Batman-Online.com

http://io9.com/#!5766421/first-look-at-detroits-new-robocop-statue

As a fan of the original Robocop film, I'm absolutely loving this.

8)  8)  8)

I've seen this elsewhere and am surprised how many negative comments it's had. I have no problem with it.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 24 Feb  2011, 01:53

http://io9.com/#!5766421/first-look-at-detroits-new-robocop-statue

As a fan of the original Robocop film, I'm absolutely loving this.

8)  8)  8)

Join the club, I also absolutely adore Basil Poledouris' musical score for the film!

It's nice to see the film gets love from Detroid residents.

Obviously I don't live in Detroit and have never been there so it's not for me to say who puts what where. However...

Robocop is set in a futuristic Detroit and has a lot of fictional elements including the city.
It's not like Rocky where a statue is warranted because it actually features landmarks from Philadelphia in iconic scenes.

Good point, but what does Metropolis, Illinois have to do with a certain fictional city of the same name? This town has a statue of you-know-who. This real life Metropolis doesn't even look like its comic book counterpart. :)

Maybe we should all go to Turkey once a year
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icv2.com%2Fimages%2F13727BatmanTurkey_sign-md.JPG&hash=2da2ad91b07d3d40fa4b134fd6b1989e887b08a2)

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 24 Feb  2011, 21:46
Maybe we should all go to Turkey once a year
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icv2.com%2Fimages%2F13727BatmanTurkey_sign-md.JPG&hash=2da2ad91b07d3d40fa4b134fd6b1989e887b08a2)

;D

I don't know if the following is true, but it's even funnier

QuoteOn 7 November 2008, former Batman Mayor Hüseyin Kalkan began looking into the possibility of suing Christopher Nolan, director of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and Warner Bros., distributor of the films, claiming the studios had been using "Batman", the name of the superhero, without permission from the city, and "placing the blame for a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the films' success has had on the city's inhabitants." No lawsuit has actually been filed.[37]

source: wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman,_Turkey

Robocop himself speaks about the topic of discussion.  ;D

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/521706ecf7/robocop-speaks-to-detroit (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/521706ecf7/robocop-speaks-to-detroit)

I like the part about Rick Snyder running OCP!  :P

I was actually hesitant about the idea at first, (hell, it isn't my city though.), now I say go for it...  8)

I love they got Weller, who's now a professor of Renaissance and Roman Art, to do this AND....do his iconic line.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed,  2 Mar  2011, 23:13
I was actually hesitant about the idea at first, (hell, it isn't my city though.), now I say go for it...  8)

I love they got Weller, who's now a professor of Renaissance and Roman Art, to do this AND....do his iconic line.

I thought the same thing after watching that.

I love watching his history docs

The original film is one of my all time favourites. Robocop 2 had some good elements too. I am quite excited that they revived this IP. Nothing can touch Verhoeven's original, but I hope they get it right and its a nice update for a new generation of fans.

Here's an interview with lead actor Joel Kinnaman

http://collider.com/robocop-joel-kinnaman-interview/155178/

"I Can't Imagine How ROBOCOP Could Be PG-13″ - "I'm such a huge fan of the original. I think I've seen the first RoboCop, 15 or 20 times. I'm like a kid, that way. And, I love all of [Paul] Verhoeven's movies. He has a very special tone."

Not really liking this bit of recent news.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2012/03/26/robocop-joel-kinnaman/ (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2012/03/26/robocop-joel-kinnaman/)

'RoboCop' Will Be 'More Human,' Says Star Joel Kinnaman

Quote"It's not going to be jaw action. They're still working on the suit and how it's going to look, but the visor is going to be see-through," he said. "You're going to see his eyes."

Approach just seems off to me. Robo, as the film progressed, gradually got more human in the first film. His humanity came back to him over time and then we saw more in the last act when he took his helmet off.

Robocop being portrayed as an emotionless machine for most of the movie, but eventually regaining his humanity was the whole point of the film in the first place.

Kind of confirms my "leave Robo alone" stance.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 27 Mar  2012, 21:23
Robocop being portrayed as an emotionless machine for most of the movie, but eventually regaining his humanity was the whole point of the film in the first place.

Absolutely correct. Starting at the end point leaves nowhere to really go. The character has to grow.

I prefer him characterised as a robot, with any other similar behaviour to his past 'life' serving as haunting aftershocks.

From the interview link provided by The Joker.

Kinnaman revealed that the film will be more grounded in reality

If we had a dime every time we hear this phrase in interviews about ANY film... This phrase alone is bad news...

but this version is a much better acting piece, for Alex Murphy and especially when he is RoboCop. It's much more challenging.

What? Peter Weller gave a perfect performance.

As usually happens, this second interview gives more mixed feelings.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 28 Mar  2012, 12:24

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 27 Mar  2012, 21:23
Robocop being portrayed as an emotionless machine for most of the movie, but eventually regaining his humanity was the whole point of the film in the first place.

Absolutely correct. Starting at the end point leaves nowhere to really go. The character has to grow.

I prefer him characterised as a robot, with any other similar behaviour to his past 'life' serving as haunting aftershocks.

Exactly

Hugh Laurie will play the villain in recent news.

Guess who's just signed on to appear in the new Robocop film:

QuoteMichael Keaton has been set to play the role of Raymond Sellars in the MGM/Columbia Pictures' RoboCop remake. Sellars is the CEO of the corporation that builds RoboCop, a role that Hugh Laurie was expected to play until he dropped out before consummating a deal. The film, a re-imagining of the 1987 Paul Verhoeven cult classic, is scheduled to begin shooting next month. RoboCop will be released on August 9, 2013.

Keaton joins previously announced Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Samuel L. Jackson and Abbie Cornish in the Jose Padilha-directed film.

"Michael is the final addition to the amazing cast we have assembled for this film and it is so great to have the last puzzle piece in place. It is thrilling that everything has come together to bring this innovative new vision of RoboCop to life. We've got a great script, a great cast, some killer ED-209's and I can't wait to get Alex Murphy back on the streets," said Padilha.

It's good to see Keaton back in a mainstream film. He's repped by ICM Partners.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/michael-keaton-joins-robocop-remake/

I'm against remakes as a matter of principle. But I've got to admit, I'm quite eager to see this now.

I guess I'm mostly opposed to it because it's a reboot (and spare me the old "there's a difference between a 'reboot' and a 'remake' thing; if this thing lights up the box office, bet your ass there'll be a sequel and that makes this a reboot, period) as I think the old franchise still had life to it.

I recall three films (I enjoyed the first 2), a television series, and then a mini-series that seems to have been direct-to-bootleg: created on the cheap and at one time available on netflix streaming.  It was awful.

I would have liked to have seen a Robocop that existed as is, without telling the origin story again. 

oh god..how can I hate this movie now....

It's been pointed out on other sites, but I thought I'd share the irony that Michael Keaton is in Robocop and Peter Weller is in The Dark Knight Returns.....

Robocop was never given the treatment after the original movie he deserved in my opinion. Couldv'e been a great ongoing series. I liked Robocop 2 personally but I always thought it was a bad move bringing in Frank Miller. He added too much comic booky things from villains to situations. Remember the 12 year old drug boss Hog? lol Just too over the top in my opinion. You can get away with that in comics Frank...

The original Robocop was more sci-fi than comic book. I think the villains in that are the best I've seen in ANY movie. Funny and frightening guys. Trouble is gangs like that are all too real in the world today. I doubt the remake will have as great characters. I didn't know Michael Keaton had been cast in the remake! Is he playing a new version of Clarence Bodiker?

I've always wanted Robocop to return to the screen but I think it's a huge HUGE risk remaking a "sci-fi tour de force" classic. That 1987 movie is scarily more relavant today than it ever was in the 80's. I can see the appeal therefore of wanting to make this generations version but why bother if it's already been so well told and holds up? And I worry would they get away with the violence and stuff these days? Everything seems toned down these days. Just look at Total Recall's remake (also a Paul Verhoeven movie). I remember people's eyeballs bulging from their sockets on the surface of Mars. Why can't we have that gross stuff today? lol

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 30 Aug  2012, 18:24
It's been pointed out on other sites, but I thought I'd share the irony that Michael Keaton is in Robocop and Peter Weller is in The Dark Knight Returns.....

Bizarro world.

QuoteIs he playing a new version of Clarence Bodiker?

It's hard to tell at this point. But it sounds like he'll be playing a new variation of the Dick Jones (Ronny Cox) character.

QuoteThat 1987 movie is scarily more relavant today than it ever was in the 80's. I can see the appeal therefore of wanting to make this generations version but why bother if it's already been so well told and holds up? And I worry would they get away with the violence and stuff these days? Everything seems toned down these days. Just look at Total Recall's remake (also a Paul Verhoeven movie). I remember people's eyeballs bulging from their sockets on the surface of Mars. Why can't we have that gross stuff today? Lol

My thoughts exactly. The original was lightning in a bottle. I don't see how it can be topped. And while I despise remakes in general, I especially hate ones where they tone down the material to sell it to kids. So I'm praying this won't turn out to be another PG-13 CGI fest like the recent Total Recall remake (which was also completely unnecessary). I'd much rather they made Robocop Returns, a proper R-rated sequel to the first two films featuring Peter Weller in the title role. But we're never going to get that now, anymore than we're going to get Burton's third Batman flick.

As you say, the one promising aspect of this remake is its potential to spawn worthy sequels that the original series lacked. And now Keaton's onboard I'm feeling very conflicted about not seeing it. I've deliberately avoided watching any remakes in recent years. But it would be cool to see Keaton in another big budget superhero film after all these years.

Maybe if it's rated R, with a decent writer/director team at the helm, and a genuinely fresh take on the concept, and it gets good reviews... maybe then I'll go and see it. But a big budget more or less guarantees a PG-13 rating these days. Not to mention a boatload of unconvincing CGI set pieces that look like cut-scenes from a PS3 game.

For now, here's the movie's OmniCorp viral site.
http://www.omnicorp.com/

On the one hand the cast is stellar (the idea of Keaton as the villain makes me giddy), and while I haven't seen his past films José Padilha is supposed to be a good director. On the other hand Drew McWeeny's script review wasn't exactly positive. So for now I'm in wait and see mode and hoping for the best. I hope we see an image of Robocop himself soon...

http://collider.com/robocop-remake-script-review/188614/

First look at the new Robocop suit. I wouldn't buy that for a dollar.  >:( I'd sooner invest in a 6000 SUX.



The original suit was a classic. Take the Maschinenmensch from Metropolis...


...mix it up with the Marvel character Rom...


...then add a sprinkling of Judge Dredd from the 2000 AD comics...


...and you get one of the most iconic costumes in cinema history.


The new suit looks dreadful by comparison. I've just re-watched the first two Robocop films, and I'm more convinced than ever that they don't need a remake/reboot/reimagining/rehash. I hope they at least keep Basil Poledouris' theme from the original film.

It sucks, plain and simple. RoboCop is supposed to be and look like a tank, not Iron Man mixed with Nolan's Batman.

Bleh.

Swing and a miss.

Near impossible to top the look of the original. 

Looks like it was made from an leftover Exo-Suit from G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA...  ::)

I don't see why they didn't build on the original suit...part practical, part CGI but retaining the essence of the original design.

This looks poor. I'm sure it will be better on screen, but it just seems like a missed opportunity.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 16 Sep  2012, 14:55
Near impossible to top the look of the original.

Indeed.

I remember reading part of a supposed outline that said Robocop went through various suits during the film before they settle on 'the' design. Could this be one of those prototypes?

For those of you who haven't seen it these are images of the new Robocop suit. Prepare yourselves for a shock...

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/first-images-of-new-robocop.html

Yes really! This is the new Robocop. Proof if any be needed that remakes are getting severely out of hand now.

I know it's fashionable these days to slate everything practically from the great movies of the past (such as our beloved Burton Batman movies now regarded as being, gasp, CARTOONY!) but c'mon anyone who thinks the old Robocop suit design is naff has seriously gone round the twist. The least they could have done is kept the old design and perhaps done some upgrades to it. It's just too fantastic an image.

So clutch your beloved Paul Verhoeven 1987 original guys. Spread the word of the REAL Robocop to new fans. Not even the mighty Michael Keaton can save this joke now.

I was amazed they didn't retain more of the classic design. I know everyone wants to do their own spin, but did it have to be that much of a Guyver sci fi Halo video game departure? The body has something cool about it. Taut meaty looking. Even so...I'm not convinced.

Although, it could be said that this is just the first pass thing, where a classic look will rear it's head in a sequel because these guys refuse to put enough eggs in one basket anymore.

People seem to think this is merely a Mark I type suit (such as Iron Man). Somebody also said however he had seen a prototype teaser poster and it seems this black armour is what's gonna be on it.

Given such an overwhelming negative reaction perhaps the studio will now consider a redesign?

To add insult to injury there is apparently a line in the new script where the original armour is glimpsed and someone rejects it as looking like "a toy of the 1980's"!

Ha bloody ha ha. I get so fed up of these stupid in jokes disguised as tributes to the past in remakes and newer sequels. Remember all the night scenes in the original Robocop films? The armour gleamed in the nighttime reflecting Detroit's city lights. How on earth is this silly black rubber suit gonna gleam and stand out impressively at night also??? Shudder to think.

I want to keep an open mind.  I really do.  But I'm finding difficulty.  Upon seeing this any (minor) interest has just resigned with a heavy, "Eh, I'm out."

The only Robocop movie I have any interest in is the first one. And even then I'm not a devout follower.

