RoboCop Reboot - Part 4

[Teelie]

Cracked just totally ripped into the reboot with a lot of the same complaints we've had here and a few new ones that I don't think anyone caught onto yet.

Good read. Should help anyone whose on the fence see just how much this remake is missing from the original.

My one thought while reading one of the gripes is that his human hand could easily be robotic with a skin/flesh covering instead of one that would be pulped by a stray bullet. Like how in the original his entire skull is titanium? Why couldn't they have made his hand robotic and stuck some skin over that to make him look more human while not creating a major weak point in the armor?

 

[The Guard]

Aside from the bit about Lewis, that Cracked article is fairly ridiculous in its assumptions and bias.

I understand concerns, but I can't take a lot of specifics critiques of this new version seriously because they hinge on assumptions about what is or isn't in the film, when there's actually evidence out there to suggest otherwise. I mean, come on, do we really still believe that's an actual human hand? Do we really think it's just a guy's body in a suit, or that there's no possibility his face isn't similar to what was going on with the original version?

 

[Teelie]

It's no worse than the assumption this movie is going to be awesome merely for being named Robocop and the guy directing it.

 

[BH/HHH]

Watched the original again today for like the millionth time and I still love it. It seems even more relevant he than it did before.

 

[Pepsiguy2]

Never visiting Cracked.com again

 

[terry78]

Damn, you people have thin skin. As South Park says regarding poking fun, "either all of it is ok, or none of it is."

 

[InJustice]

Cracked just totally ripped into the reboot with a lot of the same complaints we've had here and a few new ones that I don't think anyone caught onto yet.

Good read. Should help anyone whose on the fence see just how much this remake is missing from the original.

My one thought while reading one of the gripes is that his human hand could easily be robotic with a skin/flesh covering instead of one that would be pulped by a stray bullet. Like how in the original his entire skull is titanium? Why couldn't they have made his hand robotic and stuck some skin over that to make him look more human while not creating a major weak point in the armor?

So your answer to filmgoers who are on the fence about a remake like RoboCop, is an article that is entirely speculative material bordering on nitpicking things, and offers no real reason as to why this movie could be bad? This is such a catch-22 for remakes these days: They're expected to provide new content as to provide freshness, while at the same time also expected to copypasta the charm/writing/visual style/or what have you that the old movie(s) had. Cracked is basically saying "this movie sucks because it's not RoboCop 1987." Well jeez, no **** it's gonna suck if you don't give it a chance.

I can't understand why people are ripping on the human hand showing up on the movie, because it has symbolic value (Cracked only hit on the shallow symbol). The point that Padilha is trying to make is the dichotomy of Alex Murphy: on one hand the machine arm represents Alex's descent onto the machine world, where he's slowly losing his humanity due to being an OCP product (we see Alex Murphy's left arm being obliterated due to the bomb). On the other hand, his right arm is human and kept intact, which is symbolic of Alex desperately clinging onto his remaining humanity (and I say desperately because references were made that Murphy is not going to be human and his humanity will somehow override the mechanics of his cyber body). I'd go through all of Cracked's cons, but their article is a joke.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

A lot of people seem to have made up their minds about this film already! I suppose if you're determined to hate it nothing can stop you.

 

[Heretic]

Growing up, I didn't have the finances to watch many movies...and I skipped Robocop because the trailer looked like a generic action film. Turns out, you had to watch it to see how deep it was. The Cracked article even points out that you have to watch the film to know that the face is just a facade to cover machinery underneath...then immediately assumes that the hand in the remake is 100% human.

 

[Shikamaru]

[YT]kDEpPrsmuvM[/YT]

An incredibly well thought out rant on this reboot. Sums up everything wrong with what we saw in the trailer.

 

[Tanin]

Cracked just totally ripped into the reboot with a lot of the same complaints we've had here and a few new ones that I don't think anyone caught onto yet.

Good read. Should help anyone whose on the fence see just how much this remake is missing from the original.

My one thought while reading one of the gripes is that his human hand could easily be robotic with a skin/flesh covering instead of one that would be pulped by a stray bullet. Like how in the original his entire skull is titanium? Why couldn't they have made his hand robotic and stuck some skin over that to make him look more human while not creating a major weak point in the armor?

What makes you so sure they haven't?

 

[Teelie]

So your answer to filmgoers who are on the fence about a remake like RoboCop, is an article that is entirely speculative material bordering on nitpicking things, and offers no real reason as to why this movie could be bad? This is such a catch-22 for remakes these days: They're expected to provide new content as to provide freshness, while at the same time also expected to copypasta the charm/writing/visual style/or what have you that the old movie(s) had. Cracked is basically saying "this movie sucks because it's not RoboCop 1987." Well jeez, no **** it's gonna suck if you don't give it a chance.

And yet we're supposed to assume the opposite for the same reasons... remakes/reboots have to straddle a line between new and old. It's not one or the other. Had you bothered reading the whole thing instead of skimming as you apparently did you'll see why they said this movie may not be good. It has flaws that have absolutely nothing to do with being a remake itself. Oh, and I said "would help" not "determine" for those who want to see this movie. Help doesn't decide for you, it informs you.

