|
Dickeye posted:Except that post is doing the exact same thing, whining about how it's not True To Robocop based on some pictures and ninety seconds of scenes that are arranged in a different order adn context from the final movie. Glad that's all it takes to deem a movie "soulless" these days. Closet Cyborg posted:Seriously. People need to go back and watch the trailer for the original film. I did it while discussing this on facebook, and the original Robocop trailer doesn't make it look like anything special. No political subtext, no complex internal struggle, just a cop who gets turned into a cyborg. With that in mind, I can't just write off the remake based on the trailer.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
JebanyPedal posted:It's not about being shot for shot, it's not about even being faithful to the plot construction of the original, it's about the feeling, about the voice of the film. You don't have to recreate Verhoeven, you simply have to recreate, or at least establish a facsimile, of that same atmosphere, the same voice that films from the decade possessed. I would have thought a remake would be a good excuse to try something else myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
I'm the biggest RoboCop fan in the loving world, and I'm still gonna go see this on opening night because it's going to be a good popcorn flick and it will remind me of my favorite movie ever. Also, Rageaholic Monkey posted:Also, here's Rich Evans Rageaholic Monkey posted:from RedLetterMedia Oh, bloggers that pretend to make movies. Cute. Slim Killington fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
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:Also,
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie 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. That sounds like a pretty accurate description of RLM actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:Oh, bloggers that pretend to make movies. Cute. To be fair that also describes CD
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
The biggest problem with this remake of robocop, and really a lot of modern blockbusters is that much like in the 80's we are in another era of big budget B-movies. The difference is that today's big budget B-movies are trying to convince you that they are deep well written stories. That they deserve to be taken seriously. Where as in the 80's where we had they same kinds of big budget schlock. They had fun with their movies. They knew they were b movies and they ran with it. And if the script was good enough you could see real themes and messages in the movies. This just looks like a generic superhero movie where they are making it obvious they take themselves really seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I feel like the basic inversion of theme set up in the trailer (1980s Robocop is a man in a robot who has been enslaved and convinced he is really a soulless corporate death machine, 2010s Robocop thinks he's a man when he's really been a soulless corporate death machine all along) is a pretty perfect modern response to the original, which may be why I gag on that poo poo-awful 'human compassion... will always defeat The System!' monologue. Funny that people bring up the costume design and more visible semblance humanity as problems in the new one given how half the trailer strongly implies he is now actually a killbot guided by company policy with a corpse crudely stapled on for PR purposes, and even the corpse is fooled. Turns out the future of American justice wasn't what they thought it'd be in the 80s, but it does have a better effects budget. Hell, right down to the way he moves. 80s Murphy's little flourishes with his pistol were a nostalgic affectation of his former life, an early tipoff that even if he'd forgotten its significance his humanity had remained in some fragmentary, buried aspect, even while he went clanking around shooting the place up on command. 2013 Murphy detects a threat and doesn't hesitate to pop open his chrome exterior to eject clacking metallic death at you - he's not Roy Rogers anymore, he's a Transformer that will run angst.exe on cue. None of this means it's shaping up to be a great movie, mind - if the dialogue winds up half as brain-dead and clunky in the film as it was in the trailer I sure as hell won't be watching it, hell even what was in there alone would be enough to make a movie significantly worse - but the accusations that it doesn't get it or is mindlessly ripping off the Robocop franchise for a fast buck with none of the commentary or awareness of its origins seems off-base. Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
If Robocop is set five minutes into the future, I don't see why the remake can't borrow that premise (and wisely, almost nothing else).DeclaredYuppie posted:Nor did the Vietnam War really end just because of pressure over US soldier casualties... That's not quite what he's saying, maybe you should read the interview?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Crosspost from TFR: The CG in this movie is way overdone and hilarious, to the extent collapsing ammunition magazines are somehow physically possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
