RoboCop Reboot - Part 6

[DA_Champion]

If anything, Robocop reineforces the need for the human element.

You didn't even see the movie.

Within the movie itself, Robocop is largely seen as a drone/robot by a lot of the public, and his exploits are presented as being due to the benefits of drone technology.

His level of free will in the movie is left unquantified, which is obviously necessary for dramatic tension.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You are missing the point. Call it what you want, but a drone by its sheer definition and function, is not an autonomous robot. Thus it would be irrelevant to an act that places limitations on autonomous robot.

Yup. It's apples and oranges. This is the main reason I went back to see the movie twice. I didn't want to judge it unfairly because I might have missed that segway but I didn't see one at all. And that's a major misstep in storytelling. Unless the writer/director honestly don't know the difference

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Exactly. But what the law states (and is repeated over and over in the movie) is that autonomous robots cannot be used on US soil. And RoboCop's existence should not change that, because he's not an autonomous robot like the ED-209, the humanoid ones or the aerial robots OmniCorp wants to put in the US.

That sounds like a whole lot of bad writing...

 

[DA_Champion]

You are missing the point. Call it what you want, but a drone by its sheer definition and function, is not an autonomous robot. Thus it would be irrelevant to an act that places limitations on autonomous robot.

I guarantee you that drones will still be called drones for an extended period even as they continuously acquire more and more autonomy over time.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You didn't even see the movie.

Within the movie itself, Robocop is largely seen as a drone/robot by a lot of the public, and his exploits are presented as being due to the benefits of drone technology.

His level of free will in the movie is left unquantified, which is obviously necessary for dramatic tension.

That has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act which states robots cannot operate on US soil. RoboCop is not a robot he's a drone/cyborg

 

[Paradox1]

Again, that doesn't answer it. Run it down step by step:

- Autonomous robots are not allowed to operate on US soil

- Sellers says in order to bypass the law he will need to put a man inside a machine, because it would not make him an autonomous robot

- The man inside the machine, RoboCop, works

- Congress votes to renege the law against allowing autonomous robots on US soil because of RoboCop

How does one have anything to do with the other? RoboCop is NOT an autonomous robot. His existence/track record do not reflect anything to do with that law. The movie doesn't address that unless I missed something.

Crime in Detroit dropped by 80% with just Robocop on the streets. If the law was repealed across the US similar results could be expected.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Crime in Detroit dropped by 80% with just Robocop on the streets. If the law was repealed across the US similar results could be expected.

So why would they change the law to allow robots (unproven/untested) when they should just make more RoboCops? Even Sam Jackson's character says in the movie that there should be 100 Robocops across the country. But that has nothing to do with changing the law, since he was created solely to bypass it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You didn't even see the movie.

Within the movie itself, Robocop is largely seen as a drone/robot by a lot of the public, and his exploits are presented as being due to the benefits of drone technology.

His level of free will in the movie is left unquantified, which is obviously necessary for dramatic tension.

What does that have to do with the argument? Unless they changed the basics of Robocop, and from all the material I have seen they haven't, he is not an autonomous robot. Alex Murphy is very much presence, and that is how he is pitched to the suits and the public. Putting a "human face" on the issue.

And do you understand what "drone" means? The same with "autonomous robot"? Because what you are describing is fundamentally wrong.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yup. It's apples and oranges. This is the main reason I went back to see the movie twice. I didn't want to judge it unfairly because I might have missed that segway but I didn't see one at all. And that's a major misstep in storytelling. Unless the writer/director honestly don't know the difference

They have a scene in the movie where they explicitly discuss the legality of Robocop's status, and they make clear that they should not be upfront about Alex Murphy's level of control over his body.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I guarantee you that drones will still be called drones for an extended period even as they continuously acquire more and more autonomy over time.

No they won't, and no they aren't even today. Drones are piloted. That is part of the definition. Robots are a different animal.

 

[Poni_Boy]

They have a scene in the movie where they explicitly discuss the legality of Robocop's status, and they make clear that they should not be upfront about Alex Murphy's level of control over his body.

That scene has nothing to do with making him "legal" it has to do with making him look good for the cameras during his unveiling because he became emotionally unstable. In actuality, he's SUPPOSED to be in control of himself so that his existence doesn't break the law.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I guarantee you that drones will still be called drones for an extended period even as they continuously acquire more and more autonomy over time.

That isn't the point. If Poni is right about the name and concept of the law, and I have no reason to think he would be wrong, Robocop does not apply.

 

[DA_Champion]

What does that have to do with the argument? Unless they changed the basics of Robocop, and from all the material I have seen they haven't, he is not an autonomous robot.

