Post by Axalon on May 12, 2014 17:38:55 GMT -5
Yesterday I finally had the chance to go see the reboot of RoboCop. It honestly wasn't that bad. Wasn't perfect by any means, but it wasn't horrible either. I am also literally coming off of a viewing of the original as well, simply to refresh my memory as its been quite some time since I last saw it. And yes, my favorite scene in the movie is still the first scene with ED-209 and his "glitch".
SPOILERS FOLLOW. (Specifically, RoboCop '87 and 2014, Star Trek: Into Darkness and the first Iron Man)
CHANGE YOUR CURRENT WEB PAGE YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY.
Comparing the reboot to the 1987 original I found that there wasn't much to compare to. This I think is a good thing. By not copying the original the 1987 film continues to stand on its own and does what it does, while the new one strikes off in its own direction with the occasional nod to the original. Contrary to what some old "leaks" may have said, the film doesn't mock the original film at all.
It does briefly mock how toy companies have a tendency to make insane action figures out of a franchise by featuring an alternate design with flip-up shoulders that reveal flashing police sirens that "kids will love", but Michael Keaton's character shoots it down for the dumb idea it is. Another proposed design is the original '87 version dubbed the "combat mode", but Keaton opts to go for a more "tactical" suit, leading us to...the suit.
Going off of initial leaked set photos...I hated it. Generic, overdone, looks like Batman, etc.
It does look better in action though, and the lack of comparison to anything other than RoboCop himself made it seem like he was a normal sized person. In reality, he's the biggest character in the movie with the natural exception of ED-209. He still has a slow, methodical walk with big thudding footsteps, but speeds up in combat. Plus a "tactical" suit that looks generic and mass-marketed does make sense in its own way, given the context of the film. But I'll get to that momentarily.
The suit itself is fairly robust. The new film goes into a bit more detail in explaining the armor of RoboCop than the original, which was never really explained but just shown in action. Anything lower than .50 caliber isn't going to do much, once you hit .50 caliber you can start punching through the armor, but even then it isn't an automatic game-ender.
He does return to a more classical look by the end of the film though. Not the proposed '87 "combat mode" mind you, but close enough.
The RoboCop of 1987 was an ultra violent movie with some satire and humor thrown in, and mocks 80's excessiveness with an occasional jab at the then current Reagan-era, the Cold War, the dumbing down of the average American, and violent urban crime.
2014's version of RoboCop is lighter and less heavy-handed on the satire and violence (essentially an R rating vs. a PG-13 rating), but understandably updates the message from 80's excess, desensitized media and the Cold War Reagan-era to the use of drone warfare, right-wing "news" organizations (Fox News) influencing public opinion, and even briefly touches on American imperialism and Big Brother watching you. Yes, you! What satire is in the film is more subtle, and nowhere near as blatant as those commercials that popped up in the '87 film. Not counting Sam Jackson's Bill O'Reilly character of course. Both films keep the mega-corporation aspect though.
...Not that you can't make a parody of the 80's in this day and age and make it work. You can. Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon has shown me this can be done. But that would get into dangerous territory and lead to claims of mocking the classic film if not done perfectly. Instead, they opted to go for more modern issues. Does it work? Well, mostly.
Both go into the story of Murphy rediscovering his humanity from the inside of a machine, though the two films approach it a bit differently. The '87 film has a line or two showing that he has a family before bloody hi jinks ensue and he becomes a robot with almost zero memory of his past life, and gradually gains his humanity back, piece by piece.
The new film starts Murphy off in pretty much the same way, although he remembers from the get-go that he's Alex Murphy and realizes that he's in a robot suit. How much of Murphy is saved? The answer is not much. Not much at all. There's a scene where Gary Oldman opens him up and takes away all the robot stuff and...yeah. Not a whole lot. As the movie progresses Murphy's humanity is actually removed to where he acts completely robotic, and he slowly regains it back. Its actually foreshadowed a bit too.
RoboCop 2014 can also tap into any CCTV feed he wants and get live footage of whoever he's looking for based off a quick scan, in addition to being able to pinpoint your cell phone signal and track you down that way. He also has access to a database that allows him to instantly recognize people based off of a facial scan, and allows him to access their criminal record on the spot.
It does, sadly, mean we don't see him with a giant computer spike. He's traded his hardware jack for a massive wireless network. He might still have one, but the need for one is no longer there as technology marches on.
