I mean the directors cut of the original was basically Murphy getting shot to sh*t a little bit longer. No way you could get away with that now. That's all 80s.
I think I watched the Director's Cut; that part was pretty hilarious. And then he gets shot in the head, no way he's surviving that! He gets pumped full of all kind of bullets and is still alive haha!
the new robocop suit design sucks balls from what I ve seen. Lacks all the boldness of its original design/silhouette. Current looks like a dude in a suiit and not a robot with a human head... far too modern, in the wrong direction.
I have nothing against but it does not look as part of the same family in terms of design. pretty pissed of for this one.. is one of my all time favorites.
I think I watched the Director's Cut; that part was pretty hilarious. And then he gets shot in the head, no way he's surviving that! He gets pumped full of all kind of bullets and is still alive haha!
Only that the entire idea behind it wasn't that he was alive, it was that he was 'brain dead' in the human sense.
Bullets don't outright kill you as you might think, a bullet in your gut, unlike what every single movie would like you to believe, doesn't send you flying into a Coma or instant death, you're going to be in enormous amount of pain with all the nerve endings you have in you skin, as well loss of blood.
Add that to the fact that most head-shot attempts end with fractured skulls and loss of motor skills as opposed to outright death, and you got a pretty typical scenario as to why he is still 'alive'. People who want a non-functional brain with a 100% guarantee will use special kinds of bullets which will perforate the skull, but after the initial impact, bounce around your skull and destroy as much as brain matter as possible.
The entire idea of Robocop is how technology still requires a human input to function properly (same as in BattleStar Galatica), hence why the big bad corporations try and create a 100% non-organic robot because of...you know, human moral's and stuff, which is actually pretty clever way to achieve this vs. standard movie practices of how a robot suddenly has a soul.
So yes, the scene was silly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only was a case of blood lose and motor loss that 'killed him' instead of the traditional 'boom, headshot baby!'. You could even debate on how that scene shows what could be possible in the realms of possibility thanks to biology and physics, I mean if a person falling from the 13 floor of a building on hard asphalts gets to live, why can't Murphy?
Well if that script above is reliable, it doesn't sound so bad.
There is stuff there to reinforce the strength of the first films storyline, but then there is stuff in there that is just a bit weird like too much military consideration.
Every film maker in the USA seems obsessed with blowing stuff up in the middle east/se asia with robots
While private military contractors are considered a big deal at the moment, I don't believe anyone is proposing the privatization of police forces. (at least in the U.S.) Or if they are, I don't think the general population is going to take them seriously.
Maybe not the police force but privatization is alive and kickin in a lot of areas of the US. EMS (almost all ambulances are private companies and OO so affordable), Healthcare (great at making money, sucks at providing care), Education (charter schools), Social Security (forced investment in the stock market), Medicare (because it does what private healthcare can't), the demonetization of "fat cat" public workers like teachers and social workers and the stripping of their collective bargaining rights as if they where the CEO's responsible for the greed that lead to the financial melt down.
So privatization is going on in more areas than just the military. They are being monetize as a way to "fix them". Most of the problems are self inflicted, a solution in search of a problem... They haven't started drilling holes in the police budgets yet but it's probably coming sooner or later. Powerful unions, even stronger public support, but if they can turn people on teachers they can do it to cops, it might take a bit longer.
Basically the solution goes something like this: Greedy people are highly motivated, maybe we can harness some of that motivation to also fix another problem!
And we see how well that works for US healthcare... 3x the cost for substandard care.
Lets say it does make money and starts focusing on its secondary goal, the temptation to rob it blind or heavily skim it before it ever gets to the secondary goal, is great. Lets focus less on blowing up the middle east (5 trillion wasted) and focus those resources on education, healthcare and all the other stuff that contributes to a great society.
If you have a broken down wagon you don't trade your horse for another wagon, hitch the two together and expect to get anywhere.
/thread rerail
With that said privatization isn't some vacuous abstract thing that only effects the military. If they handle it appropriately or not is still up in the air, not many people are talking about it and they are just drinking the koolaid thinking its "a solution for whatever ails ya". It works for somethings but is a distraction for many other vital things that can't afford to be distracted.
