# One Early RoboCop Reaction Calls The Remake Better Than The Original



## trappedslider (Sep 21, 2013)

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/early-robocop-reaction-calls-remake-original.html

I'm tempted to give this movie a benefit of a doubt


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 21, 2013)

I'm not. But I'll see it anyway, cause sci-fi+baggage.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 21, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I'm not. But I'll see it anyway, cause sci-fi+baggage.



I read an interview with the director of the new Robocop movie where he was talking about all the symbolism and meaning behind the original movie. I don't think he really paid attention to the original movie when he saw it. Either that, or he didn't really see it. He totally missed all the good stuff in the original. 

And I really hate that they left him with a human hand. Of all the body parts to leave human, why the hand?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 21, 2013)

Well, with the human hand he can [redacted].


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 21, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Well, with the human hand he can [redacted].


----------



## Herschel (Sep 25, 2013)

It wouldn't be hard to be better than the original. The first two really annoy me as there was so much symbolism and emotional set up that was abandoned later in the film for mindless shoot-'em-up nonsense. Balancing those out would be a big improvement.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2013)

Lol, in the new Robocop overwrites his programming with emotions. Just that is so lame it make me want to puke.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 25, 2013)

I'll reserve judgment until --or if-- i see the reboot. Frankly, Paul Verhooven --in full 'biting the hand that's feeding him' mode-- directing satiric, near-future, dystopian SF, starring Paul Weller is going to be hard to beat. 

Very hard to beat.


----------



## Bullgrit (Sep 25, 2013)

I've seen several references to the orginal movie's ultra violence, but really, I don't remember it being any more violent than any other action movie. Plenty of violence, sure. But a notable increase? No.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I've seen several references to the orginal movie's ultra violence, but really, I don't remember it being any more violent than any other action movie. Plenty of violence, sure. But a notable increase? No.
> 
> Bullgrit



Same number of bullets shot, esplosions and people killed that typical action flicks, but with more blood and gore. That was the big difference.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2013)

But is it better then Robocop 3?


----------



## Nytmare (Sep 26, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I've seen several references to the orginal movie's ultra violence, but really, I don't remember it being any more violent than any other action movie. Plenty of violence, sure. But a notable increase? No.




I don't know the exact numbers, but there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between the unrated cut of the movie, and the theatrical release.  The one that sticks out the most in my mind being that the scene where ED 209 shoots that first board member was easily at least three or four times as long, filled with nothing but bullets.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 26, 2013)

I was excited about the remake until I heard it's going to be PG13 - I mean, seriously?!


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

You're surprised? Hollywood wants money, so safe, lowest common denominators and already established franchises are kings. This is why you get Breaking Bad and Liberace on the TV now and lame flicks like Jack Sparrow in the Wild West, I mean The Lone Ranger in theatres.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 26, 2013)

Breaking Bad and Behind the Candleabra were "safe" choices?  For all the LCD drek out there those two are rather poor examples of "safe" choices.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

No, BB andLiberace aren't safe, that is my point. TV makes the unsafe choices now, flicks make the safe ones. It wasn't always like this.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2013)

No, sometimes TV makes the safe choices and sometimes not.  Sometimes movies make the unsafe choices and some times not.  The mediums are way too broad and with too many titles to label them all one way.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

I ment it clearly has a generalization, but I stand by it. Hollywood plays it very safe now. Films are mostly remakes of big blockbusters. Mostly action flicks. True comedies are rather rare as humor doesn't export well (international markets are getting more and more important). 

On the other hand TV takes risks. Walking Dead, Dreaking Bad, Mad Men, Liberace, etc... TV still plays it safe, but this is were creativity is happening _now_. Maybe if film producers dare to make films with smaller budgets, they will dare to take risks (and thus stand to lose less money). 

Of course, the academy awards should reward these smaller flims. Why wasn't Micheal Fassbener even nominated for best actor in _Shame?_


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2013)

You name 4 shows out of the hundreds that are there.  There are far more reality shows and action TV shows and soap operas then quality TV shows.  None of them you list are on a major network.  Big Budget movies are the same as a CBS TV show.  AMC TV show is more like an Indy film.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

AMC and HBO are rather big and popular. AMC's Waking Dead broke records of audience last season. It is not marginal.

