RoboCop Returns [Neil Blomkamp]

Mr Crispy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw5xASa5Kgvn4KYqkvaa4q774sDhHqaww

Managed to get through ten minutes. Horrific.

D3V!L

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

Managed to get through ten minutes. Horrific.

I loved this when I came out. Thanks

BrookieD

That Tv series (Live Action) was tragic - even back in the day, Saturday afternoon early evening crap

pixelburp

Watched a smattering of scenes from various episodes; it really is godawful, although equally a reminder about just how far mainstream TV drama - particularly genre fare - has come in the last 20 years.

Harly

Oh god, not that again

Tony EH

This is going to fail.


'Robocop' belongs in the 80's. Just let it die.

TerrorFirmer

I just re-watched the 2014 version again this afternoon. All things considered, it really is a solid film brought to life by great performances, though the final act is pretty weak and by-the-numbers in a very unsatisfying way admittedly. That scene where Murphy learns what's left of him is brutal though!

Not a patch on the original but a good film with decent heart.

IncognitoMan

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I just re-watched the 2014 version again this afternoon. All things considered, it really is a solid film brought to life by great performances, though the final act is pretty weak and by-the-numbers in a very unsatisfying way admittedly. That scene where Murphy learns what's left of him is brutal though!

Not a patch on the original but a good film with decent heart.

It definitely has its moments and some interesting ideas but they never go full in on it and I think the PG rating did take a good bit away. There's a gun fight scene in the dark I think that is really well done. Haven't seen it since the cinema so trying to remember exactly what it is.... off to YouTube :cool:

I think the RoboCop name actually hurts the 2014 movie because you come to expect a bit more from it, you go in with ideas of what it should be instead of just going along for the ride. It's an above average action movie that I did enjoy, I'd have no problem watching a sequel in that setting.

Having said that, obviously something closer in tone and style to the original is far more interesting so I'll be very interested to see how this one goes.

pixelburp

A mild bump to remark that Blomkamp tweeted today the script was still being written for this, so I'd say its still a long way from ever seeing the light of day.

pixelburp

And another bump to mention that the title should be changed; Blomkamp has left the project. MGM want to shoot ASAP apparently, so wondering if he has been pushed out so they can finish his treatment.

https://twitter.com/NeillBlomkamp/status/1161887748535439360

mloc123

D3V!L wrote: »

I loved this when I came out. Thanks

I used to watch this every week thinking it was great.. :eek:

pixelburp

So while Blomkamp is out, this is still happening, and "Little Monsters" director Abe Forsythe is being tapped to replace. This is so far from production I'd honestly be surprised if it even gets to casting:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/robocop-returns-lands-little-monsters-director-abe-forsythe-1256699

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well if you can’t get Verhoeven, Blomkamp is the next best thing. However I don’t think Robocop as concept works without the satire which was inextricably tied up in Reaganism.

You have to be able to do plenty with the current global atmosphere

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Satire is usually about mocking some political or moral figure or ideology, presenting them in an absurd way. Trump has no ideology or morality and it's impossible to make him seem any more absurd that he already is. For that reason, him and his demagoguery ilk are immune to satire IMO.

There are plenty of other aspects of modern day America that a Robocop sequel could satirise, though. Robocop himself was a parody of American militarism, which is always ripe for satire.

Trump may be but the GOP are prime for attack, based on their absolute capitulation to Trump. A guy they ALL hate but tolerating because of his base and allowing them to control key appointments

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to be able to do plenty with the current global atmosphere

I agree but it seems likely that studios would prefer to be inoffensive to avoid upsetting potential cinemagoers.

pixelburp

Naw, as powerful as foreign markets are, there's no way a Hollywood production would incur the wrath of right-adjacent media by lampooning Trump and the zealotry that has spawned in his wake. The 2014 remake somewhat touched on Fox News 'news' broadcasting with the Sam Jackson interstitials, but they were totally disconnected from the main story, and pretty limp satire anyway. In fact they were played pretty straight IIRC, to the point where I wondered if they were meant to be swipes in the first instance.

And while not satire proof, Trump is such a loud, vulgar creature in the public domain, how on earth do you satirise that? The original Robocop series wasn't exactly subtle or nuanced with its own targets, so I'm not sure how you take aim at modern day US politics and retain the tongue-in-cheek.

El Duda

pixelburp wrote: »

The 2014 remake

What remake? There was no remake. This doesn't even exist.



A bit like that Total recall remake that also doesn't exist.

Slydice

El Duda wrote: »

What remake? There was no remake. This doesn't even exist.



A bit like that Total recall remake that also doesn't exist.

Blue Sky on Mars, that's all I remember

Homelander

The remake of Robocop is not that bad. It's miles better than the Total Recall one, different leagues completely I think. I thought it was a good film and I expected a disaster. The less said about Total Recall though the better.

Tired Gardener

The 2014 remake is good, mainly because it takes the name and premise of RoboCop down a different path to that of the original. The original and the remake are completely different films, one is a hyper violence satirical swipe at the 80's, the other is more a hard sci-fi take on our fears of the ever increasing automation of our every day lives.

Sad to hear he has dropped out if this, his style of gritty industrial near future would be perfect for RoboCop.

El Duda

The 2014 remake was unspeakably awful. I hated it so much.

pixelburp

Tired Gardener wrote: »

The 2014 remake is good, mainly because it takes the name and premise of RoboCop down a different path to that of the original. The original and the remake are completely different films, one is a hyper violence satirical swipe at the 80's, the other is more a hard sci-fi take on our fears of the ever increasing automation of our every day lives.

Sad to hear he has dropped out if this, his style of gritty industrial near future would be perfect for RoboCop.

Except the 2014 film never did any of those things: there were brief lip service moments but no way did the remake actually engage with any topics of automation or job replacement in its story. The difference between the original and 2014 was the former intentionally wrote itself around agitation against Reganism, whereas the latter was a generic conspiracy plot that threw in some unrelated interstitials that were disconnected from the main narrative.

Maybe if Murphy's wife lost her job to a robot, or their kid had an automated nanny - something, then the themes might have been more relevant and immediate.

Tired Gardener

pixelburp wrote: »

Except the 2014 film never did any of those things: there were brief lip service moments but no way did the remake actually engage with any topics of automation or job replacement in its story. The difference between the original and 2014 was the former intentionally wrote itself around agitation against Reganism, whereas the latter was a generic conspiracy plot that threw in some unrelated interstitials that were disconnected from the main narrative.

Maybe if Murphy's wife lost her job to a robot, or their kid had an automated nanny - something, then the themes might have been more relevant and immediate.

The scene where Murphy arrests a wanted criminal during the police announcement, goes to length to show how automation of a police officer makes the flesh and blood version quite poor... as they were several stood right next to the wanted criminal.

Seeing as the film was about the title character, it is only fair that it focus on automation of the Police, and not your point of automation I Murphy's wife or child's life. They were also more side characters.

I understand that people don't like it because it is a remake, I too went in with very low expectations. However, it is a film that explores different themes to the original.

pixelburp

Tired Gardener wrote: »

The scene where Murphy arrests a wanted criminal during the police announcement, goes to length to show how automation of a police officer makes the flesh and blood version quite poor... as they were several stood right next to the wanted criminal.

Seeing as the film was about the title character, it is only fair that it focus on automation of the Police, and not your point of automation I Murphy's wife or child's life. They were also more side characters.

I understand that people don't like it because it is a remake, I too went in with very low expectations. However, it is a film that explores different themes to the original.

I don't hate it because it's a remake, that's reductionist. I didn't like it because it was a subpar film that wasn't all that great in its own right. Achingly rote and smelt of a studio dredging up IPs for the remake cycle.

I haven't watched the film since the year of its release, so not going to pretend I remember it intimately, but there's a difference between single set-pieces, and the script being "about" something else (be it through subtexts, subplots, or just a general tonal approach). One swallow doesn't make a summer, and while I do remember that public demo. scene, wouldn't have said it was a foundation to some general theme of automation to the extent you're implying existed. Honestly it feels like crediting the film for more depth than it had, the closest it hit to topicality were those disconnected Fox'esque interstitials.

Tired Gardener

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't hate it because it's a remake, that's reductionist. I didn't like it because it was a subpar film that wasn't all that great in its own right. Achingly rote and smelt of a studio dredging up IPs for the remake cycle.

I haven't watched the film since the year of its release, so not going to pretend I remember it intimately, but there's a difference between single set-pieces, and the script being "about" something else (be it through subtexts, subplots, or just a general tonal approach). One swallow doesn't make a summer, and while I do remember that public demo. scene, wouldn't have said it was a foundation to some general theme of automation to the extent you're implying existed. Honestly it feels like crediting the film for more depth than it had, the closest it hit to topicality were those disconnected Fox'esque interstitials.

That is one of many scenes however, the first that sprang to mind. There is the scene at the start with the robot 'peace keepers', the scene where Murphy is practicing and fails, so they install the automation over ride, where the machine takes over and all of a sudden Murphy is unstoppable, every scene with Samuel L Jackson, etc. The theme is there, just focused more towards law enforcement and peace keeping, than say your self check out at the local Tesco's.

I'm not implying that you hate it due to it being a remake, but rather remakes are an easy target to dislike from the get go as they threaten to devalue a film that has nostalgic value, so it is all too easy for people to write it off.