THE CRITICS ARE WRONG: WHY THE NEW ROBOCOP DESERVES BETTER TREATMENT
(SPOILERS WARNING)
I am writing this partly because I've seen Robocop 2014 last night, and the night before I watched the director's cut of the original movie. I sense that in the attempt to pile on the hate of the new one, I believe many critics that I respect overlooked several important points the new movie is trying to make.
First off, let us establish the baseline before moving to the new movie. The 1987 movie is a sci-fi classic, and is a product of its time. You have to realize what the movie is trying to satirize back then: cold war, the excessiveness of the 80's culture (money, hair, technology, hedonism, you name it), and the fear that the good times will not last forever. Also recall that the 80s had a large surge of urban crimes during that time period, and people were actually afraid of the fact and tough on crime politicians were gaining ground in the Government. The first Robocop was about satirizing all these real issues back then, and it did a great job of doing just that in an ultra violent sci-fi classic.
Now fast forward almost 30 years to present. We live in a post 9/11 world, where technology is growing faster than ever, and where machines killing humans are a reality rather than science fiction. Whether we like it or not, the new Robocop hits closer to home today than what the original did in 1987 technology wise: we are actually very close to reaching the 2014 Robocop age of technology. If you don't believe me, look up the latest articles on the latest breakthroughs on prosthetics: scientists have found out a way to link the artificial limbs to the nervous system. It's crude, but we're getting there.
You know the first thing I noticed in the movie that no other critics have brought up so far: You cannot trust anyone in the movie, ever. Everyone is trying to screw you over one way or the other for their own interests. To name a few examples:
1. Novak is a propagandist, fully intent on pushing the robot agenda.
2. The Military uses robotic drones overseas to minimize US casualties, but at the expense of trampling over the country's freedom and rights. I think it?s bad being executed by humans; it's even worse being executed by machines that are interpreting parameters made by humans.
3. OmniCorp is a mega corporation that focuses more on their financial bottom line rather than through altruistic achievements.
4. DPD is a corrupt entity;
5. Finally the US Senate is easily swayed by public opinion that is easily shaped by powerful mega corporation's "clever" PR marketing.
It's interesting how the movie portrayed all organizations/entities depicted in the movie, all of them ended up letting Alex Murphy down in so many different ways. In fact, it is more interesting how Murphy's allies are his family (wife and son), his detective partner, and Denett Norton.
Speaking of Norton, I find the idea of the software optimization to improve Murphy's reflex to be very interesting, especially from the perspective of realistic depiction of the human reflex in combat situations. What Norton achieved with software is something that martial artists of old trained for years in order to maximize combat efficiency by eliminating hesitation due to emotion and fear. In traditional Japanese martial arts, this mental state is known as "Mushin."
The concept of Mushin can be described as thus:
Mushin is achieved when a person's mind is free from thoughts of anger, fear, or the ego during combat or everyday life. There is an absence of discursive thought and judgment, so the person is totally free to act and react towards an opponent without hesitation and without disturbance from such thoughts. At this point, a person relies not on what they think should be the next move, but what is their trained natural reaction or what is felt intuitively. It is not a state of relaxed, near-sleepfulness, however. The mind could be said to be working at a very high speed, but with no intention, plan or direction.
Some masters believe that mushin is the state where a person finally understands the uselessness of techniques and becomes truly free to move. In fact, that person will no longer even consider themselves as "fighters" but merely living beings moving through space.
Norton described the software tweak that Murphy is along for the ride, because the software optimizes the decision/move that Murphy needs to take in order to achieve combat efficiency. Sound familiar at this point? What Norton achieved with a simple brain hack was something that real martial artists and soldiers train for years to achieve.
Another important element that the movie got right in my view is the difference between Murphy's human combat style as opposed to the machines. Unlike Murphy, the machines did not have any self-preservation algorithms in their program. Because they cannot feel pain or die, they simply go out in a more aggressive posture possible, and engage enemy at the drop of a hat. Murphy, on the other hand, had to tactically move from cover to cover, evaluating the situation while at the same time neutralizing the target as efficiently as possible. Recall the scene of the final test, where Murphy uses cover to effectively divide and conquer the robots, before finally taking down the human operator. But don't forget that a normal human being would lack the maneuverability and perception to move safely from position to position without getting blown to bits by ten million billion bullets flying around him. You have to be both man and machine to pull off what Robocop did. Murphy's human tactical experience becomes an important detail when Murphy fought the ED-209 units toward the end of the movie: Murphy survived the encounter because he utilized the limitations within the machines' targeting systems. The ED-209s cannot fire at targets that are marked as friendly, and Murphy retained his humanity to use it to his tactical advantage.