However it's going to be hard to beat the set-up they had in the original. Eg. the suit, voice and whatever else.

Yeah, the original is an incredibly well paced, entertaining movie.

2 had it's moments, but the bar was set high, and it never came close to it.

3 I tend to ignore due to several factors. Much of which steered away from what made the original so enjoyable.

Having read more about the script of the remake, I sincerely hope we do not get a scene where a suit that resembles the original is quickly dismissed as looking too much like a '80's toy'.....  >:(

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 20 Sep  2012, 07:54
Having read more about the script of the remake, I sincerely hope we do not get a scene where a suit that resembles the original is quickly dismissed as looking too much like a '80's toy'.....  >:(

I have to agree. It doesn't come off as funny, but just disrespectful.

Trends come and go. I think sometime in the future people will look back at the first decades of the 21th century, laughing at how action movie directors were trying to make everything look grounded, realistic, mundane, ordinary. For me, Judge Dredd was the worst trailer of the year, and this "Dark Knight with a biker helmet" look of Robocop doesn't look very promising.

QuoteThis looks poor. I'm sure it will be better on screen, but it just seems like a missed opportunity.

Ain't that the truth. My biggest problem with that suit is not just color or other aesthetics, but the overall design is flawed, if you want me to believe this is a man with artificial limbs. The original suit's proportions are deliberately exaggerated in order to make him look like he is actually robotic. The old armor is not based on looking like a metal version of human anatomy, but like how artificial arms and legs would look and function. This does not look like a cyborg at all, this looks like what it is, a man with a costume on. Nothing here suggests robotic, it just looks like a suit over a normal guy.

I mean granted, I know some things had to be changed and updated. Realistic he should be able to move fast, not super slow like before. He would have to look agile. But he still would need to look like a robot. Ultimately this is just a dude in a suit. Major missed opportunity.

We're obviously going through a trend in cinema now where fantasy is rejected by realism and therefore function. Can't set a movie on Mars (Total Recall) let's bring it down to the tired and boring future Earth instead. Can't have a knight in silver armour Robocop, let's have a black tactical looking one because it makes sense having a police armour inspired look. But my favourite is always a Batmobile that doesn't much look like a....BATmobile.

I think that's awful. I don't think really you can have one without the other. And what's the big deal with fantastical stuff? It's why I got to loving this genre in the first place. I think Frank Miller even opposed the reality of a superhero film: "I don't wanna see sweat patches under Superman's armpits. I wanna see him fly!". I'd love to know what he though of the Nolan Batman's!

Same thing apparently happened in the seventies before the advent of Star Wars and such. You had urban, gritty movies and hardly no sci-fi. That all changed obviously come 1977 when high concept fantasy became order of the day. Cue lightsabers and (better still) alien chestbursters!

The realism fad in sci-fi and comic movies will die out eventually when people crave the imagination of fantasy again. I don't think Nolan ever desired to stamp out the glories of the genre, he just inspired too much in other people. Next year they expect to bring realism to Superman. But guys there's only so much of that you can put in for a guy in a red cape that flies.

QuoteWe're obviously going through a trend in cinema now where fantasy is rejected by realism and therefore function. Can't set a movie on Mars (Total Recall) let's bring it down to the tired and boring future Earth instead. Can't have a knight in silver armour Robocop, let's have a black tactical looking one because it makes sense having a police armour inspired look. But my favourite is always a Batmobile that doesn't much look like a....BATmobile.

See, this new Robocop design looks far less realistic to me than the original. Like I said before, the original was designed to look like a man with artificial limbs, this one just looks like it was designed with aesthetics instead of function in mind. I mean, why would a cyborg need shoulder-pads? Sculpted abs?

As for the realism vs. fantasy thing, I think it's all relative. I personally think the Nolan and Burton films are not that far apart in terms of realism (when you look at technology, gadgets, etc), they just differ quite a bit in terms of tone and atmosphere. Sure BR is quite more "fantastical" than B'89, but it's no where near the level of something like Sin City. As for current trends, I do think it's somewhat evened out, with having the Nolan Batman's on one hand, but then the release of The Hobbit on the other.

Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Tue, 25 Sep  2012, 06:57

QuoteWe're obviously going through a trend in cinema now where fantasy is rejected by realism and therefore function. Can't set a movie on Mars (Total Recall) let's bring it down to the tired and boring future Earth instead. Can't have a knight in silver armour Robocop, let's have a black tactical looking one because it makes sense having a police armour inspired look. But my favourite is always a Batmobile that doesn't much look like a....BATmobile.

See, this new Robocop design looks far less realistic to me than the original. Like I said before, the original was designed to look like a man with artificial limbs, this one just looks like it was designed with aesthetics instead of function in mind. I mean, why would a cyborg need shoulder-pads? Sculpted abs?

As for the realism vs. fantasy thing, I think it's all relative. I personally think the Nolan and Burton films are not that far apart in terms of realism (when you look at technology, gadgets, etc), they just differ quite a bit in terms of tone and atmosphere. Sure BR is quite more "fantastical" than B'89, but it's no where near the level of something like Sin City. As for current trends, I do think it's somewhat evened out, with having the Nolan Batman's on one hand, but then the release of The Hobbit on the other.

Unfortunately I'm not much a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies lol But at least they'll help champion the fantasy realm as you say.

I cannot believe some foolish person chose to change the one thing they didn't need to do on this new Robocop. I would have merely added to the design in slight ways, not junk it totally. Although Terminator Salvation was far from the best film at least that director kept the Terminators looking like we all knew em to be. It boggles the mind. Having now seen it I guess when we can also rule out the iconic theme tune too? You just know that's out the window too. Terrible.

The good thing is I doubt this new Robocop will hurt the original movie. It's still a mind blowing movie with cooler and edgier stuff in. I've even heard the new one will be PG-13! The violence in the original always disturbed me but that was the point of the movie anyway. I don't think you can get the excellent emotion in Verhoeven's film across as succesfully without the disturbing imagery.

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 25 Sep  2012, 18:44The good thing is I doubt this new Robocop will hurt the original movie. It's still a mind blowing movie with cooler and edgier stuff in. I've even heard the new one will be PG-13! The violence in the original always disturbed me but that was the point of the movie anyway. I don't think you can get the excellent emotion in Verhoeven's film across as succesfully without the disturbing imagery.

I would argue that's the whole point. The board room scene at the beginning where ED-209 malfunctions and kills the executive is the perfect example.

In the director's cut, it's over the top. ED-209 basically shoots the guy again and again and again until he's spaghetti. You could put whatever is left in a zip lock bag after it's all over... which is why it's kind of darkly funny when some dipsh*t in the background shouts "get a medic!"

In the theatrical cut, toning it down actually makes it worse. He gets blasted, yeah, but the dipsh*t seems less like a dipsh*t in shouting "get a medic" because, hey, maybe there's still a CHANCE the guy could pull through. It's more horrifying for being less over the top.

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 25 Sep  2012, 18:44

I cannot believe some foolish person chose to change the one thing they didn't need to do on this new Robocop. I would have merely added to the design in slight ways, not junk it totally. Although Terminator Salvation was far from the best film at least that director kept the Terminators looking like we all knew em to be. It boggles the mind. Having now seen it I guess when we can also rule out the iconic theme tune too? You just know that's out the window too. Terrible.

Off topic, but Terminator Salvation was a fine, underrated sci-fi actioner, and a million times better than current films in the genre (e.g. Transformers etc.), I wonder why it went so bad. It wasn't even close to the first ones, but what sci-fi film with robots can touch Cameron's Terminator anyway? It was good for a 00's film.

As for the PG-13... Robocop worked because of two things, the irony/satire, and the brutal violence. This is why I think Robo 2 is pretty OK in places too - it still feels like a bleak sci-fi comedy. The moment they turned him into a family friendly superhero (Robo 3 onwards), he became TV fodder. If this new one is in any way family friendly, it will totally miss the point.

First post in the topic here's my overall thoughts;

Robocop 1: the detroit in that film had elements of Nolan's gotham city (and I mean that in a good way). It was gritty, dark, tragic, and run by the bad guys. Clearly a city in need of a hero. The violence was short but they made it work. The murphy death scene was violent yet captivating. Maybe the most gruesome death outside a horror movie of the 1980's. The fact that the goons are laughing while doing it too makes it especially strong. Kurtwood smith was outstanding as Clarence Bodekker. He was funny an one of the most evil villains ever portrayed without super powers. I love how this film plays into its tag line the entire time; "half man, half machine, all cop" definitely we get humanity with the robot.

Robocop 2: I'll give it full props for trying. The first was a tough act to follow. It tries to continue the humanity of the character but the simple fact is that the story of the cop becoming a robot had already been told. Also Clarence was dead and so you know any bad guys in any sequel will not have the emotional attachment to Robocop as the man who created him, clearly Kurtwood was sorely missed. Now with those deficiencies the film did its best with what it had. It took advantage of the fact that Murphy had already become Robocop and included more of him. It tried to have more character development for the robot and make him more of a role model. Nice follow up but doesnt compare.

Robocop 3: Only saw it once but aware of its rep. I don't know, there really wasn't a lot there for me, it reminded me of bad sequels such as jaws 3 and 4 with too much focus on plot and plenty of it away from the title character. The biggest progression we got from Robocop was "now he can fly". I'm aware that it had budget restraints, it seemed to be a trend in the late 80's/early 90's to see if they could make sequels with lower budgets to increase profits.



Are you guys sure about the all robot angle? Here's the last pic i saw


(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityonfire.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FNew_Robocop_Poster_Suit.jpg&hash=279b4dfcd7deb6a889f331cb68f997f6532de453)

I also read the rumour is that Murphy will have his left arm shot off instead of the right and the remaining arm will be kept on (if you recall in the original they decided to remove the arm which was stayed off).


I guess I'm in the crowd of "lets see how it goes". According to the list on the IMDB, the only characters with similar names to the original are Alex Murphy and a male actor named Lewis. I'm definitely skeptical but sometimes remakes get it right. I actually prefer this one changing all the other names; The remakes which do work try and do their own thing, they acknowledge that their source material was a previous film and rather than compare they try and make their own film and bring in new ideas. Maybe this scenario could work because of the fact that technology plays a factor; the first one takes place in a future so this one will likely be an updated future.

What I don't want to see is another spawning of Nolanite types. They are calling it a remake not a reboot. We obviously know what happened in the batman films, we're seeing a divide in the spider-man films. The 2003 hulk films have an ongoing battle with 2008. No matter what happens, the 1987 Robocop film is a classic. Maybe the 2013 version will be better but if it is I dont want the first one all of a sudden shunned and picked apart the way the 1989 Batman film is.

First images of Keats on set.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmichael-keaton-robocop-set-photo.jpg&hash=98ec71e044e9310b69fa5088bf82eba585e33a2c)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frobocop-set-photo-michael-keaton.jpg&hash=a742a7b5336e31bc47f71db13c989b7ceee505de)
http://collider.com/robocop-set-photos-michael-keaton/200679/

And some new pics of the RoboCop suit itself.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frobocop-joel-kinnaman-set-photo.jpg&hash=77e7e72874fc11886a7513ac883570753032f952)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frobocop-set-photo-joel-kinnaman.jpg&hash=a9983c156f5ea9a51e910a536da3b6fc7c756071)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frobocop-set-photo.jpg&hash=20bb9839528cd96a2bb32b8794f06799a7dbcaf6)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fjoel-kinnaman-robocop-set-photo.jpg&hash=9e1932e7f762199e5d340a715e9286d74a6cf36e)

QuoteThe picture also seem to confirm that Kinnaman's Murphy will retain a human right hand: a corporate attempt to show the supercop's human side or an Achilles' heel of sorts?

Sounds like we won't be getting the "give the guy a hand" scene in this one.

Nice to see Keaton in a High(er) profile movie again. hope the film is worth his talents.

QuoteSounds like we won't be getting the "give the guy a hand" scene in this one.

It could always be in reference to his left hand. At the same time, considering they're aiming (pun intended) for a PG-13, they probably won't dismember him in quite the same way (or at all).

Oh dear it just keeps getting worse  ???

What's with the black headgear around Murphy's head in the mask off shot? (Is he even called Murphy in this one?). Remember in the original when he first removes the helmet? Still an excellent/moving scene. The fact he was bald with weird electronic stuff seemingly jammed into the back of his head (along with that bullet slug from Clarence's head shot) looked kinda scary and all too painful to watch when I was a kid. I don't get the sense of the character's pain at all in this new suit. It looks as though he's as snug and comfy as Tony Stark. Whether they even wanna focus on that aspect of the anguish Murphy feels in his robot body is another debate entirely.

I think when all is said and done the original Robocop is a film that still has balls in the shock and emotion department and won't be surpassed by this mess or most modern action/sci-fi ideas.

Quote from: gordonblu on Mon,  8 Oct  2012, 12:51
Nice to see Keaton in a High(er) profile movie again. hope the film is worth his talents.

QuoteSounds like we won't be getting the "give the guy a hand" scene in this one.

It could always be in reference to his left hand. At the same time, considering they're aiming (pun intended) for a PG-13, they probably won't dismember him in quite the same way (or at all).

It's confirmed he will lose an arm but it will be the left arm instead of the right.

I kinda like the helmet/headgear design, and the chest-plate is growing on me. But it's still far to much of "guy in suit" vs cyborg. And the hand...that's dumb even a normal man would wear some sort of protection in their hands. I have a feeling the hand is something deliberately sarcastic, and that at some point the hand get's blown up to reveal a terminator like skeleton underneath. Something to show that it was purely a marketing gimmick.

