My impressions after watching Robocop 3

[BurnOne4Robo]

Said it before, I'll say it a million times over: Robbocop 3 is one of the worst films I've ever attempted to watch. The directing is incompetent (to say it nicely), the script might as well be non-existent; you could adlib a better movie, The campy-ness is completely out of place, and basically every thing about every scene is garbage. I find it impossible to watch this movie in one sitting. I have to take it 15 to 20 mins at a time, it actually hurts to watch.

[Joined]

Said it before, I'll say it a million times over: Robbocop 3 is one of the worst films I've ever attempted to watch. The directing is incompetent (to say it nicely), the script might as well be non-existent; you could adlib a better movie, The campy-ness is completely out of place, and basically every thing about every scene is garbage. I find it impossible to watch this movie in one sitting. I have to take it 15 to 20 mins at a time, it actually hurts to watch.

[Post Count]

Said it before, I'll say it a million times over: Robbocop 3 is one of the worst films I've ever attempted to watch. The directing is incompetent (to say it nicely), the script might as well be non-existent; you could adlib a better movie, The campy-ness is completely out of place, and basically every thing about every scene is garbage. I find it impossible to watch this movie in one sitting. I have to take it 15 to 20 mins at a time, it actually hurts to watch.

[RoboBabylonAD]

I wouldn't say the directing is incompetent.

The problem is that it's rudimentary.

I think people who've claimed "RoboCop 3" to feel less like a cinematic film and more like a film made for television are the ones who're absolutely right. It has a television quality to it, right down to the sanitation of the content but even more than that...it feels like a script-by-committee.

The biggest regret about "RoboCop 3," in hindsight, is the unfortunate fact that THAT is the big finale to the series and character as he was originally created.

I think Robocop, almost more than any other franchise of its kind with the exception of "Halloween," is the one that you could make the best argument for in terms of how it genuinely should've just ended with the first film.

Now I love all subsequent Robocop, from "2" and even parts of "3" to certain elements of "The Series" and "Prime Directives" and the remake...and as a concept, there was certainly the potential for longevity to keep going with more adventures. You've got a character very much in the tradition of Batman where you could give Robo a pantheon of villains to fight in the name of defending Detroit, taking its cues from Bob Morton's claim of Murphy having "a lifetime of on the street law enforcement programming" and crime certainly wouldn't intend to let up.

But simultaneously, you could've easily ended it with Verhoeven's film as a statement on the reclamation of humanity...the rekindling of the spirit within the machine.

No matter how many times I go through the process of sitting down to a "RoboCop" marathon of the films, I always end up feeling frustrated over the fact that Murphy is taken on this existential journey through the first film...gets beaten down by friend and foe alike only to rise up and transform from Robo back into Murphy in that euphoric moment where you can't help but cheer for him...and then you have to watch helplessly as he winds up conforming and falling right back into line in "Robo" status dealing with the Nuke epidemic right afterwards and so on. You see what I'm saying?

Back to "RoboCop 3"...it feels incredibly paint by numbers.

I remember how the original film was marketed to portray Robocop as a fully formed super hero...but the reality is that it was the sequels and the franchise after the fact that turned him into a super hero more than the first film really ever did.

To that end "RoboCop 3" plays like that. It's Robo as a super hero...with everything from an array of zany new gadgetry to Nikko as his plucky sidekick to Dr. Lazarus as his Alfred and the sinister villains that are evil out of obligation rather than as a social statement on capitalism.

Where "RoboCop" pushes boundaries, "RoboCop 3" is comfortably cradled well within them and it's a real shame.

And again, THAT's how the trilogy ends. It acts as though it's the epic, end all-be all battle for the soul of Old Detroit...but the reality is that "battle" is what exactly?

It's Robo flying in on his jetpack, blowing up one tank and gunning a handful of Splatterpunks down before flying into the OCP tower...watching helplessly as Nikko and Marie destroy the Otomo androids FOR him...and then him flying off like a chicken with the two of them as a failsafe bomb finishes the job. So in the grand scheme of things, Robo himself didn't do an awful lot to save the day in his own movie.

Now on the plus side, I do think the film opens very strongly, specifically with the idea of prolonging the moment until we finally see Robocop. It creates an almost mythic quality about the character.

"I don't think this is exactly a guy, Moreno."

"you think...it's HIM?"

There's a wonderful aura of mystery and suspense leading up to Robocop finally making his arrival.

But ultimately, it feels very predictable and deliberately tame.

For a send off for Robocop, it just feels so much smaller than it thinks it is...and it's a real shame.

[Joined]

I wouldn't say the directing is incompetent.

The problem is that it's rudimentary.

I think people who've claimed "RoboCop 3" to feel less like a cinematic film and more like a film made for television are the ones who're absolutely right. It has a television quality to it, right down to the sanitation of the content but even more than that...it feels like a script-by-committee.

The biggest regret about "RoboCop 3," in hindsight, is the unfortunate fact that THAT is the big finale to the series and character as he was originally created.

I think Robocop, almost more than any other franchise of its kind with the exception of "Halloween," is the one that you could make the best argument for in terms of how it genuinely should've just ended with the first film.

