One Early RoboCop Reaction Calls The Remake Better Than The Original

It's cool. Actually, I rarely get upset about spoilers. I mean, it has to be some really integral part of the story for me to actually be bothered by it.
I actually finished watching it about 45 minutes ago. It was interesting, and I enjoyed it. I think part of the reason I enjoyed it is because I had gone in with low expectations.
When I read the article with the director I already had my expectations lowered. After Goldo's remarks, they were lowered even more.

If you're going in expecting it to have all the same kind of criticism and social commentary as the original one, I think you'll be disappointed. If you go in expecting it to be more shoot 'em up, I think you'll enjoy it. At least that's how I felt. It was fun. It had it's moments. People got shot. Some cheesy lines were said. There was that line from Haley's character "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" referencing the commercials/show from the original movie. Then there was Sam Jackson screaming 'mother #%$&^*!'.' That was funny, especially in the context it was said.

Also, I forgot who said that the under the chassis scene was harsh. It really was a let down. I expected so much more. That was very sanitized.

The suit looked cool.

[sblock]
I don't remember anything about the first movie, I am not even sure I ever saw it entirely (or at all), it's been too long.

The movie worked for me, and that didn't have anything do with low expectations. There was actually something I kinda expected or hoped for and I got that.

The Scientist
I really liked how the scientist played by Gary Oldman did go further an further away from his ideal to "save" the project. It was a great performance and it felt very... believable.
It was not as if he was evil or anything. He had good intentions, but under the pressure he basically cracked.
He started with finally agreeing to the project at all because he was promised money for his regular research to help people.
When Murphy woke up and asked the Doctor to kill him, he didn't just refuse, he talked him out of it, basically manipulating Murphy.
Then Murphy fails to compete with the drones. And he goes a step further - he takes away Murphy's control - Not Murphy made the decisions, it was the AI, but he gave Murphy the illusion that he made that decision.*
And when Murphy breaks down as he reviews his own murder, he manipulates him again, manipulating his brain chemistry so he stops feeling.
I would have not been surprised if he, at this point, was really willing to kill Murphy for the sake of the continuation of his original research. That he did not was certainly not guaranteed. I am not sure if this makes him the anti-hero or the anti-villain?

The Illusion of Free Will This is the part that I was hoping for.
*) The part where Murphy lost his free will to the AI was also very powerful for me because some research in brain activity suggests that this is how it really works - the body already has done something, and only then do you get the feeling that you decided to do that. Seeing the principle applied in the movie resonated very strongly with me.
Of course, eventually Murphy does overcome all this. I think there is some relevance to the fact that he didn't start recovering until he realized that his son how his father was critically hurt in the bomb explosion.

Drones & Politics
I honestly don't find it very likely that the US citizens would be so adamant against the use of drones for police services, but I could be wrong.
But this premise certainly made the whole story of making a cyborg cop believable in the first place. Because there really isn't a good reason to do it otherwise. It's costly, risky, painful. You can just hire a new cop if the old one becomes an invalid, and you won't find many people even willing to go undergo such a procedure. Making it a test bed to circumvent a law worked for me.

I found the Terrorist/Drone Police Force in the beginning of the show very interesting. We are still far away from this magnitude, but the concept is there. I figure the "natives" in that scene don't really care all that much whether drones or soldiers are controlling them. But it probably adds a bit of extra terror to know that if you would fight back, you'd just destroy or damage a few expendable machines, while likely losing your own life. (It's not as if the drones took any prisoners there...) We all know that a powerful argument for drones is that it means less dead soldiers for the side using the drones. Is there also the hope that it will demoralize resistance against oppressors or "peace-keepers"? Will we still be able to distinguish the terrorists and mad-men from those that just wish self-government and independence, and would we care?

Interestingly, I don't think the movie tried to give us all the answers, even if Samuel L. Jackson's character was obviously portrayed negatively. Because despite his potrayal - the drones really lived up to the expectations and promises of the corporation making them. The were impartial. The did keep the media reporters in the beginning safe. They kept the civilians safe. They didn't shoot Murphy's partner when he acted as a human shield. They really only hit the legitimate targets. They were probably genuinely more effective than a real soldier or police man would. And while I found the scene in the beginning somewhat unsettling, with the natives so under control - Imagine the same scenario with real soldiers...
[/sblock]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You forgot the hand. that reminds me, seriously, why the hell did they keep the human hand? He had nothing attacking it to the rest of his organic parts. What was the point of keeping the hand?
Scratch his nose?

I'm only semi-kidding. His face his still made of flesh, maybe he would feel less alien if he can touch himself with a real hand?

Contact with others less alien? Shaking a human hand might be less intimidating for citizens.

Maybe it is a wink at the original film? In the first film they couldhave saved one of his arm.
 

I don't remember anything about the first movie, I am not even sure I ever saw it entirely (or at all), it's been too long.

The movie worked for me, and that didn't have anything do with low expectations. There was actually something I kinda expected or hoped for and I got that.
The movie had potential, but it just didn't deliver. It felt as if they should have developed their ideas better but instead, they rushed it, and gave us a weak product that while entertaining on the shoot 'em up part, didn't have much else going for it.

