Escape to the Movies: Robocop
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm actually a little startled how easily "suicide bombers in the desert" have become the new default threat that requires no explanation or anything.
I mean at least "Russians" or "Nazis" are always after some artifact, world domination or something. But apparently "middle-eastern" is an explanation now.
I mean at least "Russians" or "Nazis" are always after some artifact, world domination or something. But apparently "middle-eastern" is an explanation now.
Awwwww, but you normally LOVE movies heavy-handedly overloaded with a liberal agenda, Bob! I guess this movie must REALLY be just god-awful if even you have nothing positive to say about it. I mean hell, you absolutely loved that movie that made all conservatives out to be a coalition of hate-groups hell bent on attacking the white house to assassinate Not Obama! What does that over-the-top nonsense have that Robocop doesn't? 
Well, I guess that one wasn't a completely bastardized remake of an 80's classic, so fair enough. :3
Well, I guess that one wasn't a completely bastardized remake of an 80's classic, so fair enough. :3
First off, I wasn't really serious.SnakeoilSage said:
Second, given how Robocop takes place in the goddamned future, I don't see how having a mechanical man move like a normal (albeit extremely agile) human being a such a huge deal.
People, please read what LoneEagle said here. To sum it up, the reboot is dealing with different MODERN issues, some of which have changed and some of which haven't, corporate corruption and moneygrubbing business tactics being some that are still with us.LoneEagle013 said:
For me though, I liked this better than the original. The original Robocop was a corny, preachy action flick with a pretty much invincible protagonist that they had to have the plot weaken just to have anything resembling actual dramatic tension that would no doubt be critically panned if it was released now instead of 30 years ago. The reboot is far less preachy, has much better flow of the action inbetween. Let's face it, we're watching a movie about a cyborg police officer to see him shoot things and blow crap up, not to hear him whine about being turned into a cyborg instead of being dead or a quadriplegic, especially since what he is is something most people, especially the disabled would kill to be. One thing I see so many people complaining about is how the original Robocop was slow and and could take everything that was thrown at him like it was nothing, that's not a plus. The Robocop in this movie is also powerful but not invincible, he gets damaged pretty badly repeatedly throughout the movie, he goes up against enemies that could actually hurt him unlike in the original, so he has to use strategy and tactics to win, that's a point in his FAVOR, not the other way around. Also, the only reason Robocop was so slow in the original was because of the technical limitations at the time, both on the film making front and the robotics tech at the time. They probably would have made the original Robocop just as fast and agile then as they did in the reboot if that wasn't the case.
As for Bob's critique, it's apparent to me that yet again Bob walked into the movie expecting to hate it and walked out hating it, he did the same thing with Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, and probably a few others I'm forgetting. Any of them, or all of them, could have been the best movies that have ever been made and ever will be made (truth be told, that's not all that far from the truth) and he still would have walked out hating them with a passion.
One last thing, your questions Bob. Why were there robots stopping around Iran? Why were the suicide bombers blowing themselves up? Why does just about the entire world have these robots except for the U.S.?
I have to bold this to help make what should be blindingly obvious already but apparently isn't even more so, because so many people reviewing whatever do this:
IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL!!!
It doesn't have any relevance to the movie whatsoever, it's just a set piece, nothing more. So many people reviewing like to take something insignificant in a fiction and act like it's some big important detail that the writers failed to give context when it's not. They could have literally put that part of the movie in any part of the world and it wouldn't have made a difference, it's just there to set up the basic premise. We don't need to know every little detail of the fictional universe, and the fiction would be worse off if we did. Some things just aren't significant enough to the plot require explanation, and if that's really needed, well, the sequels can just handle it.
If this reboot is setting the bar as low as it can get, the good movies of 2014 must be absolute masterpieces.
Because, missing the entire point of my original post, I WANT heavy, clunky robots. They evoke the mental image of big intimidating machines armed with crushing military firepower, ala the Battletech "walking tank" mechs. What kind of heavy-metal fun am I supposed to get from robots that are light on their feet like a ballerina in a mechanized body-stocking?!Machine Man 1992 said:
Why not spilt the difference? Have the mechs be really fast and nimble, but show how heavy these things are. Have the ground splinter and crack as he runs, have him tear through brick walls like they're so much styrofoam. You can, in fact, have it both ways.SnakeoilSage said:
When they get around to remembering the basic physics of how heavy things work I'll be willing to keep my mouth shut but until then I'm watching a fridge with legs doing parkour and it's breaking my childlike sense of wonderment.Machine Man 1992 said:
Why yes, Bob, real police carry stun guns, and I'm sure anyone who's felt the business end of one would equate it to a playful splash of a water pistol. Rubber bullets? Snowballs.
Seriously, the guy is practically invincible. You expect him to justify deadly force every time?
Seriously, the guy is practically invincible. You expect him to justify deadly force every time?
Yes, and? That doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to anything I or LoneEagle posted. For the record, those very things are satirized in the reboot.faefrost said:
In the original, the level of crime in old Detroit was absurdly high; cops were dying the with same regularity as soldiers in a war zone. They were going up against heavily armed gangs. ED-209 was being pushed as an Urban Pacification Unit; crime was so fucking terrible that they were going to use a robot with enough fire power to decimate a platoon with armour support, to chase bank robbers. In a situation like that, yeah, Robocop was a deadly (or at least overwhelming) force response because he needed to be.Endocrom said:
You know, if one tilts their head just so, the original Robocop can be seen as in the same universe as Dredd; Robocop's brand of justice would fit will within Mega City One.....fuck that's a crossover I'd watch the shit out of: Robocop being Judge Dredd's partner in Mega City One.
This is an excellent post.LoneEagle013 said:
Game over, we have a winner here. The real question now is, will this be the new Expendables/Amazing Spider Man that Bob will refuse to move on from for months?immortalfrieza said:
Again agreed, the film isn't about the geo-political state of the fake future, it's about Murphy. The information about the wider world is only needed to establish that the robots exist, are efficient, and that Omni wants to sell them in the US, Robocop being their way of achieving this. This point makes me chuckle as I was reminded of an article from Bob last year, where is had a go at CinemaSins for being overly critical and nitpicky (while failing to grasp that they are taking the piss), and yet will hold up the same level of nitpick as legitimate points when he wants to make them.