Now I love all subsequent Robocop, from "2" and even parts of "3" to certain elements of "The Series" and "Prime Directives" and the remake...and as a concept, there was certainly the potential for longevity to keep going with more adventures. You've got a character very much in the tradition of Batman where you could give Robo a pantheon of villains to fight in the name of defending Detroit, taking its cues from Bob Morton's claim of Murphy having "a lifetime of on the street law enforcement programming" and crime certainly wouldn't intend to let up.

But simultaneously, you could've easily ended it with Verhoeven's film as a statement on the reclamation of humanity...the rekindling of the spirit within the machine.

No matter how many times I go through the process of sitting down to a "RoboCop" marathon of the films, I always end up feeling frustrated over the fact that Murphy is taken on this existential journey through the first film...gets beaten down by friend and foe alike only to rise up and transform from Robo back into Murphy in that euphoric moment where you can't help but cheer for him...and then you have to watch helplessly as he winds up conforming and falling right back into line in "Robo" status dealing with the Nuke epidemic right afterwards and so on. You see what I'm saying?

Back to "RoboCop 3"...it feels incredibly paint by numbers.

I remember how the original film was marketed to portray Robocop as a fully formed super hero...but the reality is that it was the sequels and the franchise after the fact that turned him into a super hero more than the first film really ever did.

To that end "RoboCop 3" plays like that. It's Robo as a super hero...with everything from an array of zany new gadgetry to Nikko as his plucky sidekick to Dr. Lazarus as his Alfred and the sinister villains that are evil out of obligation rather than as a social statement on capitalism.

Where "RoboCop" pushes boundaries, "RoboCop 3" is comfortably cradled well within them and it's a real shame.

And again, THAT's how the trilogy ends. It acts as though it's the epic, end all-be all battle for the soul of Old Detroit...but the reality is that "battle" is what exactly?

It's Robo flying in on his jetpack, blowing up one tank and gunning a handful of Splatterpunks down before flying into the OCP tower...watching helplessly as Nikko and Marie destroy the Otomo androids FOR him...and then him flying off like a chicken with the two of them as a failsafe bomb finishes the job. So in the grand scheme of things, Robo himself didn't do an awful lot to save the day in his own movie.

Now on the plus side, I do think the film opens very strongly, specifically with the idea of prolonging the moment until we finally see Robocop. It creates an almost mythic quality about the character.

"I don't think this is exactly a guy, Moreno."

"you think...it's HIM?"

There's a wonderful aura of mystery and suspense leading up to Robocop finally making his arrival.

But ultimately, it feels very predictable and deliberately tame.

For a send off for Robocop, it just feels so much smaller than it thinks it is...and it's a real shame.

[Post Count]

I wouldn't say the directing is incompetent.

The problem is that it's rudimentary.

I think people who've claimed "RoboCop 3" to feel less like a cinematic film and more like a film made for television are the ones who're absolutely right. It has a television quality to it, right down to the sanitation of the content but even more than that...it feels like a script-by-committee.

The biggest regret about "RoboCop 3," in hindsight, is the unfortunate fact that THAT is the big finale to the series and character as he was originally created.

I think Robocop, almost more than any other franchise of its kind with the exception of "Halloween," is the one that you could make the best argument for in terms of how it genuinely should've just ended with the first film.

Now I love all subsequent Robocop, from "2" and even parts of "3" to certain elements of "The Series" and "Prime Directives" and the remake...and as a concept, there was certainly the potential for longevity to keep going with more adventures. You've got a character very much in the tradition of Batman where you could give Robo a pantheon of villains to fight in the name of defending Detroit, taking its cues from Bob Morton's claim of Murphy having "a lifetime of on the street law enforcement programming" and crime certainly wouldn't intend to let up.

But simultaneously, you could've easily ended it with Verhoeven's film as a statement on the reclamation of humanity...the rekindling of the spirit within the machine.

No matter how many times I go through the process of sitting down to a "RoboCop" marathon of the films, I always end up feeling frustrated over the fact that Murphy is taken on this existential journey through the first film...gets beaten down by friend and foe alike only to rise up and transform from Robo back into Murphy in that euphoric moment where you can't help but cheer for him...and then you have to watch helplessly as he winds up conforming and falling right back into line in "Robo" status dealing with the Nuke epidemic right afterwards and so on. You see what I'm saying?

Back to "RoboCop 3"...it feels incredibly paint by numbers.

I remember how the original film was marketed to portray Robocop as a fully formed super hero...but the reality is that it was the sequels and the franchise after the fact that turned him into a super hero more than the first film really ever did.

To that end "RoboCop 3" plays like that. It's Robo as a super hero...with everything from an array of zany new gadgetry to Nikko as his plucky sidekick to Dr. Lazarus as his Alfred and the sinister villains that are evil out of obligation rather than as a social statement on capitalism.

Where "RoboCop" pushes boundaries, "RoboCop 3" is comfortably cradled well within them and it's a real shame.

And again, THAT's how the trilogy ends. It acts as though it's the epic, end all-be all battle for the soul of Old Detroit...but the reality is that "battle" is what exactly?