I can't understand why people are ripping on the human hand showing up on the movie, because it has symbolic value (Cracked only hit on the shallow symbol). The point that Padilha is trying to make is the dichotomy of Alex Murphy: on one hand the machine arm represents Alex's descent onto the machine world, where he's slowly losing his humanity due to being an OCP product (we see Alex Murphy's left arm being obliterated due to the bomb). On the other hand, his right arm is human and kept intact, which is symbolic of Alex desperately clinging onto his remaining humanity (and I say desperately because references were made that Murphy is not going to be human and his humanity will somehow override the mechanics of his cyber body). I'd go through all of Cracked's cons, but their article is a joke.

It's meant to be a joke. It's a comedy site. Really though, you are so hung up on this being a good movie you'll look past every flaw pointed out (some quite big) no matter who is pointing them out. It'll be a good movie in your eyes because it's got some mystical level of depth you've read into it, despite the movie not even being seen yet.

 

[Teelie]

What makes you so sure they haven't?

Because as I just responded to, it's human to show this split of man/machine he's got and I believe the director has already said he'll have a human hand for blah, blah, blah needs to be a human hand pulling the trigger reasons.

 

[The Guard]

I dunno, I'm used to Cracked articles being funnier than that.

Weird.

 

[Teelie]

Sometimes they aren't very funny. Their sexist games article from earlier in the week got a lot of negative, unfunny attention. Mostly because it got so much wrong in it.

 

[InJustice]

And yet we're supposed to assume the opposite for the same reasons... remakes/reboots have to straddle a line between new and old. It's not one or the other. Had you bothered reading the whole thing instead of skimming as you apparently did you'll see why they said this movie may not be good. It has flaws that have absolutely nothing to do with being a remake itself. Oh, and I said "would help" not "determine" for those who want to see this movie. Help doesn't decide for you, it informs you.

I didn't state that you HAD to believe that this is a good movie, since we also do not know what makes it a good/great/stellar film. But I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the Internet bash/praise movies that we haven't even gotten a chance to see yet. And actually, I did read the entire article. My problem is that it doesn't even voice its concerns all that well. All it says to me is they compare it to the old RoboCop movie, and say "well his hand symbolism doesn't have subtlety like the old film. The pop-up visor thing is clearly ripped off of Iron Man and as such I'm going to completely and conveniently overlook this as fresh change brought to the franchise and whenever he flicks them down he's trying too hard to be tough, I like the old faceplate. I'm gonna call him tough dude RoBroCop all because of one scene where he's mad and has no idea what was done to him, and presuppose that I know the context of the situation. And there's no Officer Lewis, so this is obviously going to be a bad movie guys."

It's meant to be a joke. It's a comedy site. Really though, you are so hung up on this being a good movie you'll look past every flaw pointed out (some quite big) no matter who is pointing them out. It'll be a good movie in your eyes because it's got some mystical level of depth you've read into it, despite the movie not even being seen yet.

No, I'm not that hung up to the point of overlooking game-breaking flaws. As mentioned, I didn't find the article funny, nor did I find their examples effective in explaining why it could be bad. But what I will do is think about why the director took the direction he did, as opposed to whining about something because it's changed. For instance, people complain about the car bomb changing everything about RoboCop's origins (and I understand their complaints), but the problem is that these complaints presupposes that we already know the context in which the car bombing took place. Which is false, seeing as how we'd have to actually watch the film to understand why things happen the way they did. That's my actual problem: people complaining about things that we know nothing about, and treating them as if they are factual complaints (aka stuff that actually brings the movie down).

 

[SpideyFan866]

Cracked just totally ripped into the reboot with a lot of the same complaints we've had here and a few new ones that I don't think anyone caught onto yet.

Good read. Should help anyone whose on the fence see just how much this remake is missing from the original.

My one thought while reading one of the gripes is that his human hand could easily be robotic with a skin/flesh covering instead of one that would be pulped by a stray bullet. Like how in the original his entire skull is titanium? Why couldn't they have made his hand robotic and stuck some skin over that to make him look more human while not creating a major weak point in the armor?

Spoiler alert: That is what they did.

The hand isn't real. Its robotic.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What is exactly the problem here with the hand? Is getting shot in the hand some ubiquitous occurrence in action films, or for that matter, real life? It's Robocop, not Star Wars. BTW having a cyber hand didn't stop Vader from getting it demolished either.

 

[BH/HHH]

What is exactly the problem here with the hand? Is getting shot in the hand some ubiquitous occurrence in action films, or for that matter, real life? It's Robocop, not Star Wars. BTW having a cyber hand didn't stop Vader from getting it demolished either.

My problem with the hand is I think it just looks stupid.

 

[LostSon88]

Im going to try something completely "out there"...

Im just gonna wait for the movie to actually come out before judging it.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Im going to try something completely "out there"...

Im just gonna wait for the movie to actually come out before judging it.

Sorcerer!! Blasphemer!!! Heretic!!!!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

My problem with the hand is I think it just looks stupid.

Your opinion makes more sense to me than that entire CRACKED piece.

 

[BH/HHH]

Your opinion makes more sense to me than that entire CRACKED piece.

Haha I wouldn't read too much into Cracked. I think at times they exagerate stuff just to make a decent article, its a very entertaining site mind.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I've read maybe one cracked article out of the many many I've read that was actually funny to me.

 

[Sloth7d]

I've read maybe one cracked article out of the many many I've read that was actually funny to me.

Not a fan of SeanBaby?