We Can Fix It - RoboCop3

[Officer Igor Antunes]

Guys, this is a good reading:



WE CAN FIX IT: 'Robocop 3'

With a new remake on the way we take one last look at the movie that killed the franchise the first time. Don't worry... We can fix it.

Link: http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/172077-we-can-fix-it-robocop-3

[Joined]

Guys, this is a good reading:



WE CAN FIX IT: 'Robocop 3'

With a new remake on the way we take one last look at the movie that killed the franchise the first time. Don't worry... We can fix it.

Link: http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/172077-we-can-fix-it-robocop-3

[Post Count]

Guys, this is a good reading:



WE CAN FIX IT: 'Robocop 3'

With a new remake on the way we take one last look at the movie that killed the franchise the first time. Don't worry... We can fix it.

Link: http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/172077-we-can-fix-it-robocop-3

[vegasrobo]

Can't get that site!..ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!.So whats the deal?..They using 3 as basis for the reboot?..That would be fantastic!.

[Joined]

Can't get that site!..ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!.So whats the deal?..They using 3 as basis for the reboot?..That would be fantastic!.

[Post Count]

Can't get that site!..ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!.So whats the deal?..They using 3 as basis for the reboot?..That would be fantastic!.

[Comment]

Can't get that site!..ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!.So whats the deal?..They using 3 as basis for the reboot?..That would be fantastic!.

[Josh]

Nice find there Igor, it made for an interesting read.

I'm not going to lie, but I havn't seen RoboCop 3 in years. When I got the Blu-Ray I put it on, watched Robo drive to the top of a parking lot, smash the wall/rail, and shoot up his own cruiser. I can never watch it after that part.

But reading the article made me realise how much of a back seat Robo took and how it effectively made Nikko the main character. We all know the lack of emotion and goofy set pieces made the film a long toy commercial so this makes no sense. If you're going to try and flog toys, the big shiny robot needs to be up there doing some cool shit.

The one thing I do disagree with the article is the reveal of Robo. I've always liked the intro of the the first film as it strays away from your typical "hook the viewer with an action scene". I liked Robo 2's intro also but that was because it did the thing the first film didn't; it hooked us with that action scene.

Anyway, back to the reveal. I like the way you only see his visor, it adds an element of "cool" about Robo. Sadly, Robo smashing his console was probably the most emotional part of the movie but I think that was handled wrong. I think it would have been more effective to have Robo just turn it off, remaining calm and composed and choosing to make that judgement call and assist his fellow officers.

But hey, smashing stuff is cool and cool stuff makes for good toys...

[Joined]

Nice find there Igor, it made for an interesting read.

I'm not going to lie, but I havn't seen RoboCop 3 in years. When I got the Blu-Ray I put it on, watched Robo drive to the top of a parking lot, smash the wall/rail, and shoot up his own cruiser. I can never watch it after that part.

But reading the article made me realise how much of a back seat Robo took and how it effectively made Nikko the main character. We all know the lack of emotion and goofy set pieces made the film a long toy commercial so this makes no sense. If you're going to try and flog toys, the big shiny robot needs to be up there doing some cool shit.

The one thing I do disagree with the article is the reveal of Robo. I've always liked the intro of the the first film as it strays away from your typical "hook the viewer with an action scene". I liked Robo 2's intro also but that was because it did the thing the first film didn't; it hooked us with that action scene.

Anyway, back to the reveal. I like the way you only see his visor, it adds an element of "cool" about Robo. Sadly, Robo smashing his console was probably the most emotional part of the movie but I think that was handled wrong. I think it would have been more effective to have Robo just turn it off, remaining calm and composed and choosing to make that judgement call and assist his fellow officers.

But hey, smashing stuff is cool and cool stuff makes for good toys...

[Post Count]

Nice find there Igor, it made for an interesting read.

I'm not going to lie, but I havn't seen RoboCop 3 in years. When I got the Blu-Ray I put it on, watched Robo drive to the top of a parking lot, smash the wall/rail, and shoot up his own cruiser. I can never watch it after that part.

But reading the article made me realise how much of a back seat Robo took and how it effectively made Nikko the main character. We all know the lack of emotion and goofy set pieces made the film a long toy commercial so this makes no sense. If you're going to try and flog toys, the big shiny robot needs to be up there doing some cool shit.