Murphy's 2014 story is also connected with the drone warfare issue, in that whole "man vs. machine" debate, and what rights do a machine have, should a machine be killing people, etc. It really boils down to efficiency versus having humanity, with the human spirit against embedded programming.
This debate is also partially why the aforementioned black "tactical" suit makes sense. Peter Sellers (Michael Keaton) sees Murphy as just another product. There's a line in the '87 flick where Dick Jones is telling Clarence Boddicker that OCP is "practically the military".
In the 2014 version...this pretty much sums them up. They ARE the military. Their drones have replaced ordinary soldiers and equipment in every corner of the world. The U.S. military is using OCP drones to occupy Iran, passerby in the streets of Tehran are routinely scanned to ensure that they don't have a record and that they aren't concealing any kind of contraband--think the scandal with the airport scanners and revealing image scans here in the U.S., except in the streets--and we even get a scene where some suicide bombers attack the robots on live television to make a point, ending with an ED-209 unit gunning down a child.
This then shows that Americans are not okay with robots enforcing the laws on American soil, but are perfectly fine with it anywhere else if it means preventing American casualties. As the CEO, Keaton is lobbying to have the law against robots in the U.S. removed so that he can tap into the lucrative American market. The eventual loophole he uses to demonstrate why OCP robotics are awesome to have in the streets leads us to RoboCop. The black "tactical" look makes him look less like the robots pictured above, but gives him the image of being more "acceptable" to the general public.
So where does this movie go wrong?
Well, villains. I love me some villains. My last blog entry was all about how Smaug was ruined as a villain in the second Hobbit movie, despite the fact that he looks fantastic and is voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. Villains are, to me, what makes or breaks an action or adventure movie. Which is mostly why I don't like the Avengers nearly as much as everyone else seems to. But I digress.
This film's villains weren't all that great. There's a Clarence Boddicker type of character, but he doesn't last long once RoboCop goes after him (though to his credit he puts up a fierce, though brief fight and him and his gang are the first ones to damage RoboCop). In the end we have Michael Keaton as the final villain...and I don't think he should have been. Well, let me clarify. He should have been a villain, just not one that actually gets into a confrontation with RoboCop. At the very least leave it open for another film should there be a sequel. That being said, villains in this type of movie aren't as important as say, a comic book film. Speaking of comics...
In much the same way I would have preferred that Obadiah Stane had stayed a puppet master in the first Iron Man instead of being exposed and tackling Tony Stark in an Iron Man copycat suit. That should have been saved for Iron Man 2 at the very least.
The lack of a good villain is mitigated somewhat by the fact that OCP is still around, so more shenanigans could ensue. Hopefully, if a second RoboCop 2 is made, its better than the first. Its also somewhat mitigated by the fact that Michael Keaton and the ever-talented Gary Oldman contribute their skills to the film as well
The movie also doesn't really take a clear stance on any of the issues I mentioned earlier in favor of shifting the focus to Murphy's personal tale. Upon doing some research I found that this was a deliberate move, so that the problems could be presented in plain view for the public to decide. Although it doesn't take a *clear* stance, I do think its implying that drones everywhere is a, shall we say, bad thing.
What did this movie get right?
Well, for one it handles referencing the original much better than say, Star Trek: Into Darkness. Now, I liked ST:ID. I really did. But the scenes taken straight from Wrath of Khan were kind of painful. I thought the last Star Trek movie was doing good when it was doing its own thing with Starfleet militarizing after a 9/11 style attack, but then swapped over to older classic scenes instead of relying on its own story.
I was worried RoboCop would do the same thing. Getting stabbed in the chest at a steel mill, or having the "You're Fired!" moment, or something. Fortunately, RoboCop handles it better. Easter eggs are used quickly, but effectively, and whenever a line from the original is said it makes sense when coming from that character's mouth. Its thrown in there as a nod of course, but it works better. Even "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" makes sense in context.
RoboCop himself has also been modernized very well. Michael Keaton and Gary Oldman are good, and Joel Kinnaman himself doesn't do a bad job as RoboCop either. His family has a more expanded role as well as part of his journey to humanity. Also, they use the original RoboCop theme. Yes, really.
And the winner is...
So, what robot film comes out on top in all of this chaos?
*drumroll*
...
Yeah, that just happened.
Seriously though, both films are good. The '87 RoboCop is mostly still relevant today. Its aged a bit, but aside from some questionable fashion choices and outdated technology is still a good film. Both the original and the reboot have some good casting, use the same excellent themesong, and both also have some...questionable moments. Moments that, while headscratchers, don't ruin either film. They aren't the best films ever made, but certainly aren't the worst. Not by a long shot.