Wow, this looks even worse than I was expecting.  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmtQXUXez8

Compare that to the trailer for the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3W5HUz7vyY

Some films should never be remade.

I used to really love the original RoboCop as a kid. Nowadays, I think it's an overrated, unwatchable piece of garbage. It's full of awful acting, terribly unfunny and cheesy lines (even for an 80s movie), disgusting violence and I honestly don't think the satire had much to do with the plot.

It was bad enough that the Murphy murder scene was as bad as watching a documentary about animal abuse, but the deaths for almost all of the damn villains who killed Murphy were even more anticlimactic than Bane's death in TDKR. Only the goon who melted to death was satisfactory.

I don't normally mind about how movies have dated special effects; I can always appreciate how they were done according to what was available at the time. But even effects in the original RoboCop look dated for an 80s movie. At least RoboCop 2 had excellent stop motion, probably the best I've ever seen. And that was that film's saving grace as the plot took a further step backwards than the original.

Although I'm extremely critical about the original, I'm not totally impressed from what I've seen of the remake either. The trailer shows some good parts such as Keaton, Oldman and Jackson, and the effects look quite good. But at the same time, the film looks like a TV movie. The cinematography looks cheap, something as ordinary as the Arrow TV show. At best it looks pretty mediocre, and I wouldn't be surprised if I find this movie as ordinary and disappointing like how I felt after watching Elysium (although Elysium had better effects).

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 04:18
I used to really love the original RoboCop as a kid. Nowadays, I think it's an overrated, unwatchable piece of garbage. It's full of awful acting, terribly unfunny and cheesy lines (even for an 80s movie), disgusting violence and I honestly don't think the satire had much to do with the plot.

It was bad enough that the Murphy murder scene was as bad as watching a documentary about animal abuse, but the deaths for almost all of the damn villains who killed Murphy were even more anticlimactic than Bane's death in TDKR. Only the goon who melted to death was satisfactory.

Ouch right in the childhood :(

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 01:53
Wow, this looks even worse than I was expecting.  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmtQXUXez8

Compare that to the trailer for the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3W5HUz7vyY

Some films should never be remade.

For a nanosecond there my hopes were lifted at seeing your post clearly showing a trailer shot in which it looks like the original silver Robocop armor really would be in the movie (albeit a slight redesigned form). Then I watched the damn thing. My response to Michael Keaton wanting a tactical look was a "Nooooo Michael, not that one! THE OTHER ONE IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE!" If only it had been the other way around it may have stood a chance in my interest department. Making fun of the original Robocop suit (as I believe they do at some point) is another kick in the balls.

This film has flop written all over it. You can clearly see it is totally watered down from the original movie. Automatically it's less cooler. I don't even like Robo's POV shots that always looked cool and more importantly very simple. There isn't a shard of the powerful emotion witnessed in the Paul Verhoeven film. He did more pathos with Murphy's family in a handful of upsetting flashbacks than this film can do in 2 hours. It's nothing more than a blend of Iron Man mixed with the over the top militarism of The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel and Transformers.

It also appears far less interesting. Murphy seems totally aware of him becoming a robot rather than the battle with repressed memories Peter Weller gave us. I'd love to know what Ed Neumeier thinks of this dribble. It's a horrendous scar on a true sci-fi masterpiece.

You'll have to be insane to actually want to buy a ticket to see this movie. No, really!

The new one looks pretty bland and little more than a pointless b-picture but it's not the worst trailer I've seen this year.

As for the original, my feelings are almost the opposite of Laughing Fish's.  Maybe I was a bit more squeamish as a kid but it always baffled me how well-respected 'Robocop' was when I was younger.  Before I saw it and even after my first viewing of the film it struck me as a rather nasty, mean-spirited, unnecessarily violent, semi-Fascistic piece of exploitation much like most of Paul Verhoeven's filmography, or so I thought.  Only as I got older I started to appreciate the satire and political commentary (which I now see is a hallmark of most of Verhoeven's films) that takes a welcome pot-shot at the burgeoning late-80s privatisation of the criminal justice system and the over-commercialisation of culture in general and even if some of the jokes are sledgehammer subtle at least it's now clear that Verhoeven was always criticising rather than endorsing the hard-line, ultra-reactionary and corporate viewpoint espoused by the majority of the characters at the centre of his film (something which Frank Miller would unfortunately repudiate with his genuinely nihilistic 1990 follow-up).

My feelings about the first 'Robocop' are still relatively mixed as a result of my initial response to the film but I do think it's a cleverer than its ultra-violent façade might otherwise suggest.  Not all of the satire is directly related to the central plot (i.e. the 'I'll but that for a dollar' mindless TV skits that appear throughout the film) but the overall pot-shots at privatisation and corporations in cahoots with public sector agencies where the bottom line is the fatcats' balance sheets rather than any pretence to providing public safety is at the core of the movie as we watch dodgy executives doing deals with criminals in order to one-up their corporate rivals when it comes to providing the 'best' (i.e. the most profitable) law & order model.  The interesting thing when you really think about it is that the film at its heart is as much an indictment of the system that has created Robocop as it is an endorsement of all the 'oh-so-cool' hardware on display. 

That's an excellent post, Gobbs. I respect everyone's opinion, and I get why some people might not like RoboCop. But to say that it's a bad movie... I just can't agree with that.

As you say, the original film contains an incredible amount of political and social commentary. The whole movie is a critique of corporate greed and the materialistic excess of eighties America, as well as an exploration of the indomitability of the human soul. On the one hand you've got characters like Dick Jones and Bob Morton trying to privatise the police force and gentrify Old Detroit as part of their Delta City redevelopment project. And on the other hand you've got Alex Murphy struggling to regain his basic humanity and free himself from the mechanical captivity of his programming. His internal conflict is representative of the wider social struggle depicted elsewhere in the film; namely the subjugation of the human spirit by the unfeeling corporate machine that is OCP. It's a wonderfully layered narrative laced with irony and subtext. You seldom find that level of depth in modern action films.

I think it's also a very funny film. I know the extreme violence can be off-putting for a lot of people, but if you can look beyond that it's a terrific satire. The fake commercials were always a highlight for me, as well as the over-the-top portrayal of the yuppie "sharks" competing for the Old Man's attention at OCP (another classic example of this character type would be Ellis from Die Hard: "Hey, business is business. You use a gun, I use a fountain pen. What's the difference?"). The filmmakers also took advantage of the Detroit locale to take a few shots at the American automotive industry, with the malfunctioning ED-209 model (a less-than-subtle metaphor for American cars) and the running gag about the 6000 SUX ("An American tradition"). The violence, while at times horrific, is just as often used for comedic effect. The best example of this being the ED-209 scene where that poor guy is shredded by a needlessly excessive onslaught of gunfire. At first it's horrific, but it goes so far that it actually becomes funny in a twisted sort of way. And the reactions of the characters afterwards – with one guy calling for a doctor, and Dick Jones dismissing the malfunction as "only a glitch" – only add to the air of absurdity.

It's a terrific script, full of quotable lines, timely satire, ironic humour and weighty subtext. I think the performances are excellent too, especially Peter Weller, Miguel Ferrer and Ronny Cox. And special mention has to go to Kurtwood Smith for creating one of the most memorably loathsome villains of all time in Clarence Boddicker. It's interesting to note that Weller voiced Batman in the two animated films of The Dark Knight Returns, and now Smith is voicing Gordon in Beware the Batman. I've also got to mention Basil Poledouris' score. The scene where Murphy returns to his family home and wanders its vacant rooms is one of the most poignant and lyrical sequences I've ever seen in an action movie. There's hardly any dialogue. Instead it's all buoyed by Poledouris' music and Weller's performance. And as for the main title theme, well, that's simply one of the best superhero themes ever.


It's also a very sad film, with brutal action scenes that are offset by moments of potently affective drama. I'd rank it amongst the all-time great cinematic revenge tragedies. Even the musical spoof was really sad.


While the 1987 film was based on an original script, you can nevertheless see the intertextual strands that connect it to other works. The influence of the British comic 2000 AD is very noticeable. I've said this in others threads, but I'll say it again now: RoboCop (1987) is a much better Judge Dredd movie than either of the official adaptations. The influence of Frank Miller's writing is also apparent, which is presumably why they chose him to work on the sequels. And you can see cinematic influences ranging from Fritz Lang to James Cameron. And yet it still feels like a very unique and original film with its own distinct tone and aesthetic.

By contrast, the remake looks like a generic CGI-filled superhero flick riding on the coattails of Iron Man's success. I may be wrong, but I'm expecting it to be to the 1987 film what last year's Total Recall was to the 1990 original.

As already said... looks underwhelming. Need some antidote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQHeK4RN-k

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 23:03
While the 1987 film was based on an original script, you can nevertheless see the intertextual strands that connect it to other works. The influence of the British comic 2000 AD is very noticeable. I've said this in others threads, but I'll say it again now: RoboCop (1987) is a much better Judge Dredd movie than either of the official adaptations. The influence of Frank Miller's writing is also apparent, which is presumably why they chose him to work on the sequels. And you can see cinematic influences ranging from Fritz Lang to James Cameron. And yet it still feels like a very unique and original film with its own distinct tone and aesthetic.

By contrast, the remake looks like a generic CGI-filled superhero flick riding on the coattails of Iron Man's success. I may be wrong, but I'm expecting it to be to the 1987 film what last year's Total Recall was to the 1990 original.

Agreed. Also, it has come full circle since last years Dredd had a certain Robocop "feel" in places.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 15:14
Only as I got older I started to appreciate the satire and political commentary (which I now see is a hallmark of most of Verhoeven's films) that takes a welcome pot-shot at the burgeoning late-80s privatisation of the criminal justice system and the over-commercialisation of culture in general and even if some of the jokes are sledgehammer subtle at least it's now clear that Verhoeven was always criticising rather than endorsing the hard-line, ultra-reactionary and corporate viewpoint espoused by the majority of the characters at the centre of his film (something which Frank Miller would unfortunately repudiate with his genuinely nihilistic 1990 follow-up).

I think the first one is just as bleak too. The characters are either evil, or just plain dumb - I really don't find anyone likable at all.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 23:03
And on the other hand you've got Alex Murphy struggling to regain his basic humanity and free himself from the mechanical captivity of his programming. His internal conflict is representative of the wider social struggle depicted elsewhere in the film; namely the subjugation of the human spirit by the unfeeling corporate machine that is OCP. It's a wonderfully layered narrative laced with irony and subtext. You seldom find that level of depth in modern action films.

The biggest problem I have that stops me from having any sympathy for Murphy's death is how incredibly dumb he and Lewis were for going after five mad gunmen inside a steel mill, despite that the two cops were outnumbered. I literally shouted out "Don't go in there alone you farken idiots, CALL FOR BACKUP NOW!!!"; to me it felt like they were asking to be killed. It was such an idiotic and moronic way to have him killed, and it would've been funny if he hadn't been brutally mutilated to death by gunfire. If Murphy had died during a police shootout, I definitely would've felt sympathy for him.  In a way, Murphy getting maimed in a car explosion is a lot more tragic because it's unexpected.

And I'm not a prude, I've enjoyed a lot of cheesy films that had over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek violence like The Running Man and even Machete. But RoboCop's violence, especially Murphy's murder, was just perverse, sadistic and pathetic. The "humour" was tough to swallow when the film shows people getting murdered in the most sadistic manner possible. And I know that it's a subjective thing, but again, I found the so-called comedy to be obnoxious and annoying, unlike another film like The Running Man.

I don't really mind the whole corporate-corruption theme, but I thought a lot of those commercial parodies didn't really contribute much to the plot at all, and if there is one thing that I've become less tolerant with movies nowadays is having subplots or themes that don't really add much to the main plot. These sort of parodies like that 6000 SUX ad would be better suited to a movie like Network, a film which criticises the media for its dehumanization of the audience for the sake of ratings and profit. I just don't think they added much to RoboCop's plot at all.

I'm sad to say I'm no longer fond of the original, and honestly I'm very embarrassed to admit that I actually enjoyed it as a kid. But again, it doesn't mean I'm going to support the remake either. If this was made ten years ago, I might have been excited for it. But the problem is all those special effects have been done before, so it's not offering anything new. And the TV movie-look and feel doesn't give me a good impression either.

It  definitely seems this one will be a reboot and not a remake.

Murphy seems to have far more of a recollection of his former life, to the extent he doesn't even realize he's dead. I don't think I like that better, I liked the original theme of looking at robocop and realizing there is still a man in there. This one makes him feel more like the six million dollar man.

QuoteI literally shouted out "Don't go in there alone you farken idiots, CALL FOR BACKUP NOW!!!"

They did. Twice. Murphy calls for backup when they first catch sight of Boddicker's van, but the dispatcher tells him it won't be available for fifteen minutes. He tries requesting backup a second time when they're outside the factory, but the dispatcher tells him it's unavailable for at least another twenty minutes. Earlier in the film Bob Morton had told the Old Man: "We've restructured the police department and placed prime candidates according to risk factor." This would suggest that OCP deliberately deployed Murphy in a high risk area in the hopes he'd get maimed/killed. They may even have withheld backup to increase the likelihood of that happening. You've also got to remember that Boddicker was a cop killer and one of his victims on the force had died earlier that day. Lewis and Murphy wanted to get him badly. So they had three options:

1) Leave the factory and come back at a later time with backup, hoping that Boddicker and his crew would still be there.
2) Stay in the car and just wait on the off chance that backup would eventually arrive. This would make them sitting ducks for at least twenty minutes, increasing the likelihood of them being spotted and killed by Boddicker and his thugs.
3) Go in and try to arrest Boddicker on their own. He was an elusive perp and they might not get another shot at him.