If your argument is to say that there aren't enough good shows on TV right now, I agree. However, I never said risky TV shows were blastered wall to wall on the tube. Just that risk taking is being done by TV producers, not film producers.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2013)

Walking Dead is based on a comic, so it is no better then movies based on books or 30 year old films.  Making a Zombie TV show based on a very popular comic at the height of the Zombie craze is not risk.  Pacific Rim is more original (and I don't think it is that original) and was a bigger risk as a movie.  This is the End, Conjuring, and Now you See Me are just some of the movies this year that are not based on past properties.  

There are some TV shows and some movies that would be a risk.  Heck, I imagine more are a risk then we know about even ones based on previous done works.  As I write this I'm not sure what your argument is anymore.   There is no way we as outsiders can truly appreciate the financial risk of a TV show or movie.  It is very possible the the shows and movies we listed as risky really are not.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

A TV series about zombies is very much a risk, even if the graphic novel was popular. Graphic novels about zombies are a rather niche market. Zombies are a bit more popular now, but not that much. Same for the horror genre. Killing off major characters is not a typical USians trope, athought that is changing. There is a reason why only 6 episodes were made in the first season. It was a risk. 

PR is a risk because of the money invested, but it remains safe, It was a big action flick with lots of special effects. Not a big innovation. The risk was that it was untested (not a franchise) and financially it didn't pay off. With a 400 million $ gross, it barely makes the twice the production budget mark for a film to be considered successful (not lose money).

This is the End, The Conjuring, Now you see me, aren't risks. They were rather safe bets. 

Yeah, I do not think you understood what I said from the beginning.


----------



## Felon (Sep 28, 2013)

There's only a few major shocker scenes in the original. One is with ED 209, the other with Murphy's "death" scene, and then later towards the end there's the guy getting doused with toxic waste and run over.

Many a torture-porn film that exceeded this level of violence has come and gone without such fanfare. But there was a five-year period around 1986-1990 where violent action films were given bigger budgets and marketed as summer blockbusters. Horror and crime films had traditionally been the venue for violent fantasies, so flicks like Robocop, Predator, and Total Recall that combined gore with the latest in special FX were something new and (unfortunately IMO) they didn't stick.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what kind of rating the new Robocop gets.


----------



## Felon (Sep 28, 2013)

Herschel said:


> Breaking Bad and Behind the Candleabra were "safe" choices?  For all the LCD drek out there those two are rather poor examples of "safe" choices.






goldomark said:


> No, BB andLiberace aren't safe, that is my point. TV makes the unsafe choices now, flicks make the safe ones. It wasn't always like this.






Crothian said:


> No, sometimes TV makes the safe choices and sometimes not.  Sometimes movies make the unsafe choices and some times not.  The mediums are way too broad and with too many titles to label them all one way.






goldomark said:


> AMC and HBO are rather big and popular. AMC's Waking Dead broke records of audience last season. It is not marginal.




There really isn't as much disagreement as you guys are making it out to be. Major networks (and that's NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX) play it safe for the most part, while smaller networks take risks. Makes sense. If you have a large established audience, you avoid risks in order to keep it. If you have a smaller audience, you take risks in order to attract and maintain attention.

HBO and AMC represent particularly successful risk-takers. Of course, they have a lot staked on one or two ventures at any given time, going all-in to command that Sunday night prime-time slot.

It's pretty standard survival-of-the-fittest stuff. See the same thing in the fast-food industry. MacDonalds keeps their menu very stable, while their competitors are throwing all kinds of crazy crap alongside their burgers in an effort to gain any kind of leg-up they can. I predict that at some point will just start selling garbage bags full of chili, tater tots, buffalo wings, bacon, and pizza rolls, and then just drizzle about a gallon of cheese all over it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 10, 2014)

I watched the movie today and I consider it to be really amazing. 

I am surprised it got a PG-13 rating, because the scene where Murphy's "real" body is revealed is... shocking, in a way I haven't seen or be able to empathize ever before. 

