The Big Picture: Why Robocop Still Rules

[vid87]

I've mentioned it before in the "gaming twists" threads that occasionally pop up, but the whole thing about Robocop having effectively already lost the greater battle despite his badassery instantly brought to mind the Batman Arkham games - the hidden plotline you reveal from the first two games basically states that Batman, for all the good he does, has actually failed spectacularly in preventing major tragedies from playing out and that he isn't invincible after all.

I wonder though if this kind of theme that our modern, cynical style of storytelling is part of the "grim n' gritty" aesthetic we're going to start pushing away from in favor of returning to hopeful and lighthearted stories. More importantly, if we end up doing that, is it a good thing?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I wouldn't say the movie is about the bad guys already being victorious, it's about a world where everyone is corrupt or corruptable. And the only person who's noble and just is so only because he's programed to be.

This is the whole joke behind the prime directives; Serve the Public Trust. Protect the Innocent. Uphold the Law. Something every police officer should naturally be doing.

 

[Barciad]

This was the first of Paul Verhoeven's trilogy of violent sci-fi satires, and what a way to begin. As a child, I remember hearing all my classmates talk about watching that film (despite it, in the UK being rated an '18') and all the best bits from it. Murphy getting shot up at the beginning always sticks out in my mind. The thing was, straight away, he had created such a perfect franchise. Ghostbusters might have been the better film, but Robocop always had the more potential. Yet how they squandered it.
As Bob said, what made Robocop so good was it's depth. Try and expand it without retaining the snarky, cutting edge of the original, and you are left with nothing but a bland, generic action film. Examining corporate misgovernment through a narrative is no easy task. Thus, for any film or TV series to get it right, it deserves all the plaudits it receives. A strong second film could have been possible, but Verhoeven's heart was elsewhere. He was planning something completely new, something that would eventually emerge as 'Total Recall'.

 

[gorfias]

I saw the new one last weekend, thought it was pretty good and had some relevance to today's world, e.g. drone references. Haven't seen the original but I see it's on Netflix so I'll probably change that fairly soon.

I'm looking forward to the reboot as it looks like it isn't just a shot for shot remake, but is trying to be about something.

Great Critique by Bob.

I would write, also see Robocop 2 and 3 just as sort of time capsule films. The Japanaphobea in the form of samuri is cool, if dated and the movie itself really stupid.

Robocop 2 actually does have some smarts, but is episodic and ugly. I was so looking forward to it as Frank Miller wrote it. But it is so ugly I wanted to walk out. But the puns about "Robocop 2" are terrific as is the final boss fight. Good nostalgia trip, just don't take a date to see them for $50.

 

[Zontar]

Wait, Bob made a list of Sci-Fi movies that people seem to think are good but for one reason or another actually aren't, and he didn't include 2001? I shocked.

I can't quite follow this, but here's what Bob has actually said about 2001:

Stanley Kubrick's momentous collaboration for sci-fi luminary Arthur C. Clarke is still quite possibly the single most important science fiction film ever made - a one-of-a-kind fusion of hard sci-fi space exploration and surreal musings on the nature of existence. A mysterious mission surrounding the discovery of a possibly alien monolith on the moon eventually strands two astronauts at the mercy of their homicidally malfunctioning ship's computer, HAL 9000. And then ... well, you sort of have to see it.

Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...Movie-Nerd-Bible-Part-I.3#uvdwxjIv1PdubFoU.99

So, the reason 2001 wasn't mentioned is because it is not only one of the best Sci-fi movies of all time, it is simply one of the best films of all time.

Hope I didn't somehow misunderstand what you were saying ...

Oh great, even Bob has fallen for it. After how many years I've seen people say nothing but good things about that movie despite the lack of any substance, I'm thoroughly convinced that the only reason people have anything positive to say at all about it is because it just happened to be made by the greatest director of all time based on a book from the greatest science fiction writer of all time.

Yes the cinematography is good, yes the special effects are good, yes the music was good, but no, it wasn't a good movie. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that there's a much more existent screenplay, I'd almost call 2001 the Avatar of its time, but at least that had a story behind the effects, even if a bland one. 2001? Only 1 act had a story, and it's the only part people even talk about when the movie is brought up.

2010 was a much better movie then 2001, yet because it actually decided to be a movie about something most fans either don't know it exists or chose not to.

Now I've probably pissed most movie snobs here, but I just had to say it. It's a bad movie, and being made by the best movie makers doesn't change that.

