RoboCop 2 - What do you dislike about it?

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Superquad7]

Just slightly off topic for a bit, but weren't the parts of RoboCop in the first movie originally intentionally muted to more of an overall silver (which is one thing a lot of people tend to prefer)? While I'm still reading through and considering things, etc., with as much as this is debated, I think this to be an important point to consider.

That said, I still want to withhold from replying here with my own opinions on the topic still, as I really want to read through what members here have said in this thread (as well as the older thread). While we are certainly very much left to simply evaluate things "as they are," certainly the intentions of the creators of the first movie regarding this one point is important. It's only one point among many, though. Mainly, I don't want to "remember wrongly" with something I think I may or may not have read.

Yep, I'm old and forgetful, if you don't get anything else from this post.

[Joined]

Just slightly off topic for a bit, but weren't the parts of RoboCop in the first movie originally intentionally muted to more of an overall silver (which is one thing a lot of people tend to prefer)? While I'm still reading through and considering things, etc., with as much as this is debated, I think this to be an important point to consider.

That said, I still want to withhold from replying here with my own opinions on the topic still, as I really want to read through what members here have said in this thread (as well as the older thread). While we are certainly very much left to simply evaluate things "as they are," certainly the intentions of the creators of the first movie regarding this one point is important. It's only one point among many, though. Mainly, I don't want to "remember wrongly" with something I think I may or may not have read.

Yep, I'm old and forgetful, if you don't get anything else from this post.

[Post Count]

Just slightly off topic for a bit, but weren't the parts of RoboCop in the first movie originally intentionally muted to more of an overall silver (which is one thing a lot of people tend to prefer)? While I'm still reading through and considering things, etc., with as much as this is debated, I think this to be an important point to consider.

That said, I still want to withhold from replying here with my own opinions on the topic still, as I really want to read through what members here have said in this thread (as well as the older thread). While we are certainly very much left to simply evaluate things "as they are," certainly the intentions of the creators of the first movie regarding this one point is important. It's only one point among many, though. Mainly, I don't want to "remember wrongly" with something I think I may or may not have read.

Yep, I'm old and forgetful, if you don't get anything else from this post.

[TODD-209]

I'd like to add my two cents on the subject...

My love of RoboCop 2 began with the trailer. It was Christmas Break 1989, and my family and I were at the movies to see National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. When it came on, there was a tiny notion in my brain that this could be a new RoboCop movie, but there were several action-oriented franchises at the time, so I wasn't sure at first.

Then, I saw that Ford Taurus police cruiser, and I knew. It still didn't seem real until I saw that cybernetic foot step out of what was left of his cruiser. I was practically hopping up and down in my seat like an idiot. (lol)

It's only been in recent years that I've been able to put my finger on what was off about this film. I can probably sum it up best with my likes and dislikes...

Likes:

I've always liked the upgraded armor, from the more precise-looking and machine-finished black parts to the cool blue hue of the "metal". It just always looked more finished and dynamic in the sequel, and it holds up to this day.

The Media Break segments and subsequent commercials carried over well, and they seemed to retain the same feel and spirit of the originals.

I've always liked the somber scene in the beginning where OCP is trying to get a legal statement on record from Murphy that he's only a machine. To me that was the single best scene of the whole film. It resonated with the whole notion of where the man ended and the machine began that the first film proposed oh so subtly.

RoboCain...what an awesome concept; OCP tries to follow-up RoboCop with a hulk of a machine in the vein of an ED-209 controlled by the drug-fueled brain of a former nemesis. How appropriate then that they can't control it when it goes on a rampage and targets RoboCop as one of his "murderers". I don't know that it's ever occurred to me that Cain was ultimately the antithesis of Murphy, the negative opposite of what Murphy was and what he would do in his disposition, of the path one would choose were they given the same power...

The silly directives...it was a funny and interesting concept, just perhaps not fully realized or completely well-executed.


