RoboCop 2 - What do you dislike about it?

[Superquad7]

While I have my own thoughts here, I want to see what the rest of you guys say first. Additionally, I love this movie. While it's certainly not the masterpiece the first was, I still think it's great. However, many fans dislike it...even hate it.

You guys are the real fans, so...I respect your opinions just a little more, as you have a bias for liking "ROBOCOP" things. That said, I'm interested in your objectivity here as well. I'm not one to be overly negative either, but I want to read what you guys dislike (or even hate) about this movie.

Ok, go!

[Joined]

While I have my own thoughts here, I want to see what the rest of you guys say first. Additionally, I love this movie. While it's certainly not the masterpiece the first was, I still think it's great. However, many fans dislike it...even hate it.

You guys are the real fans, so...I respect your opinions just a little more, as you have a bias for liking "ROBOCOP" things. That said, I'm interested in your objectivity here as well. I'm not one to be overly negative either, but I want to read what you guys dislike (or even hate) about this movie.

Ok, go!

[Post Count]

While I have my own thoughts here, I want to see what the rest of you guys say first. Additionally, I love this movie. While it's certainly not the masterpiece the first was, I still think it's great. However, many fans dislike it...even hate it.

You guys are the real fans, so...I respect your opinions just a little more, as you have a bias for liking "ROBOCOP" things. That said, I'm interested in your objectivity here as well. I'm not one to be overly negative either, but I want to read what you guys dislike (or even hate) about this movie.

Ok, go!

[RoboFan_93]

I certainly like "RoboCop 2" a lot! That's not to say I don't have any problems with it.

The thing that probably bugs me most is that it pretty much loses the emotional, human element. It brushes off Murphy's humanity early on and does very little to show it in later scenes (mostly done with the final line in the movie). This is something that "RoboCop 3" tried to fix, though most people would say it failed.

Cain and his gang also weren't nearly as interesting as Clarence and his men. Hob was an interesting, if disturbing, entry in the villain ranks, but Cain himself didn't really grab my attention until he underwent his transformation.

The music, while not bad on its own (okay, besides the corny chanting of "RoboCop" in the main theme), is also not nearly as good as the scores for the original and "RoboCop 3". The deleted scenes feature some reused music from the first film and it just works so much better.

I also didn't really like the Old Man's sudden change of heart.

With that being said - there are plenty of things to love about "RoboCop 2". It's a greatly entertaining action flick, with terrific stop-motion work and brains in jars. Could have it been better? Certainly. Is it bad? No, I wouldn't say so. I do think, however, that just like "RoboCop 3" it holds up much better as its own movie, rather than a sequel.
_________________
Anything you post can be used against you!

[Joined]

I certainly like "RoboCop 2" a lot! That's not to say I don't have any problems with it.

The thing that probably bugs me most is that it pretty much loses the emotional, human element. It brushes off Murphy's humanity early on and does very little to show it in later scenes (mostly done with the final line in the movie). This is something that "RoboCop 3" tried to fix, though most people would say it failed.

Cain and his gang also weren't nearly as interesting as Clarence and his men. Hob was an interesting, if disturbing, entry in the villain ranks, but Cain himself didn't really grab my attention until he underwent his transformation.

The music, while not bad on its own (okay, besides the corny chanting of "RoboCop" in the main theme), is also not nearly as good as the scores for the original and "RoboCop 3". The deleted scenes feature some reused music from the first film and it just works so much better.

I also didn't really like the Old Man's sudden change of heart.

With that being said - there are plenty of things to love about "RoboCop 2". It's a greatly entertaining action flick, with terrific stop-motion work and brains in jars. Could have it been better? Certainly. Is it bad? No, I wouldn't say so. I do think, however, that just like "RoboCop 3" it holds up much better as its own movie, rather than a sequel.
_________________
Anything you post can be used against you!

[Post Count]

I certainly like "RoboCop 2" a lot! That's not to say I don't have any problems with it.

The thing that probably bugs me most is that it pretty much loses the emotional, human element. It brushes off Murphy's humanity early on and does very little to show it in later scenes (mostly done with the final line in the movie). This is something that "RoboCop 3" tried to fix, though most people would say it failed.

Cain and his gang also weren't nearly as interesting as Clarence and his men. Hob was an interesting, if disturbing, entry in the villain ranks, but Cain himself didn't really grab my attention until he underwent his transformation.

