|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:There's a new trailer up: Complete garbage. His suit is shiny chrome now instead of the classic dull metal? It looks so cheap now!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
The 1997 editions are most of the problem. 2004 and later editions have some minor improvements over the 1997 versions but they're mostly the same.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
The paintings on the wall behind Michael Keaton were great
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Corek posted:And Michael Keaton loves being in movies with prominent Francis Bacon paintings. I need you to expand on this
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Total Recall 1990 was brilliant because everything cheesy about it was in Quaid's head.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
If you've been watching the new Robocop trailers and not been picking up any social commentary, it's because you're not looking for meaning as rigorously as people did with the original film (and we had what, thirty years to analyze it). It's there in the trailer. It's rather obvious, in fact.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Got my bluray. Most of the footage is fantastic. There are a few shots where some detail is lost but I'm willing to write that off to bad exposure/focus in filming (this is besides the NTSC footage) One thing though is I'm having trouble getting use to the new iridescent Robocop. It's so obvious that it's just a cheap purple/blue airbrush touch up and the paler colors of previous releases hid the fact 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Dr. Lariat posted:They didn't dnr or remaster out the grain did they? I may not get around to it till this weekend, if they did, ehh, it was $9 and I think the last release is fine, but yea, all the film grain in the prior release is one of my favorite things about it. Nah, healthy, vibrant grain. Extras are fun too, dunno if they were in the previous release but there are several moments when the animator accidentally breaks the ED-209 model
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Waaah Robocop isn't the same color waaaah Waaah Robocop isn't slow like the original waaaah Waaah Robocop isn't made of flimsy fiberglass shells and rubber waaaah Waaaah ED-209 isn't no-motion-blur-having stop-motion waaaah Waaah Robocop isn't making fun of 80's Reagan era politics waaaah
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:While the rest of the movie is starting to look decent, Robocop still looks like a guy in a costume. With the digital technology that they have now, there's no reason he couldn't look way better. The original Robocop was not intended to have his face shown to the public, since he was marketed as a robot. That Alex Murphy's true face is horrifying underneath the cool-looking mask works with the themes of the original film. In the new film, Alex Murphy's face is the marketing mask, and the horrifying truth is that his brain is being remote-controlled. In the original, the robot was the marketing, the mangled human underneath was the truth. In the remake, the clean human face is the marketing, the mangled soul underneath is the truth. Open up your minds, everyone, or you're going to miss out on a lot of this stuff when the movie comes out. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:I don't mind him being fast, I do mind the action scenes giving no thought as to how a robot body that must weigh (by my back of the envelope calculations) a whole lot should move. He's big, and he's strong, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have momentum. The original had a several hundred pound cyborg unable to walk on his own two feet and yet somehow carried to a car by officer Lewis leaning his weight over her shoulder. The original had a several hundred pound cyborg holding a struggling Clarence Boddiker, only to have his own body weight shaken around because they were the same weight. I love the original film but let's not kid ourselves by pretending that the movie didn't also require a lot of suspension of disbelief, and let's not put ridiculous and unfair "realism" arguments against the new film when there are more interesting thematic things to consider.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Director Josa Padilha got his start with a documentary exploring slum conditions and societal factors that led to a hostage crisis in Brazil. He's since made two movies about police brutality and political corruption, and another documentary about world hunger and how it's portrayed in the media. As far as up and coming directors go, that's winning the anger/social justice/not-superficial lottery. edit: The movie may end up sucking but I think so far the signs are good, and I fear that the trailers/videoclips might even be giving away too much about the movie Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Whatever you feel about the new movie we can all agree that this RoboCup is awesome:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