Okay, now for my dislikes:

The actors to me were all silly caricatures. Now I don't know if the successful formula for the original actors and roles came down to brilliant casting, excellent directing, or the perfect script...it had to be all three, but they seemed way off in the sequel. There wasn't the natural delivery of lines or the realistic, natural portrayal of each individual role like we saw in the original. It's as if the first one was shot more like a documentary, and the sequel is just a comic book film in terms of stereotypes, portrayals, and weird, out-of-place lines that just don't feel natural or realistic.

The psychologist that works for OCP...I can't remember her name just now, but...I feel as if she was the worst case of mis-casting in recent memory. I just did not get the diabolical vibe the character should of exuded in what should have been such a creepy, deliciously evil role.

That damn mayor...I still cringe whenever I see his scenes. (lol)

I could never get behind liking Cain's gang like I did Boddicker and Co. The woman (can't remember her name just now either) and Hobbs just seemed to make his gang feel like more of a misguided druggie/hippie commune than a deadly, heavily armed crime gang.

The sequel also seemed too bright in terms of cinematography, almost comic-booky, whereas the original was shot in a more organic, naturalistic looking-way with more natural lighting and believable camera angles. Again, there was almost a documentary feel to the shots and scenes in the original that this film lacked.

That whole opening sequence where they're trying to show just how rotten Detroit has gotten since even the events of the original story was so silly, contrived, fake, and completely over-the-top-but-not-in-a-good-way. The violence of the first film was also over-the-top, but it was scary because it was so believable; there was a logic and a reality to it that was missing from the sequel.

Don't even get me started on that idiotic scene where the little league team is trashing that electronics store. It's so stupid to me now that I just get angry when I see it. (lol)

I still like RoboCop 2 as an exciting sequel to the masterpiece that was the original film, but it's not held up well over the years for me in terms of storytelling and execution. It just didn't make the statement and tell the same kind of archetypical story the original did. It was a textbook cash-grab-of-a-sequel that just served to capitalize on the success of the first film. It's enjoyable enough in most spots to still entertain me, but I can do without it.

[Joined]

I'd like to add my two cents on the subject...

My love of RoboCop 2 began with the trailer. It was Christmas Break 1989, and my family and I were at the movies to see National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. When it came on, there was a tiny notion in my brain that this could be a new RoboCop movie, but there were several action-oriented franchises at the time, so I wasn't sure at first.

Then, I saw that Ford Taurus police cruiser, and I knew. It still didn't seem real until I saw that cybernetic foot step out of what was left of his cruiser. I was practically hopping up and down in my seat like an idiot. (lol)

It's only been in recent years that I've been able to put my finger on what was off about this film. I can probably sum it up best with my likes and dislikes...

Likes:

I've always liked the upgraded armor, from the more precise-looking and machine-finished black parts to the cool blue hue of the "metal". It just always looked more finished and dynamic in the sequel, and it holds up to this day.

The Media Break segments and subsequent commercials carried over well, and they seemed to retain the same feel and spirit of the originals.

I've always liked the somber scene in the beginning where OCP is trying to get a legal statement on record from Murphy that he's only a machine. To me that was the single best scene of the whole film. It resonated with the whole notion of where the man ended and the machine began that the first film proposed oh so subtly.

RoboCain...what an awesome concept; OCP tries to follow-up RoboCop with a hulk of a machine in the vein of an ED-209 controlled by the drug-fueled brain of a former nemesis. How appropriate then that they can't control it when it goes on a rampage and targets RoboCop as one of his "murderers". I don't know that it's ever occurred to me that Cain was ultimately the antithesis of Murphy, the negative opposite of what Murphy was and what he would do in his disposition, of the path one would choose were they given the same power...

The silly directives...it was a funny and interesting concept, just perhaps not fully realized or completely well-executed.


Okay, now for my dislikes:

The actors to me were all silly caricatures. Now I don't know if the successful formula for the original actors and roles came down to brilliant casting, excellent directing, or the perfect script...it had to be all three, but they seemed way off in the sequel. There wasn't the natural delivery of lines or the realistic, natural portrayal of each individual role like we saw in the original. It's as if the first one was shot more like a documentary, and the sequel is just a comic book film in terms of stereotypes, portrayals, and weird, out-of-place lines that just don't feel natural or realistic.

