The RoboCop Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

I literally shouted out "Don't go in there alone you farken idiots, CALL FOR BACKUP NOW!!!"

They did. Twice. Murphy calls for backup when they first catch sight of Boddicker's van, but the dispatcher tells him it won't be available for fifteen minutes. He tries requesting backup a second time when they're outside the factory, but the dispatcher tells him it's unavailable for at least another twenty minutes. Earlier in the film Bob Morton had told the Old Man: "We've restructured the police department and placed prime candidates according to risk factor." This would suggest that OCP deliberately deployed Murphy in a high risk area in the hopes he'd get maimed/killed. They may even have withheld backup to increase the likelihood of that happening. You've also got to remember that Boddicker was a cop killer and one of his victims on the force had died earlier that day. Lewis and Murphy wanted to get him badly. So they had three options:

1) Leave the factory and come back at a later time with backup, hoping that Boddicker and his crew would still be there.
2) Stay in the car and just wait on the off chance that backup would eventually arrive. This would make them sitting ducks for at least twenty minutes, increasing the likelihood of them being spotted and killed by Boddicker and his thugs.
3) Go in and try to arrest Boddicker on their own. He was an elusive perp and they might not get another shot at him.

Ultimately Lewis called it. Clearly she made the wrong call, but we can see why she made that decision at the time. It doesn't make Murphy's death any less tragic or any less heroic for me. The car bombing in the new movie looks like an impersonal, toned-down substitute, devoid of the visceral impact the original death scene had.

These sort of parodies like that 6000 SUX ad would be better suited to a movie like Network

I think they're far too camp for Network, but you're right about them not advancing the plot. However the commercials do help characterise the time and setting. They give you a sense of what the media, business and politics are like in the future, and that creates context for the narrative. They also play off some of the film's central themes.

'The Family Heart Centre' commercial introduces themes of advanced medical science and privatisation. The fact you can get a cybernetic heart by dialling a 1-800 number tells you a lot about how science and business have mingled in future Detroit.

The 'Nuke Em' advert isn't particularly relevant to any of the film's major themes, but back in '87 it would've been relevant to the nuclear arms race between the US and Russia. You've got to remember that this was the same year Superman IV: The Quest for Peace came out, and people were still fearful that the Cold War could turn hot at any minute. The idea of corporations trivialising that fear by turning it into a board game shows just how low these people are willing to stoop to make a buck.

The 6000 SUX commercial connects with themes of materialism and greed. The lettering at the end of the ad looks like it's saying "GOOD SUX".



This resonates with the materialistic "greed is good" mentality the film is satirising. Only bad guys are shown to drive the SUX throughout the movie. When the disgruntled councilman takes the mayor hostage and demands a new car "with reclining leather seats, that goes really fast and gets really sh*tty gas mileage" the negotiator immediately suggests an SUX. Later in the movie one of Boddicker's men boosts an SUX after getting out of prison. It symbolises the superficial values of their consumerist culture.

So I don't think the commercials are superfluous. They may not directly affect the narrative, but they do help contextualise it and draw attention to the film's thematic subtext.

Murphy seems to have far more of a recollection of his former life, to the extent he doesn't even realize he's dead.

I don't think he is dead in the new movie. He just gets badly injured and has to be augmented with cybernetics. It's essentially just a slightly more severe version of what happened to Tony Stark in Iron man (2008). The concepts of resurrection and revenge from beyond the grave have been dropped from the new film altogether.

[johnnygobbs]

That's an excellent post, Gobbs. I respect everyone's opinion, and I get why some people might not like RoboCop. But to say that it's a bad movie... I just can't agree with that...

...By contrast, the remake looks like a generic CGI-filled superhero flick riding on the coattails of Iron Man's success. I may be wrong, but I'm expecting it to be to the 1987 film what last year's Total Recall was to the 1990 original.

Thanks for the kind words Silver Nemesis, but your break-down of the film was far superior to mine.    It's clear that you have a massive affection for the 1987 movie.

Unfortunately I think you may be spot-on with regards to your comparison to last year's pointless 'Total Recall' remake.  Like 'Robocop' the original 'Total Recall' was another excessive Verhoeven-directed sci-fi extravaganza that I initially dismissed as a nasty, ultra-violent, ultra-exploitative piece of mindless late 80s/early 90s action that offended by early adolescent arthouse leaning sensibilities.  Oddly enough, the older I've gotten the more 'mainstream' and less 'high-brow' my sensibilities have become (usually it works the opposite way for most people) but to be fair I also am now much more open-minded about genre movies in general and it's clear that if one looks beyond the pulpy façade these are actually pretty intelligent, progressive-minded films (ironic when one considers that 'Total Recall' is headlined by one of the world's most famous Republicans) that offer plenty of food-for-thought with zero pretension.  By contrast, the 2012 'Total Recall' sadly skimped not only in terms of the gloriously OTT violence but rather underplayed the more fascinating 'what reality is this?' type conundrums offered by both the original Philip K. Dick book and the 1990 movie.  I fear the new 'Robocop' movie will be equally as sanitised both in terms of action and depth in relation to its progenitor.   

