f13.net

Not much to really go on except for a teaser poster and suit shot so I'll just post the synopsis.

:awesome_for_real:

It's got some big(ish) names in it although I've never heard of Joel Kinnaman who is playing Murphy.

Spoilered peektures...

"Lose the arm".

Fucking Lame.

Yeah, not sure I like the new "I swear I'm not Batman" suit.

Is this another relaunch or are they going to be different and continue with the franchise as is?

I'm tired of getting old enough that the movies I thought were badass when I was a kid, keep getting remade into shows that don't even measure up to the poorly aged originals. Someone tell them to fuck off in terms they can understand.

Well, sure, but the flip side of that coin is that some remakes are better.  I like the Thundercats do-over.

Its odd, but from that screencap, the original did a better job of making the suit not look like a suit. That really does just look like a guy in a Batman costume.

I have only one thing to say to a Robocop remake:

"Bitches, leave!"

Only way I see this is if they bring Kurtwood Smith back.  :drill:

It's freaking PG-13.  Remaking a movie that had a first cut that got an X rating.  :oh_i_see:

I was going to say "I bet they go for a PG-13 this time around".

pg-13 is an immediate pass.  The franchise is already way too dumb and cheesy, the violence sex and lewdness was really the only draw in the 80's.  Without an R rating we are left with an uncharismatic iron man.

Yeah. That's my biggest problem with that suit. It doesn't look like a robot. If anything they should have the actor in a green jumpsuit and cgi a really robotic torso on him. Amazon has the original trilogy on blu ray for $15.99. I think I'll just grab that and call it a day.  (though I hear the transfer isn't all that great.)

Goddammit, quit remaking Verhoeven movies and taking out the reason they are awesome.

I bet they're remaking Starship Troopers next with no boobs, brain suckers or NPH next.

Was that extremely sublime snarkiness? Because the actual book didn't have any of those either if I remember right.

No, it's an understanding that what made the Veerhoven flick fun was almost entirely divorced from the book itself.

The book also didn't have anything the least bit interesting.  The two are likely not related.   :oh_i_see:

John Steakley's Armor is a considerably better book about people in robot suits fighting bugs.

See, that just looks like Mass Effect armor to me.

I'd imagine it was, since Starship Troopers was a book about a boy growing into a man while in military service during a war. The robot suits and bugs were nothing but props. It's considered a classic for a reason while Armor is considered about equal to an Honor Harrington novel. It does suprise me you didn't like it, you being a man who was in the military during a war and all.

Yeah that's what I see as well.

 I have the Criterion version of Robocop, which has the uncut X-rated version.  I didn't really like the sequels enough to even think of buying them.


Also that suit is ass.  I wish they would have at least taken the original and used it as a base.

Not really sure I get the complaints about the suit.  I mean, sure, it does not bow down and worship the design from the first movie, but other then catering to the nostalgia of people who actually remember the original, why exactly should it?

Technology and our understanding of it has come a long way.  Just because the Suit does not scream "ZOMG 80's image of futuristic Cyborg", and rather says "ZOMG More modern take on Future Cyborg (Hey kids, it has 400 points of articulation!)", is not really a valid reason for bashing on it for not being "robotish" enough.

I mean, next you will be complaining that people put robots in their modern robot movies that look like modern robots, instead of The Robot from Lost in Space.

It's a reboot, the outfit doesn't have to look anything like the original.  That said,


...that's my problem with the suit.

In fairness, if they made it tech/metal heavy, we'd just complain he looked like Iron Man.

But this is still a fucking stupid idea.

I read somewhere that there is a ton of cgi that goes on it with colors and shit that changes.

Each point of articulation is a possible point of failure, therefore bad design.  Particularly for Robocop who is a product of a hostile environment and will be taking considerable abuse.  Large armored panels that are removed in shop for maintenance make more sense and would be 'sleeker' looking.

 Robots *should* be simpler or different-looking than humans because their mechanics don't work like biotics.  The shoulder/ bicep articulation alone is silly in that picture, particularly when compared to actual robotic arms.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/dean-kamens-rob/

Now, if Robocop is going to be doing Parkour and agilely leaping about the articulation makes sense.  After all, the body would need to flex at the chest, upper abdomen, waist and torso to do tuck & rolls.  Or, if more of Murphy survives than the original, ok. They have to make concessions that would be driven by a more mechanical solution for the biology that's there. 

