|
I like how Keaton says they should replace the classic grey suit with a black one. That has to be a Batman '89 shout out, right?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
This entire discussion does bring up the question, how much can a film really be judged by it's trailer? I'm inclined to think the trailer is generic, but I felt mislead by trailers before. The trailer is such a different art form then making a film, and it's something a director rarely has control over, so I'm inclined to think that one bad trailer says very little about the quality of any film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
My general rule of thumb is that a bad movie can have bad trailers and good trailers, but a good movie very rarely has bad trailers. But yeah, you never really know. It almost sounds like a college philosophy question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:My general rule of thumb is that a bad movie can have bad trailers and good trailers, but a good movie very rarely has bad trailers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted: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. Even now, where having a goddamn debate about Syria because everyone knows something needs to be done, but American lives are worth more than Syrian lives apparently. No one wants to put "boots on the ground", which would have a good possibility to end the violence and prevent further ethnic and sectarian bloodshed like what happened in the intervention in Yugoslavia, so even if there's a military strike, it's some half-assed bombing campaign from high-altitude that might make matters worse. To Americans, it doesn't matter how many Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis or Syrians die as long as it's not Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Even now, where having a goddamn debate about Syria because everyone knows something needs to be done, but American lives are worth more than Syrian lives apparently. No one wants to put "boots on the ground", which would have a good possibility to end the violence and prevent further ethnic and sectarian bloodshed like what happened in the intervention in Yugoslavia, so even if there's a military strike, it's some half-assed bombing campaign from high-altitude that might make matters worse. To Americans, it doesn't matter how many Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis or Syrians die as long as it's not Americans. That's one hell of a stretch to justify Mr. Movie Director's grand unifying theory of American warmongering. Given that, y'know, in actuality none of the public debate involves the risk of Americans dead and it's more about either procedural bitching over the proper etiquette of invading a country without making anyone have to take responsibility for it, or questioning whether yet another colonial nation-building campaign is in the interests of the Syrians given how utterly disastrous the last several such attempts have been for the people of those countries. You've taken his sort of simplistic statement and made it an actually dumb and wrong one, bravo. Barlow posted:This entire discussion does bring up the question, how much can a film really be judged by it's trailer? I'm inclined to think the trailer is generic, but I felt mislead by trailers before. The trailer is such a different art form then making a film, and it's something a director rarely has control over, so I'm inclined to think that one bad trailer says very little about the quality of any film. Trailer alone doesn't say much, but you can find some stuff out, and it's useful in the context of everything else released about a film. You can make a terrible trailer of anything, and far moreso than any actual movie they're focus-grouped and formula-tested to death to fit a generic mold of what is supposed to appeal to the generic customer profile, so you can bet anything really wierd and iconic is going to be cut out in favor of trying to make it look like An Action Movie or A Romance Comedy or whatever they've decided it is. That said, they do contain a selection of the scenes that several people decided were the best ones to have you see to make you want to watch the rest of the movie. Which doesn't bode well when you get, well, that. I don't feel good about any of that being in a movie I'm watching even if they're unique anomalies in an otherwise excellent film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Crosspost from TFR: Gun nuts eclipse even the worst of comic book nerds when it comes to  and everything you've posted in this thread is a shining example of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
I think the main thing the trailer did was tell people to shut up about the black costume since it featured the classic chrome look for the majority of it. It's a little silly that we need black Robocop = OCP controlled/Chrome = good, but Michael Keaton's comment about making it "look tactical" seems like it might work.     Additionally, scrubbing through the trailer, it looks like Robocop is going to be fighting robots the entire movie. ghostwritingduck fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
He is literally presented as an action figure in this shot. Not that this is a startling piece of information, I just love that the "Look at these sexy KILLING MACHINES" thing isn't, apparently, just a fluke. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:
I don't know if anyone brought this up before, but I really don't like the redesigned ED209. It doesn't even look that good in a modern sci-fi, 'Bayformer' way. There was a promotional poster style picture of it in the old thread, and it looked like something that someone on deviantart whipped up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Gun nuts eclipse even the worst of comic book nerds when it comes to