One critic's review I read complained about the fight in the dark, and others complain how the fights are super boring. My question to you sir(s): do you realize the major tactical advantage in most combat scenarios where you are defending a location, and you have the visual and home court advantage? There is a reason why Special Forces conduct night raids and drill the simulation over and over in order to gain overwhelming tactical advantage over the enemy combatants. In this case, the bad guys actually did the smart thing for once: superior numbers, strong defensive position, and defending from a fortified position in the cover of darkness. This is a very sound strategy and even the most seasoned SWAT team would have a hard time assaulting the warehouse.
Robocop, on the other hand, straight up destroyed any perceived tactical advantage the bad guys had in their battle plan. Fighting in the dark is a big problem for both sides in most combat scenarios: probability of friendly fire rises exponentially in a dark firefight. Robocop is a solo combatant on his side; friendly fire is not even a concern for him. Robocop also has superhuman agility and dexterity, therefore he does not stay in any spot long enough to create a kill zone the bad guys can take advantage of. Vision wise, he had an IR vision to help him target, on top of the superior targeting software. Short version: Robocop 40, Bad guys 0. You guys seriously think the fight scenes are boring and crap? Try paintballing in the dark sometimes, and you have to raid a building with at least 5 opposing combatants ready to rock and roll when you enter through the door.
Let's now move to the complaints that Robocop uses Taser rounds to subdue targets. This is an issue raised by critics who thought the PG-13 rating gutted the reboot, compared to the darker violent depiction of the original movie. What people might to fail realize is that back in 1987, tasers as projectiles have not been popularized, much less standardized as a military or law enforcement equipments. I think having Robocop tazing suspects as opposed to mowing them down with bullets would be a more interesting and realistic concept, in a society where we value so much about human life. Recall the main reason why Robocop was created in the first place: so no more police officers have to die in the line of duty. What about the suspects? Don't they deserve to live too, and face justice in a fair trial? I am amazed that the writers did not consider this angle and create a more humane Robocop for the 21st century. I think the Dreyfuss Act would have been repealed overnight if Robocop solved 1000 cases without any casualties from both sides of the law.
Additionally the taser rounds work with machines, too. Robocop got hit with a taser round at one point, and he went down due to electroshock effects. I don't know if I am remembering things correctly, but I think during the final testing phase Murphy took down a couple of the machines with taser rounds. So why not arm Robocop with taser rounds exclusively, since his purpose is to protect civilians and uphold the law, not to massacre suspects in a warehouse.
The movie also depicts a serious weakness for a remote controlled machine: at the end of the day, a machine is created, programmed, and maintained by humans. Machines can have bugs or flaws, and at this day and age is extremely vulnerable to malicious hacking. We've been reading all the data breach cases over the last few years, and it's not going to get better anytime soon. We already have serious issues about the military killing non-combatants using drones, and this is the military we're talking about here (supposedly the "good guys"). What about if some day a sociopathic kid hacks the drone program, and joyrides the drone and randomly dropping fatal loads left and right? What do you feel if someone you know got blown off to bits because some crazy person hacked a drone and launched a hellfire to your driveway?
Even with Murphy on board, Robocop is not safe from remote shut down commands or buggy secret rules implemented by the executives of OmniCorp. I think it is safe to say that my takeaway from the movie is that it is impossible for humans to assume that any man-made product is perfect, like what Novak is propagandizing about. On the other hand, Norton's original intent and decision at the end of the movie show that technology is beneficial to mankind, if we move forward cautiously and learn from our mistakes. I personally would like to see how the sequel picks up these themes and run with them.
Here's my thing: at the end of the day, sure you can compare the reboot with the classic, and shred the reboot to pieces. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. But when you do that, I think you're not giving a fair shake to the new movie's merits; only the flaws or the perception of it. The 1987 is a classic for its time due to the real life technological achievement given the limits of the time (both in the moviemaking and the publicly known technology at the time). However, I think the 2014 reboot has its own merit that not too many people can look and appreciate. I'm writing this as a counterpoint, and an opportunity to see the movie from a different angle compared to the rest of the movie critics' perspective.
Thanks, and have a good one. I usually enjoyed Movie Bob's videos (devout follower for all of them), but in this case I feel like I need to share what I'm seeing with the rest of you.
-D) are completely interchangeable. Thank you for confirming what I've been saying for at least a year.