If not it's designer wankery that isn't following the rule of 'cool' or 'reality trumps' but rather the rule of ripoff.

But Cain was a 'mech in Robocop 2.

 :grin:

Ha, Robocop 2, good one. I bet next you're going to say there was a third one or something.

BEHAVE yourselves!

And there were ninja cyborgs as well. From Japan.

The suit in the original was more than just about the looks. The mechanical sounds he made while moving limbs, the way he turned his head, the weighty sound of his footsteps, those all reinforced the idea he was more machine than man. Obviously we don't know what the new suit* sounds like or how he moves in it from a still frame shot but this new suit, at least visually, does not convey the "robot" nature of the original suit.

* There's also the rumor the movie has multiple suits so this may not be the primary one

Bleh, everything about this looks terrible.  Just rewatched the original recently, and it holds up very well.  Love that damn movie.

At the very least, they had better get the newscasters back in and done correctly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DCt9Vszkq38

(http://stephensommers.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Accelerator-1.jpg)

I hated the Starship Troopers movie because of the Veerhoven stuff. First, except for the names, there was no corrolation with the book, which was one of the few Heinlein books I actually liked. I can handle departure if you give me Hunt for Red October. But this felt more like I, Robot in departure, a label slapped on a CGI fest that itself looked low budget. Nothing there at all. And then layering in his schtick, it felt very forced.

The first Robocop worked really well because it was all dirt and grit and "real" and believable. Starship Trooper was way too clean and sanitized and the only "edgy humor" was what I was imagining in my head that could have made the movie better. Veerhoven's fun with all the commercials and the 6000 SUX and all that was just flavoring to an interesting near-future world, akin to a dark comedy version of Blade Runner. In Troopers, it was just forced, probably because he was told he was picked for it because they needed to add filler to a one-dimensional nothing.

So I'd take a Starship Troopers reboot that was actually a good movie over any of that bullshit faux edgy crap any day.

The wrong gal died in Starship Troopers.  I lost interest after that.

Right? Diz was hot.

They never realized until that moment...
 
...just how easy it is to accidentally cut someone in half.

She wasn't even supposed to be a girl.

It being "clean" and sanitized was part of the satire. ST is every bit as subversive (if not more) than Robocop.

I wrote about this at length in the Cloud Atlas thread, but this right here is a good example of why I think its a good idea to see the movie version of something before reading a book.  I saw Starship Troopers before reading the book.  I saw it in theaters, and enjoyed the ever loving hell out of it for all the reasons everybody else has listed.  I then read the book afterwards, and it became one of my favorites, for totally different reasons.  Had I read the book first, I'm sure the whole movie would have been ruined by me putting on a beret and getting pissy about how different and non serious it was in a huge fit of nerd rage.

Also, while they did kill the wrong girl, they also showed the wrong girls tits.   :awesome_for_real:

I call bullcrap.  Starship Troopers (the novel) was altogether too squeaky clean to be showing any flavor of war.  It was a cartoon war with lots of zoom around in robot suits and oh hey things pretty much just worked out okay so let's keep fighting, yay! The end.

Armor was full of terror, senseless random deaths on the battlefield, an incompetent leadership who didn't give a fuck about the actual soldiers, and just how broken a human being can become while put through that sort of hell.

Of those two, I'm a bit more inclined to believe that the latter represents being a man in the military during a war.  For that matter, the movie did a better job, even if it veered into a distinct lack of realism in how overblown it became.

I agree with all of that.

@Teleku: Yea, I probably would have had the same reaction. But then, I go to something like Lord of the Rings. Altogether very enjoyable series that well captured the feel of the world and covered well enough the major plot points. If I hated how the world looked and the actors acted, I might have then been bothered by the deviations from the source. But because those were so well done, the for-movies deviations were fine. Like Red October, or even Sum of All Fears, or the fourth Harry Potter.

Stop the Twitter crap.

He's really not joking about that, btw.   :awesome_for_real:

In the case of adaptations like LoTR, I think it can work the other way around because it tried really hard to adhere to the books.  Fellowship did this the best, and was the most loved.   Almost all of the parts that everybody hated about the movies were things changed by or added in by Jackson.