 

[Fangface74]

I'm really surprised Bob didn't mention, or wasn't aware of, the intentional "Robocop was a Jesus Christ metaphore."

I've read that too, but to me RC is clearly a neo-western, a lone, gun-twirling lawman taking down the local gang.

Bob, at 5:50 did you notice you say 'Murphy' at the exact moment Murphy says "Murphy"?

 

[Phuctifyno]

[devotes a whole episode to discussing favorite movie's intelligence, uses it as platform to show buckets of gore]

lol

I wouldn't say the movie is about the bad guys already being victorious, it's about a world where everyone is corrupt or corruptable. And the only person who's noble and just is so only because he's programed to be.

Absolutely, though those themes are malleable and can be made interchangeable. I was going to comment that my favorite scene is when all of the police are shooting at Robocop and he only barely escapes with his life. He crawls away all "not this shit again" - as it mirrors the earlier scene where Murphy is murdered, essentially communicating that there is no difference between the cops and the crooks.

 

[Smokescreen]

This was pretty cool. I am old enough to have seen RoboCop in the theater (Dad took me) and it was a hell of a film, even then. MovieBob's examination of the movie is pretty good (although I would have liked to have seen more examples of the smart decisions they made-contrast with some other film, for example).

That said, if there were more of these kinds of videos from time to time, I'd be up for them.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I absolutely love the original Robocop. The second one did have a little depth with the corporate and government politically correct reprogramming of him causing him to be unable to properly enforce the law and use lethal force if necessary and it was a little darker with kid drug dealers and a practical cult led by a junkie drug dealer. Otherwise, it's just a popcorn with a giant evil Robocop kept in line by his drug addiction as the big guy the true Robocop has to fight in the end. The third film I've just read about and think should be sealed in a tomb from what I heard.

Now I can only wait for Movie Bob to tell us about a dumbed down remake of a truly deep 80's action to reaffirm my reasoning for never going to the movies anymore. Here's to it having a trailer for a Running Man remake with Mark Wahlberg except it's set in a post-apocalyptic future instead of a dystopian future, and it's not prisoners but just random people being stalked. And it will take itself too seriously with modern political commentary not too subtly inserted in.

 

[synobal]

I hate robocop, it's a crap movie in my opinion. Sorry guys but I just never saw the appeal of it. It just seems like a crappy 80s movie.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Oh great, even Bob has fallen for it. After how many years I've seen people say nothing but good things about that movie despite the lack of any substance, I'm thoroughly convinced that the only reason people have anything positive to say at all about it is because it just happened to be made by the greatest director of all time based on a book from the greatest science fiction writer of all time.

Maybe those people just actually like the movie?

I'd say more people are prone to call it bad or overrated because Kubrick made it, rather then say they love it because Kubrick made it. If there's one movie that always makes the list of every 'Most Overrated Movie' thread, it's 2001.

 

[MindFragged]

*snip*

I can't quite follow this, but here's what Bob has actually said about 2001:

*snip*

So, the reason 2001 wasn't mentioned is because it is not only one of the best Sci-fi movies of all time, it is simply one of the best films of all time.

Hope I didn't somehow misunderstand what you were saying ...

Beat me to it. I know that 2001 is a great movie - nevertheless, I can totally see why some folks might be massively disappointed by it.

Loved this episode, but for me it was preaching to the choir. I took a film module at uni and got to study Robocop, along with Dawn of the Dead, Ginger Snaps, and The Fly among others. Humanities students, seriously, check out the film modules that are available to you

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

I love the original but I'll be honest I thought the new one was pretty good, it's nothing spectacular the original is still the superior film but considering how bad it could have been (I'm looking at you total recall) it was pretty decent.

 

[Urh]

Ditto. Love Robocop. Still have the VHS lying around somewhere. I didn't mind 2 so much, though it doesn't hold a candle to Robocop.
Robocop 3 on the other hand... I never even watched that. Even though it probably is as bad as it's made out to be, I really want to watch it.

Robocop 3 is pretty damn terrible, however there is one scene that had me laughing my ass off at its sheer absurdity. Robocop pursues one of the baddies by commandeering a car from a pimp. After having a door fall off for no reason, said pimpmobile ends up copping four (or was it five?) direct hits from a grenade launcher, and it's still driving (at this stage, it's literally just a chassis, wheels and engine). There used to be a clip of it on youtube, but I can't find it anymore.