It's Robo flying in on his jetpack, blowing up one tank and gunning a handful of Splatterpunks down before flying into the OCP tower...watching helplessly as Nikko and Marie destroy the Otomo androids FOR him...and then him flying off like a chicken with the two of them as a failsafe bomb finishes the job. So in the grand scheme of things, Robo himself didn't do an awful lot to save the day in his own movie.

Now on the plus side, I do think the film opens very strongly, specifically with the idea of prolonging the moment until we finally see Robocop. It creates an almost mythic quality about the character.

"I don't think this is exactly a guy, Moreno."

"you think...it's HIM?"

There's a wonderful aura of mystery and suspense leading up to Robocop finally making his arrival.

But ultimately, it feels very predictable and deliberately tame.

For a send off for Robocop, it just feels so much smaller than it thinks it is...and it's a real shame.

[Comment]

I wouldn't say the directing is incompetent.

The problem is that it's rudimentary.

I think people who've claimed "RoboCop 3" to feel less like a cinematic film and more like a film made for television are the ones who're absolutely right. It has a television quality to it, right down to the sanitation of the content but even more than that...it feels like a script-by-committee.

The biggest regret about "RoboCop 3," in hindsight, is the unfortunate fact that THAT is the big finale to the series and character as he was originally created.

I think Robocop, almost more than any other franchise of its kind with the exception of "Halloween," is the one that you could make the best argument for in terms of how it genuinely should've just ended with the first film.

Now I love all subsequent Robocop, from "2" and even parts of "3" to certain elements of "The Series" and "Prime Directives" and the remake...and as a concept, there was certainly the potential for longevity to keep going with more adventures. You've got a character very much in the tradition of Batman where you could give Robo a pantheon of villains to fight in the name of defending Detroit, taking its cues from Bob Morton's claim of Murphy having "a lifetime of on the street law enforcement programming" and crime certainly wouldn't intend to let up.

But simultaneously, you could've easily ended it with Verhoeven's film as a statement on the reclamation of humanity...the rekindling of the spirit within the machine.

No matter how many times I go through the process of sitting down to a "RoboCop" marathon of the films, I always end up feeling frustrated over the fact that Murphy is taken on this existential journey through the first film...gets beaten down by friend and foe alike only to rise up and transform from Robo back into Murphy in that euphoric moment where you can't help but cheer for him...and then you have to watch helplessly as he winds up conforming and falling right back into line in "Robo" status dealing with the Nuke epidemic right afterwards and so on. You see what I'm saying?

Back to "RoboCop 3"...it feels incredibly paint by numbers.

I remember how the original film was marketed to portray Robocop as a fully formed super hero...but the reality is that it was the sequels and the franchise after the fact that turned him into a super hero more than the first film really ever did.

To that end "RoboCop 3" plays like that. It's Robo as a super hero...with everything from an array of zany new gadgetry to Nikko as his plucky sidekick to Dr. Lazarus as his Alfred and the sinister villains that are evil out of obligation rather than as a social statement on capitalism.

Where "RoboCop" pushes boundaries, "RoboCop 3" is comfortably cradled well within them and it's a real shame.

And again, THAT's how the trilogy ends. It acts as though it's the epic, end all-be all battle for the soul of Old Detroit...but the reality is that "battle" is what exactly?

It's Robo flying in on his jetpack, blowing up one tank and gunning a handful of Splatterpunks down before flying into the OCP tower...watching helplessly as Nikko and Marie destroy the Otomo androids FOR him...and then him flying off like a chicken with the two of them as a failsafe bomb finishes the job. So in the grand scheme of things, Robo himself didn't do an awful lot to save the day in his own movie.

Now on the plus side, I do think the film opens very strongly, specifically with the idea of prolonging the moment until we finally see Robocop. It creates an almost mythic quality about the character.

"I don't think this is exactly a guy, Moreno."

"you think...it's HIM?"

There's a wonderful aura of mystery and suspense leading up to Robocop finally making his arrival.

But ultimately, it feels very predictable and deliberately tame.

For a send off for Robocop, it just feels so much smaller than it thinks it is...and it's a real shame.

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[RoboBabylonAD]

I can definitely agree with your points, particularly with "Prime Directives."

Funny enough, your avvy...as much as it's freaking me out haha...is one of my favorite scenes.

That idea of Murphy's consciousness getting rebooted and triggering the memory of his own murder and the subsequent human reaction to it. It's a very powerful and haunting scene.

Could you imagine a scene like that...but performed by Peter Weller and done so in a more compelling, appropriately budgeted version?

Like you said, "Prime Directives" has a number of fantastic elements.

I like the idea of it being set 10 years after the events of the original film and I love that it involves Alex's son as a main character and the idea of him growing up to be a presence within the very company that's responsible for what happened to Murphy (not in the sense of killing him...that obviously falls to the feet of Boddicker...but in the sense of not letting him rest, utilizing him for the "RoboCop" program of their own volition).

I think you've pretty much summed up the key to this whole thing, my friend.

The "RoboCop" franchise is a prime example of promising potential that's ultimately failed by poor execution. Not because the ideas themselves are bad...but how they're handled just doesn't do them justice.