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
The difference between these two pictures shows a pretty stark stylistic difference. I also noticed RoboCop2014 doing some pretty graceful leaps and jumps, versus the CLUNK CLUNK CLUNK walking of the original RoboCop. That and - of course - the fact that he seems (based on the trailer) aware of everything. That said though, they could maybe pull it off if they play up the "man versus machine" / "the power of human free will" angle well. I suspect that it'll be hamfisted tripe, but you never know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:The difference between these two pictures shows a pretty stark stylistic difference. I also noticed RoboCop2014 doing some pretty graceful leaps and jumps, versus the CLUNK CLUNK CLUNK walking of the original RoboCop. That and - of course - the fact that he seems (based on the trailer) aware of everything. Adding to that, there's a scene in the trailer where RoboCop steps down from a running board and the car doesn't move at all. Now the scene was very short and the car might actually be a tank. But to me it still looked like RoboCop doesn't weigh much more than a normal human being. Which just seems wrong. And the jumping bits gave me serious flashbacks to the burly brawl from Matrix Reloaded. RoboCop seems practically weightless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Next thing TFR is going to tell me is that the pulse rifles from "Aliens" aren't real! Say it isn't so! But they are real!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:The difference between these two pictures shows a pretty stark stylistic difference. I also noticed RoboCop2014 doing some pretty graceful leaps and jumps, versus the CLUNK CLUNK CLUNK walking of the original RoboCop. That and - of course - the fact that he seems (based on the trailer) aware of everything. Robocop being a big clunky beater was directly reflective of American car design of the time - see also the fact that it was set in Detroit.  Given how all cars are sleek and smooth and kind of all look the same, that update makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:I think the main thing the trailer did was tell people to shut up about the black costume since it featured the classic chrome look for the majority of it. It's a little silly that we need black Robocop = OCP controlled/Chrome = good, but Michael Keaton's comment about making it "look tactical" seems like it might work. I really like the chrome version a lot more. I'm sure that's just because it makes it a modernized but recognizable take on the Robocop suit, but still. In black it just feels so made-for-TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
If they wanted to do an edgy thematic costume change, I just wonder why not white? Think iPhones and Predator drones, the white knight in shining armor as a sterile smooth next-gen gadget of oligarchs programmed to kill troublemakers. It seems sort of obvious, especially with the new unfolding/unlocking supersmooth CGI thing they have him doing now, where IDK what black adds except making him look like Batman if Daft Punk had flown through Bruce Wayne's window.
Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Black is more tactical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Seriously though, why would someone making a movie make a Robot Super Cop who is designed to be a positive marketing face for drone warfare look like Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Black is more tactical. Then they should have done as the real cops do and gone with an environment-inappropriate FDE 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Seriously though, why would someone making a movie make a Robot Super Cop who is designed to be a positive marketing face for drone warfare look like Batman. Because Batman's cool, duh. Only in the recent movies do they pretend like every kid in the world doesn't want to be Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Because Batman's cool, duh. Only in the recent movies do they pretend like every kid in the world doesn't want to be Batman. I was being sarcastic. I guess I should stop doing that...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
I think it's way too soon to entirely write this off. For all we know the trailer is purposely subversive. I really doubt someone would remake Robocop only to throw away all the subtext that made it interesting and oh who am I kidding
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
I absolutely know that this movie is going to end with Robocop about to do something off the deep end and his wife and son are gonna yell "REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE" and Robocop comes to his senses and is good again or something like that. Edit: Other than that, I'm optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I was being sarcastic. Oh yeah...*anime face*
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I absolutely know that this movie is going to end with Robocop about to do something off the deep end and his wife and son are gonna yell "REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE" and Robocop comes to his senses and is good again or something like that. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