[sblock]
There are many themes and parts of the story I liked - like Gary Oldman's scientist digging himself into the situation and escalating his methods against his original principles ever further.
It's fascinating because he is both manipulative without simply cruel, uncaring or purely egoistic, and he is manipulated in turn to go as far as he does.

The way he "fixes" the problem of Murphy's hestitation compared to the machine is well done - the illusion of free will he gives Murphy is, after all, hits so close to what research in the area suggests, and is of course a fascinating topic to explore. 
[/sblock]

Oh, and I want to see more Jackie Earle Haley.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 11, 2014)

I will see it but the "I, Robot" jumping show in the trailer is rubbing me the wrong way.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Feb 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And I really hate that they left him with a human hand. Of all the body parts to leave human, why the hand?



Probably because they didn't have someone tell the doctors to lose the hand this time around.



goldomark said:


> Lol, in the new Robocop overwrites his programming with emotions. Just that is so lame it make me want to puke.



Happened the last time around as well, or did you not notice him assaulting and nearly killing an unarmed man in violation of his programing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 11, 2014)

calronmoonflower said:


> Probably because they didn't have someone tell the doctors to lose the hand this time around.



Damn, I was hoping he was going to do some undercover prostitution work.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Damn, I was hoping he was going to do some undercover prostitution work.



1. Robocop is always under cover. And you don't want to see him without his covers. 



Spoiler



(But you will, if you see the movie.)



2. He is married, he'd probably have moral issues with it, and this is not something the AI installed in his robocop suite is prepared to handle. Of course, one has to wonder what kind of sex life he and his wife will have. Some might argue that could be the least of their problems, but I'd argue it might actually be a big problem for any relationship. At least he still has 



Spoiler



a face and the hand.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 1. Robocop is always under cover. And you don't want to see him without his covers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I saw pics. Nothing special.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I saw pics. Nothing special.




Did you see it animiated, on a big screen? In the context of the movie, with all the emotional impact associated with it. Some stills don't show you how it works in the movie.
Ah, what do I care. You don't have to like, see or care about it. 

But I highly recommend it anyway.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 11, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 1. Robocop is always under cover. And you don't want to see him without his covers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I worked for a time with the fire department down here as a dispatcher. As part of the job, and continued training, we had to go on ride-alongs with rescue units. I'm pretty sure seeing Robocop without his covers will have much less of an impact than seeing an eight year old girl after she was hit by a tow-truck, which happened to have stopped on top of her, and "de-gloved" the girl's skin from her waist down, when it screeched to a stop


> 2. He is married, he'd probably have moral issues with it,



I doubt it. Marriage isn't  some magical thing that stops you from doing 'immoral' things. 







> and this is not something the AI installed in his robocop suite is prepared to handle.



It can easily be programed in, don't you think? 







> Of course, one has to wonder what kind of sex life he and his wife will have. Some might argue that could be the least of their problems, but I'd argue it might actually be a big problem for any relationship. At least he still has
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He is a walking, talking sybian.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I worked for a time with the fire department down here as a dispatcher. As part of the job, and continued training, we had to go on ride-alongs with rescue units. I'm pretty sure seeing Robocop without his covers will have much less of an impact than seeing an eight year old girl after she was hit by a tow-truck, which happened to have stopped on top of her, and "de-gloved" the girl's skin from her waist down, when it screeched to a stop



Well, I suppose not. But I suspect that not every potential viewer has had this experience. 



> I doubt it. Marriage isn't  some magical thing that stops you from doing 'immoral' things. It can easily be programed in, don't you think?



I don't know. How easy is it to programm a prostitute AI?



> He is a walking, talking sybian.



Not quite. I think he's missing the right parts for that, unless you just use sybian as generic name for "electro-motor driven sex toy".


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Did you see it animiated, on a big screen? In the context of the movie, with all the emotional impact associated with it. Some stills don't show you how it works in the movie.



I'm rather jaded when it comes to "gore" and especially what most people consider to be "gore". 

