RoboCop

Tools    





Well, lowering the rating was their first mistake. That's mainly why it's being hated on so early on.
__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood



I think most of the hate is simply down to the fact that genuine fans of any film love their movie as much as fanboys love, say, Star Wars.

As a huge fan of RoboCop, I see it the same way as many see Jaws, Casablanca, 2001, Star Wars etc etc.

What they're doing is remaking a classic and bullsh*tting about a lot of the stuff they reckon wasn't included in the original film in a desperate attempt at rubbishing the original and to make their abomination sound better, whereas everything they say was missing, is actually in the original.


Kinda like George Lucas, his need for CGI-ing the original films and his weird idea to suddenly throw midi-chlorians into the mix and then never speak of them again... ever...



... to me, remaking RoboCop is like having someone and their child round at your house...

... who then proceeds to break all of your own child's toys, and neither the little sh*t nor the parents have remorse about it.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
It looks like it will be a decent movie, but I'm speaking as someone who doesn't remember the original movie.
Really? You should watch it again. In fact if you do I might try and join you for a commentary. Perhaps Rodent could make it a threesome.



Really? You should watch it again. In fact if you do I might try and join you for a commentary. Perhaps Rodent could make it a threesome.
ANYTIME. Just let me know. And yes, I'm dying to commentate with Rodent.



Dumb girl. Ron is right behind her - she wouldn't need to telephone.



Finished here. It's been fun.
After finally watching the original Robocop I have to say i think the remake is going to end up being a mediocre,forgettable action flick. Much of the original's fun comes from the bloody,over the top violence and action scenes. The remake Should be rated-R, but sadly it isn't.



Saw the trailer for this before Thor last night. This is going to be a total, meh, fest. So pointless.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Finished here. It's been fun.
A thing I can't stand about a lot of newer films is how shiny and artificial they look. There's just this beauty to effects that are hand-crafted and practical ,that you are never going to find in films with an overabundance of CGI. This new Robocop just looks so "Meh", and the Pg-13 rating seals it. If it was rated-R,maybe,just maybe it could end up being an entertaining bloody action flick.Oh well.



A thing I can't stand about a lot of newer films is how shiny and artificial they look. There's just this beauty to effects that are hand-crafted and practical ,that you are never going to find in films with an overabundance of CGI. This new Robocop just looks so "Meh", and the Pg-13 rating seals it. If it was rated-R,maybe,just maybe it could end up being an entertaining bloody action flick.Oh well.
Can't do R rated action no more. Gotta be PG-13 so you can get the teen and tween audience in the seats. Hollywood whores...



The problem is though, is that Hollywood and other high paid studios have become like regular jobs.

The olden days, jobs were practical. Hand written notes and floppy discs.

These days work is all digital. Job applications are done on the web. Essays are done using a PC and printer.

Gone are the days of paperwork, floppy discs, Rob Botin and Stan Winston... it's all about ILM, Dreamworks, SD Cards and Laptops.

Practical is a dying art and because of this, it's becoming expensive and studios would rather spend 2 minutes and $100 on a laptop program than $2000 and 3 weeks in an effects studio... and the finished product is always soulless and sterile.

Computers are so easy to use and are a dime a dozen.

Years ago, when things like Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 were being made, is when computers powerful enough to make those films were extortionately expensive and, people back then knew how to make stuff with hard work, makeup and hand puppets.


John Carpenter's The Thing from 1982 is an example. Years ago it would have been either impossible or too expensive to make that film with computers and rotoscoping...

... these days though, the example is The Thing (2010), as practical effects are more expensive and take longer than computers.


It's a switcharoo. Shame really, practical effects beat 90% of computer effects.



What gets me though more than anything is the overuse of CGI.

Look at Terminator 2... they had CGI and makeup as well. CGI for the T1000 and makeup for Big Arn. The computing power was there to be used, but Cameron had the gumption to use practical alongside the CGI. Studios don't do that anymore, they go full on CGI whenever anything happens.
Like with Terminator 3, they CG'd Ahnuld's makeup so they didn't have to bother with a genuine (more expensive) artist to apply the effects to his face. I mean, why do that? It looks crap and hollow and lifeless.


Another prime example is JJ Abrams' Star Trek too.
The start sequence, after we're introduced to Kirk and Spock... the music starts, the Starfleet symbol turns slowly as the Star Trek title comes up on the screen.

That entire CG sequence with the title and logo was made by a 12 year old fanboy on a laptop who sent it in to Abrams, and Abrams actually used it in the film.



Yeah Savini rocks.

It's a shame that CGI is less expensive and practical has become so rare it costs a fortune to use.
Practical effects are by far and away superior.


James Cameron hit the nail on the head when it comes to effects in an interview I saw him do for Aliens.

When talking about the Alien Suits, he said that people need very few pixels of information to know that what they looking at is a person in a rubber suit.
So he would hang the cameras at funny angles and have gymnasts on wires and used strobe lighting to throw the audience off.


It's the same as the difference with CGI and practical. CGI laden horror films just aren't scary and overly used CGI with no practical at all on any film, will make that film a hollow and pointless viewing experience.
Star Wars Episode V against Star Wars Episode II anyone?



Yeah Savini rocks.

It's a shame that CGI is less expensive and practical has become so rare it costs a fortune to use.
Practical effects are by far and away superior.


James Cameron hit the nail on the head when it comes to effects in an interview I saw him do for Aliens.

When talking about the Alien Suits, he said that people need very few pixels of information to know that what they looking at is a person in a rubber suit.
So he would hang the cameras at funny angles and have gymnasts on wires and used strobe lighting to throw the audience off.


It's the same as the difference with CGI and practical. CGI laden horror films just aren't scary and overly used CGI with no practical at all on any film, will make that film a hollow and pointless viewing experience.
Star Wars Episode V against Star Wars Episode II anyone?
Preach Rodent preach!