And we all know how RoboCop feels about a lack of justice

[Joined]

I can definitely agree with your points, particularly with "Prime Directives."

Funny enough, your avvy...as much as it's freaking me out haha...is one of my favorite scenes.

That idea of Murphy's consciousness getting rebooted and triggering the memory of his own murder and the subsequent human reaction to it. It's a very powerful and haunting scene.

Could you imagine a scene like that...but performed by Peter Weller and done so in a more compelling, appropriately budgeted version?

Like you said, "Prime Directives" has a number of fantastic elements.

I like the idea of it being set 10 years after the events of the original film and I love that it involves Alex's son as a main character and the idea of him growing up to be a presence within the very company that's responsible for what happened to Murphy (not in the sense of killing him...that obviously falls to the feet of Boddicker...but in the sense of not letting him rest, utilizing him for the "RoboCop" program of their own volition).

I think you've pretty much summed up the key to this whole thing, my friend.

The "RoboCop" franchise is a prime example of promising potential that's ultimately failed by poor execution. Not because the ideas themselves are bad...but how they're handled just doesn't do them justice.

And we all know how RoboCop feels about a lack of justice

[Post Count]

I can definitely agree with your points, particularly with "Prime Directives."

Funny enough, your avvy...as much as it's freaking me out haha...is one of my favorite scenes.

That idea of Murphy's consciousness getting rebooted and triggering the memory of his own murder and the subsequent human reaction to it. It's a very powerful and haunting scene.

Could you imagine a scene like that...but performed by Peter Weller and done so in a more compelling, appropriately budgeted version?

Like you said, "Prime Directives" has a number of fantastic elements.

I like the idea of it being set 10 years after the events of the original film and I love that it involves Alex's son as a main character and the idea of him growing up to be a presence within the very company that's responsible for what happened to Murphy (not in the sense of killing him...that obviously falls to the feet of Boddicker...but in the sense of not letting him rest, utilizing him for the "RoboCop" program of their own volition).

I think you've pretty much summed up the key to this whole thing, my friend.

The "RoboCop" franchise is a prime example of promising potential that's ultimately failed by poor execution. Not because the ideas themselves are bad...but how they're handled just doesn't do them justice.

And we all know how RoboCop feels about a lack of justice

[Comment]

I can definitely agree with your points, particularly with "Prime Directives."

Funny enough, your avvy...as much as it's freaking me out haha...is one of my favorite scenes.

That idea of Murphy's consciousness getting rebooted and triggering the memory of his own murder and the subsequent human reaction to it. It's a very powerful and haunting scene.

Could you imagine a scene like that...but performed by Peter Weller and done so in a more compelling, appropriately budgeted version?

Like you said, "Prime Directives" has a number of fantastic elements.

I like the idea of it being set 10 years after the events of the original film and I love that it involves Alex's son as a main character and the idea of him growing up to be a presence within the very company that's responsible for what happened to Murphy (not in the sense of killing him...that obviously falls to the feet of Boddicker...but in the sense of not letting him rest, utilizing him for the "RoboCop" program of their own volition).

I think you've pretty much summed up the key to this whole thing, my friend.

The "RoboCop" franchise is a prime example of promising potential that's ultimately failed by poor execution. Not because the ideas themselves are bad...but how they're handled just doesn't do them justice.

And we all know how RoboCop feels about a lack of justice

[RoboTrap]

Robo was definitely a "one-and-done" type of film. Not that it didn't merit a sequel, but in order for one to work it would have had to abandon a lot of the iconography (terrifying thought for a film exec) and the odds of that happening weren't favorable. The sequels we got failed to grasp what made the film work as a whole, and especially didn't understand what made Murphy work. He has a clear, concise arc that ends with him reclaiming his humanity, and the sequels should have jumped off from that point instead of recycling the Robo character we had at the beginning of the first film.

RoboCop 2 only works if he did what OCP thought he was doing: disposing of his humanity. But he didn't! He was giving up the fight for recognition of his humanity, which is a very, very different thing, and something that wasn't touched upon for the rest of the movie. From a plot and story perspective, it just serves to reset him to RoboCop and that's that.

RoboCop 3 & The Series were continuations of that misstep with the character. The glimpse we got of Murphy in RC1 was of a warm man doing a hard job because he thought it needed to be done. I know it seems bizarre, but RoboCop 2 should have given us a Robo that split his off-duty time between the sadness what he's lost and just... being Murphy. Smiling, poking his partner in the ribs, being a human being.

I find it hard to picture, however it's what needed to happen for both the character and the franchise, and it's something they aggressively fought against to preserve what they thought was the appeal of the character.

Sorry Sarge, but they fucked up.
_________________

[Joined]

Robo was definitely a "one-and-done" type of film. Not that it didn't merit a sequel, but in order for one to work it would have had to abandon a lot of the iconography (terrifying thought for a film exec) and the odds of that happening weren't favorable. The sequels we got failed to grasp what made the film work as a whole, and especially didn't understand what made Murphy work. He has a clear, concise arc that ends with him reclaiming his humanity, and the sequels should have jumped off from that point instead of recycling the Robo character we had at the beginning of the first film.

