Robocop (1987) theatrical cut vs. director's cut.

I just saw the director's cut and I was wondering which cut you like better? I felt the directors cut didn't really add much but a few more shots of gore, which really didn't add anything to overall picture per say.

One shot (the one where Bodiger holds his neck after being stabbed), isn't even alternate footage at all. The director just zoomed in to the original footage, and there is an obvious loss of resolution, in that one shot and it took me out of the action, as a result.

So I felt maybe the director didn't really have a lot to work with to add in, and he was just tinkering too much maybe. But what do you think?

Yeah the director's cut is really just Verhoeven doing his OTT thing.
The guy just loves violence, but sadly studios don't.

Watching the two cuts with the commentary on, Verhoeven and Neumeier talk about how the director's cut is so over the top, that it makes the violence more cartoony and almost farcical, and they laugh at how the studio cutting back and shortening certain scenes actually makes the violent scenes far more hard hitting.


I gotta say though, the theatrical cut is my favourite of the two.
I like the Director's Cut... but the theatrical version is the one I grew up with before getting the DVD that has both versions on it.

__________________

The topic @The Rodent has been waiting for.

I recently re-watched Robocop for the first time in like 15 years... not as good as I remembered when I was a teen.

For some reason, I had the false sense in my mind that it was actually a great movie and stacked up to the great 80s sci-fi hits... when in reality, it's pretty over-the-top and ridiculous.

Fun to watch for sure, but still over-the-top and stupid.

Robocop is a good movie, but I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece by any means. It's probably the best action movie of 1987 besides Lethal Weapon.

I asked some people and they said they like the DC better, because it shows....

SPOILER

It shows Murphy's arm being shot off, and therefore it explains why the engineers who built Robocop were not able to save both of his arms.

But to me, you don't really need seeing the arm getting shot off to explain that. Murphy gets shot by shot gun rounds like 30 times, so it's reasonable to assume that an arm be damaged beyond repair from that. You don't need to actually see an arm get ripped off directly, to get that hint.

His right arm is shot off, and the left is undamaged... but it was Bob Morton who tells the surgeons to remove his body completely.
Technician: "We were able to save the left arm"
Morton: "What? I thought we agreed on full body prosthesis, now lose the arm, ok?"


The only thing left of Murphy after the surgery is his brain and face and part of the skull. Everything else was replaced by OCP.

His arm got splattered good...real good.

Here's a little treat for all of you

__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa

God dam they need to do action and effects like that again. I first really noticed the cgi bullets and how much they took me out of the film in The departed. Scorsese’s past films had a disturbing realism to the violence, the end shot of Matt Damon Matt Damon’s demise Matt Damon, felt without weight. Noticed it a lot lately. Like the bullets in John wick.

Yeah that's what I meant. But we didn't need to see one arm shot off for the audience to understand that the other is fine.

Cause the audience would assume that the right arm was already damaged from all the times Murphy was shot from the shotgun rounds.

That's what Verhoeven does though tbh.
He takes violence and makes it OTT, simply because he can.


Quite simply, Paul Verhoeven makes exploitation movies that are backed up by solid writing and tons of metaphors.
RoboCop itself is an allegory for Jesus Christ.
The shooting of Murphy is a recreation of Christ's crucifixion and the rest of the film is Christ's resurrection, even to the point they have RoboCop walking on water at the end.

RoboCop is also a social commentary, and a satire of big business and conglomerates.

PV's other movies like Showgirls: The satire and parody of the subject it's based on went over the heads of the audience and people simply thought it was a bad movie, whereas it was actually a cheesy exploitation and satire of show business.


But as I said, Verhoeven laughs at the studio because of the cuts they made actually make RoboCop's violence much more potent and even made the movie better than was originally intended.


And unlike other exploitation movies, Verhoeven's movies or someone else's exploitation movies... RoboCop has heart.


RoboCop himself is torn between duty, past memories and sheer robotic programming.
A ghost-in-the-machine, that has to fight its way through the programming and find its humanity again... all the while knowing that Alex Murphy is technically dead.
RoboCop even refers to Murphy in the 3rd person "Murphy had a Wife and Son, what happened to them?"
He knows he's not Alex any more, but in a way, he still is.
It's a tragic story of the loss of humanity, but regaining the soul.

Nice post rodent. I’m a PV fan myself but hadn’t thought about robocop as deeply as you which gives me a new appreciation.

Hey Larry, have a gander here
https://www.movieforums.com/clubs/paul-verhoeven.html


And Here
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=49769

Another thing I didn't like about the DC is that in the original cut, you see the look of terror on Murphy's face just before he is shot in the head, which is effective. In the DC, the camera moves all the way behind his head and you do not see that final reaction shot from Murphy as a result.

That's true perhaps an exploitation movie isn't bad, as long as it's a good well done one with heart.

As for showgirls, I thought people understood that it was a satire movie, but just a badly done satire.

I was only made aware last week that during the end credits of Robocop, there is a piece of text which reads something like

"Any illegal copyright infringement of this movie will result in a visit from law enforcement droids"

Verhoeven, what a lad.

Lol glad someone got it. Matt Damon.

What the ****? It is the BEST sci-fi of that time, it has great social commentary, soundtrack, violence, just a complete package. Even though not the most popular, it's better than Alien, Terminator and the likes and i won't compare it with crap like Back to the Future.

I'm going to have to say that I like Back to the Future and The Terminator both better than Robocop, but I might agree that it beats Alien.

LMAO!!! Good on him.