 

[Chareater]

Ditto. Love Robocop. Still have the VHS lying around somewhere. I didn't mind 2 so much, though it doesn't hold a candle to Robocop.
Robocop 3 on the other hand... I never even watched that. Even though it probably is as bad as it's made out to be, I really want to watch it.

If you watch robocop 2 as just a action film with no depth you can find it enjoyable, but like you say compared to robocop 1 it is nothing.

 

[AnnaIME]

I saw Robocop when it was new, in a theater. I was seventeen and it was the first "real" date I ever been on. The movie was the most violent film I had ever seen, and my date thought it was laugh-out-loud funny. Maybe all those things Bob said about intelligence and social satire were there, but I was too disgusted to notice.

 

[Zontar]

Oh great, even Bob has fallen for it. After how many years I've seen people say nothing but good things about that movie despite the lack of any substance, I'm thoroughly convinced that the only reason people have anything positive to say at all about it is because it just happened to be made by the greatest director of all time based on a book from the greatest science fiction writer of all time.

Maybe those people just actually like the movie?

I'd say more people are prone to call it bad or overrated because Kubrick made it, rather then say they love it because Kubrick made it. If there's one movie that always makes the list of every 'Most Overrated Movie' thread, it's 2001.

You have a point there, but if it was just people enjoying it then I don't think I'd have that much against it, but the things people have listed as reasons why it's great tend to be things that aren't actually in the movie at all (except Hal, he's probably one of the best villains I've ever seen).

 

[cefm]

Paul Verhoeven is capable of putting some great social satire on film, in comedic and biting ways. The "news" updates from Starship Troopers and the advertisements in Robocop are great examples. Unfortunately the overall films these gems are inserted into frequently are too easily dismissed due to larger problems of plot/storytelling/acting (see Starship Troopers, Showgirls).

Verhoeven's greatest are without a doubt Total Recall, Robocop and to a lesser extent Basic Instinct. But to think the same guy is capable of producing Showgirls and Starship Troopers is just baffling.

 

[Clovus]

Oh great, even Bob has fallen for it.

I can't speak for Bob, but I "fell for it" by simply watching it. I didn't learn about it at school or watch it because the internet told me to. The internet barely existed at the time I saw it (80s).

After how many years I've seen people say nothing but good things about that movie despite the lack of any substance, I'm thoroughly convinced that the only reason people have anything positive to say at all about it is because it just happened to be made by the greatest director of all time based on a book from the greatest science fiction writer of all time.

I don't think everything by Kubrick is perfect. Like, Barry Lyndon is kinda' boring. I have no opinion of Clarke. It's strange to me that you say the movie has no "substance", since that's exactly what I like about it. I guess the technical aspects of it are pretty impressive, but that's not why I like it.

I always have a interesting time when I watch it. I like that the pacing leaves you time to think about what is going on. Stuff like man's relationship to tools, what it means to be human, what it means to be alive, etc. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I never found the movie to be hamfisted about this. I usually think of new things every time I watch it.

Yes the cinematography is good, yes the special effects are good, yes the music was good, but no, it wasn't a good movie. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that there's a much more existent screenplay, I'd almost call 2001 the Avatar of its time, but at least that had a story behind the effects, even if a bland one. 2001? Only 1 act had a story, and it's the only part people even talk about when the movie is brought up.

What kind of story do you want? How is there not a story? People don't talk about anything besides "The Dawn of Man" section? What about HAL? I think I've heard people mention him before. What about Dave "killing" HAL? What about the "Star Child" that is literally pictured below your avatar? There's a basic story: Aliens influence the developement of humans through various stages. Humans use tools (the bone, spaceships). Dave goes on a mission to find the next monolith but is almost killed by the tool created to achieve this. Dave survives and ushers in the next phase of human evolution.

...

Now I've probably pissed most movie snobs here, but I just had to say it. It's a bad movie, and being made by the best movie makers doesn't change that.

Why the name calling now? I'm not sure if I'm a "movie snob". I didn't go to film school or anything. It just sounds like this isn't your kind of movie. I'm not going to claim that you are some category of bad person because of that though. Like, I don't think you "just don't get it man, it's real deep" or something. I'm not "pissed off" either. Lots of people don't like 2001. I do find it weird that you've never heard anyone talk about the themes of the film or stuff besides the apes.