|
I'm huge fan of the original and I thought the remake was okay, but it had problems. I like that it went a different direction from the original, to allow it to be it's own thing rather than being a redundant retread, and drone warfare is a modern relevant issue to play around with. However the film doesn't have a coherent message about drones at all. The Tehran occupation is a bit too heavy handed in showing how scary militarized streets can be but doesn't really explain why machines are any worse than armed soldiers. The drones seem like an accident waiting to happen but that accident never happens and throughout the whole movie the closest they come to making a mistake is being too fast on the trigger when commanding a child to drop their weapon. The film tries to say "DRONES ARE BAD" pretty overtly whilst simultaneously showing them as extremely efficient and flawless. I mean I like films which show a battle between competing ideologies but I don't think that's the case here - the film preaches one message but what happens on screen really doesn't mesh up with that. Robocop himself is invented as a marketing stunt to sway public opinion in favour of domestic drone deployment and when Omnicorp dehumanizes him so he can match the machines they accidentally create a superhero who singlehandedly reduces Detroit's crime rate by 80%. The "human pulling the trigger" idea that led to Robocop's creation isn't really examined because for the most part it's the machine pulling the trigger with Murphy coming along as a passenger. And Robocop combines a crime database + CCTV monitoring software to automatically find criminals, but it's not clear why he's the only computer who could do this. Just generally it seems like Omnicorp's tech is too good and would quickly eliminate all crime if it was legal. In the original film Robocop starts as a brainwashed blank slate who gradually recovers his memories and reclaims his humanity. In the reboot Robocop starts with a human mentality, but his humanity gets further and further suppressed for the sake of efficiency up until Murphy starts altering his own brain chemistry and finally recovers his identity. But the tragedy of Murphy losing his humanity seems a bit weakened by how dispassionate he is to start with, especially the lack of chemistry between him and his wife (he shows 10x as much emotion in the body horror scene than when he was human). I also think gradually dehumanizing Robocop makes Dennet a lot less sympathetic, Sellars says 'make it more efficient' but it's Dennet who decides brainwashing is the solution (granted, Sellar is pretty happy about Dennet's solution). In fact Sellars doesn't really do anything outright villainous (just greedy) until the last quarter of the movie even though he's supposed to be the main villain. I thought the frantic bloodless action suited the film though. You have this efficient emotionless killer so it makes sense for him to mechanically gun down armies of badguys without the camera dwelling on them. It feels systematic and sterile and under the circumstances I think that works.
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
vseslav.botkin posted:I think the film is making a different argument: drones aren't bad because they're inefficient or flawed; drones are bad because they provide the opportunity for powerful actors to project force -- and suppress and abuse populations -- without consequence, or even awareness. That's a good criticism of drones but I don't think the film ever makes that point. We don't see abuses of power and the only time we see unaccountable force projection is in Tehran which doesn't seem that much different from soldiers and tanks doing the same job. Outside Tehran the only machine we really see in action is Robocop who is subject to constant monitoring and can be shut down at a moment's notice. Robocop does become a loose cannon but he's still accountable for his actions and he still faces their consequences. An evil and independent Robocop might be able to suppress and abuse populations with impunity, but the film doesn't really explore that idea. Replacing the police with a private army of armed drones could cause all kinds of corruption and injustice, but the film doesn't get far enough to examine that either. Omnicorp doesn't even use Robocop's policework to advance their own corporate interests and presumably they could have done that just by prioritizing which crimes he should investigate. The film carries an anti-drone message but the drones it shows never make mistakes and never abuse power... all whilst being more capable, more reliable and more upstanding than the actual police. Compare drones with the 5 police officers we see in detail - 3 are corrupt (including the police chief), 1 gets critically wounded on two separate occassions and the last one dies to be reborn as Robocop. Another point is that whilst drones are undoubtedly mindless slaves the same could also be