And do you understand what "drone" means? The same with "autonomous robot"?

I don't know if they changed "the basics" of Robocop as I have not seen the original. However, I think you should see the movie before criticising details in it. You're assuming that something is not in the movie because a random poster says "it's not in the movie".

I don't think Poni_boy picked up any of the political metaphors in the movie, which were a heavy part of the world-building. The drone (ok, "autonomous robot") invasion of Tehran at the beginning is clearly a metaphor for the rise of drone warfare, how it's changing military warfare, and a projection of what it might lead to in 10 years. That's how the movie starts, by painting a vision of the future motivated by current political themes and hot topics.

The meanings of words evolve. "Drone" now means controlled robot, but as the robots are designed to be more and more independent, the same word will most likely be applied to autonomous robots. The same way we use the word "computer" for completely different objects than what they were 100 years ago... it's because the application is the same.

*********

You know, in 2001, 15 Saudis hijacked an airplane and blew up three buildings in New York. 2 years later there was a 3 trillion dollar invasion that would eventually cost hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraq to remove a regime which was hostile to Saudi Arabia. If you don't understand politics, that looks like a "plot hole". It's not a plot hole however given that it actually happened.

 

[Poni_Boy]

A lot of people are complaining about the rating, personally, I didn't really notice the lack of gore, though I'll admit it would've added to the films tone.
It was changed to a PG-13 by the studios despite Kinnaman and the director's protests, in order to sell more tickets-
But would more people be willing to see this if it had an "R" rating?

The rating itself didn't bother me, I just didn't agree in how they used it. PG13 can show a lot of violence and imply a lot more. They didn't push the PG13 rating like they could have. You can make a hardcore PG13 movie if you want to. R rating would have hurt BO

 

[Poni_Boy]

I don't know if they changed "the basics" of Robocop as I have not seen the original. However, I think you should see the movie before criticising details in it. You're assuming that something is not in the movie because a random poster says "it's not in the movie".

I don't think Poni_boy picked up any of the political metaphors in the movie, which were a heavy part of the world-building. The drone (ok, "autonomous robot") invasion of Tehran at the beginning is clearly a metaphor for the rise of drone warfare, how it's changing military warfare, and a projection of what it might lead to in 10 years. That's how the movie starts, by painting a vision of the future motivated by current political themes and hot topics.

The meanings of words evolve. "Drone" now means controlled robot, but as the robots are designed to be more and more independent, the same word will most likely be applied to autonomous robots. The same way we use the word "computer" for completely different objects than what they were 100 years ago... it's because the application is the same.

*********

You know, in 2001, 15 Saudis hijacked an airplane and blew up three buildings in New York. 2 years later there was a 3 trillion dollar invasion that would eventually cost hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraq to remove a regime which was hostile to Saudi Arabia. If you don't understand politics, that looks like a "plot hole". It's not a plot hole however given that it actually happened.

That has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act that makes it illegal for autonomous robots to operate on US soil. A drone is a drone. A robot is a robot. Proving that drones (RoboCop) are effective should not justify using robots. Not in a legal sense where it's black and white and not up for interpretation.

 

[DA_Champion]

That scene has nothing to do with making him "legal" it has to do with making him look good for the cameras during his unveiling because he became emotionally unstable. In actuality, he's SUPPOSED to be in control of himself so that his existence doesn't break the law.

They're explicitly discussing the legality of Robocop on US soil in that scene, and they agree that not being candid about the nature of Robocop will help them go around the law. The CEO says they can get around the law by stating some BS about Alex Murphy's identity, and next we know Robocop is on US soil.

That's the way things are often done in the real world by the way, unless you're under the illusion that the law is always rigorously applied. Laws are frequently circumvented via technicalities, which often helps eventually fully repealing the law or simply making it meaningless.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That isn't the point. If Poni is right about the name and concept of the law, and I have no reason to think he would be wrong, Robocop does not apply.

This is why the whole story IMO caves in on itself. From the halfway point onward they are not abiding by the rules they set up for themselves.

They needed a "Bob Morton" to play against Keaton's "Dick Jones" who wants RoboCops on the streets, not robots.

 

[Poni_Boy]

They're explicitly discussing the legality of Robocop on US soil in that scene, and they agree that not being candid about the nature of Robocop will help them go around the law. The CEO says they can get around the law by stating some BS about Alex Murphy's identity, and next we know Robocop is on US soil.

Yes, they explicitly state that they cannot allow the public or media know that Alex is not in control of himself once they take that control away because if they find out it will go public that RoboCop violates US law. They need everyone to think he is a drone, not a robot.