The psychologist that works for OCP...I can't remember her name just now, but...I feel as if she was the worst case of mis-casting in recent memory. I just did not get the diabolical vibe the character should of exuded in what should have been such a creepy, deliciously evil role.

That damn mayor...I still cringe whenever I see his scenes. (lol)

I could never get behind liking Cain's gang like I did Boddicker and Co. The woman (can't remember her name just now either) and Hobbs just seemed to make his gang feel like more of a misguided druggie/hippie commune than a deadly, heavily armed crime gang.

The sequel also seemed too bright in terms of cinematography, almost comic-booky, whereas the original was shot in a more organic, naturalistic looking-way with more natural lighting and believable camera angles. Again, there was almost a documentary feel to the shots and scenes in the original that this film lacked.

That whole opening sequence where they're trying to show just how rotten Detroit has gotten since even the events of the original story was so silly, contrived, fake, and completely over-the-top-but-not-in-a-good-way. The violence of the first film was also over-the-top, but it was scary because it was so believable; there was a logic and a reality to it that was missing from the sequel.

Don't even get me started on that idiotic scene where the little league team is trashing that electronics store. It's so stupid to me now that I just get angry when I see it. (lol)

I still like RoboCop 2 as an exciting sequel to the masterpiece that was the original film, but it's not held up well over the years for me in terms of storytelling and execution. It just didn't make the statement and tell the same kind of archetypical story the original did. It was a textbook cash-grab-of-a-sequel that just served to capitalize on the success of the first film. It's enjoyable enough in most spots to still entertain me, but I can do without it.

[Post Count]

I'd like to add my two cents on the subject...

My love of RoboCop 2 began with the trailer. It was Christmas Break 1989, and my family and I were at the movies to see National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. When it came on, there was a tiny notion in my brain that this could be a new RoboCop movie, but there were several action-oriented franchises at the time, so I wasn't sure at first.

Then, I saw that Ford Taurus police cruiser, and I knew. It still didn't seem real until I saw that cybernetic foot step out of what was left of his cruiser. I was practically hopping up and down in my seat like an idiot. (lol)

It's only been in recent years that I've been able to put my finger on what was off about this film. I can probably sum it up best with my likes and dislikes...

Likes:

I've always liked the upgraded armor, from the more precise-looking and machine-finished black parts to the cool blue hue of the "metal". It just always looked more finished and dynamic in the sequel, and it holds up to this day.

The Media Break segments and subsequent commercials carried over well, and they seemed to retain the same feel and spirit of the originals.

I've always liked the somber scene in the beginning where OCP is trying to get a legal statement on record from Murphy that he's only a machine. To me that was the single best scene of the whole film. It resonated with the whole notion of where the man ended and the machine began that the first film proposed oh so subtly.

RoboCain...what an awesome concept; OCP tries to follow-up RoboCop with a hulk of a machine in the vein of an ED-209 controlled by the drug-fueled brain of a former nemesis. How appropriate then that they can't control it when it goes on a rampage and targets RoboCop as one of his "murderers". I don't know that it's ever occurred to me that Cain was ultimately the antithesis of Murphy, the negative opposite of what Murphy was and what he would do in his disposition, of the path one would choose were they given the same power...

The silly directives...it was a funny and interesting concept, just perhaps not fully realized or completely well-executed.


Okay, now for my dislikes:

The actors to me were all silly caricatures. Now I don't know if the successful formula for the original actors and roles came down to brilliant casting, excellent directing, or the perfect script...it had to be all three, but they seemed way off in the sequel. There wasn't the natural delivery of lines or the realistic, natural portrayal of each individual role like we saw in the original. It's as if the first one was shot more like a documentary, and the sequel is just a comic book film in terms of stereotypes, portrayals, and weird, out-of-place lines that just don't feel natural or realistic.

The psychologist that works for OCP...I can't remember her name just now, but...I feel as if she was the worst case of mis-casting in recent memory. I just did not get the diabolical vibe the character should of exuded in what should have been such a creepy, deliciously evil role.