The one thing I do disagree with the article is the reveal of Robo. I've always liked the intro of the the first film as it strays away from your typical "hook the viewer with an action scene". I liked Robo 2's intro also but that was because it did the thing the first film didn't; it hooked us with that action scene.

Anyway, back to the reveal. I like the way you only see his visor, it adds an element of "cool" about Robo. Sadly, Robo smashing his console was probably the most emotional part of the movie but I think that was handled wrong. I think it would have been more effective to have Robo just turn it off, remaining calm and composed and choosing to make that judgement call and assist his fellow officers.

But hey, smashing stuff is cool and cool stuff makes for good toys...

[KidGoesWild]

This was an absolutely great read. Handshake for the author, I wish he could read my text commentary on the movie. One flaw tho is that the author thinks that Robo overcame his programming at the end of R1 which is clearly not the case

[Joined]

This was an absolutely great read. Handshake for the author, I wish he could read my text commentary on the movie. One flaw tho is that the author thinks that Robo overcame his programming at the end of R1 which is clearly not the case

[Post Count]

This was an absolutely great read. Handshake for the author, I wish he could read my text commentary on the movie. One flaw tho is that the author thinks that Robo overcame his programming at the end of R1 which is clearly not the case

[Comment]

This was an absolutely great read. Handshake for the author, I wish he could read my text commentary on the movie. One flaw tho is that the author thinks that Robo overcame his programming at the end of R1 which is clearly not the case

[Sean_001]

I actually read this review last night at the bar from my gf's iphone.

But, looks like Igor beat me to it.

The author raised alot of good points, and mostly all the stuff we already know.

[Joined]

I actually read this review last night at the bar from my gf's iphone.

But, looks like Igor beat me to it.

The author raised alot of good points, and mostly all the stuff we already know.

[Post Count]

I actually read this review last night at the bar from my gf's iphone.

But, looks like Igor beat me to it.

The author raised alot of good points, and mostly all the stuff we already know.

[Officer Igor Antunes]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ElectricSoul]

they killed it when they decided to give him a kid sidekick / kid to take care of....that was it. after that,there was no recovery. he was going to stop being the man trapped in the machine,searching for his humanity,and kicking ass in the process....he became a role model and walking toy....

[Joined]

they killed it when they decided to give him a kid sidekick / kid to take care of....that was it. after that,there was no recovery. he was going to stop being the man trapped in the machine,searching for his humanity,and kicking ass in the process....he became a role model and walking toy....

[Post Count]

they killed it when they decided to give him a kid sidekick / kid to take care of....that was it. after that,there was no recovery. he was going to stop being the man trapped in the machine,searching for his humanity,and kicking ass in the process....he became a role model and walking toy....

[Comment]

they killed it when they decided to give him a kid sidekick / kid to take care of....that was it. after that,there was no recovery. he was going to stop being the man trapped in the machine,searching for his humanity,and kicking ass in the process....he became a role model and walking toy....

[Proto]

I believe that killing is wrong. When was he?

[Joined]

I believe that killing is wrong. When was he?

[Post Count]

I believe that killing is wrong. When was he?

[Comment]

I believe that killing is wrong. When was he?

[ElectricSoul]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[Proto]

Please tell me the correct answer. Sometime in the 20th Century.

[Joined]

Please tell me the correct answer. Sometime in the 20th Century.

[Post Count]

Please tell me the correct answer. Sometime in the 20th Century.

[Comment]

Please tell me the correct answer. Sometime in the 20th Century.

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[Duke Serkol]

Actually I've been meaning to ask you guys... how does everyone feel about the directives being back in Robocop 3?

Personally I never had a problem with them, but upon seeing the movie being discussed on-line, I noticed that this is often a very delicate issue to lots of people.

Me, I always thought it made perfect sense for OCP to find out Robocop got rid of his directives and put them right back.
They wouldn't want him to go around with free will, he's their product and they want it to stay that way.
And sure, Robocop could electrocute himself again, but I doubt this would stop OCP from trying again (perhaps giving him a "don't electrocute your damn self" directive) and Robo ought to realize this.