oh hey just noticed this thread OK, don't chew my head off, since I'm sure this has been brought up already, but I just posted this in the trailers thread. If anything take it was I'm seeing it too, if anyone else feels the same. Tommy 2.0 posted:I just thought of something regarding the RoboCop trailer. Regarding the car explosion putting him in the suit, and not the being shot to absolute pieces. Did it give anyone else vibes that is was something related to all the people getting deployed, or hell just living there, in the war zones getting blown up via explosive ordinance? With all the shots of the drones in the trailer, and the robots, if this is was intentional then it makes a lot more sense to me for them to go this route.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
That scene in the trailer where Robocop comes out of some cleaning/smoke-creating thing, looking chrome? I bet that he walks into that cleaning/smoke-creating thing in his black colors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:oh hey just noticed this thread From what we've seen, it looks like the movie should be called Robosoldier more than Robocop. I remember liking Robocop back when there was a live action tv series in 1994 which was entertaining. In fact, that was my first exposure to Robocop at all. I remember being a little surprised by how violent the first movie was, and I think I preferred the second one. I remember the third had ninja's and was awful. I can't believe I watched all those things as a kid, or that almost 20 years has gone by since then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:From what we've seen, it looks like the movie should be called Robosoldier more than Robocop. Wait but the American police force isn't militarized at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:I like how Keaton says they should replace the classic grey suit with a black one. That has to be a Batman '89 shout out, right? "Paint it black and sell it to SWAT" is literally a tactical gear/firearms industry joke. Meaning making something look more tactical without really changing its function can change its perceived utility and thus you can charge a premium for it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Gun nuts eclipse even the worst of comic book nerds when it comes to No, it's a fundamental difference between the approach to the two versions of the film. While the original had a ridiculous premise of a cyborg cop, working within the constraints of real props and animatronics helped ground the film with some sort of restraint to help draw the viewer into the world of the film. With this new one, and the heavy reliance on CG, combined with a horribly uninspired generic art style that's plagued science fiction for quite some time now across multiple mediums - these details sticks out more and becomes rather telling of the quality of the final film. It's one of the fundamental differences between the quality of the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies. What you call "spergin" is actually trying to understand the philosophy behind the film and what the final copy will most likely be. Stuff like bullets not taking up physical space in the world for the sake of making cooler looking CG sequences are clear indicators. Much like Total Recall and it's remake, the depiction of violence becomes rather unsettling for an unintended reason - Colin Farrell effortlessly mowing down nameless goons without a hint of blood and gore versus Schwarzenegger fighting for his dear life and all the horror that comes with it. Violence should be unsettling, uncomfortable, and something to avoid, not tactically endorsed and treated like a minor inconvenience. The PG-13 setting and the enemy being mostly drones is a rather uncomfortable indicator that the suits in charge would rather make a safe bet on applying the same philosophy used to make a profit on the Total Recall reboot than risk attempting the same sort of subversive commentary of the original that could throw off mainstream audiences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Violence should be unsettling, uncomfortable, and something to avoid, not tactically endorsed and treated like a minor inconvenience. When a bad guy in the trailer literally says to make Robocop look more tactical, why would you assume a tactical endorsement is a moral endorsement (or even a lack of moral condemnation). Obviously we're really far from seeing the actual film, but from what we know so far it looks like it's at least somewhat trying to be about the practice of putting a stylish, marketable face on government-sanctioned violence. When the goal of OCP is to present the New Face of American Justice, why wouldn't associated visual designs be about creating something slick, demographically viable, divorced from any practical but unsavory aesthetic consequences? I mean, hell, who knows, it's perfectly plausible that I'm being too charitable to the film. Maybe the seeds I'm seeing aren't something that the movie has the conviction to follow through on. But they're sure as hell there. vvv Next time I will add some emoticons to make the facetiousness more obvious Jenny Angel fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:Wait but the American police force isn't militarized at all You say that, but I see a lot of people in GBS complaining about how quickly we deploy SWAT for every thing and occasionally make direct comparisons to the military, so the perception of militarizing the police is certainly there. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Lotish posted:You say that, but I see a lot of people in GBS complaining about how quickly we deploy SWAT for every thing and occasionally make direct comparisons to the military, so the perception of militarizing the police is certainly there. I'm pretty sure that he was using sarcasm. Its not like several well-sourced books and papers have been written about the phenomenon of paramilitary police action. Fake Edit: Seriously, its a real problem and it is getting worse. Thanks, War on Drugs!