Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LordofHats wrote: There was an interesting post I read over on TV Tropes that said the same thing about Predator, and it makes sense. When you look at it Predator is an action hero in that movie. A one man/alien army with a personal arsenal of weapons that he uses to take out mooks with little to no effort, the mooks in this case being the more typical American macho action heros of films like Rambo and Commando who are sudden leveled down to typical goons in their own film as Predator starts picking them off.
Yeah, I really like how the film starts as a typical action romp, with a mission in the jungle and CIA sub-plot and all that, and then just switches and the heroes who'd slaughtered all those mooks suddenly were mooks.
Personally, I never liked Total Recall much. I found the film kind of boring. Some stuff happens, then some more stuff, then he's on Mars. It felt very like going through the motions, but maybe that's the point?
As long as you love the original Robocop, all is forgiven.
Anyhow, I think maybe it makes a difference when you see it for the first time as a kid. First time I saw Total Recall I loved all the brutality, just as I loved it in all those movies, and I thought the idea that it might be a dream was a proper puzzle we were supposed to figure out. Then years later when I was watching it again and I realised what the film was actually doing, well the point was made stronger because of my mindset when I was kid watching these films for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think you guys spend to much time analyzing these movies.
What should we be spending out time thinking about?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/14 04:15:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There is one thing that does stick my my craw a little after watching the new Robocop.
Spoiler:
He has 2 sidearms - one of them is a small submachinegun, and the other is a long pistol that acts as a combi-weapon; in that it fires either bullets or taser projectiles. The taser projectiles do not have wires to carry current, they are self-contained. He blasts someone with one of those, they go down bzzzting. That's fine and OK with me.
The problem is... why doesn't he just shoot the taser bullets all the time?
They establish early in the movie that he can't be hurt by anything under 50 caliber. At one point they are spraying him with 47 caliber ammo which damages him but can't kill him. OK, if you know anything about guns that's a little stupid in that the penetration would be more important than the caliber, but, whatever, know your audience and dial it down a little. My point here is to establish that he is, for all intents and purposes, immune to most small arms fire. so why use deadly force at all? I mean I can see a bad guy has a hostage a gunpoint, you don't want to risk a spasm shot from a taser round, but in almost every combat he is in he is just mowing down bad guys who generally speaking present no actual meaningful threat to him and there are no bystanders present.
There is no real justification for lethal force in almost any of the gunfights you see him get into.
Additionally, and this is a little bit of a minor squibble, at one point he breaks a guys hand and then stomps it to get information out of him. I mean, that strikes me as some pretty admissible police brutality, since every second of his interaction is recorded.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/14 04:23:53
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I do love the original Robocop. Rewatched it recently. When you're a kid it's all about the action. When you're an adult its all about the campy satire XD. I hadn't seen the film in so long I forgot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/14 04:42:44
Barbarians. The original Total Recall had a young Sharon Stone and Michael Ironside at his some of his meanest. That along made the movie worthy of epic 80s greatness.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
Who is Robocop's main antagonist in this film? Do they hint at replacing him with newer models like ED-209?
Medium of Death wrote: It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
No, it wouldn't. Being crap on purpose is still being crap.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Medium of Death wrote: It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
Good satire has to love what is being satirised, the film has to work as a genre piece as well as make fun of the genre. No-one loves lens flairs and that stuff.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I have to say it was interesting in Predator to see all of Arnolds compatriots become the same as all those other central-americans that Arnold slaughters in his other movies..........
It's essentially having a movie about a guy at the end of Commando going "Holy Crap, this guy is killing all of us!".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/15 15:26:10
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
I didn't hate it, and generally enjoyed myself. It seemed like there were some interesting ideas but they were afraid of really tackling them at full steam like Verhoeven; if they had put more effort into exploring the ethics of drones and or the ethics of transhumanism it might have been more worthy. I liked that they focused more on the familial aftermath instead of sweeping them away with little concern to that aspect of becoming a modern Frankenstein Monster. I can see why they didn't try to get an R just to get one, as this isn't as focused on the violence as part of the commentary as the original did. Even so, I would agree trying to fit it into a PG-13 probably held it back a bit, though. This world wasn't nearly as dystopian as the original, and seemed more concerned with a world on the edge of becoming the world from the original. They told a similar story but with a different focus, which is what a good retelling should do I suppose, but they didn't go far enough to make it a classic.