api call girl posted:And Gary Oldman's character got on a plane to Shenzhen, China that afternoon. That's one of the single most famous stories ever passed around about Steve Jobs and the iPhone launch. That's actually a Tim Cook story quote:Tim cook arrived at Apple in 1998 from Compaq Computer. He was a 16-year computer-industry veteran - he'd worked for IBM for 12 of those years - with a mandate to clean up the atrocious state of Apple's manufacturing, distribution, and supply apparatus. One day back then, he convened a meeting with his team, and the discussion turned to a particular problem in Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:The reason the original suit works so much better is because of how it breaks up important parts of the human silhouette through some pretty genius shape and color work. Look at how the shoulders stick out OVER the top of the torso sections. The black/metal color scheme is really important to pulling this off. And then all of this is backed up by smart lightning and camera angle choices. AND they did it in a suit that "worked" every day on set without CGI. The Robocop design in the original had a goal: to visually communicate how inhuman he was. The design of Robocop in the new film has different goals for a different story. OCP is marketing this as the rescue of a first responder, they want to play up how much of him they were able to save, and it makes sense that as the design is updated, it looks more and more like a human silhouette. This is why getting rid of Murphy's arm in the original film is important, and why saving it is important to this new film.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
I didn't notice he had an OCP logo on his chest in the black suit. How great is that, a product logo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Some behind the scenes footage of Robocop 2014, which just shows how little love or work goes on in designing the Robocop suit. I don't see any passion in the eyes of the special effects people! This all CG robocop walking around looks so fake there's no weight to any of his CG antics! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVNvTOOU2VQ Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:That is a shame, though, but I get where you are coming from. One of the great features of practical effects is that they are, for lack of a better word, real. They have a sense of weight and thought because they have to actually exist (even if in miniature) and then work in some way or another. The converse with the CGI era is that nobody has to puzzle out something would have to work, so it doesn't - and when we are presented with the blatantly impossible on the screen it trips our disbelief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MS4sLlBvbE You know what, you're right. When I watch ED-209 in the original film, I am convinced that there is a real 18 inch tall animatronic model right there in front of me
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
 Yes, I agree! They are actual physical things. quote:That is a shame, though, but I get where you are coming from. One of the great features of practical effects is that they are, for lack of a better word, real. They have a sense of weight and thought because they have to actually exist (even if in miniature) and then work in some way or another. The converse with the CGI era is that nobody has to puzzle out something would have to work, so it doesn't - and when we are presented with the blatantly impossible on the screen it trips our disbelief. Yes, someone decided to give this thing weight and thought about it, and it's so much better than CGI because someone figured out a way to make freakishly long arms work in real life Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:This still looks worlds better than most of the poo poo in Iron Man. Fake is still fake, even if it's HD and pretty. Yes, because a 12 inch tall clay person with 16 inch wide arms is real.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:So, most of the film then? You'd be better off referencing Thor.  You are absolutely right. Practical effects are clearly the way to go with action scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I always thought he got past his programming and gained his humanity back - but no, the scene where he takes his helmet off and he's referring to himself in the third person, "did Murphy...." it hit me. As others said, its just his face plastered onto some machine. At least that is how I see it - he showed some genuine personality but that could just be Peter Weller being awesome. Counterpoint to that is the very last line of the movie though, the CEO asks what his name is and he says "Murphy" He's not the same Alex Murphy he was before, but he's more Alex Murphy than Robocop. This is also why his helmet stays off for the last third of the movie, the film is trying to humanize him again. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Counter-counterpoint: this happens to coincide with Robocop's moment of false freedom, where he's distracted from truly escaping Directive 4. True, true. I guess it's more correct to say that he's become a third being now, not Murphy, not Robocop, but Robomurph Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
How is he easier to manipulate at the end of the movie, though? It seems like he's well aware of his limitation (directive 4) and is able to work around it by at least publicly exposing Dick Jones' corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
It's the best! It's the worst!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Throwing out a  emoticon is not binding
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I actually really liked the ending when I thought about it some more. The key to this is the soldier guy in that scene and consider his perspective. The boss is clearly knee deep in criminal poo poo. The guy straight up taunts Robocop for not being able to make an arrest thanks to a software exploit. The boss demands the soldier give him a gun, something the soldier does without hesitation even though at this point the only thing the boss could possibly use it for is to commit a crime. Hell, he immediately threatens Robocop's wife and son with it- for absolutely no reason, just be a giant dickhead, and the soldier stands there doing nothing. Plot twist- everyone in the movie is a machine. The soldier, just like every other employee at OCP, has been trained to unconditionally obey mechanical orders with no regards for context. There was no special code preventing the soldier from kicking the boss to the ground- just training instinct. Robocop's abstract defiance of his software code in this