Ultimately Lewis called it. Clearly she made the wrong call, but we can see why she made that decision at the time. It doesn't make Murphy's death any less tragic or any less heroic for me. The car bombing in the new movie looks like an impersonal, toned-down substitute, devoid of the visceral impact the original death scene had.

QuoteThese sort of parodies like that 6000 SUX ad would be better suited to a movie like Network

I think they're far too camp for Network, but you're right about them not advancing the plot. However the commercials do help characterise the time and setting. They give you a sense of what the media, business and politics are like in the future, and that creates context for the narrative. They also play off some of the film's central themes.

'The Family Heart Centre' commercial introduces themes of advanced medical science and privatisation. The fact you can get a cybernetic heart by dialling a 1-800 number tells you a lot about how science and business have mingled in future Detroit.

The 'Nuke Em' advert isn't particularly relevant to any of the film's major themes, but back in '87 it would've been relevant to the nuclear arms race between the US and Russia. You've got to remember that this was the same year Superman IV: The Quest for Peace came out, and people were still fearful that the Cold War could turn hot at any minute. The idea of corporations trivialising that fear by turning it into a board game shows just how low these people are willing to stoop to make a buck.

The 6000 SUX commercial connects with themes of materialism and greed. The lettering at the end of the ad looks like it's saying "GOOD SUX".

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frobocoparchive.com%2Finfo%2Fcar8.JPG&hash=e643b5309daf0faa87cdc52cd6dd6ee828ed9b77)

This resonates with the materialistic "greed is good" mentality the film is satirising. Only bad guys are shown to drive the SUX throughout the movie. When the disgruntled councilman takes the mayor hostage and demands a new car "with reclining leather seats, that goes really fast and gets really sh*tty gas mileage" the negotiator immediately suggests an SUX. Later in the movie one of Boddicker's men boosts an SUX after getting out of prison. It symbolises the superficial values of their consumerist culture.

So I don't think the commercials are superfluous. They may not directly affect the narrative, but they do help contextualise it and draw attention to the film's thematic subtext.

QuoteMurphy seems to have far more of a recollection of his former life, to the extent he doesn't even realize he's dead.

I don't think he is dead in the new movie. He just gets badly injured and has to be augmented with cybernetics. It's essentially just a slightly more severe version of what happened to Tony Stark in Iron man (2008). The concepts of resurrection and revenge from beyond the grave have been dropped from the new film altogether.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Sep  2013, 23:03
That's an excellent post, Gobbs. I respect everyone's opinion, and I get why some people might not like RoboCop. But to say that it's a bad movie... I just can't agree with that...

...By contrast, the remake looks like a generic CGI-filled superhero flick riding on the coattails of Iron Man's success. I may be wrong, but I'm expecting it to be to the 1987 film what last year's Total Recall was to the 1990 original.

Thanks for the kind words Silver Nemesis, but your break-down of the film was far superior to mine.  :)  It's clear that you have a massive affection for the 1987 movie.

Unfortunately I think you may be spot-on with regards to your comparison to last year's pointless 'Total Recall' remake.  Like 'Robocop' the original 'Total Recall' was another excessive Verhoeven-directed sci-fi extravaganza that I initially dismissed as a nasty, ultra-violent, ultra-exploitative piece of mindless late 80s/early 90s action that offended by early adolescent arthouse leaning sensibilities.  Oddly enough, the older I've gotten the more 'mainstream' and less 'high-brow' my sensibilities have become (usually it works the opposite way for most people) but to be fair I also am now much more open-minded about genre movies in general and it's clear that if one looks beyond the pulpy façade these are actually pretty intelligent, progressive-minded films (ironic when one considers that 'Total Recall' is headlined by one of the world's most famous Republicans) that offer plenty of food-for-thought with zero pretension.  By contrast, the 2012 'Total Recall' sadly skimped not only in terms of the gloriously OTT violence but rather underplayed the more fascinating 'what reality is this?' type conundrums offered by both the original Philip K. Dick book and the 1990 movie.  I fear the new 'Robocop' movie will be equally as sanitised both in terms of action and depth in relation to its progenitor.   

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  7 Sep  2013, 15:09


I don't think he is dead in the new movie. He just gets badly injured and has to be augmented with cybernetics. It's essentially just a slightly more severe version of what happened to Tony Stark in Iron man (2008). The concepts of resurrection and revenge from beyond the grave have been dropped from the new film altogether.

You're probably right about that, it does say in the trailer he had fourth degree burns. Yet there is a shot late in the trailer he speaks with a robotic voice.

I would say it's surprising that Hollywood chose to re do Robocop considering 2012's Total Recall blasted it's ways into cinemas, just as quick as it blasted it's way out, but unfortunately, it's not surprising at all. Even right down to both films appearing, right from the get-go, to be nothing special and lacking in the overall charm of the originals (IMHO).

With the original 1987 Robocop, I sincerely consider it to be a bona fide classic in the sci-fi genre, and a definite favorite to have come out of 1980's cinema. As it's a film that is fun, entertaining, electric, and always gory, underlined with satirical elements that comment on the media, corporate society, and consumerism gone mad. Which I felt really made the film stand out. As even though some films even have this same exact central theme, it was something atypical to see it done in a film from 1987. Along with Paul Verhoeven's direction, the film has a look and style of it's own in the way that exhibits a vision of the future, that displays the crime, and along with that, shows ALL of the violence that occurs as a result. But never, ever shies away from it.

Which appears to be the opposite approach of the upcoming 2014 film which, from what I gather, shot for a PG-13 rating.

Can't honestly say the 2014 trailer did anything for me. *sigh*

Hopefully Michael Keaton's intriguing 'Birdman' project will put his career back on track...suffice to say, I don't think the 'Robocop' remake is going to be the one (although on the plus side, it's nice that the film reunites Keaton with Samuel L. Jackson and that it features another great Batman movie actor, Gary Oldman).

...I guess I'm the only one who's liking this.

RoboCop is perhaps second only to BATMAN as my most favorite film of all time. Loved it as long, ever since I was 2 or 3. And the remake has me salivating; it's become my most anticipated film of next year.

I firmly believe that if you're doing a remake.... justify it. Don't do the same movie. And they're fitting my feelings on it to a 'T.' They're keeping core elements of the story that are iconic, and going boldly in a new direction with the rest. And for Keaton alone? It's a must-see.

I'm also glad the satire seems to be jettisoned, or at least not about corporate greed. RoboCop more or less started it, but now it's been run into the ground. I'd have no desire to see that again.

Exactly Doc, I like that they seem to have gone in a different direction.

I'm reserving judgement until I see the movie.

i'm with Doc and Paul here. I mean they could do what the 1998 remake of Psycho did and make the same movie again but what is the point? I do think this is an interesting update; I don't believe the year the first film takes place is ever stated but it is implied to be the future.  This new one takes place in 2028 so it is an updated future based on a projection of todays technologies. Not sure if we'll get the robot vision or prime directives with the extra humanity but i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Can't honestly say I'm finding the 2014 film interesting from what I've seen so far (done gave reasons), but one thing I can say, is that I certainly hope the rumor of the film essentially crapping all over the original by insulting the original suit design, turns out to be just that; a rumor.

Otherwise the Joker venom is coming out. Full force.  >:(

I have managed to see the movie. As someone with little to no connection to the original film, I enjoyed myself just fine. It has a brisk pace which works well. It has social and corporate commentary. Keaton is fantastic. He has a substantial role and it great to see him in movies again. Samuel L. Jackson was fun too.

For my money, this is a tasteful reboot. There's traces of the old theme, an old joke makes a cameo and the silver suit appears. I think a lot of the whiners are going to be people who can't judge the reboot as its own thing. And it is its own thing. It strikes out on its own in areas.

If other properties rebooted in this way, I'd be less weary and sceptical of the word. It was justified here, in my opinion. These robot concepts are no longer that outlandish, they're actually relevant and current. I walked out of the cinema feeling satisfied, a lot more so than Robocop 3 for example which is just dire.

If anyone wants to ask any further questions feel free to do so.

I almost wavered myself and went to see the remake. I heard it features a trace of the original Robocop theme music, which I was astounded by after their dreadful redesign of the suit. But then I slipped the original movie into my dvd player and just one look at the footage convinced myself not to make the mistake Total Recall fans did when that was remade. I haven't watched any of the three original Robocop films since that new outfit was unveiled (out of depression mostly). Thankfully I've now overcome this ridiculous problem and had the best evening in a long while watching the classic 1987 original. I'd encourage other disappointed fans to do the same and not get into meaningless fights about "which is better". It's quite perfectly obvious what the answer to that question is.

If you ask me we're all living in a very UNcool time period these days lol We like to think things are so much better now with fancy gadgets, better music and more high tech movies surrounding us but really we're living in a new incarnation of the 1950's, where the tone and the imagination of everything is sweet, wholesome and not too "ball breaking" anymore. Frankly it's all driving me a bit crazy lol The new Robocop for me is a perfect example of what the original film would have been had it not been made in 1987.

I take it they will have removed concepts such as ED 209 being unable to walk down stairs? Because of course it needs to be "realistic" (the killer word of the once great sci-fi ideas of the 80's/90's). How can a threatening gun-like robot be incapable of not moving up and down something as mundane as stairs? I adore that moment in the first movie. It's funny and it is memorable and gives that stop motion robot sooooo much child-like personality than just being a simple walking war weapon with gun arms. And may I also ask if Robocop still eats "Baby Food"? I presume not because again, quite ridiculous but here's the thing: it's amusing and memorable. How much fun it was in old games such as "Roboocop vs The Terminator" to pick up baby food powerups for health!

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
I almost wavered myself and went to see the remake.

If you have an open mind and like the character, go see the reboot. It's definitely not the worst Robocop offering.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
I heard it features a trace of the original Robocop theme music

It does appear, yes. Though only for the title card and maybe once after.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
which I was astounded by after their dreadful redesign of the suit.

I don't think the new suit is dreadful, just different. The reboot explains the aesthetic changes in the story. It's funny, people ask why a reboot is necessary, and when the film does its own thing it gets blasted. A scene for scene recreation of the original would be boring and pointless. Just as B89 is different to BB.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
But then I slipped the original movie into my dvd player and just one look at the footage convinced myself not to make the mistake Total Recall fans did when that was remade.

And you will always have a copy of the original film.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
I haven't watched any of the three original Robocop films since that new outfit was unveiled (out of depression mostly).

I can understand where you're coming from. I went through something similar with the Spider-Man reboot. But ultimately, we can have favourites, but we're getting new content from our beloved characters. And we both like said characters. It shouldn't be something to be depressed about, rather excited.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
Thankfully I've now overcome this ridiculous problem and had the best evening in a long while watching the classic 1987 original. I'd encourage other disappointed fans to do the same and not get into meaningless fights about "which is better". It's quite perfectly obvious what the answer to that question is.

Obviously you would side with the original, but I do recommend seeing the reboot. That way you can know if its a disappointment or not. I thought it would be average, but like both interpretations just fine.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
The new Robocop for me is a perfect example of what the original film would have been had it not been made in 1987.

I understand your sentiment, but Robocop 2014 is tailored to today's climate. Robots and ED 209's being deployed in the Middle East scanning and patrolling towns for suicide bombers and the like.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  8 Feb  2014, 14:21
I take it they will have removed concepts such as ED 209 being unable to walk down stairs? Because of course it needs to be "realistic" (the killer word of the once great sci-fi ideas of the 80's/90's).

I'm not fond of realism, but Robocop 2014 isn't a 'realism' movie. As for walking down stairs or eating baby food, no, that's not present. It's a double edged sword. If they recreated those moments, I assume they'd be called plagiarists with no imagination, rising off the original's coat tails. They kept the core elements and make new scenes of their own.

This remake is getting even worse reviews that I was expecting.  Oh dear.  :-X

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  9 Feb  2014, 02:22
This remake is getting even worse reviews that I was expecting.  Oh dear.  :-X

Which is silly, really, because it's a perfectly good movie. Other factors are at play, me thinks.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  9 Feb  2014, 02:22
This remake is getting even worse reviews that I was expecting.  Oh dear.  :-X

Personally I think these reviews are perfectly justified. No offence to those who like it but this really isn't a special movie. And just being "good" isn't enough for me when you've seen the "masterpiece" of Verhoeven. I feel it's exploiting the original movie to achieve it's success. I've only seen the trailers but they were enough to tell me all about what the film is. What we basically have here is a movie trying to be "Iron Man" and nothing else. Much of what I saw has been seen in tens of thousands of productions in the last decade and not just the effects.

Some have argued I believe that you shouldn't compare it to the original. My girlfriend nicely summed up that argument: doesn't the entire concept of a remake invite you to compare it to the original? There is no re-interpretation without the original. 'Opening your mind to something different' for me is just a weak plea to people to ignore its bigger and better older brother, and not acknowledge its failures.

I saw this video review yesterday of these two guys discussing the film which they saw at a preview. It not so much nailed the coffin for me viewing it, but more buried the coffin into the ground for sure. Much of what they discuss I agree with I'm afraid. For anybody who is interested I've included a link here. I cannot believe they've actually played "I Fought The Law" by The Clash over the end credits. They have to be f***ing kidding me right? lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j854QY1vQ7g

Not too pleased to hear of the cliched "reboot reference gag" of including "I'd buy that for a dollar!" in the new one either.