RoboCop 2 only works if he did what OCP thought he was doing: disposing of his humanity. But he didn't! He was giving up the fight for recognition of his humanity, which is a very, very different thing, and something that wasn't touched upon for the rest of the movie. From a plot and story perspective, it just serves to reset him to RoboCop and that's that.

RoboCop 3 & The Series were continuations of that misstep with the character. The glimpse we got of Murphy in RC1 was of a warm man doing a hard job because he thought it needed to be done. I know it seems bizarre, but RoboCop 2 should have given us a Robo that split his off-duty time between the sadness what he's lost and just... being Murphy. Smiling, poking his partner in the ribs, being a human being.

I find it hard to picture, however it's what needed to happen for both the character and the franchise, and it's something they aggressively fought against to preserve what they thought was the appeal of the character.

Sorry Sarge, but they fucked up.
_________________

[Post Count]

Robo was definitely a "one-and-done" type of film. Not that it didn't merit a sequel, but in order for one to work it would have had to abandon a lot of the iconography (terrifying thought for a film exec) and the odds of that happening weren't favorable. The sequels we got failed to grasp what made the film work as a whole, and especially didn't understand what made Murphy work. He has a clear, concise arc that ends with him reclaiming his humanity, and the sequels should have jumped off from that point instead of recycling the Robo character we had at the beginning of the first film.

RoboCop 2 only works if he did what OCP thought he was doing: disposing of his humanity. But he didn't! He was giving up the fight for recognition of his humanity, which is a very, very different thing, and something that wasn't touched upon for the rest of the movie. From a plot and story perspective, it just serves to reset him to RoboCop and that's that.

RoboCop 3 & The Series were continuations of that misstep with the character. The glimpse we got of Murphy in RC1 was of a warm man doing a hard job because he thought it needed to be done. I know it seems bizarre, but RoboCop 2 should have given us a Robo that split his off-duty time between the sadness what he's lost and just... being Murphy. Smiling, poking his partner in the ribs, being a human being.

I find it hard to picture, however it's what needed to happen for both the character and the franchise, and it's something they aggressively fought against to preserve what they thought was the appeal of the character.

Sorry Sarge, but they fucked up.
_________________

[Comment]

Robo was definitely a "one-and-done" type of film. Not that it didn't merit a sequel, but in order for one to work it would have had to abandon a lot of the iconography (terrifying thought for a film exec) and the odds of that happening weren't favorable. The sequels we got failed to grasp what made the film work as a whole, and especially didn't understand what made Murphy work. He has a clear, concise arc that ends with him reclaiming his humanity, and the sequels should have jumped off from that point instead of recycling the Robo character we had at the beginning of the first film.

RoboCop 2 only works if he did what OCP thought he was doing: disposing of his humanity. But he didn't! He was giving up the fight for recognition of his humanity, which is a very, very different thing, and something that wasn't touched upon for the rest of the movie. From a plot and story perspective, it just serves to reset him to RoboCop and that's that.

RoboCop 3 & The Series were continuations of that misstep with the character. The glimpse we got of Murphy in RC1 was of a warm man doing a hard job because he thought it needed to be done. I know it seems bizarre, but RoboCop 2 should have given us a Robo that split his off-duty time between the sadness what he's lost and just... being Murphy. Smiling, poking his partner in the ribs, being a human being.

I find it hard to picture, however it's what needed to happen for both the character and the franchise, and it's something they aggressively fought against to preserve what they thought was the appeal of the character.

Sorry Sarge, but they fucked up.
_________________

[Superquad7]

RoboCop 3 gave us Robo driving a pink pimpmobile. That in itself is worth the price of admission.

I like the movie a little more now as a seasoned fan, but there's still too much of it I can't stand.

[Joined]

RoboCop 3 gave us Robo driving a pink pimpmobile. That in itself is worth the price of admission.

I like the movie a little more now as a seasoned fan, but there's still too much of it I can't stand.

[Post Count]

RoboCop 3 gave us Robo driving a pink pimpmobile. That in itself is worth the price of admission.

I like the movie a little more now as a seasoned fan, but there's still too much of it I can't stand.

[Archive]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Superquad7]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[artuditu]

The remake showed clearer than ever than Robo trying to get back his family is a dead end story, always leading to the same frustration.

The original films, specially the first one, were smarter not going through that path, just avoiding it or putting it aside. Murphy seems a nice guy before dying, yes, but what we have to understand is it works so well because it is generic, the audience can identify with Murphy instantly and feel his personal journey because he is more or less a normal guy. It is not that important who were his wife and son, he had a wife and son and he lost them, that's all you need, it makes the story more universal and mythical, the character is about man and machine, not about a particular individual before becoming machine.

It is not even important who was Murphy before dying, really, he was a brave cop, good partner, nice family man, you get all that in 2 or 3 scenes. But new reboot trends like amazing spiderman, man of steel and even batman begins, they want to give a full biography of the character before becoming a superhero, and make them more important and special before being important and special. Yet again Robo is not just another superhero, generic flashbacks of what was like being a man and having a family is all the character always needed.

[Joined]

The remake showed clearer than ever than Robo trying to get back his family is a dead end story, always leading to the same frustration.

