The Big Picture: Why Robocop Still Rules
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Totally agree with Bob
Robocop is one of my favorite movies
I loved it when I was child (and probably shouldn't have watched it) and love it now (and not because of nostalgitis)
Too bad that eventually they made it into sitcom
In internal universe of "Starship Trooper" soldiers really DO believe they are fighting absolute Evil
Only as outsiders we can evaluate war for what it really is
Not as much "Mankind vs. Evil" as "Dumbasses vs. Shitheads"
Only reason to feel for Dumbasses is because we share DNA with them
I think it is a law or something
Robocop is one of my favorite movies
I loved it when I was child (and probably shouldn't have watched it) and love it now (and not because of nostalgitis)
Too bad that eventually they made it into sitcom
I think actors acted perfect.Casual Shinji said:
In internal universe of "Starship Trooper" soldiers really DO believe they are fighting absolute Evil
Only as outsiders we can evaluate war for what it really is
Not as much "Mankind vs. Evil" as "Dumbasses vs. Shitheads"
Only reason to feel for Dumbasses is because we share DNA with them
I think it is a law or something
So hair WAS intentional?Smilomaniac said:
Good job, Paul, good job.
Also, I wouldn't call it fetish, but there is something about such women ;D
As for terms "desexualized" and "hypersexualized"
I see one as actions to diminish beauty, sexuality and appeal, while another is opposite
And haircut aside I don't see how she was made uglier or unattractive
That's why I argue that she wasn't "desexualized"
Speaking of Robocop on TV I'm surprised Moviebob didn't touch on the 1988 cartoon (12 episodes) or the short lived 1994 TV series (24 episodes). I always felt the live TV series was a better sequel then Robocop 2 was. A major plus is the live TV series acted as if Robocop 2 and 3 never happened though it did down play OCP as a bad guy by making the CEO into one of those heart of gold characters though OCP still did bad things but as the result of greedy underlings.Hutzpah Chicken said:
How was Moon dross? I loved that film, but opinions being what they are, I can understand that someone else wouldn't appreciate it. I just can't understand *how* that can be. Can you please elaborate, maybe in a PM so the discussion doesn't get hijacked?Proverbial Jon said:
As for Robocop - the Robot Jesus angle is pretty obvious. Verhoeven considered the character as some kind of quintessentially American, pseudo-religious figure. The violence in the flick is largely put on display as a kind of commentary; it's Verhoeven going "Jeeze, you guys, what's with you and badass mofos with guns?"
A question that seems trivial, but which does merit some thought.
As for Emil's death - Jesus Effing Christ. I saw this around my eighth birthday. I was EIGHT YEARS OLD and I saw mutated man-sludge plead for assistance in the most pathetic means possible, while inspiring nothing if utter revulsion. And of course, he gets exploded by that asshole Boddicker's car.
I remember having nightmares about this for weeks, Emil's wails and gurgles following me around corners...
Nevertheless, it was an awesome movie.
Captcha: gadzooks
Oh, hello, Mister Weatherbee!
More mindless Nolan bashing by Bob to start the video - no thanks. What's hilarious is the new twists his putting on it to cover his own tracks. After getting owned as to the themes and metaphors in Man of Steel (he didn't catch any of them), he's now pretending he saw them all along and that they were "heavy handed" LOL nice try.
It's more than a little suspicious though that he keeps bashing the left wing Nolan movies though, while he defends Randian trash like the Iron man set (lol at how he twisted himself into knots to defend Iron Man 3). Such advocacy is clearly done in bad faith.
Unprofessional.
It's more than a little suspicious though that he keeps bashing the left wing Nolan movies though, while he defends Randian trash like the Iron man set (lol at how he twisted himself into knots to defend Iron Man 3). Such advocacy is clearly done in bad faith.
Unprofessional.
SixShooter said:
Nolan, left wing? Does not compute, does not (*circuits fry*). On a serious note though: Man of Steel was most definitely heavy handed in its themes and metaphors, even the critics who where overall positive towards the movie tend to point that out. Though I really don't see what's wrong with Iron Man 3. Is it an American thing? Because no one I know had a problem with it.
John Huston's 1941 version of the Maltese Falcon with Humphey Bogart was the third time the book was adapted to a movie. It was preceded by The Maltese Falcon in 1931 and Satan Met a Lady in 1936. Alfred Hitchcock made The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 and again with James Stewart in 1956. Casino Royal was first adapted from the book to a TV movie in 1954 before being made into the Daniel Craig version. Not counting the 1967 comedy with David Niven, that one just kind of borrowed the title. John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of The thing from Another World. Ocean's Eleven is a remake of a Frank Sinatra movie of the Same name. The 1983 version of Scarface is a remake of the 1932 version.008Zulu said:
I think there is an argument for a remake being as good or better than the original, it just doesn't happen very often.