I would give it a 7/10. Well executed and entertaining but lacking the full conviction to go all the way. Not necessarily worth a theater run, but certainly a fun movie to catch at home on blu-ray or streaming.
edit: I was surprised that djones520 had a cameo.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/16 01:31:57
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I just got back from the flick with my wife and we pretty much agree with you, Ahtman. My opinion pretty much echoes yours.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
I did like the part where the marketing guy was showing different looks for it and people's reactions. The original Robocop was the Combat model and "scared the crap out of convicts" according to focus group testing.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I was actually wondering at the end if he would be re-skinned as the "Combat version" for nostalgia value.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Caught it earlier today. it's okay. Don't feel like my money was wasted. I think the thing I disliked most was how preachy the film felt at times. Namely the Novak Element parts. This movie lacked the fun and wit of the first robocop.
I loved the Novak parts, because while at the same time he was being preachy and pro-'Murican, it was a parody because he was so absolutely full of crap. that was one of the parts that felt like the original Robocop to me.
I think the movie was good enough, because without having the original to compare it to, it still would have been enjoyable. Frankly the parts showing Murphy with what organics he has left were equally awesome and completely eerie. It really drove home how insane it would be to be in that position right then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/17 02:10:37
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AegisGrimm wrote: I loved the Novak parts, because while at the same time he was being preachy and pro-'Murican, it was a parody because he was so absolutely full of crap.
For me it felt like a parody that took itself so seriously it ceased to be parody. Like it hammered it home too hard and I just felt like it was screaming "look how ridiculous this is" past the point where I could derive any enjoyment from it. The first Robocop had that sweet spot, where it took itself just seriously enough that you could laugh at things that shouldn't be funny.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/17 02:27:57
LordofHats wrote: There was an interesting post I read over on TV Tropes that said the same thing about Predator, and it makes sense. When you look at it Predator is an action hero in that movie. A one man/alien army with a personal arsenal of weapons that he uses to take out mooks with little to no effort, the mooks in this case being the more typical American macho action heros of films like Rambo and Commando who are sudden leveled down to typical goons in their own film as Predator starts picking them off.
Yeah, I really like how the film starts as a typical action romp, with a mission in the jungle and CIA sub-plot and all that, and then just switches and the heroes who'd slaughtered all those mooks suddenly were mooks.
Personally, I never liked Total Recall much. I found the film kind of boring. Some stuff happens, then some more stuff, then he's on Mars. It felt very like going through the motions, but maybe that's the point?
As long as you love the original Robocop, all is forgiven.
Anyhow, I think maybe it makes a difference when you see it for the first time as a kid. First time I saw Total Recall I loved all the brutality, just as I loved it in all those movies, and I thought the idea that it might be a dream was a proper puzzle we were supposed to figure out. Then years later when I was watching it again and I realised what the film was actually doing, well the point was made stronger because of my mindset when I was kid watching these films for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think you guys spend to much time analyzing these movies.
What should we be spending out time thinking about?
I remember when Total Recall first came out, Syskel and Ebert reviewed it and described it as a great movie with "fun" violence. They ended by giving it, as I recall, 2 thumbs up.
In contrast, a review from another critic at the time of release:
Ahtman wrote: The original Robocop was the Combat model and "scared the crap out of convicts" according to focus group testing.
Now I feel like I'm missing some reference other than what was directly said?
It isn't some esoteric reference. The marketing guy was talking about different suits and the 'combat model' was the original look from the 1987 Robocop.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The remake itself enacts the themes of the original movie: They took a franchise torn to pieces by horrible sequels, license mining, and flat-out neglect and they gave it an ultra slick, strictly-by-the-numbers reboot. But is there anything human left?
Well played sir...