I have actually seen the full length movie, not just the trailers, and think the poor reviews are clouded by bad attitudes. Those who are open minded have had similiar reactions to me. I don't know how one can say it's not a special movie when they haven't even seen it.

If Superman, Batman, Bond or any other franchise gets another film, it is largely welcomed because people want to see more interpretations of their beloved characters. The key word being interpretations. The original film is the launch-pad, sure, but that doesn't eradicate the concept of 'this movie is its own thing'. Batman Begins is totally its own movie even if it brings Batman (1989) to mind.

If the franchise was going to continue, facts are another film had to be made at some point. If anything, the reboot keeps the spirit of the original alive. It may open some eyes to the world of Robocop, and introduce a new generation of fans that otherwise would have no idea it existed. This film does not tarnish the character's legacy one bit. If that's the worry, it's unfounded. Robocop 3 and 4, etc did that job already.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sun,  9 Feb  2014, 19:03I cannot believe they've actually played "I Fought The Law" by The Clash over the end credits. They have to be f***ing kidding me right? lol

I know, right? How dare the reboot strike out on its own and have its own identity.

Having actually seen the movie, the song works quite well given the final scene's structure. Something you cannot glean from watching a trailer.

I am actually going to give this damn movie a chance tomorrow before it closes. I know I'm going to regret it. But since we'll never have a Ghostbusters III now with the desperately sad passing of Harold Ramis, might as well bask in the glory of a "might be bad" reboot before I die lol

Somebody who saw the film and didn't like it at all, mentioned that by the very end Murphy is back in his silver suit. Is this true? Some have speculated it was a last minute reshoot alteration. I obviously haven't seen yet so I've no idea what they mean. Because the idea of this thing being a remake or toning down the OTT and comical violence (although very VERY disappointing still) isn't my real problem. My problem is that crap looking black kevlar suit. It's strange that certain fans and especially critics don't seem to give a damn about that aspect of all. Critics are mourning the loss of the fancy social satire. Worse they've introduced that new look into comics. No way that garbage is gonna stick around. Give it some time, they'll be protesting to bring back the silver one. The new 2014 silver suit I've seen in photos and although it's not a patch on Rob Bottin's original design it's still recognisably "ROBOCOP". Why oh why didn't they go with this instead.

If a sequel is made perhaps it'll be better for me but only if he's back in the classic Robocop suit. Next time I'd like original characters and a plot that we've never seen in the movies. I certainly don't want a remake of Robocop 2 as some fans have expressed. Let's have something 100% fresh to appease classic and reboot fans. If they are prepared to do that I think they deserve another shot.

I just saw this recently. You can add this as another Robocop movie that I hated.

It's bland, boring, and lacks a real threat because the villains are almost non-existant. And just like that godforsaken original, the villains get killed off in an anticlimactic manner - even moreso here. Apart from the shootout with Robocop and the ED-209s, the way the final showdown was shot was incredibly lazy as hell. In fact, the action overall in this movie was just as crap as the original's; of course the action in the original was only more memorable because of its pathetic, worthless gore.

The acting was incredibly bland too. Keaton was wasted, Jackson was barely even in the film, and the guy who played Robocop was wooden for most of the time. Very unimpressed with the main actor's performance. Only Oldman shines as the compassionate scientist Norton who rebuilds Murphy back to life, but then again it's not really outstanding either. Overall, the acting was subpar.

Only two scenes I liked in this movie included Murphy waking up from a dream that was implanted by Dr. Norton in the lab, and Norton revealing to Murphy what was left of his remains. Everything else had no tension, no chemistry, no excitement because the action was bland, and the story was thin. This remake was nowhere near as that depraved rubbish original, or the second one for that matter, but it's still not good because the film drags and the dull acting just doesn't help me care for Murphy, or for anyone else for that matter. Except maybe for Oldman.   

I didn't have high expectations when I was about to watch this, and yet I still came out disappointed. I haven't been this disappointed in a remake or a reboot since Batman Begins (which funnily enough, the only character I only cared about in that movie was played by Oldman too). It's now come to a point that my regard for Robocop is at an all-time low. I've had enough with this stupid franchise and I've long passed realised that it was never good to begin with. You can argue the merits for the satire all you want, but if it doesn't at least make me care about the characters, then that's a problem. I'm not going to watch another Robocop movie ever again.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed,  5 Mar  2014, 15:11


Somebody who saw the film and didn't like it at all, mentioned that by the very end Murphy is back in his silver suit. Is this true? Some have speculated it was a last minute reshoot alteration.

If a sequel is made perhaps it'll be better for me but only if he's back in the classic Robocop suit. Next time I'd like original characters and a plot that we've never seen in the movies. I certainly don't want a remake of Robocop 2 as some fans have expressed. Let's have something 100% fresh to appease classic and reboot fans. If they are prepared to do that I think they deserve another shot.

He wears silver when he first becomes robocop and again at the end, black for the remainder.


I just saw this today; I like what they did in the sense that they didn't try and do the same film, they did their own thing. The only references/similarities to the original are as follows;
-Murphy had a wife and son
-his partner is named Lewis and is a black man
- he does have the directives that he can not arrest or shoot certain people and this is used for corruption
-towards the end of the credits the original robocop theme plays

The machine is much more human in this one than the original. In the original Robocop is mostly a machine with traces of human memory, in this one he is more of a huma with robotics.


I liked Gary Oldman's character, it reminded me of a Dr Frankenstein vs monster relationship. It was good seeing Keaton back on the big screen although his character isn't very likeable; he's more of a ruthless business man (I guess the Dick Jones of this version although not as evil and corrupt).

I've lately been doing a catch-up on Keaton's more recent films, and I finally got around to watching this. I approached the movie with low expectations but tried to view it with an open mind. I think The Dark Knight's right that you have to evaluate the film on its own merits and in terms of what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, rather than what we, as fans of the 1987 film, wanted them to accomplish. But as a big fan of Verhoeven's original movie, I found it hard to disconnect the two interpretations. The fact it's called 'RoboCop' makes it almost impossible not to compare them.

Basically, I thought it was a very average action/superhero film, albeit slightly better than I was expecting. Oldman was on top form, as expected, and his character was easily the most interesting in the film. Keaton's performance was good, though I had some problems with the way his character was written. I liked the way the film attempted to address contemporary issues of terrorism and drone warfare. The original movie touched on the drone theme a little with the ED-209 mech, but the new film has the benefit of real life advances in drone technology to draw upon for inspiration. That said, I think the 1987 film had a much richer thematic framework, tackling pertinent contemporary issues of corporate corruption, gentrification, privatisation, and urban decay, plus philosophical ruminations on death, resurrection and the human soul. Most of these themes were absent from the new film. Even RoboCop 2 (1990) tackled heavy themes of drug warfare, child abuse, labour action, free will and political corruption. The themes of the 2014 movie feel a little lightweight by comparison, and the satire wasn't nearly as funny or biting as in the old films.

One of the film's main problems is the lack of a compelling villain. The original film featured some of the most memorable heels of eighties cinema. But the new film has a very forgettable drug dealer character that RoboCop eliminates about two thirds of the way through the picture. By rights, the film should have ended there. The story's over. But they needed a third act, so they have Keaton's character – who until that point hasn't really done anything wrong – suddenly decide to have Murphy killed. This struck me as more of a structural contrivance to create a villain and a final act, rather than a believable action on the part of his character. There wasn't much to foreshadow Keaton's villainous turn at any earlier point in the film. It just sort of comes out of nowhere.

I thought Keaton did a good job with what he had to work with, but his character, like the movie as a whole, was not well written. At least not in my opinion. There were other problems that cropped up as a result of the bad writing. Like why did OmniCorp choose to upload the police database into Murphy's brain five minutes before he was scheduled to make his first public debut? They'd had months to work on him, yet they left this one massive procedure – a procedure that could potentially destroy his sanity – until the most inappropriate moment imaginable.  Like Keaton's heel turn, this was an example of the characters behaving in a way that made no logical sense in order to facilitate the dramatic/emotional requirements of the following scenes.

I also think the movie should have been rated R. The atmosphere of ultraviolent dread was one of the defining characteristics of the first two RoboCop films, and its absence was cited as a major factor in the failure of the third movie. There are certain moments in the 2014 film where I thought we really needed to see the horrific consequences of the violence in order to accentuate the visceral horror (e.g. the boy with the knife at the beginning). In fairness, I believe Joel Kinnaman and director José Padilha did lobby for an R rating, but the studio wouldn't hear of it. So I can't blame the filmmakers for that one.

Overall I'd rate RoboCop (2014) 5½/10 – an average 21st century popcorn flick containing some interesting ideas and a couple of strong performances. It's marginally better than I was expecting, but falls far short of the 1987 original. To its credit, the movie does try to carve an identity for itself. But that's precisely why I think it should have been called something other than RoboCop. Giving it that title invites comparison with Verhoeven's film. And those comparisons don't work in its favour.

There are rumours circulating of a sequel called RoboCops. If that's true, it sounds like they could be taking inspiration from one of the old Marvel RoboCop storylines.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 30 Jul  2014, 19:24
There are rumours circulating of a sequel called RoboCops. If that's true, it sounds like they could be taking inspiration from one of the old Marvel RoboCop storylines.

There's actually rumors of a sequel for this?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi416%2Fjokertdk%2FMarty-McFly-Confused-In-Back-To-The-Future-Gif_zps182a6a2d.gif&hash=f24abf20d14056ad285466da99af0ea04a0aff7c) (http://s1092.photobucket.com/user/jokertdk/media/Marty-McFly-Confused-In-Back-To-The-Future-Gif_zps182a6a2d.gif.html)

;)

I agree with your overall review, Silver Nemesis. Pretty darn average, not especially memorable, and overall, very much lacking the tightly edited charm of the original with all it's humorous, and well done (especially so for it's time) satirical elements, classic one liners, over the top violence, ect.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 31 Jul  2014, 07:29

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 30 Jul  2014, 19:24
There are rumours circulating of a sequel called RoboCops. If that's true, it sounds like they could be taking inspiration from one of the old Marvel RoboCop storylines.

There's actually rumors of a sequel for this?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi416%2Fjokertdk%2FMarty-McFly-Confused-In-Back-To-The-Future-Gif_zps182a6a2d.gif&hash=f24abf20d14056ad285466da99af0ea04a0aff7c) (http://s1092.photobucket.com/user/jokertdk/media/Marty-McFly-Confused-In-Back-To-The-Future-Gif_zps182a6a2d.gif.html)

;)

I agree with your overall review, Silver Nemesis. Pretty darn average, not especially memorable, and overall, very much lacking the tightly edited charm of the original with all it's humorous, and well done (especially so for it's time) satirical elements, classic one liners, over the top violence, ect.

I heard some rumors somewhere that they were considering a TV spin-off of the remake, centering on Murphy's life as a cop in Detroit before becoming RoboCop. Who the hell would watch that?

There was one line in the new film which I thought was quite funny. It's where RoboCop says, "Hey doctor, what happens if I taser an exoskeleton with a little asshole inside?" And Oldman's character coyly replies, "I, uh... I think we're all curious to find out." That was one of the few times I chuckled in the entire film.

One other thing I didn't like about the new movie was Lewis. Why make her into a man? I hate it when male characters are turned into females for the sake of political correctness, and I find the reverse equally idiotic. If they'd had an interesting new angle on the character then I might have understood. But that wasn't the case here. In the old films she was a tough, bubblegum-chewing wiseass who helped Murphy rediscover his true identity, rescued him from the cops outside the OCP tower, and aided him in the final battle against Boddicker and his goons. The Lewis in the new film only really plays an active role during the finale. For the rest of the movie he comes across as passive, underdeveloped and redundant. I don't blame the actor for this, just the writers.

Give me Nancy Allen any day.

Quote from: mrrockey on Thu, 31 Jul  2014, 09:37
I heard some rumors somewhere that they were considering a TV spin-off of the remake, centering on Murphy's life as a cop in Detroit before becoming RoboCop. Who the hell would watch that?

You know what TV series they should make? It's Not My Problem!

QuoteIt's Not My Problem! is a comedy show on television, apparently a big hit with a diverse audience, many of old Detroit's residents tune in, including 7 - 11 store owners, powerful executives, violent street hoodlums and cops.

It seems to center around Bixby Snyder, a drunken, crass, scruffy, middle-aged man in glasses, who gets into a variety of unusual, unlikely, slapstick situations, more often than not including one or more women of questionable moral standing. The main character is generally offered some incredibly lucky or rewarding prize, to which the main character invariably laughs hoarsely and ejaculates his catchphrase: "I'd buy that for a dollar!"

Naturally, the residents of Old Detroit find this a never ending source of hilarity. No wonder crime is so high.

http://robocop.wikia.com/wiki/It%27s_Not_My_Problem!


Highbrow humour at it's finest. This would surely sweep the Emmys.

I'm not sure if I'd see a sequel. It's hard to picture it being better with all the man vs machine themes and this one wasn't that good to begin with. Robocop isn't that interesting of a superhero, the originals appeal were the satirical aspects and storylines. It's hard to make a progressive storyline for multiple films. I probably feel this one was on par with Robocop 2; definitely better than the third film but nowhere near the first one.