That damn mayor...I still cringe whenever I see his scenes. (lol)

I could never get behind liking Cain's gang like I did Boddicker and Co. The woman (can't remember her name just now either) and Hobbs just seemed to make his gang feel like more of a misguided druggie/hippie commune than a deadly, heavily armed crime gang.

The sequel also seemed too bright in terms of cinematography, almost comic-booky, whereas the original was shot in a more organic, naturalistic looking-way with more natural lighting and believable camera angles. Again, there was almost a documentary feel to the shots and scenes in the original that this film lacked.

That whole opening sequence where they're trying to show just how rotten Detroit has gotten since even the events of the original story was so silly, contrived, fake, and completely over-the-top-but-not-in-a-good-way. The violence of the first film was also over-the-top, but it was scary because it was so believable; there was a logic and a reality to it that was missing from the sequel.

Don't even get me started on that idiotic scene where the little league team is trashing that electronics store. It's so stupid to me now that I just get angry when I see it. (lol)

I still like RoboCop 2 as an exciting sequel to the masterpiece that was the original film, but it's not held up well over the years for me in terms of storytelling and execution. It just didn't make the statement and tell the same kind of archetypical story the original did. It was a textbook cash-grab-of-a-sequel that just served to capitalize on the success of the first film. It's enjoyable enough in most spots to still entertain me, but I can do without it.

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[Archive]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Stan The Man]

I agree with both Archive and Pimp, I thought that bit of exposition was just fine and set up the film pretty good as Pimp noted. Yeah it's over-the-top and overdone like much of the film but that is definitely one of the more tolerable cases. Archive particularly nailed it in comparison to the remake, but that's another thing.

I agree with many of your other points, particularly the dislike on the violence and your 'likes'.

Other points I don't concur with so much but I get them to a degree. Hell, I've heard 'em all before.

To go into it a bit - The slightly overdone comic-book feel I'm divided about, I can see it's hokiness but I think it also suits the more cleanly-shot film - Which is another dislike I disagree with - This film had money behind it here and it shows in the look of the cinematography, it is much cleaner and sharper than the original film, which had less to work with. I agree it's jarring after being used to the original's look but I never let R2's look detract from the film, if anything it's one of it's strong points, and it's good it's there to help exhibit many things, particularly the R2 suit and RoboCAIN.

Your conclusion overall is quite fair though TODD, and I mostly agree. R2 is still awesome but I concur it really has not held up well over time like the first film.
_________________
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 agree with both Archive and Pimp, I thought that bit of exposition was just fine and set up the film pretty good as Pimp noted. Yeah it's over-the-top and overdone like much of the film but that is definitely one of the more tolerable cases. Archive particularly nailed it in comparison to the remake, but that's another thing.

I agree with many of your other points, particularly the dislike on the violence and your 'likes'.

Other points I don't concur with so much but I get them to a degree. Hell, I've heard 'em all before.

To go into it a bit - The slightly overdone comic-book feel I'm divided about, I can see it's hokiness but I think it also suits the more cleanly-shot film - Which is another dislike I disagree with - This film had money behind it here and it shows in the look of the cinematography, it is much cleaner and sharper than the original film, which had less to work with. I agree it's jarring after being used to the original's look but I never let R2's look detract from the film, if anything it's one of it's strong points, and it's good it's there to help exhibit many things, particularly the R2 suit and RoboCAIN.

Your conclusion overall is quite fair though TODD, and I mostly agree. R2 is still awesome but I concur it really has not held up well over time like the first film.
_________________
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 agree with both Archive and Pimp, I thought that bit of exposition was just fine and set up the film pretty good as Pimp noted. Yeah it's over-the-top and overdone like much of the film but that is definitely one of the more tolerable cases. Archive particularly nailed it in comparison to the remake, but that's another thing.

I agree with many of your other points, particularly the dislike on the violence and your 'likes'.

Other points I don't concur with so much but I get them to a degree. Hell, I've heard 'em all before.