When you run into a book adaptation that makes a huge change to the story, narrative style, or both, then the nerd rage comes out.  However, such as in the case of Starship Troopers, these movies really can be awesome in their own right.  Reading the book first just seems to ruin that.

I think with Starship Troopers I read the book first and still enjoyed the movie for what it was.  It was SO different from the book that it didn't even register as being the same story.  It's like if you made a documentary about winemaking and called it The Grapes of Wrath.  Nobody's going to get on your case for deviating from Steinbeck's vision.

HAHA...ooh boy. Have you been following the hobbit/lotr threads at all? Somebody here would fuck you up. In the alley. With a blunt instrument.

The LotR movies would be the counter-example, where they were close enough to the books that the deviations really grated.  It's sort of like the "uncanny valley" effect.  Starship Troopers is like a completely unrealistic cartoon, LotR is like an animated corpse.

While I agree on principle, I did not mind seeing what I saw. I just wanted "more".

Hmm, so for some reason I don't really nerd rage when a movie deviates from the script of a book. Reading this thread, I'm getting a better sense of myself. What I really don't like is when a movie departs from the "feel" of a book, I guess what could be called the emotional setting of the world.

LoTR was set against an epic backdrop with an ominous all-or-nothing overtone. Starship Troopers was (iirc) was a gritty nobody-knows-nothing in the trenches boot camp to front lines marine war story. The movie version of LoTR captured that really well, down to the voices. The movie version of Troopers was more like a 40s-era recruitment flick, and that happy go lucky ending with the three of them walking away from the captured beast, gods they might have just as well been skipping arm in arm with Neil Patrick Harris leading in song. Gah I still can't get that travesty out of my brain.

I'd watch this.

Starship Troopers would've been 100X better if Denise Richards character had died instead of Dina Meyers (I think that's her name). I quite enjoyed it for what it was. That said, ironically, one of the few Heinlein novels I've never read is Starship Troopers so that probably helps.

Problem with Verhoeven is always that he wants to have his postmodern cake and eat it too, to basically suggest that if you're enjoying his film for its surface content, you're actually a part of the empty bread-and-circuses mob, but at the same time, he's really very in to the surface content himself and wants us to be. I get a bit tired of that kind of ironic ouroborous in general and somehow particularly with him, even when I actually like the film (the original Robocop, for example). But it's a sure bet that these films can't be made as straight SF action and stand up to that extra element that Verhoeven worked into his best-known pictures.

Trailer.

Blech.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=108578

Rated R or fuck it.

They are making it to get PG-13, apparently. So... yeah. No.

I like both Armor and Starship Troopers, but Armor is in many ways the better written of the two.  Both pound you over the head with the message (War is honorable sacrifice/War is pointless sacrifice), both can really only be fully appreciated by someone who has 'seen the elephant', but at the end both viewpoint characters have been used up, something you don't appreciate about Troopers until you have your nose rubbed in it by Armor.

--Dave

I love the original and I'm not super psyched about this one.  Although it'll still be better than the sequels most likely. 

I don't feel as pissed off about the suit as I did when the early images popped up though.  I still would have liked if they would have kept the look in the trailer before they said to "make it black."

Too positive, not bleak enough.

I bet his wife doesn't even leave him and he resolves his dad-son issues.

That looks bad.

More like CGIcop amirite?

Also, fuck PG-13. Hollywoold is truly fucked.

It's not that a pg-13 movies can't be good it's just that robocop was always a darker tone than most super hero movies, hell robocop was NOT a super hero. He was a cyborg abomination against god  :awesome_for_real:  There is such opportunity in this IP to tell heavy hitting scifi stories and seeing it squandered and hampered by trying to make a summer blockbuster is saddening.

What the shit? No Robocop theme music?  :tantrum:

For me...this is also what is wrong with the suit.  The original Robocop actually gave you a feeling of being some kind of creepy abomination.  Because he looked like an actual robot grafted over the corpse of a human being (or the other way around).  Just looking at him and the way he was created made you slightly ill, and it made you feel terrible for the human left inside.  This new guy looks like some dude in armor.  ME3 armor, as someone pointed out.  Half the point of the movie is already gone unless they make us feel sympathetic and slightly grossed out.  That is why the original was good.  That and the sick violence.  So this appears to be 0 for 2.

I realize in the original, Murphy was dead.  He was a re-animated corpse in a metal shell and this guy is just a dude wearing power armor.