The original films, specially the first one, were smarter not going through that path, just avoiding it or putting it aside. Murphy seems a nice guy before dying, yes, but what we have to understand is it works so well because it is generic, the audience can identify with Murphy instantly and feel his personal journey because he is more or less a normal guy. It is not that important who were his wife and son, he had a wife and son and he lost them, that's all you need, it makes the story more universal and mythical, the character is about man and machine, not about a particular individual before becoming machine.

It is not even important who was Murphy before dying, really, he was a brave cop, good partner, nice family man, you get all that in 2 or 3 scenes. But new reboot trends like amazing spiderman, man of steel and even batman begins, they want to give a full biography of the character before becoming a superhero, and make them more important and special before being important and special. Yet again Robo is not just another superhero, generic flashbacks of what was like being a man and having a family is all the character always needed.

[Post Count]

The remake showed clearer than ever than Robo trying to get back his family is a dead end story, always leading to the same frustration.

The original films, specially the first one, were smarter not going through that path, just avoiding it or putting it aside. Murphy seems a nice guy before dying, yes, but what we have to understand is it works so well because it is generic, the audience can identify with Murphy instantly and feel his personal journey because he is more or less a normal guy. It is not that important who were his wife and son, he had a wife and son and he lost them, that's all you need, it makes the story more universal and mythical, the character is about man and machine, not about a particular individual before becoming machine.

It is not even important who was Murphy before dying, really, he was a brave cop, good partner, nice family man, you get all that in 2 or 3 scenes. But new reboot trends like amazing spiderman, man of steel and even batman begins, they want to give a full biography of the character before becoming a superhero, and make them more important and special before being important and special. Yet again Robo is not just another superhero, generic flashbacks of what was like being a man and having a family is all the character always needed.

[Comment]

The remake showed clearer than ever than Robo trying to get back his family is a dead end story, always leading to the same frustration.

The original films, specially the first one, were smarter not going through that path, just avoiding it or putting it aside. Murphy seems a nice guy before dying, yes, but what we have to understand is it works so well because it is generic, the audience can identify with Murphy instantly and feel his personal journey because he is more or less a normal guy. It is not that important who were his wife and son, he had a wife and son and he lost them, that's all you need, it makes the story more universal and mythical, the character is about man and machine, not about a particular individual before becoming machine.

It is not even important who was Murphy before dying, really, he was a brave cop, good partner, nice family man, you get all that in 2 or 3 scenes. But new reboot trends like amazing spiderman, man of steel and even batman begins, they want to give a full biography of the character before becoming a superhero, and make them more important and special before being important and special. Yet again Robo is not just another superhero, generic flashbacks of what was like being a man and having a family is all the character always needed.

[Superquad7]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Stan The Man]

Great posts guys, especially RBAD and artu. I too agree that the real story of RoboCop, the family element included, was done as much as can be done in the first film, after that there's nothing to revisit on that level without being redundant or going in circles.

As said they could still build on that and come up with good stories and themes, but each time fell short in some form or other. Superquad pretty much hit it on how I view Robo-Murphy in R2, I felt it was just fine. Honestly though, no matter what you do, there's nothing that will touch the magic and balance of the original film, just not possible. I always thought a tweaked Corporate Wars story might have been close, but perhaps it too would have too much off the mark, who knows. That said..

[Joined]

Great posts guys, especially RBAD and artu. I too agree that the real story of RoboCop, the family element included, was done as much as can be done in the first film, after that there's nothing to revisit on that level without being redundant or going in circles.

As said they could still build on that and come up with good stories and themes, but each time fell short in some form or other. Superquad pretty much hit it on how I view Robo-Murphy in R2, I felt it was just fine. Honestly though, no matter what you do, there's nothing that will touch the magic and balance of the original film, just not possible. I always thought a tweaked Corporate Wars story might have been close, but perhaps it too would have too much off the mark, who knows. That said..

[Post Count]

Great posts guys, especially RBAD and artu. I too agree that the real story of RoboCop, the family element included, was done as much as can be done in the first film, after that there's nothing to revisit on that level without being redundant or going in circles.

As said they could still build on that and come up with good stories and themes, but each time fell short in some form or other. Superquad pretty much hit it on how I view Robo-Murphy in R2, I felt it was just fine. Honestly though, no matter what you do, there's nothing that will touch the magic and balance of the original film, just not possible. I always thought a tweaked Corporate Wars story might have been close, but perhaps it too would have too much off the mark, who knows. That said..

[Comment]

Great posts guys, especially RBAD and artu. I too agree that the real story of RoboCop, the family element included, was done as much as can be done in the first film, after that there's nothing to revisit on that level without being redundant or going in circles.

As said they could still build on that and come up with good stories and themes, but each time fell short in some form or other. Superquad pretty much hit it on how I view Robo-Murphy in R2, I felt it was just fine. Honestly though, no matter what you do, there's nothing that will touch the magic and balance of the original film, just not possible. I always thought a tweaked Corporate Wars story might have been close, but perhaps it too would have too much off the mark, who knows. That said..