The hard thing is that this concept needs to be relatively gritty so it's difficult to come up with central conflicts and worthy villains. Villains with super powers such as the comic ones we know of don't work nor do the masterminds due to the physical prerequisite. The only logical ones are crime bosses or follow the clichee and make a villain similar to the hero (ie. a robocriminal)

Definitely the lack of female Lewis and Dick Jones/Clarence Boddiker were sorely missed although Oldman's character does pick up some of the slack there. I guess Keaton is supposed to be the Dick Jones replacement but if they wanted him to be a bad guy, they didn't develop him as one. Kurtwood Smiths character is one of the most evil gritty characters in film. He rivals Jack Nicholsons Joker in the sense that he's a bad guy to everyone; his bosses, associates and even his partners. Also the death of Murphy scene doesn't hold the candle to the shootout from the original. One thing I don't understand? They said he suffered 4th degree burns to most of his body, why did his face and remaining hand have no burn marks?

I didn't like when they attempted to make nods to the original; they should have given Lewis a different name to avoid comparisons. Since they weren't doing a remake, they should have severed most ties.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 31 Jul  2014, 17:39
Give me Nancy Allen any day.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.static-bluray.com%2Fproducts%2F22%2F499_1_large.jpg&hash=46fffe7b94c0b00257316a8a725cd7372b044eb1)

I'll always think of Lewis when I see Nancy Allen. It was, after all, my introduction to her. Watched "Dressed to Kill" years later, and it was somewhat jarring to see just how different her character was in that from her role as Lewis that left such a impression on me, but it was all good.

QuoteYou know what TV series they should make? It's Not My Problem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HOt0ZOcYk

Highbrow humour at it's finest. This would surely sweep the Emmys.

I would make a point in watching that. Even during a full scale riot outside of a electronics store.

Until something gets *officially* announced, I'll leave this here.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/original-robocop-may-get-a-sequel/

Quote
Original "Robocop" May Get A Sequel?

The "Robocop" franchise may be following in the footsteps of the "Halloween" series with a feature film revival that serves as a direct sequel to the original and ignores the continuity of all the sequels and remakes that came in between.

In an interview with Zeitgeist Entertainment Magazine at the Barbados Independent Film Festival, screenwriter Ed Neumeier revealed he's working on a sequel to the 1987 film at MGM right now and went into a few specifics:

    "There's been a bunch of other RoboCop movies and there was recently a remake and I would say this would be kind of going back to the old RoboCop we all love and starting there and going forward. So it's a continuation really of the first movie. In my mind. So it's a little bit more of the old school thing."

Could get interesting. Especially if MGM somehow talks Peter Weller (who's more recent work on Dexter, Son's of Anarchy, and the Dark Knight Returns animated movie being awesome) to return for one last go as Murphy. Depending, of course, if this is taking place 30 years following the original Robocop and it's future time setting, or something like only 5-10 years.

It'd be great if this thing panned out and we got a proper R-rated sequel to the first two films.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 25 Jan  2018, 02:43

Until something gets *officially* announced, I'll leave this here.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/original-robocop-may-get-a-sequel/

Quote
Original "Robocop" May Get A Sequel?

The "Robocop" franchise may be following in the footsteps of the "Halloween" series with a feature film revival that serves as a direct sequel to the original and ignores the continuity of all the sequels and remakes that came in between.

In an interview with Zeitgeist Entertainment Magazine at the Barbados Independent Film Festival, screenwriter Ed Neumeier revealed he's working on a sequel to the 1987 film at MGM right now and went into a few specifics:

    "There's been a bunch of other RoboCop movies and there was recently a remake and I would say this would be kind of going back to the old RoboCop we all love and starting there and going forward. So it's a continuation really of the first movie. In my mind. So it's a little bit more of the old school thing."

The first film never states it's era, it's implied to be the future but no year is ever stated so there's plenty of freedom here.

I'm fine with ignoring Robocop 2. It's a decent action flick but does very little for the story and character. It definitely has the potential to work, Blade Runner proved that, the only difference here is asking people to ignore sequels and a reboot


Could get interesting. Especially if MGM somehow talks Peter Weller (who's more recent work on Dexter, Son's of Anarchy, and the Dark Knight Returns animated movie being awesome) to return for one last go as Murphy. Depending, of course, if this is taking place 30 years following the original Robocop and it's future time setting, or something like only 5-10 years.

Six years ago I wrote:

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 31 Aug  2012, 23:38
I'd much rather they made Robocop Returns, a proper R-rated sequel to the first two films featuring Peter Weller in the title role. But we're never going to get that now,

Apparently I spoke too soon. Now Deadline is reporting:

"MGM is developing a new installment of RoboCop and has set District 9 director Neill Blomkamp to helm the picture, which is titled RoboCop Returns. The studio hopes to revive a franchise that began with the Paul Verhoeven-directed satirical sci-fi action thriller that Orion released in 1987. Original writers Ed Neumeier and Michael Miner are producing and exec producing, respectively. Justin Rhodes, who co-wrote the Terminator film that Tim Miller is shooting, will rewrite the script that Neumeier and Miner wrote years ago as a planned sequel to Verhoeven's hit, an installment that never happened."
https://deadline.com/2018/07/robocop-neill-blomkamp-directing-robocop-returns-justin-rhodes-ed-neumeier-michael-miner-mgm-1202424639/

The moral of the story: ask and you shall receive.

Cool.

Batman Returns

Superman Returns

Robocop Returns

Let's hope Robo's return turns out to be a worthwhile film, and that way, two out of three ain't bad. Per Meatloaf.

I've always wanted to see Peter Weller return as RoboCop, but this wasn't quite what I had in mind.

This week marks the 30th anniversary of RoboCop 2, one of the more divisive films to emerge from the superhero genre. It was the final movie from Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner and is arguably the only RoboCop sequel to successfully capture the atmosphere of the 1987 original.


The script was penned by Frank Miller, but was heavily rewritten before filming commenced. His original treatment was later adapted as a comic book by Avatar Press.


I read this a few years ago, but I can't remember much about it other than thinking it wasn't as good as the finished film. Many of the weaker concepts in Miller's script ended up in the movie RoboCop 3 (on which he is also credited as a writer). Miller himself makes a brief cameo in RoboCop 2 as 'Frank':


You can see traces of his earlier comic book work in RoboCop 2. Cain's cult has parallels with the Mutant gang in The Dark Knight Returns. The leader of both gangs issues a chilling message to the city during a television newscast.


The effete mayor tries unsuccessfully to broker a deal between the city and the gang.


There's a scene where the hero raids one of the gang's hideouts, ending with a standoff where the final criminal grabs a baby and holds a gun to its head. The hero shoots the criminal in both stories.


There are also shades of Born Again in RoboCop 2. Both stories feature the deconstruction (literally, in the case of RoboCop 2) and rebirth of the hero. Born Again introduces a drug-fuelled villain named Nuke, while RoboCop 2 features a villain who manufactures and distributes a drug named Nuke.


In both stories there's a powerful organisation that tries to control the mentally unstable villain using drugs, and in both stories he eventually goes on a rampage, firing on civilian targets in a crowded city.


The wealthy villain observes this from a balcony as the hero tries to put an end to the rampage.


One of the most interesting interpretations of RoboCop 2 is that the whole film is a self-aware commentary on bad sequels. The main villain – literally called 'RoboCop 2' – is a committee-planned abomination that fails to live up to its predecessor's legacy and ends up hurting the very people it's designed to protect.


The first RoboCop film was about the indomitability of Alex Murphy's soul, and the second movie is about OCP trying to rid him of it. One of the funniest scenes has a group of corporate busybodies sit around a table to discuss ways the original RoboCop might be improved. They compile a new list of directives which are then programmed into Murphy in such a way that renders him unable to fulfil his original function. He becomes a watered-down family friendly parody of his earlier self. But ultimately his soul transcends this programming once again and he deletes the new directives to reclaim his autonomy. He then goes back to being the violent gun-toting superhero that fans know and love, much to his corporate overlords' dismay. I'm sure we can all think of certain film franchises whose troubled productions have followed a similar trajectory.

There are also some things I don't like about RoboCop 2. The film is mean-spirited and at times excessively vulgar, particularly with regards to its depiction of children. There are a lot of ideas in the script, but few of them are satisfyingly developed. This makes the movie seem thematically unfocused, which I suspect is one of the reasons critics struggled to find meaning in it. There's also a problem with Murphy's character arc, which ends about halfway through the film when he captures Cain. Until then, the movie does a good job of picking up where the first film left off and placing RoboCop at the centre of the plot. But once Cain is captured, and RoboCop is liberated from his dehumanising programming, Murphy's character arc is effectively concluded. There then follows twenty minutes of screen time in which RoboCop doesn't even appear, and he doesn't return until just before the dénouement.

Although there are some very funny scenes and lines of dialogue ("Sir, whether it exists or not, I know I can find it" being my favourite), the script in general is not as sharp or cohesive as what Neumeier and Miner produced for the first movie. There are too many plot strands that don't go anywhere. For example, the subplot about Murphy's wife is very prominent during the first ten minutes of the film, but never mentioned again after that. Likewise the city's outstanding debt to OCP is a major plot point in the second half of the film, but it's never really resolved. We don't find out what happens to the mayor, and the Nuke storyline also lacks resolution. We see the main distributors of the drug get wiped out by RoboCain, but that doesn't alter the fact the city is now crawling with drug-addicted cultists. So the writing, while very funny and astute in places, is definitely a downgrade from the damn-near-flawless script of the previous film. I also miss Basil Poledouris' classic theme music and Bixby "I'd buy that for a dollar" Snyder. But overall, I still like the film and think it has a lot going for it.

If nothing else, RoboCop 2 gave us this memorable moment from WCW history.


And to think, some people believe wrestling is fake.

The idea of a second RoboCop movie is inherently more interesting than any actual second RoboCop movie. Credit must be given to Miller for making such a thing even semi-worthwhile. But some movies are too good to turn into a series. RoboCop is one. And I would argue that JOKER is another. But that's for a separate thread, I suppose.

One of Verhoeven's trademarks is satire mixed with dark wit. The original RoboCop played to a lot of his strengths where he could do satire in a sort of black comedy type of way. That feeling is not perfectly carried over to RoboCop 2. But it's close. The Magnavolt commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about.

As to the depiction of children, I was a very young child when RoboCop 2 came out. Oddly enough, for as much as Hobb disturbed me as a kid, I still found him a credible villain from the standpoint that I knew a lot of bullies from school. No, none of them were murderers or drug dealers (as far as I know) but the experiences I had facing them showed me that children are hardly the angels they're often made out to be in film. A child as a second tier villain was a pretty original idea back in 1990 and I still find it original even now since it's so seldom ever used.

One aspect of Miller's work that is effective-yet-off-putting is the utter lack of concern for human dignity particularly on display in RoboCop 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRUOQG92Bw

An old homeless woman (probably a Nuke addict) gets her shopping cart destroyed, somebody (probably another Nuke addict) feigns concern for her safety, steals her purse, the thief himself gets ambushed just a few steps later, he gets maimed and robbed by yet other Nuke addicts who themselves sidestep a mugging and barely manage to avoid getting killed when a storefront is blown up. It's very much a Just Say No type of cautionary tale about drugs but it's pretty brutal. The nihilism is almost inescapable.

Still, some good came out of it. The movie was shot primarily in my city. My parents were friends with people who worked late nights in the downtown area who regularly got the you-know-what scared out of them by the explosions and stunt sequences. These people were mostly ambivalent about political issues. But they became pretty much totally anti-war by the time production wrapped because of how loud the production got at times.

RoboCop 2's idea of the police going on strike is a bit prescient in retrospect.

All in all, RoboCop 2 isn't a bad movie. I think it's main sin is that it's not a GREAT movie. Considering the wit, sparkle, satire and originality of the first RoboCop film, RoboCop 2 being "not a bad movie" is simply not good enough.

I had no idea about the anniversary, but it's a bit ironic, because I just re-watched this movie last week for the first time in about 10+ years. It's still a fun movie, but yeah, it's not the first one. But hey, at least it's not Robocop3 or the old live action tv show.

Not sure if this is directly addressed in SN's post but I suppose there's a parallel where the hero of both RoboCop 2 and TDKR suffers a debilitating injury at the hands of the villain. When the hero gets his mojo back, he realizes that the gloves have to come off with dealing with the villain. With Batman, it's becoming "the surgeon" whereas with RoboCop it's erasing literally all of his directives.

In each case, that's the hero being his truest self, in a sense. In both stories, the hero can only overcome the villain by operating "without rules". In Miller's world, one supposes that the only way to overcome utterly lawless chaos is to impose equally ruthless order. And what the mayors in both stories refuse to accept is that order cannot be restored with niceties and diplomacy. When people say that Miller has a literary fascination with one-man fascism*, I can see where they're coming from.

In both stories, the hero's victory is shortlived. Yes, Batman defeats the Mutant Leader. But the tradeoff is an escalation of events leading to the Joker going on a killing spree. Yes, RoboCop arrests Cain. But the tradeoff is that Cain becomes RoboCop 2, who goes on a killing spree**. In both cases, the hero must kill his enemy in order to truly win the day. Final victory thus hinges not only one an absolutely pure will ("taking the gloves off") but also the determination to kill the villain.

* Yes yes yes, I understand that's not actual fascism but that is what the word has come to mean in the lexicon so that's what I'm using here.

** Yes, I interpret Batman's final showdown with the Joker in TDKR as Batman killing his enemy. Those weren't the Joker's dialogue balloons in the carnival.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 01:18
Not sure if this is directly addressed in SN's post but I suppose there's a parallel where the hero of both RoboCop 2 and TDKR suffers a debilitating injury at the hands of the villain. When the hero gets his mojo back, he realizes that the gloves have to come off with dealing with the villain. With Batman, it's becoming "the surgeon" whereas with RoboCop it's erasing literally all of his directives.