This trailer made me feel worse about the suit. As others have said, he doesn't look like a cyborg. He looks like a dude in power armor. Also, his voice and movements are too fluid. I don't know if any of you have seen that recent thing Peter Weller did in Austin where he talked to a crowd after a screening of an original but he talked about how he got the walk and movement down and that is what sold the character. This guy doesn't move like a robot and they changed his voice in post to have a mechanical sound to it but the actor isn't speaking in a mechanical way so it just sounds like a guy whose voice is slightly off.

This. I'm not even remotely excited about that trailer.

I like this quite from the trailer site:

I'm not going to worry about how the voice sounds until the movie is out. There's enough you can do with dub work and effects that I'm just.. not worried about that.

The suit doesn't bother me either. Those robots that DARPA are working on move pretty fluid at this point, so seeing someone move like they're dancing to electro might just look silly at this point.

But, the movie just doesn't seem to have... teeth. It just seems generic. It could be an absolutely fine action movie, but won't have any of the satire of the original.

Yeah, I remember seeing some interview in the early 90's where he said the same thing. I recall Weller being really lauded in '87 for exactly how INTO the role he got, and the way he sold it. He won a Saturn award for it, no less, which was about as big a deal as you could get for Sci-Fi acting in '88.

Just looked him up on Wikipedia and he's really interesting.  He got a Masters in Roman and Renaissance art in 2004 and is now doing a PHD in Italian Ren. art history.

Is "Bitches. Leave." R or PG-13?

I don't like the eye piece or the motor cycle.  In the original, he was always a little awkward, a bot slow and plodding in the suit but its durability made up for that.

This looks worse than the Total Recall remake and that was awful, awful pandering shit.

Yeah.  That's pretty much what it reminds me of, now you mention it.

And, yeah, it was fucking awful.

A nice piece on the original Robocop suit by Peter Weller (worth a watch) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66uduSIp-3k)

You know, I watched it, and didn't think it was that bad of a movie.  They just needed to have called it something completely different than Total Recall.  It actually wasn't bad as a summer sci-fi action movie thing.  I mean, other than it being something totally different than Total Recall, what did you guys not like about it?

Note: I think the new Robocop looks like shit for all the same reasons being mentioned in this thread.  Robocop is not god damned PG-13.

It was a stupid and nonsensical Colin HotIrish Vehicle.

The elevator that goes through the Earth was the bit that I stopped giving a shit and that was in the first five minutes.

It made No Sense Whatsoever and didn't even (get this) have the sophistication of a fucking Arnie Movie.  There wasn't even ANY mindfuck at all.

It looks bad but I don't think anyone was seriously expecting something good.

As far as the rating goes, a 1987 rated R is probably the same as 2013 PG-13.  It's just going to be an action shooter type thing, not sure how you would push such a thing to R without throwing in a torture scene for no reason.  Either that or the horrors of an exposed breast that seem to terrify the ratings people so much.

Do not agree.  You're right about any breast being an instant ticket to R territory, but 80's gore in R movies seemed way worst than what I see in any PG-13 movie today.  And Robocop was way the fuck more bloody than almost anything I've seen since.  That trailer looked absolutely G rated compared to the original Robocop.

Yeah, Robocop is an extraordinarily violent movie. I think it is an open question if it wouldn't get NC-17 if made now in the same way.

Put me down in the 'You're Talking Shite' column too.

The original Robocop was pretty fucking horrific all the way through.  Unashamedly so.  It was better for it, but you can't fool yourself that it was anywhere NEAR PG13.

Horrific is a perfect way to describe it.  You felt horror at the actions of this evil corporation, horror at Alex Murphy's plight and watched as the human spirit triumphed over that horror. 

This bullshit is iron man fighting robots except he doesn't have control of his suit the first 60min.

Spot-on.  Particularly with the way the visor works.

I was never really sure he triumphed, but that's probably an argument for another day.  Sure, he knew who he WAS at the end, but actually that was a lie because he really, really did die.

Um.  I may have just argued.

I didn't think the trailer looked as awful as you all are making it out to be, but I still would not buy this movie for a dollar.

What happened in the interim was the Ropocop TV show which was PG13 and was pretty damn popular, and a couple of made for TV movies. Thats probably where most of the inspiration was this is coming from, rather than one great movie with 2 AWFUL sequels.