[artuditu]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[Stan The Man]

I'm with ya, artu. I too very much appreciate how simply and succinctly the original film handled its business. We know all we need to know about not only Murphy, but OCP, the city, the police, the world environment/tone, Jones, Morton, Boddicker, Lewis.. In fact about 80% of the film we get by about the 20 minute mark. A real crash course if you will. After that any further info's extraneous, doesn't add anything really. And most of the movie is that way, getting to things with purpose and speed. Yet it never feels rushed.. nor does it feel like anything's truly missing or left out. It's beautiful and brilliant. It's that wonderful, magic balance in play.

This coming from a guy who usually would like a lot of background fluff and crap, as I've said elsewhere. Strange, huh?

On that point, that's something R3 certainly lacks in - the film isn't succinct, indeed it drags on at several times. Makes for a boring watch. The remakeboot was even worse in that regard in places. In fact I equate the new film with R3 in what I said previously, that it misses something on a basic level, misses that particular 'feel', and instead feels like a whatever action/crime flick. Bah, thats something else though.

R3 is still the worst on the films, plain and simple. R2 has it's many faults, but it has more in it I can look past and enjoy. Even with that aside, RoboCop 2, for whatever reason, still retains that original's 'feel' I speak of. R3, not.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

I'm with ya, artu. I too very much appreciate how simply and succinctly the original film handled its business. We know all we need to know about not only Murphy, but OCP, the city, the police, the world environment/tone, Jones, Morton, Boddicker, Lewis.. In fact about 80% of the film we get by about the 20 minute mark. A real crash course if you will. After that any further info's extraneous, doesn't add anything really. And most of the movie is that way, getting to things with purpose and speed. Yet it never feels rushed.. nor does it feel like anything's truly missing or left out. It's beautiful and brilliant. It's that wonderful, magic balance in play.

This coming from a guy who usually would like a lot of background fluff and crap, as I've said elsewhere. Strange, huh?

On that point, that's something R3 certainly lacks in - the film isn't succinct, indeed it drags on at several times. Makes for a boring watch. The remakeboot was even worse in that regard in places. In fact I equate the new film with R3 in what I said previously, that it misses something on a basic level, misses that particular 'feel', and instead feels like a whatever action/crime flick. Bah, thats something else though.

R3 is still the worst on the films, plain and simple. R2 has it's many faults, but it has more in it I can look past and enjoy. Even with that aside, RoboCop 2, for whatever reason, still retains that original's 'feel' I speak of. R3, not.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

I'm with ya, artu. I too very much appreciate how simply and succinctly the original film handled its business. We know all we need to know about not only Murphy, but OCP, the city, the police, the world environment/tone, Jones, Morton, Boddicker, Lewis.. In fact about 80% of the film we get by about the 20 minute mark. A real crash course if you will. After that any further info's extraneous, doesn't add anything really. And most of the movie is that way, getting to things with purpose and speed. Yet it never feels rushed.. nor does it feel like anything's truly missing or left out. It's beautiful and brilliant. It's that wonderful, magic balance in play.

This coming from a guy who usually would like a lot of background fluff and crap, as I've said elsewhere. Strange, huh?

On that point, that's something R3 certainly lacks in - the film isn't succinct, indeed it drags on at several times. Makes for a boring watch. The remakeboot was even worse in that regard in places. In fact I equate the new film with R3 in what I said previously, that it misses something on a basic level, misses that particular 'feel', and instead feels like a whatever action/crime flick. Bah, thats something else though.

R3 is still the worst on the films, plain and simple. R2 has it's many faults, but it has more in it I can look past and enjoy. Even with that aside, RoboCop 2, for whatever reason, still retains that original's 'feel' I speak of. R3, not.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

I'm with ya, artu. I too very much appreciate how simply and succinctly the original film handled its business. We know all we need to know about not only Murphy, but OCP, the city, the police, the world environment/tone, Jones, Morton, Boddicker, Lewis.. In fact about 80% of the film we get by about the 20 minute mark. A real crash course if you will. After that any further info's extraneous, doesn't add anything really. And most of the movie is that way, getting to things with purpose and speed. Yet it never feels rushed.. nor does it feel like anything's truly missing or left out. It's beautiful and brilliant. It's that wonderful, magic balance in play.

This coming from a guy who usually would like a lot of background fluff and crap, as I've said elsewhere. Strange, huh?

On that point, that's something R3 certainly lacks in - the film isn't succinct, indeed it drags on at several times. Makes for a boring watch. The remakeboot was even worse in that regard in places. In fact I equate the new film with R3 in what I said previously, that it misses something on a basic level, misses that particular 'feel', and instead feels like a whatever action/crime flick. Bah, thats something else though.

R3 is still the worst on the films, plain and simple. R2 has it's many faults, but it has more in it I can look past and enjoy. Even with that aside, RoboCop 2, for whatever reason, still retains that original's 'feel' I speak of. R3, not.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[artuditu]

What I like more of R3 is how they continue with the story of Detroit and Delta City, that is OCP taking over the city. That story arc is probably the thing that ties the original films together and gives some unity to them. At the end of R1 there is a police strike going on, and that's what we have at the beginning of R2.