I go to a film festival with lots of horror flicks programmed in it and I (with a lot of people) clap when good gore scenes are showed. I clapped during the baby rape scene in A Serbian Film. Good times. Nowadays I clap a lot less when I got to that festival.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 12, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I'm rather jaded when it comes to "gore" and especially what most people consider to be "gore".
> 
> I go to a film festival with lots of horror flicks programmed in it and I (with a lot of people) clap when good gore scenes are showed. I clapped during the baby rape scene in A Serbian Film. Good times. Nowadays I clap a lot less when I got to that festival.




I am usually jaded about movie violence and gore, too. That's why I found it memorable this time, that I actually empathize more about it then usual. Maybe I am going soft, but I doubt it...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 12, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, I suppose not. But I suspect that not every potential viewer has had this experience.



I think more people should. It would give them more perspective on what could happen when you're not paying attention while out on the road. The girl survived, by the way. The ride to the hospital was rough.



> I don't know. How easy is it to program a prostitute AI?



I'm not a programmer, but I'm betting programming particular behaviors and prices for those behaviors should be far easier than the programming it would take to do what they did to Robocop in this movie. 


> Not quite. I think he's missing the right parts for that, unless you just use sybian as generic name for "electro-motor driven sex toy".



I'm sure like the Sybian, you can add attachments.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Feb 12, 2014)

Really surprised me how enjoyable this was. 

My buddy was pretty disgusted in the under the hood scenes.

Satire was good, though usually much more subdued than the original. Like how they hung a lampshade on how dangerous a 



Spoiler



electrical stun weapon


 can be, but then just kept on using it over and over.

I wonder just how much OCP stock Samuel Jackson's character owned.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 14, 2014)

Saw it today and I saw the original wednesday. 

The original definitaly has a lot of flaws, but it has some import elements going for it: pacing, Peter Weller and the social critics. The reboot has few of those.

Let us start with Weller. What's his name wears a suit, he is not a robot. Weller's movement in the RobotCop suit really added to the flavor of the film, creating the illusion of a robot, and really acted like an emotionless bot. Granted it helped a lot that his faced was hidden for most of the film, and when his face his reveal, the make up and the impact it created are still good today, but what's his name doesn't have the movements or the emotionlessness. 

The pacing is horrible in the reboot. The first hour is a waste and bascially an exposition. I was bored. The original really dispensed with unimportant elements like the family which were reduced to flashbacks. Now it is at the heart of the story. This is a trend in films action films now, the protagonists have families men now. Lame. The evil dude was under exposed. More to the baddy would have been a boon. I didn't care about him. No emotional involvement from me. I wasn't even sure he was shot when he was and didn't care about him dying. In the orignal it mattered. 

The social critic are hit and miss. The spots with SML are supposed to be a social critic, but they rarely hit the target. It lacks the venom and pertinance the first ones had and mostly are consensual. SML does drop an MF bomb. I recongnized him cause of the wig. 

There is also the question of the law. RoboCop shoots an unarmed police officer in the reboot, yet he seeks justice. That doesn't work for me. He should be jailed for that one if other people are jailed. 

Very disapointed with it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 15, 2014)

Well... that's discouraging. I bought tickets to go see it tomorrow. Is there any action in the first hour?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well... that's discouraging. I bought tickets to go see it tomorrow. Is there any action in the first hour?



Yes, there is.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 15, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, there is.



Besides human cop getting blown up, is there any action?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 15, 2014)

Some Iranians get blown up and human cop Alex Murphy gets to shoot his gun. 



Spoiler



A Iranian kid get blown up by a ED 209. Maybe the most critical element of the film. Made me smile. Not enough kids get blown up in films these days.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Besides human cop getting blown up, is there any action?



Sorry for being so vague - I just didn't want to spoil any real story elements. 
If you need more detailed spoilers than goldomark provided: 
[sblock]
The beginning is a scene how drones are used to keep peace in Iran or Afghanistan, and a bunch of terrorists trying to kill the media team that's there. It basically makes a point on how effective - and terrifying - these machines are. Machines might get lost, terrorists get killed. Soldier(s*), Media crew, non-combatants - all fine.