[sblock]
The Scientist
I really liked how the scientist played by Gary Oldman did go further an further away from his ideal to "save" the project. It was a great performance and it felt very... believable.
It was not as if he was evil or anything. He had good intentions, but under the pressure he basically cracked.
He started with finally agreeing to the project at all because he was promised money for his regular research to help people.
When Murphy woke up and asked the Doctor to kill him, he didn't just refuse, he talked him out of it, basically manipulating Murphy.
Then Murphy fails to compete with the drones. And he goes a step further - he takes away Murphy's control - Not Murphy made the decisions, it was the AI, but he gave Murphy the illusion that he made that decision.*
And when Murphy breaks down as he reviews his own murder, he manipulates him again, manipulating his brain chemistry so he stops feeling.
I would have not been surprised if he, at this point, was really willing to kill Murphy for the sake of the continuation of his original research. That he did not was certainly not guaranteed. I am not sure if this makes him the anti-hero or the anti-villain?[/sblock]

[sblock=Respose]
Gary Oldman's character had potential, but he wasn't developed enough. The transformation from carring doctor to company man, to redeemed scientist was far too quick, and there really was't much conflict. He just did things because he wanted to. [/sblock]
[sblock]
The Illusion of Free Will This is the part that I was hoping for.
*) The part where Murphy lost his free will to the AI was also very powerful for me because some research in brain activity suggests that this is how it really works - the body already has done something, and only then do you get the feeling that you decided to do that. Seeing the principle applied in the movie resonated very strongly with me.
Of course, eventually Murphy does overcome all this. I think there is some relevance to the fact that he didn't start recovering until he realized that his son how his father was critically hurt in the bomb explosion. [/sblock]

[sblock=Response]
I've read these studies. The basic idea is that your brain has made the choice before you are aware of that choice. I liked that the movie took this part on. The doctor made changes to Robocop's brain chips, and he explained that the program made the choices and then sent these signals to Robocop's brain to make him think that this was a choice that he had made. This had great potential, but I really think they screwed it up by making him rewrite the programing with his "emotions." That just killed it.[/sblock]

[sblock]
Drones & Politics
I honestly don't find it very likely that the US citizens would be so adamant against the use of drones for police services, but I could be wrong.
But this premise certainly made the whole story of making a cyborg cop believable in the first place. Because there really isn't a good reason to do it otherwise. It's costly, risky, painful. You can just hire a new cop if the old one becomes an invalid, and you won't find many people even willing to go undergo such a procedure. Making it a test bed to circumvent a law worked for me.

I found the Terrorist/Drone Police Force in the beginning of the show very interesting. We are still far away from this magnitude, but the concept is there. I figure the "natives" in that scene don't really care all that much whether drones or soldiers are controlling them. But it probably adds a bit of extra terror to know that if you would fight back, you'd just destroy or damage a few expendable machines, while likely losing your own life. (It's not as if the drones took any prisoners there...) We all know that a powerful argument for drones is that it means less dead soldiers for the side using the drones. Is there also the hope that it will demoralize resistance against oppressors or "peace-keepers"? Will we still be able to distinguish the terrorists and mad-men from those that just wish self-government and independence, and would we care?

Interestingly, I don't think the movie tried to give us all the answers, even if Samuel L. Jackson's character was obviously portrayed negatively. Because despite his potrayal - the drones really lived up to the expectations and promises of the corporation making them. The were impartial. The did keep the media reporters in the beginning safe. They kept the civilians safe. They didn't shoot Murphy's partner when he acted as a human shield. They really only hit the legitimate targets. They were probably genuinely more effective than a real soldier or police man would. And while I found the scene in the beginning somewhat unsettling, with the natives so under control - Imagine the same scenario with real soldiers...
[/sblock]
[sblock=Response]
First, I have to admit I was very disappointed with the new ED209s. They seemed so easily destroyed, and underused. They didn't appear as a competing product, as the originals did. I know, the new humanoid robots were supposed to be the competing product, but they weren't. The ls in the movie took them out. They were only really used at the start of the movie, and in the training scenes. The original ED209s played the role of the competing, yet flawed product, much better.

As for Sam Jackson, and his show, I did like that, but again, underdeveloped. It was a funny parody of a Fox News style show, and a decent way to comment on the media' ability to influence the public, but they just didn't do much with it. I mean, who was Sam Jackson's character? Was he in collusion with Keaton's character? Why was he so interested in drones being on U.S. street? He just seems like an extra that has a few lines. He had amazing potential, but they just didn't bother to do much with it.[/sblock]
 

Scratch his nose?

I'm only semi-kidding. His face his still made of flesh, maybe he would feel less alien if he can touch himself with a real hand?

Contact with others less alien? Shaking a human hand might be less intimidating for citizens.

Maybe it is a wink at the original film? In the first film they couldhave saved one of his arm.
Whatever the reason, it was a failure. There was no need for him to have a human hand. Hell, I think th whole "under the chassis" scene was pointless. What did it really accomplish?
 

Whatever the reason, it was a failure. There was no need for him to have a human hand. Hell, I think th whole "under the chassis" scene was pointless. What did it really accomplish?
Shock value? Or try to shock. Like the first one managed to. It failed and was very G.
 
Last edited:



call me jaded, did not have the WOW that I felt at the first. it was okay, a 3 out of 5 and looking at the numbers, maybe a failure at the box office; only taking in 22 million and coming in 3rd place after The Lego Movie and About Last Night.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    74.1 KB · Views: 92


Not a lot of effects rousing up emotions when you think about it.

What I found really useless was taking away RoboCop's emotions, only to give them back like 5 minutes after.
 

Remove ads

Top