context is a mockery of societal obsession with following the rules. Robocop broke the rules because he wanted to- even though there was a huge technical obstacle in his way. The soldier could have done the exact same thing but chose not to- solely because he was conditioned to. So unsurprisingly, once Robocop solves the mess the soldier could have but didn't, the soldier just quietly walks away hoping nobody will notice he gave Snidely Whiplash a gun to menace innocent civilians and did absolute jack poo poo to stop it. This is probably the most perceptive thing written in this whole thread, and needs more recognition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Since I spent so much time in this thread defending the remake I figured in the interest of fairness I'd start off by talking about the things I didn't like. Too many balls were being juggled at once, leading to several plots being underdeveloped and me having a hard time caring about people that I was supposed to care about. I mean, having Alex Murphy's family now being a part of the story was a good idea, but the execution needed some help. Some rewriting would have helped me to give a poo poo about his kid maybe. Also the stuff about Vallon seemed underdeveloped and it felt like just checking off plot points. No chemistry between some actors. Lewis! We got so little chemistry between Alex Murphy and Lewis I just didn't give a poo poo about his involvement in the story. The ending. Despite SomeGuyTT's clever reading of the significance of the ending, there's no denying that it's missing some punch from the original. Shakycam. Not as bad as other films, but enough to be annoying here. Robocop has... a lot less involvement in his own story compared to the original. Yeah I understand there might be some metaphor about how he's not even in control of his own destiny because he's a corporate zombie and therefore he's not even driving his own plot for the middle third of the movie, but it does feel kinda odd. Thankfully he regains control of his freewill at the same time that he starts driving the plot for the final third. It might be a reflection of Padilha's style, he seems to like to focus on how societal structures create injustice for the masses, and therefore we get more scenes of the bigwigs at OCP pulling strings and manipulating the story. China. C'mon, breaking out of a factory to land in a rice paddy with straw hat farmers is kind of an eye-rolling moment. Maybe a slum or something would have been more realistic. ***** Things I liked that hopefully other people haven't already said several times: ED-209 I liked that OCP products are actually competent. When drones are suddenly competent, the temptation to use them is stronger and the argument against them must rely more on the morality of drone warfare, rather than the efficacy of drone warfare. Gary Oldman is a genuinely warm and caring presence when he's not playing a villain. That scene where he's helping an amputee play guitar again actually made me teary eyed. Detective work! Sure it's MAGIC detective work but it was a neat new angle. Once Murphy started piecing together his murder and climbing his way up the conspiracy might've been the clearest, most focused that the narrative got, a lot of the rest of the story did feel unfocused and meandered. Quotes "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" (It was not "I'd buy that for a dollar") was actually used well, and made more logical sense in context than the original. Also, "Dead or alive, you're coming with me" was another good twist on an old line. Sellers tells Murphy that he'll die if he attempts to arrest a red asset, and in this new movie's context Murphy is essentially saying that he'll arrest Sellers even if it kills him. Clever! Comedy When Novak's done talking to Dreyfus was the single biggest laugh of the entire movie Symbolism: In the last few scenes he's walking around with half his visor blown off and revealing half his face, a pretty obvious symbol of his duality, but I liked it anyways. ***** Overall I thought it was a pretty awesome movie. The original Robocop had clear goals and hits every single one, this film aimed a little higher and attempted more difficult things, and gets most of those goals right, but definitely stumbles in a few ways. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Question: After Sellers and Murphy shoot each other, the camera pulls back and you see that they're laying opposite each other with a line going between them as if they were mirror images of each other. It seems like a blatant visual symbol but I'm not sure what it's saying. Any ideas? The film seems to use mirrors several times, Murphy seeing his destroyed body in a mirror, Murphy proving connections between crooked cops and Vallon based on meetings reflected in car windows, etc... This is on top of how big the use of cameras is in the film Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
The dichotomy of the visor being down and up is interesting. Mattox explains that the visor comes down if the system detects a threat, and Dr Norton explains that in the black suit the software takes over in combat mode, so you're supposed to make an association between the visor being down and Murphy losing his free will. As he starts exercising his free will against his programming, his visor starts receiving damage. After he starts ignoring his casefile priority and starts investigating his own murder, he goes to the drug lab where he gets his first crack in the visor. He gets shut down while attempting to arrest the chief and his visor is repaired. Finally he goes up against OCP where he gets half his visor blown off. It's with this visor down and cracked in half that he defeats Sellers. ***** I'd like to compare the ending with Conan The Barbarian. Thulsa Doom's power was to hypnotize people, and Conan went through the whole movie demonstrating how physically powerful he was, but in the end in order to defeat Thulsa Doom he also had to be stronger in his mind. He sees Thulsa's sword and is reminded of his mother's death at his hand, which helps him to break out of the trance and kill Doom. ***** Good line: Dr Norton explains that getting too emotional changes the chemistry of the brain, which throws off the tuning of the prosthetics. Bad line: "But, emotion is what I need to play guitar!" I mean, geez, the first line was subtle enough and conveyed the point without being heavy-handed. They could have left it at that, but nooo, they have to sledgehammer that point in. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I couldn't tell but isn't his Skype call to his wife also in a mirror? I got the impression he was using the replaced eye to video-call Clara. **** Two nice nods to Robocop 2's prototypes scene: The judging of amputee candidates and the focus group feedback scene
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
^^^ yeah, one of the biggest laughs was when the Legal Affairs VP says "A machine that thinks it's a man? Isn't that illegal?" And Sellers responds "No, it's a machine that thinks it's Alex Murphy, which is fine in my book."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
More visor notes There's a clear association between having a red eye and being a robot. When he has the silver suit with black visor he maintains his free will. Once he gets the red eye visor he loses his free will like every other red eye robot in the movie. As he gains his free will back the visor cracks as a symbol, and when it finally breaks in half, it's the right eye, the human eye, that's visible again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:They did the same thing in the original RoboCop. #1 the red eye stuff isn't in the original, and it adds a pretty cool new layer to the imagery #2 even in the cracked visor imagery, there is different meaning in it. In the original the visor gets cracked so that we can see that the human underneath is experiencing fear and feelings of weakness for the first time. Before that, you notice that the design of the visor is very straight (not curving up or down), suggesting an emotionless, neutral being stripped of his humanity. In this image, the machine is the outside and the human is the gooey caramel center. This is why after Robocop discovers his former identity as Alex Murphy, the helmet stays off. Here, the significance of the human side being shown is that it exists at all. In the new one, the right eye is human and the left eye is bionic, and Padilha shifts the man/machine imagery to left/right. His bionic arm is shot off and he's left with his human hand (the right side), which he uses to overcome his red-asset programming. Here, the significance of the imagery isn't that there's a human underneath (the public already knows that there is). The important difference here is that the imagery is concerned with who is in control, the human or robot side Even if you don't like the new Robocop, you have to admit that a lot of care and diligence went into the remake. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
More visor notes, skip over this if you get annoyed with overanalysis: As you can see, the original gives us a perfectly straight eyehole, which suggests an emotionless automaton. The serendipitious thing about that eyehole is also that it's curved horizontally but not vertically, which means that if Robocop tilts his head down, he can achieve a more aggressive look if he wants. And on top of that, having "normal" lines (perfectly horizontal and vertical, lots of perpendiculars) suggests a roughness, a lack of finesse which fits in with his role as a brute force solution to crime. And whatever round lines he has are very simple, almost perfectly circular lines. He's very simple geometric shapes. Brutalist architecture! The fanart design, despite looking cool and badass in the ways teens would appreciate, is actually inappropriate for the tone of the original film because of this. It suggests a Robocop who likes who he is and enjoys scaring people. It suggests acceptance of who he is. It suggests emotion. 2014 Silver Robocop has a straight line like the original, but is tilted down a little. It's a different movie from the original, and since Alex Murphy is meant to be seen by the public as a human with emotions, his design gets a little softer, more diagonals and rounded, ergonomic lines, but still kinda "chunky" The 2014 Black Robocop looks like design gone overboard, and represents Sellers' desire to make something "tactical" and "sleek." The eye is ridiculously curved in order to make it look menacing. He looks mean because that's what marketing bullshit master Sellers wanted (like the EM-208s who looked practically like Cylon occupiers enslaving the Earth) Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Vinny the Shark posted:Also, speaking of the other cops, this movie didn't seem to have much to do with actual police work. Murphy arrests that serial killer during his television debut, and he takes down a cocaine factory. Everything else he did was just about getting vengeance on everyone. Well, maybe I'm just rationalizing, but the way I see it he's a detective instead of a beat cop in this film, so he's not concerned with your typical low level street crime. Also, since he's given unlimited amounts of data he's almost godlike in his ability to solve big fish crime, and it inconveniently leads him close to the top in a matter of hours. I guess it makes sense but yeah at first I kinda was hoping for scenes of Robocop stopping a rapist and hostage crisis, etc. I guess I'll just watch Our Robocop Remake over again for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Well it would have been nice to see some of that then!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 01:23
|
|