Then there is a scene where Murphy and his partner get into a shoot-out while they are undercover trying to catch the "villain" of the story. His partner is injured, Murphy gets out okay. This is bascially the reason for the villain actively going after Murphy, realizing he won't stop, he can't be bought, and the cops the villain bought can't control him either.


*) not actually sure anymore if there is more than one - the "pacification" is very automated...
[/sblock]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 15, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sorry for being so vague - I just didn't want to spoil any real story elements.



It's cool. Actually, I rarely get upset about spoilers. I mean, it has to be some really integral part of the story for me to actually be bothered by it.


> If you need more detailed spoilers than goldomark provided:
> [sblock]
> The beginning is a scene how drones are used to keep peace in Iran or Afghanistan, and a bunch of terrorists trying to kill the media team that's there. It basically makes a point on how effective - and terrifying - these machines are. Machines might get lost, terrorists get killed. Soldier(s*), Media crew, non-combatants - all fine.
> 
> ...



I actually finished watching it about 45 minutes ago. It was interesting, and I enjoyed it. I think part of the reason I enjoyed it is because I had gone in with low expectations. 
When I read the article with the director I already had my expectations lowered. After Goldo's remarks, they were lowered even more. 

If you're going in expecting it to have all the same kind of criticism and social commentary as the original one, I think you'll be disappointed. If you go in expecting it to be more shoot 'em up, I think you'll enjoy it. At least that's how I felt. It was fun. It had it's moments. People got shot. Some cheesy lines were said. There was that line from Haley's character "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" referencing the commercials/show from the original movie. Then there was Sam Jackson screaming 'mother #%$&^*!'.' That was funny, especially in the context it was said. 

Also, I forgot who said that the under the chassis scene was harsh. It really was a let down. I expected so much more. That was very sanitized. 

The suit looked cool.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 16, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The suit looked cool.



I don't know. All I could think of was Night Rider.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 16, 2014)

Knight Rider was an awesome show. It gave us The Hoff, the greatest actor to ever act. In fact, I bet The Hoff would have made this new Robocop movie 100 times better.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 16, 2014)

Anyone drunk on the bathroom floor trying to eat a burger is entertaining.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 16, 2014)

A scene like that would have made Robocop infinitely more entertaining.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 16, 2014)

I just got a flash of that human stub (head, lungs and heart), wiggling on the bathroom floor trying to eat a burger.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 16, 2014)

You forgot the hand. that reminds me, seriously, why the hell did they keep the human hand? He had nothing attacking it to the rest of his organic parts. What was the point of keeping the hand?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It's cool. Actually, I rarely get upset about spoilers. I mean, it has to be some really integral part of the story for me to actually be bothered by it.
> I actually finished watching it about 45 minutes ago. It was interesting, and I enjoyed it. I think part of the reason I enjoyed it is because I had gone in with low expectations.
> When I read the article with the director I already had my expectations lowered. After Goldo's remarks, they were lowered even more.
> 
> ...




[sblock]
I don't remember anything about the first movie, I am not even sure I ever saw it entirely (or at all), it's been too long. 

The movie worked for me, and that didn't have anything do with low expectations. There was actually something I kinda expected or hoped for and I got that. 

*The Scientist*
I really liked how the scientist played by Gary Oldman did go further an further away from his ideal to "save" the project. It was a great performance and it felt very... believable. 
It was not as if he was evil or anything. He had good intentions, but under the pressure he basically cracked. 
He started with finally agreeing to the project at all because he was promised money for his regular research to help people. 
When Murphy woke up and asked the Doctor to kill him, he didn't just refuse, he talked him out of it, basically manipulating Murphy. 
Then Murphy fails to compete with the drones. And he goes a step further - he takes away Murphy's control - Not Murphy made the decisions, it was the AI, but he gave Murphy the illusion that he made that decision.*
And when Murphy breaks down as he reviews his own murder, he manipulates him again, manipulating his brain chemistry so he stops feeling. 
I would have not been surprised if he, at this point, was really willing to kill Murphy for the sake of the continuation of his original research. That he did not was certainly not guaranteed. I am not sure if this makes him the anti-hero or the anti-villain?