Well, as I said about the Total Recall remake, this movie might not be bad as a brainless summer sci-fi blockbuster action movie.  May even be entertaining in that regard.  But its painful to watch them reboot movies and COMPLETELY MISS what made those movies special/classics to begin with, and instead turn them into generic action movies with almost no connection to the original material.  It's particularly bad in this case because Robocop was specifically unique in its unflinching blend of ultra violence and political satire.  There really isn't anything special about a power armored cop who fights crime and says one liners, by itself.

 :why_so_serious:

You are correct.  Triumph was a bit much, struggle perhaps is a better word.

I wasn't even aware there was one. I thought he meant the cartoon series for a bit then I Googled.   I don't think you can call a show that aired for barely a season in 1994 "pretty damn popular."

*shrug* everyone i knew was watching it at the time.

#IrishTV

#Honeybooboo fine example of American TV.  :why_so_serious:

ANYWAY, the point was that they are maybe going for a more modern view to get in the punters, and the more recent portrayals of the character and therefore would be more familiar are not anywhere close to the gorefest that was the original movie.

One thing that bothers me also is how this robocop dies. The other died in a brutal and personal way at the hands of Clarence Boddicker and his pals. That becomes a driving point of the movie as he has flashbacks to it and goes looking for them and uncovers their connection to OCP. In many ways, that is why he ends up coming back as much as he does, because his memories of his death are so painful he has to resolve them.

It's going to be much easier if we all stop thinking this has anything to do with Robocop beyond the name.

It doesn't.

Relevant:
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-why-remakes-sci-fi-movies-are-doomed-to-suck/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

He never dies in the remake, he is simply put on life support and the family is told he may never function again.  That way they get rid of any kind of tough ethical and moral decisions and just make him a fucked up dude in a power suit...original!

So I finally saw the trailer, this movie will be terrible. In a terrible sense of the word terrible. Like throw your diet coke at the screen because you actually bought a large diet coke for the sole purpose of tossing it at the screen terrible.

Exactly. I just caught most of it on HBO or Encore or something last week. It is REALLY violent. The scene with the gang shooting Murphy to pieces was mildly amusing when I was 17...at 43 it was pretty disturbing. Add in the half-melted guy getting splashed all over a window, the data spike through the neck, and Red Forman shooting up Miguel Ferrer's legs, and just the sheer body count and you would have to cut half the movie to get it to PG-13.

e- I think there is definitely a space for a movie about life in shithole Detroit ( I am not sure OCP would even take the contract today...that place is FUCKED)- this is just not the one.

I agree the original robocop was hardcore even for its time. Lots of boobies about as graphic violence as they could pull off tons of f bombs and profanity. It was nowhere near a pg13 with the MPAA today they would have been lucky to manage an R rating and probably would have wound up having to cut out the boobies to make it.

For reference, the original Robocop nearly received an "X" rating for the violence it did have.  What we all saw was the toned-down version.  I remember this vividly because I owned an Fx Magazine that talked about it, showing the animatronic of Weller that was deleted in the final cut. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop#Rating

What I did NOT remember, was they had to go back and forth 12 times before receiving an "R." Also , the commercials we all love as amusing send-ups and some of the most memorable catch phrases were added to de-grim the movie.

Maybe the best thing the ratings board ever did, in a way, because the commercials add a contrast between media and reality that I think really elevates the commentary the movie is making.

Yeah, I can't imagine Robocop without the Adverts.

Nuke-em, the fun family boardgame. 

"You crossed my line of death!"

SO, just watched the trailer at work.  Holy shit this looks bad.  Please, hollywood, if you are going to make a godaweful remake of a beloved classic, at least have the decency to just rip off the plot but call it something else, instead of actually using the original name as well.

If they did that it would be seen as being as risky as a new property and not get greenlit.  The actual strategy for a pitch now is, "Here's a proven concept, we do a remake/ sequel and we should get <as many dollars as the original> or better."  Hollywood movies are too big business to be more than that and have been since at least the late 90's.  Budgets are too big and returns getting smaller as audiences stay home and watch on super-sized (and now hi-def) TVs.

The risky projects used to be able to say, "we'll do lousy in the theaters but we'll make it up on DVD sales."  That's no longer the case, so you see fewer of them.  Now the only way a risky movie can get made is if you say, "It'll tank in America but more than make that up internationally."