To go into it a bit - The slightly overdone comic-book feel I'm divided about, I can see it's hokiness but I think it also suits the more cleanly-shot film - Which is another dislike I disagree with - This film had money behind it here and it shows in the look of the cinematography, it is much cleaner and sharper than the original film, which had less to work with. I agree it's jarring after being used to the original's look but I never let R2's look detract from the film, if anything it's one of it's strong points, and it's good it's there to help exhibit many things, particularly the R2 suit and RoboCAIN.

Your conclusion overall is quite fair though TODD, and I mostly agree. R2 is still awesome but I concur it really has not held up well over time like the first film.
_________________
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 agree with both Archive and Pimp, I thought that bit of exposition was just fine and set up the film pretty good as Pimp noted. Yeah it's over-the-top and overdone like much of the film but that is definitely one of the more tolerable cases. Archive particularly nailed it in comparison to the remake, but that's another thing.

I agree with many of your other points, particularly the dislike on the violence and your 'likes'.

Other points I don't concur with so much but I get them to a degree. Hell, I've heard 'em all before.

To go into it a bit - The slightly overdone comic-book feel I'm divided about, I can see it's hokiness but I think it also suits the more cleanly-shot film - Which is another dislike I disagree with - This film had money behind it here and it shows in the look of the cinematography, it is much cleaner and sharper than the original film, which had less to work with. I agree it's jarring after being used to the original's look but I never let R2's look detract from the film, if anything it's one of it's strong points, and it's good it's there to help exhibit many things, particularly the R2 suit and RoboCAIN.

Your conclusion overall is quite fair though TODD, and I mostly agree. R2 is still awesome but I concur it really has not held up well over time like the first film.
_________________
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]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Stan The Man]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[BurnOne4Robo]

Not to hijack the topic, but it got me thinking. Would R1 have looked more like R2 if it had the same budget? Visually, I mean. There is not doubt Voerhoeven's direction played a big part in the overal aesthetic and feel of R1, but compared to his bigger budget entries like Total Recall, R1 definitely had a more gritty realism about it. I can't remember who posted it, so forgive me for not citing credit correctly, but i read someone here say that R1 was a "happy accident;" the result of the circumstances in which they had to film it.

As for my dislikes or R2, sure, I could sit here and nit pick every thing about it, but overall I enjoy it quite a bit. Could it have been better? Sure, but for the most part it was a satisfactory sequel IMO. A little more blood, and a little less comedy would have been nice, though.

[Joined]

Not to hijack the topic, but it got me thinking. Would R1 have looked more like R2 if it had the same budget? Visually, I mean. There is not doubt Voerhoeven's direction played a big part in the overal aesthetic and feel of R1, but compared to his bigger budget entries like Total Recall, R1 definitely had a more gritty realism about it. I can't remember who posted it, so forgive me for not citing credit correctly, but i read someone here say that R1 was a "happy accident;" the result of the circumstances in which they had to film it.

As for my dislikes or R2, sure, I could sit here and nit pick every thing about it, but overall I enjoy it quite a bit. Could it have been better? Sure, but for the most part it was a satisfactory sequel IMO. A little more blood, and a little less comedy would have been nice, though.

[Post Count]

Not to hijack the topic, but it got me thinking. Would R1 have looked more like R2 if it had the same budget? Visually, I mean. There is not doubt Voerhoeven's direction played a big part in the overal aesthetic and feel of R1, but compared to his bigger budget entries like Total Recall, R1 definitely had a more gritty realism about it. I can't remember who posted it, so forgive me for not citing credit correctly, but i read someone here say that R1 was a "happy accident;" the result of the circumstances in which they had to film it.

As for my dislikes or R2, sure, I could sit here and nit pick every thing about it, but overall I enjoy it quite a bit. Could it have been better? Sure, but for the most part it was a satisfactory sequel IMO. A little more blood, and a little less comedy would have been nice, though.