*The Illusion of Free Will *This is the part that I was hoping for.
*) The part where Murphy lost his free will to the AI was also very powerful for me because some research in brain activity suggests that this is how it really works - the body already has done something, and only _then_ do you get the feeling that you decided to do that. Seeing the principle applied in the movie resonated very strongly with me.
Of course, eventually Murphy does overcome all this. I think there is some relevance to the fact that he didn't start recovering until he realized that his son how his father was critically hurt in the bomb explosion. 

*Drones & Politics*
I honestly don't find it very likely that the US citizens would be so adamant against the use of drones for police services, but I could be wrong. 
But this premise certainly made the whole story of making a cyborg cop believable in the first place. Because there really isn't a good reason to do it otherwise. It's costly, risky, painful. You can just hire a new cop if the old one becomes an invalid, and you won't find many people even willing to go undergo such a procedure. Making it a test bed to circumvent a law worked for me.

I found the Terrorist/Drone Police Force in the beginning of the show very interesting. We are still far away from this magnitude, but the concept is there. I figure the "natives" in that scene don't really care all that much whether drones or soldiers are controlling them. But it probably adds a bit of extra terror to know that if you would fight back, you'd just destroy or damage a few expendable machines, while likely losing your own life. (It's not as if the drones took any prisoners there...) We all know that a powerful argument for drones is that it means less dead soldiers for the side using the drones. Is there also the hope that it will demoralize resistance against oppressors or "peace-keepers"? Will we still be able to distinguish the terrorists and mad-men from those that just wish self-government and independence, and would we care?

Interestingly, I don't think the movie tried to give us all the answers, even if Samuel L. Jackson's character was obviously portrayed negatively. Because despite his potrayal - the drones really lived up to the expectations and promises of the corporation making them. The were impartial. The did keep the media reporters in the beginning safe. They kept the civilians safe. They didn't shoot Murphy's partner when he acted as a human shield. They really only hit the legitimate targets. They were probably genuinely more effective than a real soldier or police man would. And while I found the scene in the beginning somewhat unsettling, with the natives so under control - Imagine the same scenario with real soldiers...
[/sblock]


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 16, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You forgot the hand. that reminds me, seriously, why the hell did they keep the human hand? He had nothing attacking it to the rest of his organic parts. What was the point of keeping the hand?



Scratch his nose? 

I'm only semi-kidding. His face his still made of flesh, maybe he would feel less alien if he can touch himself with a real hand? 

Contact with others less alien? Shaking a human hand might be less intimidating for citizens.

Maybe it is a wink at the original film? In the first film they couldhave saved one of his arm.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 17, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't remember anything about the first movie, I am not even sure I ever saw it entirely (or at all), it's been too long.
> 
> The movie worked for me, and that didn't have anything do with low expectations. There was actually something I kinda expected or hoped for and I got that.



The movie had potential, but it just didn't deliver. It felt as if they should have developed their ideas better but instead, they rushed it, and gave us a weak product that while entertaining on the shoot 'em up part, didn't have much else going for it.



> [sblock]
> *The Scientist*
> I really liked how the scientist played by Gary Oldman did go further an further away from his ideal to "save" the project. It was a great performance and it felt very... believable.
> It was not as if he was evil or anything. He had good intentions, but under the pressure he basically cracked.
> ...




[sblock=Respose]
Gary Oldman's character had potential, but he wasn't developed enough. The transformation from carring doctor to company man, to redeemed scientist was far too quick, and there really was't much conflict. He just did things because he wanted to. [/sblock]


> [sblock]
> *The Illusion of Free Will *This is the part that I was hoping for.
> *) The part where Murphy lost his free will to the AI was also very powerful for me because some research in brain activity suggests that this is how it really works - the body already has done something, and only _then_ do you get the feeling that you decided to do that. Seeing the principle applied in the movie resonated very strongly with me.
> Of course, eventually Murphy does overcome all this. I think there is some relevance to the fact that he didn't start recovering until he realized that his son how his father was critically hurt in the bomb explosion. [/sblock]