I believe they are pushing to privatise the police here in the UK but the company they were going to go with (G4S) fudged up the security at the olympics so they are reviewing it. I think it'll probably happen sooner or later.
I think the G4S stuff is for the back-office/admin stuff...
It makes sense to a certain extent to have trained experienced empowered police officers doing work that makes full use of those skills, while someone else trusted can do the general other duties that occur upon police premises like admin/filing/phone calls and all that stuff.
I suppose it's all in the details.
It's a shame really but hey, the baby boomer generation has a lot to answer for. Promising plod massive pensions back in the 70's and 80's hasn't helped with budget matters, and now it's our generation paying for it all hehe.
Interestingly Robocop 3 hinted on these issues by OCP hiring in security people, and later still using criminals to be police against other 'criminals' haha.
Uh, Robocop 3. RC2 is ok, but RC3, shudders... I need brain bleach!
Sarcasm aside, I think the the design is pretty much set in place, there are rumors that they might pull a Stallone in the final scenes (EI: Expendables 2 reference old movies from the sources, etc) with him getting a paint over in chrome, but so far these are rumors.
The cylon looking one just isn't doing it for me, he lost all humanity there, doesn't looks like anything human is in there which will make it hard to give it/him any personality. Hell, there is no 'face' to talk about, so emotions....
That's unlikely to be Murphy himself. Hollywood has a pretty strict "hero has to have a face" rule, and rarely breaks it. That's more likely to be another version of Robocop, but not Murphy.
That's unlikely to be Murphy himself. Hollywood has a pretty strict "hero has to have a face" rule, and rarely breaks it. That's more likely to be another version of Robocop, but not Murphy.
I hope so, because there is no emotions you can show the audience with that 'face', not even for a robot, there is plenty of those who got expressions that express emotion.
Yeah, I'd assume that's a robotic drone or some such thing, but the similarities to the original Robocop design make it seem like there might there might be a slightly greater possibility that we'll see a metal plated variant of the new Robocop. Or at the least an explanation as to why he looks like a Mass Effect extra instead.
Not sure if this has already been posted but it's apparently a picture of the action figures which shows 3 suits. This falls in line with the rumors that he goes through various incarnations of the suit during the movie. As you can see there is 2 silver suits in there that are more reminiscent of the original design.
Rambo 4 definitely had the right idea. I don't think I've ever been happier than when that truckload of Burmese soldiers exploded via the .50 cal wielding Rambo. Sadly though just like the game industry it's all about shifting as many units as possible to the widest audience possible. Tis the way of things.
You honestly don't need to shift that much of something to make a profit, it's simply that shareholders want to make more money as collateral, advertising almost always is double the budget of the movie (or game), and space/convenience of something (like shelf space) and licensing requires larger investment upfront, not to mention internal increase of taxes.
All that add to higher return requirements, so yeah, it has less to do with 'pleasing' the average person and more on 'how can we make sure you still are working next month'.
but all that stuff you just said Ace leads to.. having to please the average person. The problem is the trend of ever expanding budgets, ever bigger blockbusters, leading to more return required for the whole thing to be worth doing. I want to see more lower budget niche action films, that aren't afraid to alienate people outside the core audience for the sake of making something grand (conceptually, not box-office). Hobo with a shotgun ftw.
I don't agree it's about making sure you're still working next month though, movie teams are hired on a per project basis. maybe in the games industry
Apparently Spielberg and Lucas recently came out saying that they believe that the blockbuster system of putting enormous amounts of money into a small number of movies is very likely to cause a crash with only a few catastrophic failures on the scale of John Carter to reaching tipping point.
Disney are sure working on it. John Carter & Lone Ranger both did spectacularly badly. They're also not making as much they've wanted out of their other recent endeavours like Pixar's newer films.
damn, I guess hobo was a bad example. that's depressing! well, maybe this prophesied collapse will create a landscape where it's viable.. can only hope!
Apparently Spielberg and Lucas recently came out saying that they believe that the blockbuster system of putting enormous amounts of money into a small number of movies is very likely to cause a crash with only a few catastrophic failures on the scale of John Carter to reaching tipping point.
Let me correct that: "putting enormous amounts of money into a small number of shitty movies is very likely to cause a crash"
Disney are sure working on it. John Carter & Lone Ranger both did spectacularly badly. They're also not making as much they've wanted out of their other recent endeavours like Pixar's newer films.
They REALLY dropped the ball on 'Planes' and I hope they have learned that the Cars franchise is completely tapped out. Pixar had the right idea when it didn't do sequels, but the money and success from the Toy Story trilogy was just too much for Disney to pass up, still if Pixar didn't want its name tied to Planes that should have told them something. They need to go back to doing new, unique stories.
Disney has ESPN which prints money, so I'm not so sure they care how many they fumble?
I just hope they don't fumble Star Wars, but then again it wouldn't be surprising and they really can't do too much more damage.
When a movie loses you more than 1/3 a billion, you should probably care. ESPN is probably worth a lot, but probably not enough to throw away this kind of money annually!
(FYI, Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 exist because of Disney demanding them. Toy Story 2's history is convoluted, with Disney royally fucking with it, before Pixar took it in house and doing damage control.)
I'm betting however bad Star wars is loads of people will still see it. Although I dont think Star Wars will be bad its going to be meh! or ok, which will be enough.
but all that stuff you just said Ace leads to.. having to please the average person. The problem is the trend of ever expanding budgets, ever bigger blockbusters, leading to more return required for the whole thing to be worth doing. I want to see more lower budget niche action films, that aren't afraid to alienate people outside the core audience for the sake of making something grand (conceptually, not box-office). Hobo with a shotgun ftw.
I don't agree it's about making sure you're still working next month though, movie teams are hired on a per project basis. maybe in the games industry
Yeah, sorry, you're right, what I was trying to imply is that at the core of the product, it can be successful at a low entry income, even a 'cult' level following sometimes will grand it long term staying power.
Budget's ballooning is debatable, since stuff like spending 2 times the base budget for Advertising for Super-Bowl is an added luxury that isn't needed and to make tax cut work, studios include them in final draft sheet (outside of paying 3M per actor).
My comment about the month to month job comes due to the fact that the US currently in the entertainment media is almost the #1 place for part-time/project-to-project employer (unlike Pixar).
More then half of the people working the CGI industry aren't on long term teams, and with such contracts, you don't have many things like a severance package go with it, so many studios will rotate you to another in-house project if the current project you worked on has a strong opening projection.
This is exactly what happened with many people when Del Toro wanted to make LoveCraftian movie with Paramount Pictures, but couldn't due to lay off of rotation studios AFTER the initial flop of Scott Pilgrim, before the DVD sales picked it up. It's pretty nasty few months before everything got brought back to the reigns.
They REALLY dropped the ball on 'Planes' and I hope they have learned that the Cars franchise is completely tapped out. Pixar had the right idea when it didn't do sequels, but the money and success from the Toy Story trilogy was just too much for Disney to pass up, still if Pixar didn't want its name tied to Planes that should have told them something. They need to go back to doing new, unique stories.
Disney has ESPN which prints money, so I'm not so sure they care how many they fumble?
I just hope they don't fumble Star Wars, but then again it wouldn't be surprising and they really can't do too much more damage.
Cars is all about the Merch. For some inexplicably reason, the toys, games and other tie ins they've got sell in vast, vast quantities and continue to do so long after each film has been released. Somewhere in in the area of $10 billion dollars.
Lots of silvery Robocop at least. Hard to tell much more than that at this point, but it doesn't immediately shout "this is an unsalvageable train wreck".
I just have to say something on the toy story point: toy story 3 was amazing. if you HAVE to do a sequel, do it right.
As far as the trailer...it looks like a vapid action movie. Robocop was gritty as 80's scifi goes...and this is entirely too shiny/muzzleflashy for my taste. We'll see, but i'm HIGHLY skeptical.
Everything in that trailer looks boring and generic - nothing in it seemed remotely exciting. Seems like it is a rather literal remake of the original but without any of the gratuitousness that made Verhoeven's such a memorable movie. Another big studio nostalgia cash grab. Also some terrible CG shots in there. Add to that the PG-13 rating and I'll probably wait till this is on Netflix to see it.
I really don't like the fact that he seems to be aware that they have turned him into this thing. I loved how the original had bits of memories floating to the surface and as the movie went on he finds some humanity. This just looks likes "oops, honey, looks like I'm a robot now." I've got to agree with Paul. It looks kind of boring.
This looks incredibly awful. 4th degree burns means the bone in your body has literally started to melt and pop, yet in the picture he has skin and muscle, but is missing a leg.
His wife stops him in the middle of his goddamn job to tell him he needs to speak to his fucking son? He is constantly aware of all this? They check with his wife first?
This looks like a load of Hollywood shit, the typical bottom of the barrel smeg-scoop you can expect these days, made simply to sell toys and get back expenses used on it. There is no soul in this, it's by the numbers and looks awful.
I saw the original for the first time in my life 1 month ago because this remake was coming up and this looks like a lowest common denominator Sat Am reboot shitfest.
The only good reboot/remake I've seen in the last 10 years was Dredd, this here is just, fucking awful, just, goddamn.
Replies
I think I watched the Director's Cut; that part was pretty hilarious. And then he gets shot in the head, no way he's surviving that! He gets pumped full of all kind of bullets and is still alive haha!
I have nothing against but it does not look as part of the same family in terms of design. pretty pissed of for this one.. is one of my all time favorites.
Bullets don't outright kill you as you might think, a bullet in your gut, unlike what every single movie would like you to believe, doesn't send you flying into a Coma or instant death, you're going to be in enormous amount of pain with all the nerve endings you have in you skin, as well loss of blood.
Add that to the fact that most head-shot attempts end with fractured skulls and loss of motor skills as opposed to outright death, and you got a pretty typical scenario as to why he is still 'alive'. People who want a non-functional brain with a 100% guarantee will use special kinds of bullets which will perforate the skull, but after the initial impact, bounce around your skull and destroy as much as brain matter as possible.
The entire idea of Robocop is how technology still requires a human input to function properly (same as in BattleStar Galatica), hence why the big bad corporations try and create a 100% non-organic robot because of...you know, human moral's and stuff, which is actually pretty clever way to achieve this vs. standard movie practices of how a robot suddenly has a soul.
So yes, the scene was silly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only was a case of blood lose and motor loss that 'killed him' instead of the traditional 'boom, headshot baby!'. You could even debate on how that scene shows what could be possible in the realms of possibility thanks to biology and physics, I mean if a person falling from the 13 floor of a building on hard asphalts gets to live, why can't Murphy?
There is stuff there to reinforce the strength of the first films storyline, but then there is stuff in there that is just a bit weird like too much military consideration.
Every film maker in the USA seems obsessed with blowing stuff up in the middle east/se asia with robots
Dave
So privatization is going on in more areas than just the military. They are being monetize as a way to "fix them". Most of the problems are self inflicted, a solution in search of a problem... They haven't started drilling holes in the police budgets yet but it's probably coming sooner or later. Powerful unions, even stronger public support, but if they can turn people on teachers they can do it to cops, it might take a bit longer.
Basically the solution goes something like this: Greedy people are highly motivated, maybe we can harness some of that motivation to also fix another problem!
And we see how well that works for US healthcare... 3x the cost for substandard care.
Lets say it does make money and starts focusing on its secondary goal, the temptation to rob it blind or heavily skim it before it ever gets to the secondary goal, is great. Lets focus less on blowing up the middle east (5 trillion wasted) and focus those resources on education, healthcare and all the other stuff that contributes to a great society.
If you have a broken down wagon you don't trade your horse for another wagon, hitch the two together and expect to get anywhere.
/thread rerail
With that said privatization isn't some vacuous abstract thing that only effects the military. If they handle it appropriately or not is still up in the air, not many people are talking about it and they are just drinking the koolaid thinking its "a solution for whatever ails ya". It works for somethings but is a distraction for many other vital things that can't afford to be distracted.
It makes sense to a certain extent to have trained experienced empowered police officers doing work that makes full use of those skills, while someone else trusted can do the general other duties that occur upon police premises like admin/filing/phone calls and all that stuff.
I suppose it's all in the details.
It's a shame really but hey, the baby boomer generation has a lot to answer for. Promising plod massive pensions back in the 70's and 80's hasn't helped with budget matters, and now it's our generation paying for it all hehe.
Interestingly Robocop 3 hinted on these issues by OCP hiring in security people, and later still using criminals to be police against other 'criminals' haha.
Uh, Robocop 3. RC2 is ok, but RC3, shudders... I need brain bleach!
Dave
promo stuff, and a better look at ed-209
Having not seen anything on this for a while, Just seen this over at imdb. A much better looking Ed209. Hope they take it in this direction.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1070193408/tt1234721?ref_=tt_ov_i
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm952752896/tt1234721
https://www.facebook.com/StanWinstonSchool?hc_location=stream
Sarcasm aside, I think the the design is pretty much set in place, there are rumors that they might pull a Stallone in the final scenes (EI: Expendables 2 reference old movies from the sources, etc) with him getting a paint over in chrome, but so far these are rumors.
That's unlikely to be Murphy himself. Hollywood has a pretty strict "hero has to have a face" rule, and rarely breaks it. That's more likely to be another version of Robocop, but not Murphy.
I hope so, because there is no emotions you can show the audience with that 'face', not even for a robot, there is plenty of those who got expressions that express emotion.
http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/07/Robocop-4-Inch-Action-Figures.jpg
http://www.kanpekisetto.com/tienda/figuras-robocop-2014-figuras-con-iluminacion-15-cm-surtido-p-135849.html
There are no images, but "RoboCop 1.0 and Robocop 3.0" are mentioned on a number of the pages.
All that add to higher return requirements, so yeah, it has less to do with 'pleasing' the average person and more on 'how can we make sure you still are working next month'.
I don't agree it's about making sure you're still working next month though, movie teams are hired on a per project basis. maybe in the games industry
Let me correct that: "putting enormous amounts of money into a small number of shitty movies is very likely to cause a crash"
They REALLY dropped the ball on 'Planes' and I hope they have learned that the Cars franchise is completely tapped out. Pixar had the right idea when it didn't do sequels, but the money and success from the Toy Story trilogy was just too much for Disney to pass up, still if Pixar didn't want its name tied to Planes that should have told them something. They need to go back to doing new, unique stories.
Disney has ESPN which prints money, so I'm not so sure they care how many they fumble?
I just hope they don't fumble Star Wars, but then again it wouldn't be surprising and they really can't do too much more damage.
(FYI, Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 exist because of Disney demanding them. Toy Story 2's history is convoluted, with Disney royally fucking with it, before Pixar took it in house and doing damage control.)
Budget's ballooning is debatable, since stuff like spending 2 times the base budget for Advertising for Super-Bowl is an added luxury that isn't needed and to make tax cut work, studios include them in final draft sheet (outside of paying 3M per actor).
My comment about the month to month job comes due to the fact that the US currently in the entertainment media is almost the #1 place for part-time/project-to-project employer (unlike Pixar).
More then half of the people working the CGI industry aren't on long term teams, and with such contracts, you don't have many things like a severance package go with it, so many studios will rotate you to another in-house project if the current project you worked on has a strong opening projection.
This is exactly what happened with many people when Del Toro wanted to make LoveCraftian movie with Paramount Pictures, but couldn't due to lay off of rotation studios AFTER the initial flop of Scott Pilgrim, before the DVD sales picked it up. It's pretty nasty few months before everything got brought back to the reigns.
Trailer doesn't completely suck!
As far as the trailer...it looks like a vapid action movie. Robocop was gritty as 80's scifi goes...and this is entirely too shiny/muzzleflashy for my taste. We'll see, but i'm HIGHLY skeptical.
His wife stops him in the middle of his goddamn job to tell him he needs to speak to his fucking son? He is constantly aware of all this? They check with his wife first?
This looks like a load of Hollywood shit, the typical bottom of the barrel smeg-scoop you can expect these days, made simply to sell toys and get back expenses used on it. There is no soul in this, it's by the numbers and looks awful.
I saw the original for the first time in my life 1 month ago because this remake was coming up and this looks like a lowest common denominator Sat Am reboot shitfest.
The only good reboot/remake I've seen in the last 10 years was Dredd, this here is just, fucking awful, just, goddamn.
Hopefully there will be something to love about this new RBC other than the visuals. The things I like about the originals seem backwards now