RoboCop Reboot - Part 3

[uniqueweasel]

Originally Posted by Verbal21

Are they really trying to distance themselves from the original? My take is whoever makes a movie about a robot who is a cop, no matter how good or bad the story is, will just be called a Robocop knockoff anyway so you might as well use the title and move on.

If you want to strip it down that basic fair enough, but in that way of thinking you could say any hero who has special powers should be called superman. And to be fair this so far is looking like a robocop knockoff.

[Paradox1]

Originally Posted by uniqueweasel

If you want to strip it down that basic fair enough, but in that way of thinking you could say any hero who has special powers should be called superman. And to be fair this so far is looking like a robocop knockoff.

Naw your wrong not when his name is Alex Murphy. working in Detroit, has a becomes a cyborg. That is the pure essence of Robocop what the suit looks like is as superficial as it comes when it comes to the character.

[uniqueweasel]

Originally Posted by Paradox1

Naw your wrong not when his name is Alex Murphy. working in Detroit, has a becomes a cyborg. That is the pure essence of Robocop what the suit looks like is as superficial as it comes when it comes to the character.

Yep and despite all these 'similarities' I still think (IMO) that it looks like a knockoff from what i've seen so far, granted I can't fully judge until it has been cleaned up etc in post production, but at this point the suit looks awful. You can't simply say someone is wrong just because of a difference of opinion, wars are started that way.

[TheBat447]

Is this a reboot or a movie based on the original? - a sequel of sorts?

For example: "we're creating a new Robocop, bigger, stronger, badder" etc..

[Monsieur Xavier]

Originally Posted by Paradox1

Naw your wrong not when his name is Alex Murphy. working in Detroit, has a becomes a cyborg. That is the pure essence of Robocop what the suit looks like is as superficial as it comes when it comes to the character.

I disagree.
When a character become an iconic figure the form is as important as the content. The look is very important in that case. What if the Terminator's andoskeleton was changed or a Predator without the tribal outfit ?

In Robocop remake case, the suit is robocopish but some may find it not enough or too generic when compared to the original and I can understand that.

[Paradox1]

I would disagree with that competely because silver is not as iconic to robocop as the visor, and the gun coming out the leg. If you havent seen the new photos of robo the suit has been changed and though it is not silver it is a dark gray.

[Pittman4Two]

Is this done filming? If so, any ideas when a teaser will be released?

[zanos]

The new Robocop looks like a guy in a black armored suit missing one of his gloves. The old Robocop looked like a machine.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by zanos

The new Robocop looks like a guy in a black armored suit missing one of his gloves. The old Robocop looked like a machine.

But I don't think you understand! New ipods come out every year, so the new Robocop can look like a guy dressed in a suit missing a glove. It's like, satire and stuff.

[Super Kal]

Originally Posted by zanos

The old Robocop looked like a machine.

and that's what i like about the look of the old design... it took the character outside of the visual human spectrum, and because of that separation, it creates fear.
all of a sudden, this man looks like a complete machine; the visual aspect of it gave it an intimidating look to it, because of its angular edges, how he moved, how he looked, how cold and emotionless he is, even how he talked... it all came down to visuals and presentation, and they did an amazing job.

i dont see that inhuman distinction with this new vision. in this new vision, he looks similar to every other police force on this planet. there is no intimidation factor with this version of robocop, especially if it's going to be a PG-13 movie. that takes away a lot of the brutality that the first one had.

i understand why they changed it, but i really dont think it was a good move... i also dont think making this a PG-13 movie is a good move either. you're going to lose a lot of the reasons as to why robocop is robocop... plus, the whole "hand" thing shows its trying to make it user-friendly. newsflash: cybernetics and human flesh dont mix.

they need to drop this "streamline" vision, and go more gritty, more angular, more dirty. if you dont have that cold and emotionless feelings because of the differences between cybernetics and human flesh, on a visual perspective, the audience will not be able to feel the disconnection that Murphy will have in being completely robotic, like the first movie did.

[Paradox1]

Art is immating life , as tech has advanced they've gotten smaller. Robocop 1989 was like one of those clunky cell phones that covered half your face. While new robocop is a new sleek smart phone.

[Super Kal]

and because of this "user-friendly" approach, you lose the intimidation

[Paradox1]

You know what's really intimidating? a gun!

[zanos]

I think the studio is trying for a more family friendly film, and make it a little more like the old Robocop tv show, hence the PG-13.

[DoomsdayApex]

It's always fascinating when fans tear down a different interpretation because it's not what they wanted and/or what they remembered. I seem to remember Batman fans calling his grey suit and black trunks iconic too when the '89 film hit theaters.

[Slushy]

Since this is RoboCop's new take on his origin, he is a prototype at this point. If the film is a hit, but the number one complaint by fans is his looks, I can see (and hope) that he gets his silver look in the sequel. I have my fingers crossed.

[Alien Anal]

Am i the only one that thinks that Robocop doesnt need to be a long running franchise. To me Robocop is not a "superhero" and is more so about the story of a major corporation turning a man into a machine. Its why i dont even think the costume needs to look like the original because its not about looking iconic but about the story.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It's always fascinating when fans tear down a different interpretation because it's not what they wanted and/or what they remembered. I seem to remember Batman fans calling his grey suit and black trunks iconic too when the '89 film hit theaters.

Why fascinating? It was made for its time....it was a good satire on the 80's, and it was hard R.

This is a remake trying to cash in with a diluted form of what made the original great.

Its really got 50% chance of success...and that's only if it is a watered down PG-13, '3D' movie.

[Paradox1]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Why fascinating? It was made for its time....it was a good satire on the 80's, and it was hard R.

This is a remake trying to cash in with a diluted form of what made the original great.

Its really got 50% chance of success...and that's only if it is a watered down PG-13, '3D' movie.

I would say the chance for success is more like 60/40 at least. The director from what I hear is very good and the cast is fabulous. If the action is better than good I'd give an increase to those chances by 20%. Look Micheal Bay's Transformer movies have made bank and I hear nearly nothing but complaints about those fans.

[gkokujin]

more bad news... look at the gun...

[gohei_]

Well, the size doesn't matter, right?

[Raoul Duke]

it's in a holster? not good.

[Travesty]

People have said that the holster will be CGI'd out, but I don't really know for sure.

[Dyson]

The holster will be taken out in post production. The holster is being used for shots where RoboCop takes his gun out quickly out of his leg.

This is a $100 million budget feature film. Yeah, the holster will be taken out in post and RoboCop will always have his gun in his leg, just like the original film.

[dark_b]

they filmed a close up on him. so he needed to take the gun out. nothing to fear here.

the gun is in the leg.