Actually R1 creates a lot of expectation around Delta City, remember that conversation between Dick Jones and Clarence about everything going to kick off, millions of construction workers, etc. Robocop is the cop of Delta City, they should come together, they are the future.

I really felt disappointed when it looked clear the reboot script was discarding Delta City and the police strike.

Other than that it has been discussed many times what's wrong with R3, lots of things. I would point again the tone, which is very contradictory, for the most part of the film is very pessimistic and even dark, people expelled from their homes, a girl that lose her parents, refugees in churches, Robo gets his memory almost erased, OCP executives killing themselves, Lewis getting killed, we even have a teenager prositute because her father is unemployed... Seriously is any of that suitable for children AT ALL?

But as I said the tone is very contradictory, we get from time to time funny dialogues and action clearly aimed at children, and everything it gets too flashy and fantastic with gunarm, jetpacks, ninja robots... The little girl genius that saves everyone with her computer, including Robo, etc. etc. There is no point in mentioning all again. At the end the battle between people+cops and rehabs+criminals is too over the top, it was epic when I was a kid, but it really doesn´t make much sense.

[Joined]

What I like more of R3 is how they continue with the story of Detroit and Delta City, that is OCP taking over the city. That story arc is probably the thing that ties the original films together and gives some unity to them. At the end of R1 there is a police strike going on, and that's what we have at the beginning of R2.

Actually R1 creates a lot of expectation around Delta City, remember that conversation between Dick Jones and Clarence about everything going to kick off, millions of construction workers, etc. Robocop is the cop of Delta City, they should come together, they are the future.

I really felt disappointed when it looked clear the reboot script was discarding Delta City and the police strike.

Other than that it has been discussed many times what's wrong with R3, lots of things. I would point again the tone, which is very contradictory, for the most part of the film is very pessimistic and even dark, people expelled from their homes, a girl that lose her parents, refugees in churches, Robo gets his memory almost erased, OCP executives killing themselves, Lewis getting killed, we even have a teenager prositute because her father is unemployed... Seriously is any of that suitable for children AT ALL?

But as I said the tone is very contradictory, we get from time to time funny dialogues and action clearly aimed at children, and everything it gets too flashy and fantastic with gunarm, jetpacks, ninja robots... The little girl genius that saves everyone with her computer, including Robo, etc. etc. There is no point in mentioning all again. At the end the battle between people+cops and rehabs+criminals is too over the top, it was epic when I was a kid, but it really doesn´t make much sense.

[Post Count]

What I like more of R3 is how they continue with the story of Detroit and Delta City, that is OCP taking over the city. That story arc is probably the thing that ties the original films together and gives some unity to them. At the end of R1 there is a police strike going on, and that's what we have at the beginning of R2.

Actually R1 creates a lot of expectation around Delta City, remember that conversation between Dick Jones and Clarence about everything going to kick off, millions of construction workers, etc. Robocop is the cop of Delta City, they should come together, they are the future.

I really felt disappointed when it looked clear the reboot script was discarding Delta City and the police strike.

Other than that it has been discussed many times what's wrong with R3, lots of things. I would point again the tone, which is very contradictory, for the most part of the film is very pessimistic and even dark, people expelled from their homes, a girl that lose her parents, refugees in churches, Robo gets his memory almost erased, OCP executives killing themselves, Lewis getting killed, we even have a teenager prositute because her father is unemployed... Seriously is any of that suitable for children AT ALL?

But as I said the tone is very contradictory, we get from time to time funny dialogues and action clearly aimed at children, and everything it gets too flashy and fantastic with gunarm, jetpacks, ninja robots... The little girl genius that saves everyone with her computer, including Robo, etc. etc. There is no point in mentioning all again. At the end the battle between people+cops and rehabs+criminals is too over the top, it was epic when I was a kid, but it really doesn´t make much sense.

[Comment]

What I like more of R3 is how they continue with the story of Detroit and Delta City, that is OCP taking over the city. That story arc is probably the thing that ties the original films together and gives some unity to them. At the end of R1 there is a police strike going on, and that's what we have at the beginning of R2.

Actually R1 creates a lot of expectation around Delta City, remember that conversation between Dick Jones and Clarence about everything going to kick off, millions of construction workers, etc. Robocop is the cop of Delta City, they should come together, they are the future.

I really felt disappointed when it looked clear the reboot script was discarding Delta City and the police strike.

Other than that it has been discussed many times what's wrong with R3, lots of things. I would point again the tone, which is very contradictory, for the most part of the film is very pessimistic and even dark, people expelled from their homes, a girl that lose her parents, refugees in churches, Robo gets his memory almost erased, OCP executives killing themselves, Lewis getting killed, we even have a teenager prositute because her father is unemployed... Seriously is any of that suitable for children AT ALL?

But as I said the tone is very contradictory, we get from time to time funny dialogues and action clearly aimed at children, and everything it gets too flashy and fantastic with gunarm, jetpacks, ninja robots... The little girl genius that saves everyone with her computer, including Robo, etc. etc. There is no point in mentioning all again. At the end the battle between people+cops and rehabs+criminals is too over the top, it was epic when I was a kid, but it really doesn´t make much sense.