I too am angered by unrealistic firearms in a movie about a cyborg police officer. Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Ah yes, I too am condescendingly smug and dismissive of anyone who isn't instantly excited for a heavy CG remake void of distinctive art direction or making any attempt to get the viewer to care about the world there-in. It's not like the character design is entirely reminiscent of every other generic videogame space marine design in existence.    The problem with this comically generic design is that it contrasts with the Steve Jobs influence over Michael Shannon's character, the mastermind tech guru, who apparently couldn't be bothered to hire an industrial designer to make an armed cyborg cop at least palatable to the public - contrasted with the industrial, clunky designs of the original. Added to the laughable contrivance of making the main character deformed in an explosion instead of violently torn apart by the criminal underground, on top of the laughable technobabble of "oh he thinks he's really in control but he's not" instantly becoming "he's overriding the system!" burns out any sort of goodwill. People deriding the original trailer really don't give it enough credit - it spends the vast majority of it practically being a commercial for Robocop, showing him fighting crime, tearing up paper targets, and so on - before showing the conflict of the film very quickly at the end. In the new trailer, it instantly screams dystopia - the opening shot is a CG drone, which later on tears apart a rooftop with comical imprecision. The PG-13 rating ensures the film won't show the effects of that violence - making it comically "radical" and "badass" instead of horrifying and suspenseful. There's a huge emphasis on drone warfare, but it's so disconnected from the reality we're starting to live in, from BIGDOG to Predators that it becomes laughable. I'm a huge fan of the director's previous works, the Elite Squad franchise, and would highly recommend them - and the film could, possibly be totally smart and subversive, but from what they've shown so far it's far too Hollywood CG bloodless blockbuster to really accomplish anything but entirely miss the mark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:I too am angered by unrealistic firearms in a movie about a cyborg police officer. Are you serious? It's pretty great that they went to lengths to make his gun even bigger and more gunny than the original's over-the-top ultraviolent guns, to the extent of making it unfold in a little dance that no actual object in the world does or could because it otherwise wouldn't even fit in a giant robothigh (contrast to the original, where they had to add a bunch of poo poo to an already big machine pistol so it wouldn't look like a toy in Robocop's giant hands). That's a straight-up cartoon of a gun. Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
He's a person trapped inside the body of a toy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:if you're gonna remake an 80s film, you don't have to make it an exact copy of the original, you just have to create a similar kind of atmosphere and feel to it so that it's connected with the original. I really want to read a justification for this statement. Does John Carpenter's the Thing connect its atmosphere to the original 1951 The Thing from Outer Space? Why do we have to preserve the atmosphere of 80's film when remaking something that's going on 30 years old? Audiences have changed; tastes have changed. Why do we have to preserve the "atmosphere?" Not even commenting on the trailer, I just want to know why you say this in particular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
To the contrary, being injured by an explosion instead of gunshots is a perfectly appropriate way to update Robocop for 2014. Inner city crime was a much bigger deal in the 80's. These days out social anxieties lie elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
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. Dont you see how much food for thought this old action movie is packed to the gills with, what about like... society man! what if we are all the robocops!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Inner city crime was a much bigger deal in the 80's. These days out social anxieties lie elsewhere. Yes, I too am terrified of being carbombed by organized crimelords. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5V9HylVb5I
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Yes, I too am terrified of being carbombed by organized crimelords. You're not supposed to be Robocop. He died and was resurrected to save us from evil. And today he takes the fight to 'dem drat ter'rists threatening the American way! (Did they say who it was that bombed him in the trailer? I don't remember that.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Yes, I too am terrified of being carbombed by organized crimelords. I think its fair to say terrorism in general is a pretty big social anxiety these days. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Lotish posted:I really want to read a justification for this statement. Does John Carpenter's the Thing connect its atmosphere to the original 1951 The Thing from Outer Space? Why do we have to preserve the atmosphere of 80's film when remaking something that's going on 30 years old? Audiences have changed; tastes have changed. Why do we have to preserve the "atmosphere?" Audiences and tastes may have changed since 1987, but does that mean that the original has to be forgotten in the name of catering to them? I don't think so. If you're gonna make a movie with a completely different feel than the original, make a new original movie, don't use the same name/general plot as a classic film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Taking it here from the Greenlight thread.James Woods Fan posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmtQXUXez8 Well that looks like a piece of poo poo! The metallic Robocop suit looked pretty OK, but the black suit is just too bland. One of the things I liked about the original Robocop design is how blatantly in your face he is with the ridiculous chrome body. This version just looks like Tactical Shooty Guy #4156. It also looks like they've added a bunch of needless poo poo into the movie ("you really need to talk to your son!", "it's like he's overwriting the programming somehow!") which just seems to prove my admittedly prejudicial notion that this movie isn't going to be very good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I still haven't seen the original 1951 Thing From Outer Space, but the 2011 remake of The Thing stays pretty faithful to Carpenter's version from 1982 in tone/atmosphere, and I thought it was a pretty decent movie. That's because the 2011 film isn't a remake, but a prequel. It tries to be faithful because you have to believe that after it wraps up the '82 film can pick up where it leaves off. And no one's going to forget the original, which will continue to exist. That's actually part of the problem for this film--people here won't stop thinking about the original while they watch the trailer and tick boxes in their head about how they believe it has already failed. Putting the original out of my mind when looking at that trailer actually makes the film seem better. edit: Could they have avoided that by making an original film? Who knows. The film they might have made in that hypothetical situation could have been accused of being a rip-off, or never even had a chance because of a lack of brand recognition, or been the messiah of social commentary action movies for all we know. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Lotish posted:I really want to read a justification for this statement. Does John Carpenter's the Thing connect its atmosphere to the original 1951 The Thing from Outer Space? Why do we have to preserve the atmosphere of 80's film when remaking something that's going on 30 years old? Audiences have changed; tastes have changed. Why do we have to preserve the "atmosphere?" I'm really curious about that, too. Good remakes / reboots / re-imaginings / re-whatevers take a concept, that may (Star Trek) or may not (Battlestar Galactica) have been done well in their original incarnations, and do something different with it. The inclusion of Murphy's wife in the RoboCoppization, for lack of a better term, is a really cool spin on things, a point that penismightier brought up with me on Twitter the other night. The best part of RoboCop 2 is exploring the body horror that was perpetrated upon Alex Murphy without his knowing consent; this could be a really interesting take, in that at some point he learns that his wife had him turned into a cyborg. The other thing to keep in mind is the line, "The illusion of free will." That says everything about where this film is going, I think: What happens in an authoritarian, "You are free to do as we tell you" society? We're asking ourselves that question today in light of PRISM, drones, secret courts, the PATRIOT Act, etc. It's a very relevant theme, and I have faith in Padilha to really explore it. Just because it doesn't hit the exact same beats as the original doesn't make it bad. Go watch the original film if that's what you want. If this new RoboCop sucks, it'll suck on its own merits, not because it was really different from the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Again, I'd like to reccomend the director's previous works - Trope de Elite 2 is really underrated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwTiu3typeY In other news they genderbent the partner Lewis and apparently kill them in the opening scenes, which is a real loving bummer. quote:Didn't hear a name for the partner, so maybe Lewis is still in the movie in some other way. Kill Murphy's partner and he teams up with a transfer in a reversal of their meeting from the original movie? Maybe Lewis was merged with his wife and that's her maiden name now. Check IMDB - Lewis is the black guy partner. Jefferoo fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Didn't hear a name for the partner, so maybe Lewis is still in the movie in some other way. Kill Murphy's partner and he teams up with a transfer in a reversal of their meeting from the original movie? Maybe Lewis was merged with his wife and that's her maiden name now. edit: Welp. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Can't say I care at all about satire in movies, what I want out of this is an entertaining action movie about a man in a machine who struggles with this situation. If it wants to comment satirically about drones or corporation stereotypes then that is fine with me but it's hardly what'll make the movie sink or swim for me
