Page 1 of 3
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:36 am
by Leisher
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:44 am
by GORDON
I've got a dollar that says they screw it up huge.
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:06 pm
by GORDON
Here's a pic of the new Robocop.
Also it looks like there is no OCP in this one.
http://www.mania.com/robocop-em208-photo_article_136690.html
Edited By GORDON on 1358989611
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:57 pm
by Malcolm
No way in hell I'd buy any of that for a dollar.
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:07 pm
by Leisher
So he's Iron Man now?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:10 pm
by GORDON
Official trailer.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/jBeSfnIT_Bw?version=3 ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/jBeSfnIT_Bw?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
It is missing something. Not sure what, yet. I guess there could still be a lot of stylistic stuff we aren't seeing.... crazy future-commercials, or something.
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:07 am
by Paul
So, Batman wants to put him in the suit and Comissioner Gordon is the scientist who does it?
I remember seeing a preview for the original Robocop in a theater when I was a kid. My friend and I both laughed at it because it seemed like a generic bad movie.
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:47 am
by Malcolm
Holy shit. They've got Miguel Ferrer back. You'll remember him as Bob Morton from the original and as 50% of the movie/TV henchmen you saw from about 1984 - 1998.
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:35 pm
by GORDON
New trailer. Looks good so far............................
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/7HZPeSAPgBU?version=3 ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/7HZPeSAPgBU?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:05 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:No way in hell I'd buy any of that for a dollar.
This is nearly a direct quote from the movie.
Anyway, it was ok. Weller was much better in the role... he was a man trapped in a machine. This new guy, he didn't act like that at all. He just turned off emotions now and then as the plot required it.
Sam Jackson plays the version of Bill O'Reilly the way liberals think Bill O'Reilly is.
The guy who played Beetlejuice plays the corporate CEO who starts out just working in a gray area of morality and actually goes full cartoon villain at the end. Also Beetlejuice comes out in a scene or two.
A couple scenes had me thinking, "how is this not rated-R," but I guess they got around that by saying, "He isn't firing real bullets, he is firing electric stun bullets." It all looked the same except for the lack of blood splatter.
And finally, this may be minorly spoilery, the movie revolved around the fact Americans would not allow autonomous robotic drones to patrol the streets. They were seen as untrustworthy and lacking in a soul. This was portrayed as the position of the protagonists.... it was the evil, cartoony conservatives that wanted the robots on patrol ending crime. The irony is, in the movie, the robots never made a mistake. They performed flawlessly at all times, it was the humans making bad decisions over and over, and that fact was never really touched upon. So, that was a weird statement to make. I am not sure if it was intentional.
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:17 pm
by Malcolm
"He isn't firing real bullets, he is firing electric stun bullets."
Fuck. That. Shit. The point of the original was having a cyborg be the '60s Batman when interacting with a citizen and borderline Judge Dredd when going after crooks.
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:04 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:"He isn't firing real bullets, he is firing electric stun bullets."
Fuck. That. Shit. The point of the original was having a cyborg be the '60s Batman when interacting with a citizen and borderline Judge Dredd when going after crooks.
The only way you know they are non-lethal is because they tell you so. There is no blood splatter from rounds going through bodies, but everything else looks like hundreds of peeps just got blown away. All they have to do to make the movie rated R is take out that bit of overlayed dialogue saying the rounds are non-lethal.
They even kind of screw it up mid-movie when he shoots an unarmed dude in cold blood, and you think "another non-lethal round, no big deal." But they specifically say later he blew the unarmed dude away. So I dunno. They really wanted the PG-13, but they shot an R movie. Even the long, lingering look at his guts had me squirming a little bit.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:16 pm
by Vince
I was afraid this would suck. The original was a masterpiece really. In my mind, Peter Weller's performance (especially at his old house having flashes of memory) was one of the greatest performances on film ever.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:23 pm
by GORDON
I would not argue. The original is one of those Perfect Movies.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:09 pm
by Vince
It wasn't "fine art", but it really was just about perfect.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:45 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I would not argue. The original is one of those Perfect Movies.
The X-rated cut is.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:53 am
by Leisher
This is nearly a direct quote from the movie.
Anyway, it was ok. Weller was much better in the role... he was a man trapped in a machine. This new guy, he didn't act like that at all. He just turned off emotions now and then as the plot required it.
Sam Jackson plays the version of Bill O'Reilly the way liberals think Bill O'Reilly is.
The guy who played Beetlejuice plays the corporate CEO who starts out just working in a gray area of morality and actually goes full cartoon villain at the end. Also Beetlejuice comes out in a scene or two.
A couple scenes had me thinking, "how is this not rated-R," but I guess they got around that by saying, "He isn't firing real bullets, he is firing electric stun bullets." It all looked the same except for the lack of blood splatter.
Completely agree.
The movie wasn't terrible, but it was dull, and a shadow of the original.
And finally, this may be minorly spoilery, the movie revolved around the fact Americans would not allow autonomous robotic drones to patrol the streets. They were seen as untrustworthy and lacking in a soul. This was portrayed as the position of the protagonists.... it was the evil, cartoony conservatives that wanted the robots on patrol ending crime. The irony is, in the movie, the robots never made a mistake. They performed flawlessly at all times, it was the humans making bad decisions over and over, and that fact was never really touched upon. So, that was a weird statement to make. I am not sure if it was intentional.
I agree there too.
I'm 100% sure they were ripping conservative media via Sam Jackson, but at the end, the only conclusion you can draw is that the robots were far superior.
It's ironic when you consider the writers wrote that opening scene in Tehran. Why? Because the "terrorists" or whatever basically proved what they were protesting was the correct solution...
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:01 pm
by TPRJones
I rather liked this movie. It's a very different story from the original. The story told in the original movie was a better story, but this one is told marginally more skillfully. It's a close thing; both movies are very well done. Although I think Peter Weller and Kurtwood Smith make the original the winner in a head-to-head comparison.
Still, this remake is very much worth seeing.
Edited By TPRJones on 1418587423
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:49 pm
by TheCatt
Good .movie. Not great but I was entertained. I agree with most point, however I think the one key about the robots that y'all neglected was that while they were nearly perfect, they ultimately were under the control of someone or something g who could abuse that power. The red targets, for instance. Imagine e the police brutality thread, but with robocops. All I could think during g the movie was "hell no I would never give this level of power to anyone or anything."
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:26 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:Good .movie. Not great but I was entertained. I agree with most point, however I think the one key about the robots that y'all neglected was that while they were nearly perfect, they ultimately were under the control of someone or something g who could abuse that power. The red targets, for instance. Imagine e the police brutality thread, but with robocops. All I could think during g the movie was "hell no I would never give this level of power to anyone or anything."
Strangely enough, in the movie the military combat version of the robots was still less likely to kill an unarmed civilian than a real life, present day policeman.
These things are just guns with simple decision-making skills. Just tools. Tools can be used for good or ill. Maybe make the "3 Laws" chip a black box, or something, that law enforcement can never alter or adjust.