[artuditu]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[artuditu]

Thinking about the budget and how brighter R2 looks (while being darker in tone), most of us we have always liked the beginning and the end (coincidentally they happen at night) while we have troubles with all the middle (coincidentally a lot of the middle parts happen in open day light scenes, giving the film a bit more of TV-movie look). It has always been known that darkness and night makes cheap films look better, and even if R2 was not cheap I think it looked too much like a present day city with a robot in the middle of it. I think R1 was way smarter in giving the feel of a near-future city, not really showing too much of it, but capturing your imagination with the longshots of futuristic looking skycrappers and its elevators (which, by the way, were completely absent from R2, we only see something like it with the Delta City miniature in RoboCain presentation). R2 Detroit is just too plain and normal, while R1 with some little touches it could pretend to be more than just what you see (and with a smaller budget).

And yet, wanting to prove that R2 has more open day-light scenes than R1, I realized it probably doesn't, but I came to an interesting conclusion, it's not about the quantity of day/night but how it was used. In R1 daylight is linked to Murphy/humanity, first when he is human (when he presents himself at the police department we had a daylight shot outside, when he is with Lewis talking about twirling his gun, when they confront Clarence's gang), and then when his humanity is awakening in Robo, that is when he visits his home at Primrose Lane and all the end after he takes off his helmet and he is Murphy again. And you could even include that TV new break clip where he is puzzled by children (as you could see a human/life connection there).

The night starts when Murphy is brought to the hospital and dies. Then when he is presented in the police department it is night time, and when he goes patrolling his first missions it is night time too. As well as when he confronts Emil at the gas station. It may look random to you but I think it isn't at all, when he is a conciousless golem, guardian of the streets, it is mostly during the open night.

An interesting shot is when he goes to the OCP tower to arrest Dick Jones, it looks like a sunset sky, probably an artistic choice to advance the troubles, but also it could be a proof that he is in between two worlds, in a transition, machine and human, he is going to suffer a second death as a machine and reborn as a human, his conciousness finally emerging.

[Joined]

Thinking about the budget and how brighter R2 looks (while being darker in tone), most of us we have always liked the beginning and the end (coincidentally they happen at night) while we have troubles with all the middle (coincidentally a lot of the middle parts happen in open day light scenes, giving the film a bit more of TV-movie look). It has always been known that darkness and night makes cheap films look better, and even if R2 was not cheap I think it looked too much like a present day city with a robot in the middle of it. I think R1 was way smarter in giving the feel of a near-future city, not really showing too much of it, but capturing your imagination with the longshots of futuristic looking skycrappers and its elevators (which, by the way, were completely absent from R2, we only see something like it with the Delta City miniature in RoboCain presentation). R2 Detroit is just too plain and normal, while R1 with some little touches it could pretend to be more than just what you see (and with a smaller budget).

And yet, wanting to prove that R2 has more open day-light scenes than R1, I realized it probably doesn't, but I came to an interesting conclusion, it's not about the quantity of day/night but how it was used. In R1 daylight is linked to Murphy/humanity, first when he is human (when he presents himself at the police department we had a daylight shot outside, when he is with Lewis talking about twirling his gun, when they confront Clarence's gang), and then when his humanity is awakening in Robo, that is when he visits his home at Primrose Lane and all the end after he takes off his helmet and he is Murphy again. And you could even include that TV new break clip where he is puzzled by children (as you could see a human/life connection there).

The night starts when Murphy is brought to the hospital and dies. Then when he is presented in the police department it is night time, and when he goes patrolling his first missions it is night time too. As well as when he confronts Emil at the gas station. It may look random to you but I think it isn't at all, when he is a conciousless golem, guardian of the streets, it is mostly during the open night.

An interesting shot is when he goes to the OCP tower to arrest Dick Jones, it looks like a sunset sky, probably an artistic choice to advance the troubles, but also it could be a proof that he is in between two worlds, in a transition, machine and human, he is going to suffer a second death as a machine and reborn as a human, his conciousness finally emerging.