And I now end this blog with Adam West's Batman.
SPOILERS FOLLOW. (Specifically, RoboCop '87 and 2014, Star Trek: Into Darkness and the first Iron Man)
CHANGE YOUR CURRENT WEB PAGE YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY.
Comparing the reboot to the 1987 original I found that there wasn't much to compare to. This I think is a good thing. By not copying the original the 1987 film continues to stand on its own and does what it does, while the new one strikes off in its own direction with the occasional nod to the original. Contrary to what some old "leaks" may have said, the film doesn't mock the original film at all.
It does briefly mock how toy companies have a tendency to make insane action figures out of a franchise by featuring an alternate design with flip-up shoulders that reveal flashing police sirens that "kids will love", but Michael Keaton's character shoots it down for the dumb idea it is. Another proposed design is the original '87 version dubbed the "combat mode", but Keaton opts to go for a more "tactical" suit, leading us to...the suit.
Going off of initial leaked set photos...I hated it. Generic, overdone, looks like Batman, etc.
It does look better in action though, and the lack of comparison to anything other than RoboCop himself made it seem like he was a normal sized person. In reality, he's the biggest character in the movie with the natural exception of ED-209. He still has a slow, methodical walk with big thudding footsteps, but speeds up in combat. Plus a "tactical" suit that looks generic and mass-marketed does make sense in its own way, given the context of the film. But I'll get to that momentarily.
The suit itself is fairly robust. The new film goes into a bit more detail in explaining the armor of RoboCop than the original, which was never really explained but just shown in action. Anything lower than .50 caliber isn't going to do much, once you hit .50 caliber you can start punching through the armor, but even then it isn't an automatic game-ender.
He does return to a more classical look by the end of the film though. Not the proposed '87 "combat mode" mind you, but close enough.
The RoboCop of 1987 was an ultra violent movie with some satire and humor thrown in, and mocks 80's excessiveness with an occasional jab at the then current Reagan-era, the Cold War, the dumbing down of the average American, and violent urban crime.
2014's version of RoboCop is lighter and less heavy-handed on the satire and violence (essentially an R rating vs. a PG-13 rating), but understandably updates the message from 80's excess, desensitized media and the Cold War Reagan-era to the use of drone warfare, right-wing "news" organizations (Fox News) influencing public opinion, and even briefly touches on American imperialism and Big Brother watching you. Yes, you! What satire is in the film is more subtle, and nowhere near as blatant as those commercials that popped up in the '87 film. Not counting Sam Jackson's Bill O'Reilly character of course. Both films keep the mega-corporation aspect though.
...Not that you can't make a parody of the 80's in this day and age and make it work. You can. Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon has shown me this can be done. But that would get into dangerous territory and lead to claims of mocking the classic film if not done perfectly. Instead, they opted to go for more modern issues. Does it work? Well, mostly.
Both go into the story of Murphy rediscovering his humanity from the inside of a machine, though the two films approach it a bit differently. The '87 film has a line or two showing that he has a family before bloody hi jinks ensue and he becomes a robot with almost zero memory of his past life, and gradually gains his humanity back, piece by piece.
The new film starts Murphy off in pretty much the same way, although he remembers from the get-go that he's Alex Murphy and realizes that he's in a robot suit. How much of Murphy is saved? The answer is not much. Not much at all. There's a scene where Gary Oldman opens him up and takes away all the robot stuff and...yeah. Not a whole lot. As the movie progresses Murphy's humanity is actually removed to where he acts completely robotic, and he slowly regains it back. Its actually foreshadowed a bit too.
RoboCop 2014 can also tap into any CCTV feed he wants and get live footage of whoever he's looking for based off a quick scan, in addition to being able to pinpoint your cell phone signal and track you down that way. He also has access to a database that allows him to instantly recognize people based off of a facial scan, and allows him to access their criminal record on the spot.
It does, sadly, mean we don't see him with a giant computer spike. He's traded his hardware jack for a massive wireless network. He might still have one, but the need for one is no longer there as technology marches on.
Murphy's 2014 story is also connected with the drone warfare issue, in that whole "man vs. machine" debate, and what rights do a machine have, should a machine be killing people, etc. It really boils down to efficiency versus having humanity, with the human spirit against embedded programming.
