ＴＨＡＮＫ ＹＯＵ ＦＯＲ ＹＯＵＲ ＣＯＯＰＥＲＡＴＩＯＮ
I feel the reviewer may be missing some of the satire here.
I loved the original but the little skits were never particularly funny, imo.
Thinking about "why make another Robocop movie" The answer I already had was simple, Just like Gildorf writes: "Mo' money, Mo' money, Mo' money..." (Or something to that effect).
But having asked myself that question again (when reading the review), I'm left thinking about 1984 and the attempts to rewrite history there and comparing to the attempt to rewrite history here, because that's what this is isn't it?
There's nothing wrong with telling an old tale in a new way, but the original Robocop was satire, the Robocop was an excuse to satirize corporate greed and ethical blindness and the economic collapse of Detroit all with the fear of nuclear annihilation in the background. Seems to me that telling the Robocop story as a struggle for identity is relevant, but misses the point of having a man put in that position in the first place, like its a given that corporations and CEO's are beyond satire now?
Or is that the point of this rewriting of history?
Regarding the "Tin Man" references: in the book "The Wizard of Oz" the tin man was a woodsman who chopped off his leg (due to a witch's curse).
I went to a tinsmith and had him make me a new leg out of tin. The leg worked very well, once I was used to it. But my action angered the Wicked Witch of the East, for she had promised the old woman I should not marry the pretty Munchkin girl. When I began chopping again, my axe slipped and cut off my right leg. Again I went to the tinsmith, and again he made me a leg out of tin. After this the enchanted axe cut off my arms, one after the other; but, nothing daunted, I had them replaced with tin ones. The Wicked Witch then made the axe slip and cut off my head, and at first I thought that was the end of me. But the tinsmith happened to come along, and he made me a new head out of tin.
So the RoboCop comparison is apt.
I feel like we're missing a ripe opportunity to talk about the choice of art in Sellars' office.
Initially they are some impossibly large Francis Bacon paintings - understandably enough as his work tends to elicit the madness of man in the machine age. But post-Murphy flambé the art switches to some work by Montreal-based Jon Rafman's The New Age Demanded series.
While evocative, I can't help but think that who ever made the selections could have chosen pieces that felt far more appropriate than the rather boring, flat works we see in the movie.
I'm looking forward to Robocop two too.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Either the coffee hasn't kicked in or I'm just dumber than usual today, but I can't quite grasp your thought.
Trust me, It's not you, it's me.
In the original Robocop, Murphy was considered property and that was justification for OCP to do whatever they wanted with him. This was part of the satire, a corporate sponsored (owned) police force and the OCP employees doing what they're told, ethical considerations be damned!
Now we have a new movie where these considerations are a given.
So, given that the most outrageous things we thought a corporation could do 25 + years ago are now commonplace (corporate owned prisions, military outsorcing and unethical behaviour accepted as the norm from corporations), are corporations beyond satire now? And is the new Robocop movie saying this should be meekly accepted by not being even more outrageous?
If I was not able to make this idea at least comprehensible, I apologize
I'd buy that for a dollar!
Gotcha. With my eye towards the "Overrated/Underrated Movie" thread, I've been considering seeing the new Robocop...with the sad expectation that it would likely be crap.
And to your point about how our ideals have changed (or at least the things that tend to enrage us), in a thread some time ago, someone made the contention that American art is dead as a political statement because we don't have anything worthwhile to say (implying, I suppose, that we're past the point of being controlled by the wealthy and cowtowing to the government). Maybe American cinema (at least Hollywood cinema) has reached the point where, like art, we don't have anything useful to say anymore? I know someone will jump in here and throw down several examples of such art that makes valid points, but it seems the only boundaries Hollywood is interested in lately is either the biggest budget or the biggest return, instead of being a groundbreaking political/social statement that gets folks thinking.
The remake looks like G.I.Joe with a badge.
Robocop 2 had one very good aspect. Significantly more innocent people and 'good guys' died than 'bad guys'. Though I suppose its all relative, it's more realistic.
That is a particularly vivid image.
+1 for 'significantly more good guys died'
Excuse me, I have to go. Somewhere there is a ballet recital happening.
Exactly: try to imagine yourself as a movie character giving backgrounder about the present state of the world to a 80's cinema audience and you will be depressed for sure.
Now we know what the first desecration of the Robocop statue will look like.
Is it terrible one of my off the cuff complaints is the director going on at how the first suit is the original with updated aesthetics when the color's wrong? Even without the prism reflection effect you see when murphey moved its clearly blued.
On the whole this is what I expected. A few jabs and just enough to not feel entirely toothless. Thing is while we have technology everywhere /now/ america is too much of a fundie country to go whole hog on full on robots on home soil. See also complaints and protests about drone useage and up that by orders of magnitude.
next page →