Anyone who loves Robocop should Elite Squad; seriously good movie and one of Brazil's best movies
Anyone who loves Robocop should Elite Squad; seriously good movie and one of Brazil's best movies
I wholeheartedly agree on Children of Men being pretentious. That is the foremost thought I was left with after seeing the movie. Surprising to me that people here disagree so strongly. The acting was decent, the story was somewhat interesting, the dystopian future was done in nearly an acceptable way; but it seemed that by far the most prominent feature was the seemless interpolation of special effects onto the screen (save for the super campy and obvious fake bit about shooting ping-pong balls from mouth to mouth (I mean really, that scene portrays how utterly patronizing the sum of all the parts adds up to)). Plus Julianne Moore was a horrid choice.
Then at the end there are actions scenes that fail in every way, except for displaying how cool it looks when super red hot bullets fly right in front of your face. And then apparently everyone suddenly understands the importance of the girl and she gets some Deus Ex Machina help, shipped off to La La Land.
It starts off with a grim and potent premise, but ultimately came across as some pseudo-liberal circle jerk about how white people aren't the future and we have to exorcise our xenophobia to survive on this planet.
Then at the end there are actions scenes that fail in every way, except for displaying how cool it looks when super red hot bullets fly right in front of your face. And then apparently everyone suddenly understands the importance of the girl and she gets some Deus Ex Machina help, shipped off to La La Land.
It starts off with a grim and potent premise, but ultimately came across as some pseudo-liberal circle jerk about how white people aren't the future and we have to exorcise our xenophobia to survive on this planet.
Noooooo! The original still hold up today! (I'll still see it but won't expect much at all)Soviet Heavy said:
It's one of my favourite movies...and NOBODY could do biased propaganda like Paul Verhoeven! They try too hard by making it way too obvious as an attempt at humour (to the point where it's not funny). Case in point...the new Robocop movie has Samuel L. Jackson as the incredibly biased talk show host but they made it way too obvious and could tell they were trying to parody Fox News.
Also, co-ed showers!
I have seen a few of those remakes, but not the originals they are based off of. Are the remakes generally considered to be better?ThreeRandomWords said:
This is a true story.
When I was a kid, I heard everyone call Robocop "Murphy", I think I had missed the part of the movie earlier where you see him as a human, so I naturally assumed that Robocop was Eddie Murphy. It wasn't until much later that I rewatched the movie and I realized that these two were separate people and that Eddie Murphy was just the actor and not Robocop. I was disappoint.
Think about it though, what if Robocop really WAS him.
When I was a kid, I heard everyone call Robocop "Murphy", I think I had missed the part of the movie earlier where you see him as a human, so I naturally assumed that Robocop was Eddie Murphy. It wasn't until much later that I rewatched the movie and I realized that these two were separate people and that Eddie Murphy was just the actor and not Robocop. I was disappoint.
Think about it though, what if Robocop really WAS him.
Mostly, some of them are are still pretty good movies in their own right and worth watching. The Bogart version of Maltese Falcon is vastly superior to the previous versions. I haven't seen the original Man Who Knew Too Much but the remake is generally better know, it being in color and staring James Stewart. Casino Royal was the first Bond story adapted for screen and is very different from other versions. It's more faithful to the book than most Bond movies, despite Bond being an American. It also stars Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre, so it's worth checking out Lorre as a Bond villain. It's only an hour long and you can watch it on youtube, I think it's worth checking out if you are a fan of either the Ian Fleming books or Peter Lorre. Thing From Another World is also very different from John Carpenters remake. The creature was more of a big, slow moving but hard to kill creature. It was fun 1950's sci-fi cheese. Like wise Ocean's 11 with Frank Sinatra is a very different than the George Clooney version. They are both kind of fun movies, with Sinatras version having few twists and more likely to breakout into song. Think this would also be a good place to mention The Manchurian Candidate. Personally I think the original is one of the greatest movies ever made, but I have some friends who liked the remake better. They are both very different movies made at very different times. Both are worth watching at lest once if you haven't seen them, neither one entirely spoils the other. I haven't seen all of the original Scarface, so I'm not going to comment on that one.008Zulu said:
I'm not sure if it's really fair to compare those two, as London After Midnight is a lost silent film and Mark of the Vampire is a watchable talky. It could be argued that the presence for sound may make it seem better, or at lest more watchable to a wider modern audience. Speaking as someone who has really enjoyed some silent movies, I don't feel want to compare them until I've seen them both.maximara said:
I remember the Robocop TV series, he had an AI sidekick not unlike Cortana, and there was an episode where the guy who designed his visor used it to frame him, leaving me with a wonderful image of an old man wearing Robocop's helmet burned into my memory.
Not if Internet Sources have anything to say about it. [http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/06/starship-troopers-remake-2]Soviet Heavy said:
Infact, it may be even MORE dreadful than a straight rip-off of the Paul Verhoeven film. WORSE.
Awesome job on this retrospective on the original Robocop, Bob. Paul Verhoeven made some awesome movies in the 80s and 90s that not only pleased action/sci-fi fans but poked at your brain without realizing it (see the original Total Recall and Starship Troopers) Plus its main actor, Peter Weller, is one of those actors I really wish he'd get more movie roles. If you're like me and crave some more Peter Weller goodness, hunt down a copy of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. It's a bizarre sci-fi comedy movie that has to be seen before you die... or, at least, made into a future Big Picture episode (giving you an easy one, Bob).