Some people object solely to the fourth directive being present, claiming that because Dick Jones is gone, that directive should be gone as well. But why wouldn't OCP adopt such a convenient (for them) insurance in case Robo ever finds them guilty of some crime (OCP involved in some crime? Shock!)

So that's why I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter, to clear up whether my reasoning here makes sense or I'm not making sense.

[Joined]

Actually I've been meaning to ask you guys... how does everyone feel about the directives being back in Robocop 3?

Personally I never had a problem with them, but upon seeing the movie being discussed on-line, I noticed that this is often a very delicate issue to lots of people.

Me, I always thought it made perfect sense for OCP to find out Robocop got rid of his directives and put them right back.
They wouldn't want him to go around with free will, he's their product and they want it to stay that way.
And sure, Robocop could electrocute himself again, but I doubt this would stop OCP from trying again (perhaps giving him a "don't electrocute your damn self" directive) and Robo ought to realize this.

Some people object solely to the fourth directive being present, claiming that because Dick Jones is gone, that directive should be gone as well. But why wouldn't OCP adopt such a convenient (for them) insurance in case Robo ever finds them guilty of some crime (OCP involved in some crime? Shock!)

So that's why I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter, to clear up whether my reasoning here makes sense or I'm not making sense.

[Post Count]

Actually I've been meaning to ask you guys... how does everyone feel about the directives being back in Robocop 3?

Personally I never had a problem with them, but upon seeing the movie being discussed on-line, I noticed that this is often a very delicate issue to lots of people.

Me, I always thought it made perfect sense for OCP to find out Robocop got rid of his directives and put them right back.
They wouldn't want him to go around with free will, he's their product and they want it to stay that way.
And sure, Robocop could electrocute himself again, but I doubt this would stop OCP from trying again (perhaps giving him a "don't electrocute your damn self" directive) and Robo ought to realize this.

Some people object solely to the fourth directive being present, claiming that because Dick Jones is gone, that directive should be gone as well. But why wouldn't OCP adopt such a convenient (for them) insurance in case Robo ever finds them guilty of some crime (OCP involved in some crime? Shock!)

So that's why I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter, to clear up whether my reasoning here makes sense or I'm not making sense.

[ElectricSoul]

makes sense to me! i always figured that at some point after he wiped the directives ( and probaly after the end of Robo 2 so Fax couldn't fuck with him again) ,he probably got an annual checkup or diagnostics test or something,the OCP tech's discovered this ,and just downloaded a new program set of them back into him...

he's OCP property...they can go in there and just sdo stuff to him if they want to,whether anyone agrees with it or not, Murphy included...

i could actually see him resisiting,or not wanting it to be done,but getting damaged enough that the tech's HAVE to work on him,and then they slip it in there...

[Joined]

makes sense to me! i always figured that at some point after he wiped the directives ( and probaly after the end of Robo 2 so Fax couldn't fuck with him again) ,he probably got an annual checkup or diagnostics test or something,the OCP tech's discovered this ,and just downloaded a new program set of them back into him...

he's OCP property...they can go in there and just sdo stuff to him if they want to,whether anyone agrees with it or not, Murphy included...

i could actually see him resisiting,or not wanting it to be done,but getting damaged enough that the tech's HAVE to work on him,and then they slip it in there...

[Post Count]

makes sense to me! i always figured that at some point after he wiped the directives ( and probaly after the end of Robo 2 so Fax couldn't fuck with him again) ,he probably got an annual checkup or diagnostics test or something,the OCP tech's discovered this ,and just downloaded a new program set of them back into him...

he's OCP property...they can go in there and just sdo stuff to him if they want to,whether anyone agrees with it or not, Murphy included...

i could actually see him resisiting,or not wanting it to be done,but getting damaged enough that the tech's HAVE to work on him,and then they slip it in there...

[Comment]

makes sense to me! i always figured that at some point after he wiped the directives ( and probaly after the end of Robo 2 so Fax couldn't fuck with him again) ,he probably got an annual checkup or diagnostics test or something,the OCP tech's discovered this ,and just downloaded a new program set of them back into him...

he's OCP property...they can go in there and just sdo stuff to him if they want to,whether anyone agrees with it or not, Murphy included...

i could actually see him resisiting,or not wanting it to be done,but getting damaged enough that the tech's HAVE to work on him,and then they slip it in there...