|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Oh man, I am so bummed that the remake of a movie that spawned a toy line and an cartoon for kids is going to be rated PG13. That's totally out of line. I'm pretty disappointed too that a movie that was pretty brilliant and subversive for its time about how we commoditize violence and sell it to people has been itself commoditized to sell violence- including a new remake of the movie that will do just that while pretending to have anything really to say about the original message. Oh you meant that ironically welp.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Hollis posted:I don't know why you keep referencing Cronenberg since uh.. Paul Verhoeven directed the original Robocop and the original was Jesus Robot and a distinct send up of the 1980s and American Consumerism. Somebody else was suggesting how the remake could (somehow) have a Cronenberg aspect to it, LeJackal was responding to them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
To rehash something I said in the Greenlight thread- I don't buy the "they're doing their own thing" argument as being very strong. From the trailer they haven't changed much to the original structure of the movie. Murphy is still there and a good guy cop with a family. OCP is still there as a big evil company. Murphy dies and is made Robocop against his will. OCP is in control of Robocop. Murphy struggles to return to himself. There's some action. You can't think it's not a Robocop film! So what do we know has changed? -Murphy's wife and kid are characters throughout the story -Murphy is far more cognizant and "himself" after the surgery than last time -There may or may not be a central Kirkwood Smith type bad guy -The climax may very well be Robocop versus OCP based on some of the scenes -They've slightly updated the message to 'drones are bad'...which drat don't cut yourself on that bleeding edge issue! -There are a bunch of Robocops! All those things humanize Robocop into just being Murphy, streamline the conflict down, point towards an ending that doesn't betray the hollowness of the genre, and raise the action/visual stakes. So it's doing it's own thing...by taking even fewer risks than the original? The satire and message in the story worked in part because Verhoeven also subverted elements of the genre, character and conflict common to an '80s cop/action film. That he did that without sacrificing the narrative cohesion or pace of the film was impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Looking back on the trailer and just focusing on Keaton, Jackson and Oldman. Keaton, like I mentioned in the other threads, looks like the only person having any fun in this. Also with the feng-shui office and relaxed biz-casual clothing, it seems like they're going for a slight Steve Jobs riff? Definitely fits the "let's go with black" line. I really like that update, shifting away from the power-suits of "The Old Man" and Dick Jones, and clearly targeting silicon valley types as being just as big pieces of poo poo as any conglomerate CEO. Jackson and Oldman seem capped though in this trailer. All we really see is them delivering exposition, but Jackson doesn't look/sound as dead as Mace Windu, and I feel like you can hear the edge of a mad scientist in Oldman's "Emotions and fear will always interfere with the program!" Obviously both have great resumes as scenery-chewers, and I would hope each gets a shot to really let it all out. I feel like if those three can work their magic, then I'll give this film (as otherwise presented in the trailer) a chance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:I read a little something from the director on CNN which makes me a little more hopeful. Except there's been a massive amount of pressure in America to end the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and any analysis of soldier casualties would should that from a soldier's lives cost they've been fairly cheap wars. Pressure still exists because people also consider the broader political/diplomatic implications, lives of civilians in the area, cost in dollars etc etc etc. Nor did the Vietnam War really end just because of pressure over US soldier casualties... If the director really said that, then he is a very not smart person. A dumb person. That is the term.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:
I'm pretty sure the movies they've made are 100% actually real things. Like they exist in the world, and are not mere illusions an evil demon has inflicted upon our senses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:
Hmm good idea. I'm assuming it's this one: http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/06/robocop-remake-gets-a-trailer/?iref=allsearch where he says quote:"I actually had a take ... which is we’re in the future, and drones have been replaced by robots and are being used all over the world for foreign policy and war," Padilha explained. "Kind of like instead of sending soldiers to Iraq, you send robots to Tehran." So that is in fact literally what he said? The quote wasn't doctored or really at all out of context. Not only did he say something stupid, he explains in part why it's stupid in the next paragraph, but does not actually seem to link it up? I understand Brazilian director Jose Padilla is an amazing man amongst men, Hindu Beast God, but he is wrong and stupid here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 21:53
|
|