Which strengthens my point.

That's the way things are often done in the real world by the way, unless you're under the illusion that the law is always rigorously applied. Laws are frequently circumvented via technicalities, which often helps eventually fully repealing the law or simply making it meaningless.

Oh please, we're talking about a screenplay that someone wrote not the real world. Film makers have to abide by the rules they lay out for their stories or it's just a house of cards.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't know if they changed "the basics" of Robocop as I have not seen the original. However, I think you should see the movie before criticising details in it. You're assuming that something is not in the movie because a random poster says "it's not in the movie".

Is Robocop not created to put a human face on a robot? Is he presented to the public or government as a completely independent robot, or is he seen as part man?

Not sure how much time you spend around here, but I don't consider Poni a "random" poster. I don't always agree with him (see IM3), but he is definitely intelligent, has a vast knowledge of film and almost always knows what he is talking about.

I don't think Poni_boy picked up any of the political metaphors in the movie, which were a heavy part of the world-building. The drone (ok, "autonomous robot") invasion of Tehran at the beginning is clearly a metaphor for the rise of drone warfare, how it's changing military warfare, and a projection of what it might lead to in 10 years. That's how the movie starts, by painting a vision of the future motivated by current political themes and hot topics.

You are going to have to ask Poni this.

The meanings of words evolve. "Drone" now means controlled robot, but as the robots are designed to be more and more independent, the same word will most likely be applied to autonomous robots. The same way we use the word "computer" for completely different objects than what they were 100 years ago... it's because the application is the same.

But Robocop by his very nature does not qualify. If he is be compared to pure machines, he is clearly different. That is why they make him. Because he is fundamentally different.

You know, in 2001, 15 Saudis hijacked an airplane and blew up three buildings in New York. 2 years later there was a 3 trillion dollar invasion that would eventually cost hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraq to remove a regime which was hostile to Saudi Arabia. If you don't understand politics, that looks like a "plot hole". It's not a plot hole however given that it actually happened.

What?

 

[DA_Champion]

That has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act that makes it illegal for autonomous robots to operate on US soil. A drone is a drone. A robot is a robot. Proving that drones (RoboCop) are effective should not justify using robots.

Robocop is part drone and part robot in the movie, with the two different statuses as to his nature competing for control throughout the story with that competition being part of the narrative tension, in fact being the core of the narrative tension.

Sometimes Alex Murphy is in control, but sometimes Omnicorp is in control. Sometimes they're both in control to various extents and we have a competition for power.

Not in a legal sense where it's black and white and not up for interpretation.

The law is always up for interpretation and selective enforcement in the real world.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Robocop is part drone and part robot in the movie, with the two different statuses as to his nature competing for control throughout the story with that competition being part of the narrative tension, in fact being the core of the narrative tension.

Sometimes Alex Murphy is in control, but sometimes Omnicorp is in control. Sometimes they're both in control to various extents and we have a competition for power.


The law is always up for interpretation and selective enforcement in the real world.

You're talking yourself in circles dude. Seriously. Actually stop and think about what I posted before. Without all this unnecessary real world stuff in your head:

- Autonomous robots are not allowed to operate on US soil

- Sellers says in order to bypass the law he will need to put a man inside a machine, because it would not make him an autonomous robot

- The man inside the machine, RoboCop, works

- Congress votes to renege the law against allowing autonomous robots on US soil because of RoboCop

Now answer this, is that how it happened in the movie? Because if the answer is yes, then it makes no sense because RoboCop =/= an autonomous robot.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

DA Champion can you answer this please? Is Robocop presented as not in control of himself to the public and government? Or do they go out of there way to make it look like he is a man, in control?

 

[DA_Champion]

- The man inside the machine, RoboCop, works

- Congress votes to renege the law against allowing autonomous robots on US soil because of RoboCop

You get lost on these last two points.

He is part drone and part robot throughout most of the movie. Once he is on US soil, his early successes demonstrate the benefits of robot technology to the main public and then they show the pie charts of the public opinion poll pie charts changing.

You looked up in a dictionary that drones and robots are mutually exclusive and that's fine. But within the movie itself, there is a lot of technological overlap. The movie makes this explicit when they show the world from Robocop's point of view, he sees things the same way the autonomous robots see things. We're supposed to infer that Robocop was built off a lot of the autonomous robot technology.

 

[Poni_Boy]

No buddy, I'm sorry but you're wrong. There is no overlap. It's explicitly stated over and over. It's just a plot hole.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How the hell is he "part drone", "part robot". What does that even mean? A drone is a robot.