[riddler]

I don't think he is dead in the new movie. He just gets badly injured and has to be augmented with cybernetics. It's essentially just a slightly more severe version of what happened to Tony Stark in Iron man (2008). The concepts of resurrection and revenge from beyond the grave have been dropped from the new film altogether.

You're probably right about that, it does say in the trailer he had fourth degree burns. Yet there is a shot late in the trailer he speaks with a robotic voice.

[The Joker]

I would say it's surprising that Hollywood chose to re do Robocop considering 2012's Total Recall blasted it's ways into cinemas, just as quick as it blasted it's way out, but unfortunately, it's not surprising at all. Even right down to both films appearing, right from the get-go, to be nothing special and lacking in the overall charm of the originals (IMHO).

With the original 1987 Robocop, I sincerely consider it to be a bona fide classic in the sci-fi genre, and a definite favorite to have come out of 1980's cinema. As it's a film that is fun, entertaining, electric, and always gory, underlined with satirical elements that comment on the media, corporate society, and consumerism gone mad. Which I felt really made the film stand out. As even though some films even have this same exact central theme, it was something atypical to see it done in a film from 1987. Along with Paul Verhoeven's direction, the film has a look and style of it's own in the way that exhibits a vision of the future, that displays the crime, and along with that, shows ALL of the violence that occurs as a result. But never, ever shies away from it.

Which appears to be the opposite approach of the upcoming 2014 film which, from what I gather, shot for a PG-13 rating.

Can't honestly say the 2014 trailer did anything for me. *sigh*

[johnnygobbs]

Hopefully Michael Keaton's intriguing 'Birdman' project will put his career back on track...suffice to say, I don't think the 'Robocop' remake is going to be the one (although on the plus side, it's nice that the film reunites Keaton with Samuel L. Jackson and that it features another great Batman movie actor, Gary Oldman).

[DocLathropBrown]

...I guess I'm the only one who's liking this.

RoboCop is perhaps second only to BATMAN as my most favorite film of all time. Loved it as long, ever since I was 2 or 3. And the remake has me salivating; it's become my most anticipated film of next year.

I firmly believe that if you're doing a remake.... justify it. Don't do the same movie. And they're fitting my feelings on it to a 'T.' They're keeping core elements of the story that are iconic, and going boldly in a new direction with the rest. And for Keaton alone? It's a must-see.

I'm also glad the satire seems to be jettisoned, or at least not about corporate greed. RoboCop more or less started it, but now it's been run into the ground. I'd have no desire to see that again.

[Paul (ral)]

Exactly Doc, I like that they seem to have gone in a different direction.

I'm reserving judgement until I see the movie.

[riddler]

i'm with Doc and Paul here. I mean they could do what the 1998 remake of Psycho did and make the same movie again but what is the point? I do think this is an interesting update; I don't believe the year the first film takes place is ever stated but it is implied to be the future.  This new one takes place in 2028 so it is an updated future based on a projection of todays technologies. Not sure if we'll get the robot vision or prime directives with the extra humanity but i guess we'll have to wait and see.

[The Joker]

Can't honestly say I'm finding the 2014 film interesting from what I've seen so far (done gave reasons), but one thing I can say, is that I certainly hope the rumor of the film essentially crapping all over the original by insulting the original suit design, turns out to be just that; a rumor.

Otherwise the Joker venom is coming out. Full force. 

[The Dark Knight]

I have managed to see the movie. As someone with little to no connection to the original film, I enjoyed myself just fine. It has a brisk pace which works well. It has social and corporate commentary. Keaton is fantastic. He has a substantial role and it great to see him in movies again. Samuel L. Jackson was fun too.

For my money, this is a tasteful reboot. There's traces of the old theme, an old joke makes a cameo and the silver suit appears. I think a lot of the whiners are going to be people who can't judge the reboot as its own thing. And it is its own thing. It strikes out on its own in areas.

If other properties rebooted in this way, I'd be less weary and sceptical of the word. It was justified here, in my opinion. These robot concepts are no longer that outlandish, they're actually relevant and current. I walked out of the cinema feeling satisfied, a lot more so than Robocop 3 for example which is just dire.

If anyone wants to ask any further questions feel free to do so.