You having not seen so many epic movies, I can't comment on the quality of a movie that hasn't been made yet
Agh. And just why, Why, WHY do you simply refuse to see classic films if you're so into filming? Just don't look stuff up: see it, appreciate the techniques and then make up your own mind about whether you've enjoyed the film or not. Maybe then you'll learn that Malcolm McDowell's Alex was a more disturbing nihilistic figure than Ledger's Joker. Or that there's more hard (and excellent) SF in the 2+ hours of 2001 than in any of the hundreds of SF films that debuted since (SW, Alien and Blade Runner included). Broaden your horizons, dude. Rent both films and watch them. Rent and watch so many others we've mentioned. Maybe that way you may come to appreciate that about which you're so passionate about and, perhaps, even add something meaningful to these discussions. Otherwise, you're just posting stuff up here to make yourself be seen, heard and, sadly, ridiculed. Unless, of course, you like that crap.
Some people have already. DI- 1. Haven't seen Blade Runner or Alien either. 2. I look up stuff to know what people are talking about, but have no interest in seeing them. Yes, I am strange. If you're not use to that by now, then I'm sorry for you.
Strangeness might be a virtue, but your alleged lack of interest in stuff is simply disturbing. Whatever dude, you're a lost cause and this discussion is pointless. If that's the way you like to roll I truly am sorry for you.
Wow... Get the hell off the JCC and pop in Blade Runner and Alien now. It's for your own good. We just want the best for you.
Dredd is actually very well done, the problem was more that the original Stallon movie was really bad. As for the new Robcop look - there is a reason why he is iconic He is meant to be freaking disturbing and not pleasant to look at.
Yes, but the times have changed. According to the script Moriarty reviewed, the first iteration of RoboCop is identical to the 80s version, but it doesn't fly with focus groups and he's redesigned to be more toyetic and media-friendly (in-universe, that's what happens in the movie). It's even possible that his being so close to the modern superhero-bondage model is on purpose. I mean: the movie might be a trainwreck. It's actually more than likely. But I insist again: there's some thought behind the script.
Just can’t imaging they get the dark feel down that Robocop is meant to have, which is what made the original such a good movie and that they will go the popcorn road a la Avengers, which works on its own if it is well done, just doesn’t really go with Robocop. Though if they really get such a twist in and pull it off, call me surprised.
RoboCop was dark? I mean, it was violent, but... dark? What made the original movie a classic was two things: cartoonish over-the-top violence and social satire. The whole "focus group" and "RoboCop designed to sell action figures" covers the satire part. We'll see about the violence, but I wouldn't expect much. Moriarty really disliked the script, by the way, and shredded it because it was too different to the original. Of course it was. We already have the original. If we're going to have a remake there better be a point to it other than better special effects. Ignoring that the society the movie has to satirize has changed it what leads to a silly popcorn movie.
The world it shows is deeply disturbing, of course reinforced by the violence and satirical factors, but just about every character in the first 2 movie is either a victim of the world because they stick to morals, or is driven insane or becomes deeply amoral because of how messed up the world around them is. Then there is that whole desecration of a corpse thing with Murphy (and other police officers in part 2) and of course RoboCop pretty much being property and not really treated as a person.
I refuse to talk about RoboCop 2. Both the human-being-as-private-property and the desecration of a corpse bits should be in the reboot as well.
I refuse to acknowledge 2 and 3 (though arguably Part Deux is the more...tolerable?...of the two). And I vaguely recall the tv show, so much so that it couldn't have been memorable.
What's wrong with looking like Iron Man? He is literally an iron man. And, like I wrote somewhere else where people were complaining about this: within the story it would make sense for the company that is trying to sell this thing to make him look "cool" and try to downplay the grotesque fact that he is a resurrected (of sorts) tin man. You know, by not having his body be made of uncolored brushed grey steel, which conjures up mental images of a factory conveyor belt?
PFFT. Focus groups. That's one of the things that's killed soaps and so many quality shows before they even get off the ground.