In each case, that's the hero being his truest self, in a sense. In both stories, the hero can only overcome the villain by operating "without rules". In Miller's world, one supposes that the only way to overcome utterly lawless chaos is to impose equally ruthless order. And what the mayors in both stories refuse to accept is that order cannot be restored with niceties and diplomacy. When people say that Miller has a literary fascination with one-man fascism*, I can see where they're coming from.

If you want to win against such odds, I don't think there's any other way. As Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite reaction to chaos is strict order. When you have a wakeup call defeat ala TDK Returns or Robocop 2, you either get on your knees and submit to that new status quo, or get angry and decide to end things once and for all. There are only those two options. Which leads to...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 01:18
the hero must kill his enemy in order to truly win the day. Final victory thus hinges not only one an absolutely pure will ("taking the gloves off") but also the determination to kill the villain.

The Joker kills an entire live audience of people, then kills the carnival kids with poisoned fairy floss - which is absolutely savage. He's done some dark things, but that has to be near the top. Which shows there ISN'T an end point for how far things will go if you let them go. Some people will only stop when they are forced to stop. Otherwise it just goes on and on.

Another observation I'd like to make about this film concerns the ending. A cliché common to superhero films is the showdown revolving around a large inner city building that holds some kind of symbolic value. Often the tower in question has only recently been completed or is still under construction, and at some point the hero and villain end up fighting on the roof or one of the upper storeys while the citizens watch from below. Examples of superhero films that invoke this cliché include Darkman, Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers. It was also subversively referenced in Glass, where the showdown at the skyscraper is teased throughout the film only to be replaced by a brawl in a car park. I think I'm right in saying that RoboCop 2 was the first superhero film to centre its finale around this type of scenario. I know Batman 89 did something similar one year earlier, but that was an old gothic cathedral rather than a pristine skyscraper.

Moving on, I happened to watch Elektra (2005) last night, and while researching its production I discovered some interesting trivia related to RoboCop 2. Apparently Oliver Stone was trying to develop an Elektra film in the late eighties and early nineties. During the making of RoboCop 2, Frank Miller approached Galyn Görg, who played Angie, and offered her the lead role.

Quote"Frank Miller, he was great, I had a really good time with Frank Miller, he signed my The Dark Knight Returns book. I've said this in a couple of interviews lately because I keep thinking it's going to get back to him, but he and I used to meet for dinner and he told me about this part, he said, "You know there's this part, this script I want you to play. I think you should play Elektra; you'd be really good as Elektra.  At the time I thought, OK, that's great, but, you know, they went on and Jennifer Garner did that."

http://www.adamgerace.com/tag/galyn-gorg/

Görg may not have been an A-list star, but shortly after RoboCop 2 she appeared in Point Break and had a recurring role in the second season of Twin Peaks. She also resembled how artists were drawing Elektra in the early nineties.



Would she have made a good Elektra?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 01:18
Not sure if this is directly addressed in SN's post but I suppose there's a parallel where the hero of both RoboCop 2 and TDKR suffers a debilitating injury at the hands of the villain. When the hero gets his mojo back, he realizes that the gloves have to come off with dealing with the villain. With Batman, it's becoming "the surgeon" whereas with RoboCop it's erasing literally all of his directives.

I love that sequence. In all the earlier shootouts, RoboCop has to wait for the criminals to open fire before he can use lethal force. But in that scene he initiates the violence by pre-emptively shooting the sniper through the eye. Later he steals a motorbike to pursue Cain, which is something else he'd have been incapable of doing with his Prime Directives in effect. The scene where he captures Cain is pure Murphy, uninhibited by OCP's rules.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 22:47Moving on, I happened to watch Elektra (2005) last night, and while researching its production I discovered some interesting trivia related to RoboCop 2. Apparently Oliver Stone was trying to develop an Elektra film in the late eighties and early nineties. During the making of RoboCop 2, Frank Miller approached Galyn Görg, who played Angie, and offered her the lead role.

Quote"Frank Miller, he was great, I had a really good time with Frank Miller, he signed my The Dark Knight Returns book. I've said this in a couple of interviews lately because I keep thinking it's going to get back to him, but he and I used to meet for dinner and he told me about this part, he said, "You know there's this part, this script I want you to play. I think you should play Elektra; you'd be really good as Elektra.  At the time I thought, OK, that's great, but, you know, they went on and Jennifer Garner did that."

http://www.adamgerace.com/tag/galyn-gorg/

Görg may not have been an A-list star, but shortly after RoboCop 2 she appeared in Point Break and had a recurring role in the second season of Twin Peaks. She also resembled how artists were drawing Elektra in the early nineties.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVGBJ7mZ/elektra.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Cx1QDw0B/elektra-1.png)

Would she have made a good Elektra?

Well this is sad. Less than a month after me posting this, Galyn Görg has passed away from cancer at the age of 56.

https://movieweb.com/galyn-gorg-dead/

Galyn Görg was a very beautiful woman.  It was sad to read of her passing (a day before her 56th birthday) from cancer, at a similar age to Kelly Preston (Space Camp, Twins), who also died from cancer very recently.

Funnily enough, I'm currently listening to the Robocop 2 episode from Reel Comic Heroes Podcast, a podcast that I highly recommend (since it covers many of the type of films we like discussing on this very site): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyaZheOwVnP0fFkeRhj07xw/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyaZheOwVnP0fFkeRhj07xw/videos)

Would anyone have a link to the proposed follow up, "Corporate Wars" script by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner?

I am having trouble finding it. I've run up on sites that have details of what was proposed, but unfortunately not the script itself.

R.I.P. Galyn Görg.

Silver dropping knowledge I was completely unaware of seems to be a more frequent occurrence these days, but I had no idea Frank Miller approached Galyn about Elektra during the filming of Robocop 2. Honestly, I actually forgot she was even in Point Break! As far as Elektra goes, I can see why Miller would have thought Galyn would be a good fit. As she was pretty much the physical embodiment of the then contemporary Elektra at that point.

Yet another one of those "what if" proposed film/castings we'll always wonder about.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 22 Jul  2020, 07:39Would anyone have a link to the proposed follow up, "Corporate Wars" script by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner?

I don't know if their script has ever actually leaked online, but I've certainly never read it. I have read summaries of the plot and it sounds as though it was more deeply entrenched in the cyberpunk genre than Miller's script ended up being. Apparently aspects of The Corporate Wars treatment were adapted in the first episode of the nineties TV show: 'The Future of Law Enforcement'.


I've also heard that Neumeier and Miner planned to use their RoboCop 2 treatment as the basis of the RoboCop Returns script, which may explain why it's so hard to find online these days. If that film ever sees the light of day – and I sincerely hope it does – then we might get a documentary charting the development of their original Corporate Wars sequel.

Thanks for the info, Silver!

You know, I actually have the complete Robocop tv series on DVD, along with the 4 "Prime Directives" films, but just haven't spent the time to sit down and watch them yet. Perhaps, soon, I'll give the tv series a go (especially the first episode, if only to get a taste of what "The Corporate Wars" might have been like). I have some memories of the tv show as a kid, but it seemed like the show only aired late on either Fri/Sat nights, and I only saw a few episodes here and there.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 25 Jul  2020, 18:43
I've also heard that Neumeier and Miner planned to use their RoboCop 2 treatment as the basis of the RoboCop Returns script, which may explain why it's so hard to find online these days. If that film ever sees the light of day – and I sincerely hope it does – then we might get a documentary charting the development of their original Corporate Wars sequel.

That's what I was figuring. That the script is now rather difficult to find on websites due to the proposed Robocop Returns sequel being in development.

Here are a couple of videos relevant to RoboCop 2. The first is the official music video for 'The Kid Goes Wild' by Babylon A.D. It features specially shot footage of Robo himself along with Gabriel Damon reprising his role as Hob.


I like to think that this ^ is canonical – that Hob faked his death and RoboCop later busted him at a Babylon A.D. concert.

This second video is a promo for RoboCop's infamous WCW appearance to promote the movie. According to Sting, it was Peter Weller himself in the suit.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 25 Jul  2020, 21:40You know, I actually have the complete Robocop tv series on DVD, along with the 4 "Prime Directives" films, but just haven't spent the time to sit down and watch them yet. Perhaps, soon, I'll give the tv series a go (especially the first episode, if only to get a taste of what "The Corporate Wars" might have been like). I have some memories of the tv show as a kid, but it seemed like the show only aired late on either Fri/Sat nights, and I only saw a few episodes here and there.

I watched the live action TV series when it first aired in the mid-nineties, but I've not seen it since. Back then I liked it and had some of the action figures, but I don't know if it holds up very well in 2020. Probably not.

Was the Prime Directives any good? I did see the first episode when it was released on DVD, but I barely remember it and never got around to watching the other episodes. I know Murphy's son was working for OCP, and the violence was closer to the R-rated tone of the first two films than the earlier TV show. Other than that, it's a major blank spot in my RoboCop knowledge.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=40AfsP9q0EE

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 17 Aug  2021, 06:36
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=40AfsP9q0EE

Thanks for posting this, J. While I do have a soft spot for RoboCop 2, the more I hear about The Corporate Wars the more I feel like we were cheated out of a potentially great sequel. I'm generally opposed to reviving classic franchises at this point, mainly because the modern entertainment industry keeps screwing them up and I'd rather see some fresh IPs. That said, I still think the potential's there for one last great RoboCop movie. One that would finally deliver a sequel worthy of the 1987 original.

Unfortunately the slow progress of RoboCop Returns is starting to show symptoms of development hell. Peter Weller's already 74, so unless they're planning to deepfake his face onto a younger actor's body they need to get moving.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 18 Aug  2021, 17:32
Thanks for posting this, J. While I do have a soft spot for RoboCop 2, the more I hear about The Corporate Wars the more I feel like we were cheated out of a potentially great sequel. I'm generally opposed to reviving classic franchises at this point, mainly because the modern entertainment industry keeps screwing them up and I'd rather see some fresh IPs. That said, I still think the potential's there for one last great RoboCop movie. One that would finally deliver a sequel worthy of the 1987 original.

Don't mention it, SN.

This video did a lot in going over much of the details I was previously unaware of with the "Corporate Wars" proposed sequel. I really don't have much of an issue with the Robocop 2 we ultimately have, but yeah, I can see "Corporate Wars" being better in some ways. One thing I'm kinda "iffy" about, as far as the story line goes, is the big timeline jump from what was firmly established in the original Robo to what was going to be the case in "Corporate Wars". Sure, it might have worked, but I feel as if there was more to explore of that vision of the world, that OCP controlled Detroit, that we were introduced to in the original Robocop. Robo2 pretty much gave us this (complete with Ann Lewis returning, which was welcomed), but unfortunately it's an uneven film and most assuredly not the tightly edited, pretty much "perfect" film that the original was.

QuoteUnfortunately the slow progress of RoboCop Returns is starting to show symptoms of development hell. Peter Weller's already 74, so unless they're planning to deepfake his face onto a younger actor's body they need to get moving.

True. However, in this current climate with ACAB, and negatively towards white males, I can't help but think Robocop Returns remaining in developmental hell might actually just be a blessing in disguise. Which is sad to say, but it is what it is.

Though there is this documentary to look forward to.

Been waiting on this one for quite awhile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-PhCGk6F8

Quote
Though there is this documentary to look forward to.

Been waiting on this one for quite awhile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-PhCGk6F8

A while too long, if you ask me. The problem with independent documentaries like this one is that they have no deadline and keep working on it for years on end. This was supposed to be out 4 years ago, but they are making this needlessly complicated with complex editing that ultimately is distracting from the subject manner. Then they had to stop everything once Welles decided he wanted to talk.

The main attraction to this project was how they got mostly everyone that was involved in the sequels. The first film has exhausted it's self with special additions that covered all aspects of the production and the material that they were present for this new documentary seems superfluous at this point.

"RoboDoc"

Ha, I love the name. lol

Quote from: Kamdan on Thu, 16 Sep  2021, 13:16
A while too long, if you ask me. The problem with independent documentaries like this one is that they have no deadline and keep working on it for years on end. This was supposed to be out 4 years ago, but they are making this needlessly complicated with complex editing that ultimately is distracting from the subject manner. Then they had to stop everything once Welles decided he wanted to talk.

The main attraction to this project was how they got mostly everyone that was involved in the sequels. The first film has exhausted it's self with special additions that covered all aspects of the production and the material that they were present for this new documentary seems superfluous at this point.

4 years? It's been that long? Apparently so. Guess time flies by when you're having fun (yeah right!). Come to think of it, there's another documentary this company is producing that's going on for at least 4 years now as well, and that's the "IT: The Story of Pennywise" which focuses on the 1990 mini series. You pretty much better get used to waiting awhile when it comes to some of these projects.

Honestly, I'm just a sucker for documentaries I guess. Hell, I remember watching the accompanying documentaries for the 2001 "Superman The Movie" DVD release, and the 2005 SE "Batman 1989, Returns, Forever, ect" DVD's MORE than I did the actual movies themselves. Probably because I had already seen them so many times, but it's definitely something I am into. I mean, just last year I happily purchased Scream Factory's box set of the "Friday the 13th" movies, and even though there's already a seperate 9+ hour long documentary on blu ray going over the entire series, I would be lying if I said that any of the additional new extras Scream Factory provided in the set wasn't also warmly welcomed.