said of most of Omnicorp's security guards in the way they unquestioningly follow even the most terrible orders. vseslav.botkin posted:It's also important to remember who is ultimately calling the shots: Dennet comes up with the idea, but Sellars is the one who decides virtual enslavement is the best way forward. Removing yourself from responsibility by pushing unethical decisions onto employees and subordinates is one of the greatest luxuries of power, and can be seen as another manifestation of the ideology underlying drone warfare. To me it didn't seem like Sellars was demanding evil things then pushing the responsibility onto Dennet, it seemed like Sellars was asking impossible things and the only solution Dennet could find was an evil one (which Sellars was quite happy to accept). Dennet has a much stronger sense of morals than Sellars but still I think the man who designs and implements virtual enslavement is more at fault than the man who agrees it was a good idea post-completion. Also that whole plotline seemed a little forced. Robocop isn't as efficient as the machines, but who cares? He isn't in competition with the machines, in the public's eyes he's in competition with regular police officers and even a 25% efficiency Robocop has a big advantage over normal humans. Sellars doesn't need a 99% efficiency Robocop and arguably causes himself more problems by creating one. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:His creation is not accidental at all, Dennett is the one who wants him to retain some semblance of humanity/personality, but Sellars wants to accomplish that as minimally as possible. He wants zero independence, literally, a drone with a human face. Dennett's "rescuing" of Murphy is a tragedy, because he knows Sellars has gotten exactly what he wanted - despite retaining something of a personality, he can never not be Robocop. To spend time with him, his wife and son have to visit him in a lab under heavy guard. How long do you think that would last? He can't go home and be a father and husband, doesn't need to sleep or eat, etc. Unlike most movies of this type, the so-called superhero is explicitly promoted as a tool of perfect control, something only implied by other superhero flicks. Public acceptance of him can allow the "good" corporation under Dennett to have a monopoly of violence and effectively replace government. But Sellars isn't selling Robocop, he's selling drones and he's just using the Robocop loophole to sway public opinion in his favor. Strictly speaking Robocop doesn't even need to work, he just has to look good - that's the truth of marketing. Sellars doesn't demand Robocop be devoid of any humanity/personality, he demands efficiency and is willing to sacrifice Murphy's humanity to get it. And I really don't see why Sellars needed that level of efficiency as the creation of a cybernetic superhero seems to cause more problems than it solves (and Sellars certainly didn't expect him to be as effective as he was). You're right that Murphy loses his human life when he becomes Robocop, but I think he already lost that anyway when his body was destroyed. What life can he have with his family when he's permanently confined to a hospital bed? At least as Robocop he's able to achieve some independence and a sense of self-worth. I guess you can debate how much of his body doctors might have been able to save, but my feeling Murphy was functionally dead if he didn't become a cyborg. Murphy's tragedy isn't that he was reborn as Robocop, it's that he died in the first place. api call girl posted:Oh yes, it's examined more than enough. The movie draws a line from one to the other all the while showing how the humanity behind the trigger is successively and successfully neutralized just like it is in real life with real soldiers/cops. The only time the film shows a difference between a human pulling the trigger and a drone pulling the trigger is during the hostage situation in the Robocop and EM-208 side-by-side VR simulation. Throughout the rest of the movie Robocop fights under machine autopilot and doesn't encounter a single problem or dilemma - they put a military killing machine out on the streets and it operates perfectly. No innocents killed, no bystanders caught in the crossfire, no targets misidentified, no collateral damage. The question "What would a drone FEEL if it killed an innocent?" is never answered because the machines in this movie are perfect. They never harm an innocent, even when innocents jump into the middle of a gun battle to protect their 'guilty' friends. And most of the human soldiers Robocop encounters act like drones themselves (no hesitation, blindly following orders) which I feel undermines the whole distinction. Why is the human element so vital to the ethical application of lethal force if the humans who dispense lethal force have already abandoned their humanity?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 01:06
|
|