One of the things I love about the internet is specifically how it retcons what I thought had actually happened at the time. This is awesome, I had no idea.

As to this new movie, eh, I skipped Total Recall because even the previews looked like the pandering shit it sounds like it became. However, the only thing that bothered me about this new Robocop trailer is Samuel Jackson. Michael Keaton seemed to work, it looks like the crammed both Robocop 1 and 2 concepts into the one movie, the concept of giving him the impression of free will without him having any is both interesting as a sci fi trope and echos some of the scores of directives that were added by the activist lady in 2, and the whole thing had slightly dirty futuristic vibe to it. Not as far as the recent Dredd (which I quite enjoyed), and certainly not as far as the first Robocop, but not as clean as Trek either.

I doubt they'll bother with the campiness, and that's ok by me. The first Robocop was perfectly timed for a generation of neophytes becoming cynical about the world thye were inheriting from the Watergate/Berlin-Wall era of adults. Doing that again would thud hard though, almost two generations of cynics later, and through a bunch of evolutionary steps on the path of fusion between man and machine.

I'm ok with the idea of the story being recast as more of an ideological issue than a straight campy action send up. Especially since the last campy action send up I can immediately recall was Starship Troopers, which I hated (and yea which has already been discussed at length here... ).

Every movie is Transformers now. Thanks Michael Bay!

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZFcP7N6ZM

*squeak* *squeak*

Everytime I see and hear another video from her it drives me crazy. Her face and voice strongly remind of someone from somewhere and I haven't got a damn clue why. Drives me bloody insane.

Someone who has 17min more minutes than I do*: did she say anything that hasn't already been said?

* By which I mean someone who wasn't doing something as important as me looking at the Funny Pictures Thread for 17 minutes or whatever

Clearly if it was linked, at least one person thought it was worth watching.   :awesome_for_real:

I mean, at its core it's "goddamn it why remake this" which has obviously been said, but I thought she did a great job of laying out a lot of what made the original movie awesome in the course of explaining why the remake is unnecessary.

You can just watch the first 10 seconds.  :grin:

We've done this before, but Starship Troopers is pretty much a perfect movie. You might not like it, but it great for what it is.

I don't know if this looks bad as much as it looks like nothing at all so why bother?

I always wonder with these types of movies if the people making them love the original but think that modern audiences won't so they feel forced to "update" it or if they hate the original and making an awful remake that misses the point is their way of showing it.

So many of these remakes or movies based on existing properties show so little reverence for those properties, they don't feel like they could come from people who appreciate the original. I mean, they have a scene in this movie where they purposely shit on the original (where they introduce his old costume then decide to change it) - something pretty common in movies like this.

Watched the 17 minute video.  It was actually pretty good.  I'm not as passionate as she is about the original Robocop, but she makes her point well.

For a second I thought I'd wandered into the Star Trek thread by accident.   :why_so_serious:

ComicBookGirl19 is ALWAYS worth watching. Period. Her breakdown of the Games of Thrones houses is pure awesome for example.

Sam's snark aside, no, the people pushing the project have no reverence or passion for these. Budgets are too big for new ideas, we need "Proven" ideas that made money before. They'll make money again, just give it to some director/ writer who has a passing knowledge of the genre and shove it out the door.

Which is why you get directors who know nothing of the property handling big-budget remakes (Abrams) while new ideas languish.  This is why Rob Zombie remade Halloween instead of doing another new horror property.  Welcome to Hollywood of the 21st century.

From what I remember JJ Abrams doesn't really like Star Trek and the director of this movie doesn't really like Robocop.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40386/Macros/thejoke.gif)

My comment was more aimed at the second half, that like Abrams IIRC this guy has no love for the source material.

watched it, im fine with it.
they did badly in a few parts.

About Robocop being agile and not robot?
Yeah....

All in all...it's ok for action movie but the plot and direction has bad parts...
Was it even necessary for ALex Murphy to try and have sex b4 getting blown up by a trapped car?
Yeah, his wife is hot, she took off her top - black bra and all, whereby all the kids went OWAOOOOOOOOOOO in the cinema.
then....car alarm sounded, alex said i'll check it...tries to turn off fail..
door of car opens..he walks there boom.
Dead alex. After 30 mins in.  Wow. :sochibear: