RoboCop Returns [Neil Blomkamp]

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.