Although, yeah, I get what you're saying. The 1987 film has been focused upon by prior documentaries, to where this one might come across as a tad repetitive. However, with Weller actually participating in this, and giving his own personal perspective in a Robo documentary, that's not just vintage footage of him speaking spliced in like how Keaton and (I think) Devito were in the SE docs of Batman 89 and BReturns, this will by far be the doc's biggest draw for possibly being superior to any previous efforts. Not being overtly familiar with the company producing this, I don't really have any expectations on a particular stylistic approach to their documentaries. I can say that the guys who produced both "Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy" documentary, and "Crystal Lake Memories" certainly had a similar format.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 16 Sep  2021, 15:44
"RoboDoc"

Ha, I love the name. lol

;D

QuoteAlthough, yeah, I get what you're saying. The 1987 film has been focused upon by prior documentaries, to where this one might come across as a tad repetitive. However, with Weller actually participating in this, and giving his own personal perspective in a Robo documentary, that's not just vintage footage of him speaking spliced in like how Keaton and (I think) Devito were in the SE docs of Batman 89 and BReturns, this will by far be the doc's biggest draw for possibly being superior to any previous efforts. Not being overtly familiar with the company producing this, I don't really have any expectations on a particular stylistic approach to their documentaries. I can say that the guys who produced both "Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy" documentary, and "Crystal Lake Memories" certainly had a similar format.

Weller had actually participated in the interviews conducted for two-disc steelbook DVD edition, so it's not as thought getting him for this new documentary is as special as they're playing it out to be. The only advantage I see here is what he has to say about the sequel which the features on the Scream Factory Blu-ray made it very apparent that it's exceptions weren't met at all from not only a financial standpoint but also creative one.

Keaton and Pfeiffer's input were achieved interviews while Nicholson and DeVito got to contribute new interviews. I don't blame them for not wanting to new interviews since the archived ones that were done for publicity when the films came out make the perspective fresher than them trying to recount where they were at that point in time. There's a fantastic YouTube channel called The Bobbie Wygant Archive that features movie press junket interviews she conducted. I can recall at one point Wygant interviewing Joel Schumacher during the junket for The Client and inquiring about the then recent casting of Val Kilmer and Jim Carrey for Batman Forever and Schumacher addressing why Keaton and the rumored Robin Williams were out of the runnings. That's something you can only capture in that moment and not recall later since it's old news.

Those Friday the 13th and Elm Street documentaries are great examples of what the audiences wants out these. There was a 15 minute clip from the RoboDoc that was subsequently taken down that showcased what they're trying to achieve with a bunch of unnecessary graphics and wacky editing that seems like they want to win an award for instead of sticking to the main objective of a documentary: to inform. When you are shifting the attention away from the subject and make it the editor's showcase and prolonging your intended release date, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities. Since there's no release date in sight, we all would've been better off if they are just handed over their interview footage to another company for it to be included on the last Blu-ray releases.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri, 17 Sep  2021, 13:14
Weller had actually participated in the interviews conducted for two-disc steelbook DVD edition, so it's not as thought getting him for this new documentary is as special as they're playing it out to be. The only advantage I see here is what he has to say about the sequel which the features on the Scream Factory Blu-ray made it very apparent that it's exceptions weren't met at all from not only a financial standpoint but also creative one.

Alright, yeah. For whatever reason, it was Kurtwood Smith and Miguel Ferrer interviews for the 20th Anniversary doc really stood out to me. I seem to recall Peter Weller looking very tanned during his interview. I'll have to check it out again, as it's been awhile.

QuoteKeaton and Pfeiffer's input were achieved interviews while Nicholson and DeVito got to contribute new interviews. I don't blame them for not wanting to new interviews since the archived ones that were done for publicity when the films came out make the perspective fresher than them trying to recount where they were at that point in time.

I agree to an extent, but one of the things I've noticed having watched many pro wrestling "shoot" interviews during the 2000's, and 2010's, as opposed to now where "shoot" interviews have determinately been replaced with wrestling podcast shows, is that there are times where we the viewer/listener get more information on a subject than what we had previously, thanks to unique circumstances like the interviewer focusing upon a specific line of questions about a specific topic, or two people, going back and forth between themselves and apparently having jogged their memory to a degree. It's interesting what you can get out of people due to how the format/questioning is set up.

QuoteThere's a fantastic YouTube channel called The Bobbie Wygant Archive that features movie press junket interviews she conducted. I can recall at one point Wygant interviewing Joel Schumacher during the junket for The Client and inquiring about the then recent casting of Val Kilmer and Jim Carrey for Batman Forever and Schumacher addressing why Keaton and the rumored Robin Williams were out of the runnings. That's something you can only capture in that moment and not recall later since it's old news.

Funny you mention that, as I actually just became aware of that channel about 6 months or so ago when I purchased the 'Indicator Series' release of Brian DePalma's "Body Double" that featured a vintage interview, just prior to the release of the film if I am remembering correctly, with Craig Wasson (also on Bobbie's youtube channel) which wasn't on the previously released DVD SE. Wygant's youtube channel also features vintage "Body Double" interviews with DePalma himself, Melanie Griffith, and the lovely Deborah Shelton as well. There's definitely a wealth of vintage goodies on that channel to say the least.

QuoteThose Friday the 13th and Elm Street documentaries are great examples of what the audiences wants out these. There was a 15 minute clip from the RoboDoc that was subsequently taken down that showcased what they're trying to achieve with a bunch of unnecessary graphics and wacky editing that seems like they want to win an award for instead of sticking to the main objective of a documentary: to inform. When you are shifting the attention away from the subject and make it the editor's showcase and prolonging your intended release date, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities. Since there's no release date in sight, we all would've been better off if they are just handed over their interview footage to another company for it to be included on the last Blu-ray releases.

That's unfortunate. Having just taken a look on cultscreenings.co.uk's website, I apparently have seen one of their documentaries before, which was the "You're So Cool, Brewster! The Story of Fright Night" documentary that was included on the latest blu ray release. I only viewed this doc once, but I thought it was well put together. Especially with William Ragsdale as the horror host homage for Roddy McDowall's Peter Vincent. However, I was consciously aware that the version I watched was indeed edited, as the section of the doc going over "Fright Night II" is regrettably missing. That's only found on the blu ray release of the doc itself from what I gather.

I've had some interest in checking out another doc produced by this company, "Leviathan: The Story of Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II", but I've never actually pulled the trigger on that one. Not that I am optimistic, but hopefully that 15 min video you mentioned got absolutely ratioed with down votes to where following the circumstances of Peter Weller deciding to participate, this company then had some justification in going back and being much more straightforward with the documentary format, rather than what was your description of putting too much emphasis on trying to be overzealous with graphics and editing.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 15 Sep  2021, 22:04
Though there is this documentary to look forward to.

Been waiting on this one for quite awhile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-PhCGk6F8

I read about this doc years ago but forgot it was even coming out. I'll certainly give it a look when it's finally released. I recently watched two of my other favourite Weller movies – Buckaroo Banzai (1984) and Leviathan (1989) – and now I'm in the mood to see him in something new, even if it's just a documentary.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 17 Sep  2021, 15:07I've had some interest in checking out another doc produced by this company, "Leviathan: The Story of Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II", but I've never actually pulled the trigger on that one.

I watched some of the Leviathan documentary years ago after someone posted in on YouTube, but what little I remember of it wasn't very good. It was mostly just Clive Barker's friends and colleagues repeatedly stating what a genius he is. To be fair, I didn't watch the whole thing, so it might have gotten more interesting after the first half hour.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 24 Sep  2021, 15:02
I watched some of the Leviathan documentary years ago after someone posted in on YouTube, but what little I remember of it wasn't very good. It was mostly just Clive Barker's friends and colleagues repeatedly stating what a genius he is. To be fair, I didn't watch the whole thing, so it might have gotten more interesting after the first half hour.

Wow. Ok. I sincerely hope it would. Especially considering the Leviathan doc's running time is advertised to be around 9 hours long!

I mean, I like Clive Barker alright. I like the earlier Hellraiser movies (like, not love, but like), but if the doc just continually goes in circles with Barker's friends/colleagues fawning all over him, then ... yeah, perhaps never seriously seeking this one out was the right call all along.

Peter Weller is reprising his role as Murphy in RoboCop: Rogue City, a new videogame scheduled for release in June 2023.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  8 Jul  2022, 12:37
Peter Weller is reprising his role as Murphy in RoboCop: Rogue City, a new videogame scheduled for release in June 2023.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ2hZ-4JCTE

Not necessarily. The trailer came across as a budget release in disguise that's trying to distract you and make you assume things. It never says that they've hired Peter Weller. What you actually get is a licensed sound clip of his voice from the first movie. I had reservations from the beginning. This does not alleviate those feelings. 

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri,  8 Jul  2022, 14:03It never says that they've hired Peter Weller.

From the statement below the video:

QuoteWelcome to Detroit; crime runs rampant as the city lies on the edge of ruin, people fighting for scraps as others live extravagant lives of luxury. Control of the Detroit Police Department is given to the Omni Consumer Products corporation in an attempt to restore order. You are that solution, RoboCop, a cyborg tasked with protecting the city.

The triumphant return of RoboCop wouldn't feel right without the man who brought so much life into the role, and we're excited to reveal that Peter Weller will be performing voiceover work on the game. Enjoy this first look at gameplay and for the record, "dead or alive, you're coming with me!"

RoboCop: Rogue City will be coming to PC, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S and Nintendo Switch in June 2023.

I'm on board with the concept and hoping for the best. These developers made a Terminator game, which I haven't played, but apparently it was decent. Going first person was the right choice here and what we see of the shooting looks good. No recoil, not bothering with taking cover and gory splatter when the bullets hit.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  8 Jul  2022, 14:22

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri,  8 Jul  2022, 14:03It never says that they've hired Peter Weller.

From the statement below the video:

QuoteWelcome to Detroit; crime runs rampant as the city lies on the edge of ruin, people fighting for scraps as others live extravagant lives of luxury. Control of the Detroit Police Department is given to the Omni Consumer Products corporation in an attempt to restore order. You are that solution, RoboCop, a cyborg tasked with protecting the city.

The triumphant return of RoboCop wouldn't feel right without the man who brought so much life into the role, and we're excited to reveal that Peter Weller will be performing voiceover work on the game. Enjoy this first look at gameplay and for the record, "dead or alive, you're coming with me!"

RoboCop: Rogue City will be coming to PC, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S and Nintendo Switch in June 2023.

I stand corrected.

Looks pretty cool.

Apparently, I am horrible at first person shooter games (trying to play first person shooter Bond video games, or Call of Duty with friends has unequivocally proven this), but then again, it's Robocop. Anything Robocop deserves a look! If it doesn't work out for me, I can always go back to the outstanding '88 arcade game.

Looking pretty mid tier, but solid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwSlTifgYA

Not bad. The ambience of the world seems somewhat lifeless, but the gameplay itself captures what Robocop is about. If we had law enforcement programmed to enforce the law equally, without bias, the protected class would be clogging the jails or dead on the pavement. Instead, the guilty are protected, the truth hidden to protect the narrative and the innocent harassed. Those that create urban hellholes like modern day Detroits, Baltimores and the like keep pushing the same policies that created the mess while subsequently getting softer on real solutions. Robocop is needed more than ever.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 18 Sep  2012, 23:35The only Robocop movie I have any interest in is the first one. And even then I'm not a devout follower.

How things change. The new game brought renewed interest in the Robocop universe and after revisiting it for the first time in a long time, the sequel is definitely underrated. There's some good ideas and action to be found.

I picked up Rogue City and it's fantastic - following on directly from Robocop 2 and even segueing in to Robocop 3, even if that movie remains atrocious. I'm willing to ignore 3 anyway, or imagine the events play out differently and with Weller still in the role. I still have a bit to go, but at this point Rogue City is the best thing to happen to the franchise since the original two films, and I'd be happy to consider it canon. They captured the vibe.

Something I like about Robo is the black and white upholding of the law no matter who he's dealing with. If they've done the wrong thing even if they're a politician or high powered CEO, "you're under arrest." He doesn't care about secret deals and favors. I once said I'm not a devout follower of the character, but my appreciation has grown. It's quite a fascinating world to get into in terms of hard violence and social commentary. I also like how he's a tank in combat but nonetheless at serious risk throughout, eg. being torn apart in Robo 2 and freezing due to traumatic memories.

I haven't played Rogue City yet, but I've watched some clips on YouTube and it looks like a blast. What I've seen reminds me of the 2009 Ghostbusters game, insofar as both bring back the original star(s) and feel like true sequels to the first two films. With RoboCop Returns wallowing in development hell, Rogue City might be the closest we get to a proper third Weller RoboCop movie.

I've renamed this thread and merged it with two other RoboCop-themed topics. From now on this can be the general all-purpose RoboCop discussion. Any talk about the movies, TV shows, comics or games can go here.

Checked out "Robodoc The Creation of Robocop" documentary last weekend, and it's by far the most in-depth documentary about the making of the film. As it clocks in at about 240 minutes. Thankfully, due to the doc being in 4 parts, it's more easy to digest rather than it being just one long exhibit of an extensive documentary.

Robodoc is a nice companion piece for the previous "Flesh and Steel" Robocop documentary (which was glaringly missing from the latest disc release of Robocop in 2020), and I would recommend checking it out. Following Robodoc, I think info on Robo1 for documentaries have been absolutely exhausted. A documentary on "Robocop 2" would now be the obvious route to take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd81QzeY954