[Post Count]

Thinking about the budget and how brighter R2 looks (while being darker in tone), most of us we have always liked the beginning and the end (coincidentally they happen at night) while we have troubles with all the middle (coincidentally a lot of the middle parts happen in open day light scenes, giving the film a bit more of TV-movie look). It has always been known that darkness and night makes cheap films look better, and even if R2 was not cheap I think it looked too much like a present day city with a robot in the middle of it. I think R1 was way smarter in giving the feel of a near-future city, not really showing too much of it, but capturing your imagination with the longshots of futuristic looking skycrappers and its elevators (which, by the way, were completely absent from R2, we only see something like it with the Delta City miniature in RoboCain presentation). R2 Detroit is just too plain and normal, while R1 with some little touches it could pretend to be more than just what you see (and with a smaller budget).

And yet, wanting to prove that R2 has more open day-light scenes than R1, I realized it probably doesn't, but I came to an interesting conclusion, it's not about the quantity of day/night but how it was used. In R1 daylight is linked to Murphy/humanity, first when he is human (when he presents himself at the police department we had a daylight shot outside, when he is with Lewis talking about twirling his gun, when they confront Clarence's gang), and then when his humanity is awakening in Robo, that is when he visits his home at Primrose Lane and all the end after he takes off his helmet and he is Murphy again. And you could even include that TV new break clip where he is puzzled by children (as you could see a human/life connection there).

The night starts when Murphy is brought to the hospital and dies. Then when he is presented in the police department it is night time, and when he goes patrolling his first missions it is night time too. As well as when he confronts Emil at the gas station. It may look random to you but I think it isn't at all, when he is a conciousless golem, guardian of the streets, it is mostly during the open night.

An interesting shot is when he goes to the OCP tower to arrest Dick Jones, it looks like a sunset sky, probably an artistic choice to advance the troubles, but also it could be a proof that he is in between two worlds, in a transition, machine and human, he is going to suffer a second death as a machine and reborn as a human, his conciousness finally emerging.

[Comment]

Thinking about the budget and how brighter R2 looks (while being darker in tone), most of us we have always liked the beginning and the end (coincidentally they happen at night) while we have troubles with all the middle (coincidentally a lot of the middle parts happen in open day light scenes, giving the film a bit more of TV-movie look). It has always been known that darkness and night makes cheap films look better, and even if R2 was not cheap I think it looked too much like a present day city with a robot in the middle of it. I think R1 was way smarter in giving the feel of a near-future city, not really showing too much of it, but capturing your imagination with the longshots of futuristic looking skycrappers and its elevators (which, by the way, were completely absent from R2, we only see something like it with the Delta City miniature in RoboCain presentation). R2 Detroit is just too plain and normal, while R1 with some little touches it could pretend to be more than just what you see (and with a smaller budget).

And yet, wanting to prove that R2 has more open day-light scenes than R1, I realized it probably doesn't, but I came to an interesting conclusion, it's not about the quantity of day/night but how it was used. In R1 daylight is linked to Murphy/humanity, first when he is human (when he presents himself at the police department we had a daylight shot outside, when he is with Lewis talking about twirling his gun, when they confront Clarence's gang), and then when his humanity is awakening in Robo, that is when he visits his home at Primrose Lane and all the end after he takes off his helmet and he is Murphy again. And you could even include that TV new break clip where he is puzzled by children (as you could see a human/life connection there).

The night starts when Murphy is brought to the hospital and dies. Then when he is presented in the police department it is night time, and when he goes patrolling his first missions it is night time too. As well as when he confronts Emil at the gas station. It may look random to you but I think it isn't at all, when he is a conciousless golem, guardian of the streets, it is mostly during the open night.

An interesting shot is when he goes to the OCP tower to arrest Dick Jones, it looks like a sunset sky, probably an artistic choice to advance the troubles, but also it could be a proof that he is in between two worlds, in a transition, machine and human, he is going to suffer a second death as a machine and reborn as a human, his conciousness finally emerging.

[ChAnOoD]

Interesting, artuditu. The original flick never stop to show more interesting touches over and over

[Joined]

Interesting, artuditu. The original flick never stop to show more interesting touches over and over

[Post Count]

Interesting, artuditu. The original flick never stop to show more interesting touches over and over