This debate is also partially why the aforementioned black "tactical" suit makes sense. Peter Sellers (Michael Keaton) sees Murphy as just another product. There's a line in the '87 flick where Dick Jones is telling Clarence Boddicker that OCP is "practically the military".
In the 2014 version...this pretty much sums them up. They ARE the military. Their drones have replaced ordinary soldiers and equipment in every corner of the world. The U.S. military is using OCP drones to occupy Iran, passerby in the streets of Tehran are routinely scanned to ensure that they don't have a record and that they aren't concealing any kind of contraband--think the scandal with the airport scanners and revealing image scans here in the U.S., except in the streets--and we even get a scene where some suicide bombers attack the robots on live television to make a point, ending with an ED-209 unit gunning down a child.
This then shows that Americans are not okay with robots enforcing the laws on American soil, but are perfectly fine with it anywhere else if it means preventing American casualties. As the CEO, Keaton is lobbying to have the law against robots in the U.S. removed so that he can tap into the lucrative American market. The eventual loophole he uses to demonstrate why OCP robotics are awesome to have in the streets leads us to RoboCop. The black "tactical" look makes him look less like the robots pictured above, but gives him the image of being more "acceptable" to the general public.
So where does this movie go wrong?
Well, villains. I love me some villains. My last blog entry was all about how Smaug was ruined as a villain in the second Hobbit movie, despite the fact that he looks fantastic and is voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. Villains are, to me, what makes or breaks an action or adventure movie. Which is mostly why I don't like the Avengers nearly as much as everyone else seems to. But I digress.
This film's villains weren't all that great. There's a Clarence Boddicker type of character, but he doesn't last long once RoboCop goes after him (though to his credit he puts up a fierce, though brief fight and him and his gang are the first ones to damage RoboCop). In the end we have Michael Keaton as the final villain...and I don't think he should have been. Well, let me clarify. He should have been a villain, just not one that actually gets into a confrontation with RoboCop. At the very least leave it open for another film should there be a sequel. That being said, villains in this type of movie aren't as important as say, a comic book film. Speaking of comics...
In much the same way I would have preferred that Obadiah Stane had stayed a puppet master in the first Iron Man instead of being exposed and tackling Tony Stark in an Iron Man copycat suit. That should have been saved for Iron Man 2 at the very least.
The lack of a good villain is mitigated somewhat by the fact that OCP is still around, so more shenanigans could ensue. Hopefully, if a second RoboCop 2 is made, its better than the first. Its also somewhat mitigated by the fact that Michael Keaton and the ever-talented Gary Oldman contribute their skills to the film as well
The movie also doesn't really take a clear stance on any of the issues I mentioned earlier in favor of shifting the focus to Murphy's personal tale. Upon doing some research I found that this was a deliberate move, so that the problems could be presented in plain view for the public to decide. Although it doesn't take a *clear* stance, I do think its implying that drones everywhere is a, shall we say, bad thing.
What did this movie get right?
Well, for one it handles referencing the original much better than say, Star Trek: Into Darkness. Now, I liked ST:ID. I really did. But the scenes taken straight from Wrath of Khan were kind of painful. I thought the last Star Trek movie was doing good when it was doing its own thing with Starfleet militarizing after a 9/11 style attack, but then swapped over to older classic scenes instead of relying on its own story.
I was worried RoboCop would do the same thing. Getting stabbed in the chest at a steel mill, or having the "You're Fired!" moment, or something. Fortunately, RoboCop handles it better. Easter eggs are used quickly, but effectively, and whenever a line from the original is said it makes sense when coming from that character's mouth. Its thrown in there as a nod of course, but it works better. Even "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" makes sense in context.
RoboCop himself has also been modernized very well. Michael Keaton and Gary Oldman are good, and Joel Kinnaman himself doesn't do a bad job as RoboCop either. His family has a more expanded role as well as part of his journey to humanity. Also, they use the original RoboCop theme. Yes, really.
And the winner is...
So, what robot film comes out on top in all of this chaos?
*drumroll*
...
Yeah, that just happened.
Seriously though, both films are good. The '87 RoboCop is mostly still relevant today. Its aged a bit, but aside from some questionable fashion choices and outdated technology is still a good film. Both the original and the reboot have some good casting, use the same excellent themesong, and both also have some...questionable moments. Moments that, while headscratchers, don't ruin either film. They aren't the best films ever made, but certainly aren't the worst. Not by a long shot.
And I now end this blog with Adam West's Batman.