like that. It perfectly describes everything wrong in the entertainment industry today. :lol

Care to help break down the key ingredients to this formula?
- Obligatory romance
- Shocking "never expected that" twist
- Training montage to hip music
- Shamelessly obvious commercial products insertion (mandatory two: automotive and softdrink)
- Token minority characters

Specific to action
- Endless ammo that run out at most inopportune moment
- Giant fireball grenades
- Token minority characters that inevitably die

 

[laellee]

I personally love when Helicopters crash in movies these days. They just can't let it go without the obligatory chunk of rotor flying screaming at mach 6 towards or precariously close to the camera and/or actor. What movie first used that nugget I wonder...

 

[Wes R]

"retardedly formulaic"...I like that. It perfectly describes everything wrong in the entertainment industry today. :lol

and the music industry, and especially the game industry: FPS and multiplayer everything?