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Pat as it is to say "drones are bad" in your movie, I'm sure there's a lot of people that could stand to benefit from the message. And even after watching it, there will still be people who, unless it's a foreign country that's oppressing/injuring/killing US citizens (I mean people started committing hate crimes on people of Korean descent after Olympus has Fallen came out), will still think using drones or robots to control civilians is an acceptable "price of freedom."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:So that is in fact literally what he said? The quote wasn't doctored or really at all out of context. Except totally out of context. Let's remember what we're talking about here: "The point of 'RoboCop,' of course, is it is a Christ story," Verhoeven said. "It is about a guy that gets crucified after 50 minutes, then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes and then is like the super-cop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end." Because the reason why the Vietnam War ended is because soldiers were dying. When you take the soldiers away and you have robots, that opens a can of worms. The full color spectacle and senselessness of the Vietnam War repulsed Americans even before the highly publicized massacres that turned up the heat on the anti-war movement; at any rate, political will to continue fighting the war was broken in part by the unpopularity of the enterprise; a bloody guerilla conflict that had a shocking number of American casualties. I appreciate the director of the movie about the robot cop not giving a lecture on George McGovern, Cambodia, the Gulf of Tonkin, The Tet Offensive and the New Left. That would be pedantic. He's talking about now. Whereas newspapers in 2010 ran death counts to demonstrate the senselessness of prosecuting decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many don't even bat an eye at the fact that we are indeed prosecuting war from Pakistan down to the Yemen with unmanned aircraft. I don't think it's that offensive to make your action movie about why people consider that morally acceptable. We're talking about a movie about a robot cop, calm down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
The Onion really cutting to the heart of the matter of Robot Coppers: http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-robocop-trailer-reveals-main-character-to-be-s,33765/ It pretty much says all you can say about the new RoboCop movie at this point. Personally it doesn't look to me like it'll be good, but maybe... all we know right now is that it's about a Detroit cop in a robot suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Pat as it is to say "drones are bad" in your movie, I'm sure there's a lot of people that could stand to benefit from the message. And even after watching it, there will still be people who, unless it's a foreign country that's oppressing/injuring/killing US citizens (I mean people started committing hate crimes on people of Korean descent after Olympus has Fallen came out), will still think using drones or robots to control civilians is an acceptable "price of freedom." It's not a dumb message or dumb premise for a movie, it's just a dumb way of expressing a thing that people can use to be dismissive of stuff they've decided to dislike. The original could equally if not more easily be boiled down to "private police forces are bad" - if you're a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Ah yes, I too am condescendingly smug and dismissive of anyone who isn't instantly excited for a heavy CG remake void of distinctive art direction This isn't even true quote:or making any attempt to get the viewer to care about the world there-in. Glad you can tell this from 90 seconds of clips. quote:It's not like the character design is entirely reminiscent of every other generic videogame space marine design in existence. Perhaps a modern Robocop looking like the popular media conception of a Cool Soldier Guy Woo Hoo is the point? Seriously dude you started off by complaining about how unrealistic something is in a movie about a cyborg cop who stores his gun in his leg and then followed it up with a bunch of sound and fury signifying that you're mad about a remake. That's what I was making fun of you for, nothing else, but since you brought it up edit: Michael Shannon isn't even in this movie. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Again, I'd like to reccomend the director's previous works - Trope de Elite 2 is really underrated. Omar from the Wire is playing Lewis, so that's pretty interesting to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Omar from the Wire is playing Lewis, so that's pretty interesting to me. Hopefully they don't actually waste him by killing him off in the first few minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:\Seriously dude you started off by complaining about how unrealistic something is in a movie about a cyborg cop who stores his gun in his leg Mind you in the original it was a thing they bothered to at least make some sort of sense, partially due to the constraints of having to work with real props. Now it's a gun with more gun that shoots out more gun and also the ammunition apparently doesn't take up physical space in the world for the sake of look at this rad CG bro. It's the same poo poo we saw with Total Recall and that was a soulless dreg of a blockbuster remake as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:The problem with this comically generic design is that it contrasts with the Steve Jobs influence over Michael Shannon's character  
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
I bagged on the trailer a little but honestly I think the design is fine, it looks very modern. Robo looking like master Chief isn't a bad thing, its pretty relevant to modern media/the idea of the avatar of war that removes the soldier from the battlefield. I should probably watch some of the directors other films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:32
|
|