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:When a bad guy in the trailer literally says to make Robocop look more tactical, why would you assume a tactical endorsement is a moral endorsement (or even a lack of moral condemnation). Obviously we're really far from seeing the actual film, but from what we know so far it looks like it's at least somewhat trying to be about the practice of putting a stylish, marketable face on government-sanctioned violence. When the goal of OCP is to present the New Face of American Justice, why wouldn't associated visual designs be about creating something slick, demographically viable, divorced from any practical but unsavory aesthetic consequences? It looks like something out of Tank Girl, not a designer product. Actual working guns (even the original Robocop supergun, being limited by physical existence) are too slick and don't bespeak violence enough, so they had to use CGI to glue a bunch of extra jagged mechanical bits on it and make it twitch around like some kind of insect to make it look extra brutal and ugly. It's totally designed to aestheticize and market violence, but not in a sense of sanitizing or erasing it the way governments do. It's pornographically violent; where I think you're disagreeing (and it'd be impossible to say without seeing the movie) is on whether the extremity of it is more aimed at titillating the bloodlusting masses of the dystopian future while we're supposed to cluck our tongues in disapproval, or the bloodlusting us of the dystopian present (maybe while we cluck our tongues in disapproval).  V  V 
Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Peter Weller talks RoboCop and the RoboCop Remake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPRETlCJA4s He has an interesting perspective on it, as an art teacher and the actor who spent a LOT of time on the voice and the walk
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
The magazine extending from the gun is stupid unless its some kind of energy weapon and the magazine is actually something else. They could have had something like the Magpul FMG that folds in half and would look cool and still be realistic. Also the dude with the pistol in that frame is supposed to be some sort of military advisor that "trains" robocop. The dude is tea cupping his pistol, which is and has always been bad technique. These two things tell me a lot about how seriously they took this remake. For being science fiction, they're not taking the science part very seriously, and the action is likely to be generic cheese. One thing a lot of recent movies have benefitted from is good technical advising on firearms and tactics. In the '80s they would explicitly tell us a character was a bad rear end, they would stand in the open and never get hit and mow everything down. Movies now do a better job of showing us characters are bad asses through their actions. Someone might dismiss this as "gun nuts spergin out" but with accurate firearms information more readily available and millions of veterans in the population all those errors just make a wider portion of the potential audience not take it seriously as the director might intend. It's not hard or very expensive to do these things right and make a better film, they just don't give a poo poo. Edit: the idea of robocop having to be trained in itself is kind of weird. With a robotic chassis, superhuman strength, and built in ballistics calculations with some sort of IR laser aiming system robocop would have no need to use traditional aiming techniques or shooting stances. He could literally fire backwards one handed upside down and still hit what he's aiming at. SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
That's a totally fair and accurate assessment. It's certainly got a lot more traits than a real gun. I'd still contend, though, that the gun aesthetics offer a different kind of distance from consequence, in that from watching that gif repeatedly it's such a drat videogame gun. All those cleanly moving parts, the impossible clip location that Jefferoo was calling out, it's what happens when you switch out your weapon in a Mass Effect or whatnot. It's sanitation in that it crosses the real/unreal boundary a couple times and the resulting impression is something that looks fictive enough that we're reassured that we won't be harmed by its fictive bullets - we all know videogames don't cause violence. Compare with the practice of killing a real dude in order to create a robot that puts a human face (human hero-soldier-cop face) on our robot justice initiative but still has a human hand so it can legally fire on people. It's the idea of showing that something isn't generative of violence by associating it with something everyone knows doesn't lionize violence (it lionizes violence). And yeah the Robosoldier stuff seems like it's really obviously there and really obviously intentional, when your director's previous filmography is about Brazilian military police. The hawkish defense policy commentary is right there in the trailer, the venerate soldiers/gently caress over soldiers doublethink wherein it's like let's blow this guy up, let's do horrible things to his body and mind in order to show everyone what a hero he is. But again it's not like the simultaneous veneration and degradation is something new to the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Peter Weller talks RoboCop and the RoboCop Remake:  But yeah, when the lead actor of the original who has his hands on all facets of the film industry has seen the remake and doesn't think it has anywhere near the emotional impact of the original, well then it probably doesn't and that doesn't make me very hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 07:26
|
|