[sblock=Response]
I've read these studies. The basic idea is that your brain has made the choice before you are aware of that choice. I liked that the movie took this part on. The doctor made changes to Robocop's brain chips, and he explained that the program made the choices and then sent these signals to Robocop's brain to make him think that this was a choice that he had made. This had great potential, but I really think they screwed it up by making him rewrite the programing with his "emotions." That just killed it.[/sblock]



> [sblock]
> *Drones & Politics*
> I honestly don't find it very likely that the US citizens would be so adamant against the use of drones for police services, but I could be wrong.
> But this premise certainly made the whole story of making a cyborg cop believable in the first place. Because there really isn't a good reason to do it otherwise. It's costly, risky, painful. You can just hire a new cop if the old one becomes an invalid, and you won't find many people even willing to go undergo such a procedure. Making it a test bed to circumvent a law worked for me.
> ...



[sblock=Response]
First, I have to admit I was very disappointed with the new ED209s. They seemed so easily destroyed, and underused. They didn't appear as a competing product, as the originals did. I know, the new humanoid robots were supposed to be the competing product, but they weren't. The ls in the movie took them out. They were only really used at the start of the movie, and in the training scenes. The original ED209s played the role of the competing, yet flawed product, much better. 

As for Sam Jackson, and his show, I did like that, but again, underdeveloped. It was a funny parody of a Fox News style show, and a decent way to comment on the media' ability to influence the public, but they just didn't do much with it. I mean, who was Sam Jackson's character? Was he in collusion with Keaton's character? Why was he so interested in drones being on U.S. street? He just seems like an extra that has a few lines. He had amazing potential, but they just didn't bother to do much with it.[/sblock]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Scratch his nose?
> 
> I'm only semi-kidding. His face his still made of flesh, maybe he would feel less alien if he can touch himself with a real hand?
> 
> ...



Whatever the reason, it was a failure. There was no need for him to have a human hand. Hell, I think th whole "under the chassis" scene was pointless. What did it really accomplish?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Whatever the reason, it was a failure. There was no need for him to have a human hand. Hell, I think th whole "under the chassis" scene was pointless. What did it really accomplish?



Shock value? Or try to shock. Like the first one managed to. It failed and was very G.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Shock value? Or try to shock. Like the first one managed to.



What's so shocking about a hand? 


> It failed and was very PG.



It was. They didn't even have the toxic waste mutated guy get creamed by a van in this movie.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Or Murphy's hand getting shot and esplode. That was sweet.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 17, 2014)

call me jaded, did not have the WOW that I felt at the first.  it was okay, a 3 out of 5 and looking at the numbers, maybe a failure at the box office; only taking in 22 million and coming in 3rd place after The Lego Movie and About Last Night.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Or Murphy's hand getting shot and esplode. That was sweet.



Yeah, the whole scene where Murphy gets injured just doesn't have the same effect.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Not a lot of effects rousing up emotions when you think about it. 

What I found really useless was taking away RoboCop's emotions, only to give them back like 5 minutes after.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not a lot of effects rousing up emotions when you think about it.



Yup. Also, the drug dealer character didn't really seem to evoke any emotions, either. They should just not have had that character in the movie. Murphy could have been injured in some car accident, and it would have had more of an impact on the movie.



> What I found really useless was taking away RoboCop's emotions, only to give them back like 5 minutes after.



Yah, and that's about as long as it takes for the Gary Oldman's character to go from company man to redeemed scientist with a conscience.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yup. Also, the drug dealer character didn't really seem to evoke any emotions, either. They should just not have had that character in the movie. Murphy could have been injured in some car accident, and it would have had more of an impact on the movie.



Pretty much. It felt as if writers were done with the script and then someone said: "Damn, we forgot about Forman's dad! Well, we could use another shootout and add another 20 minutes to the film."

Sargent D-Bag was enough as RoboCop's main physical antagonist that needs to be defeated. His motivations for hating RoboCop weren't clear. Maybe more screen time would have helped.  



> Yah, and that's about as long as it takes for the Gary Oldman's character to go from company man to redeemed scientist with a conscience.



Emotions are powerful stuff. They can overright programming.


----------