The music, while not bad on its own (okay, besides the corny chanting of "RoboCop" in the main theme), is also not nearly as good as the scores for the original and "RoboCop 3". The deleted scenes feature some reused music from the first film and it just works so much better.

I also didn't really like the Old Man's sudden change of heart.

With that being said - there are plenty of things to love about "RoboCop 2". It's a greatly entertaining action flick, with terrific stop-motion work and brains in jars. Could have it been better? Certainly. Is it bad? No, I wouldn't say so. I do think, however, that just like "RoboCop 3" it holds up much better as its own movie, rather than a sequel.
_________________
Anything you post can be used against you!

[Comment]

I certainly like "RoboCop 2" a lot! That's not to say I don't have any problems with it.

The thing that probably bugs me most is that it pretty much loses the emotional, human element. It brushes off Murphy's humanity early on and does very little to show it in later scenes (mostly done with the final line in the movie). This is something that "RoboCop 3" tried to fix, though most people would say it failed.

Cain and his gang also weren't nearly as interesting as Clarence and his men. Hob was an interesting, if disturbing, entry in the villain ranks, but Cain himself didn't really grab my attention until he underwent his transformation.

The music, while not bad on its own (okay, besides the corny chanting of "RoboCop" in the main theme), is also not nearly as good as the scores for the original and "RoboCop 3". The deleted scenes feature some reused music from the first film and it just works so much better.

I also didn't really like the Old Man's sudden change of heart.

With that being said - there are plenty of things to love about "RoboCop 2". It's a greatly entertaining action flick, with terrific stop-motion work and brains in jars. Could have it been better? Certainly. Is it bad? No, I wouldn't say so. I do think, however, that just like "RoboCop 3" it holds up much better as its own movie, rather than a sequel.
_________________
Anything you post can be used against you!

[artuditu]

Aesthetically:

- Blue fiber-glass suit: As much as I adored the blue suit when I was a kid, today I find it very "plastic", it just doesn't feel like heavy steel, it also feels less tight and fit, reminding more of a man inside a suit. I understand it was practical for the actor, being lighter, easier and faster to suit-up, but it didn't look the same on the screen (although it looked terrific in some production stills). It's not about the color, it also happens in R3, although I think the silver-ish look helps a bit more to give the feeling of metal.

- Soundtrack: not bad, just light years away from Poledouris master piece.

- Direction and editing: visually not bad but again flat in comparison with the original, losing the dynamic and ultra-realistic camera work. Kershner's classical direction is fine but not as powerful and intense (both in action and drama) as Verhoeven's.

I just can imagine how the movie would have improved aesthetically from these things staying closer to how R1 looked and felt, it would have been instantly considered a good sequel.


Story-wise:

I could criticize how irregular the narrative gets in the middle (with long chunks of movie without Robo appearing) or how dark, disturbing and unbalanced is the tone overall (I think R1 was a great mix and contrast of positive and negative emotions, lights and shadows, funny and drama, superficial and deep, etc.). But all that gives the movie its own distinct personality, and somewhat I learnt to respect it for what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that Murphy's journey in R2 is through depression, it looks like the subplot about stalking his wife is cut too early, but the rest of the movie is about Robo trying to cope with it, becoming obsessed with capturing Cain, being again crucified and resurrected, going through "prozac" mode, etc. I like all that and I give credit to Frank Miller, my only problem is how at the end there seems to be no character evolution at all, Robo fights Cain (who almost could be considered as the main character of the movie, kind of Joker in "The Dark Knight") and that's all, he says his ambiguous and vague final line "We are only humans" which could be an statement of accepting himself, but still it is not enough to say Robo gets anywhere in his personal journey, or how he got there. Even if I still like it, it's an ending in a fake high note.

And last but not least, Lewis is clearly underused, she kicks some asses and you can see her concern when Robo goes through failures and troubles, but other than that she doesn't have an impact in the story as she did in R1.

[Joined]

Aesthetically:

- Blue fiber-glass suit: As much as I adored the blue suit when I was a kid, today I find it very "plastic", it just doesn't feel like heavy steel, it also feels less tight and fit, reminding more of a man inside a suit. I understand it was practical for the actor, being lighter, easier and faster to suit-up, but it didn't look the same on the screen (although it looked terrific in some production stills). It's not about the color, it also happens in R3, although I think the silver-ish look helps a bit more to give the feeling of metal.

- Soundtrack: not bad, just light years away from Poledouris master piece.

- Direction and editing: visually not bad but again flat in comparison with the original, losing the dynamic and ultra-realistic camera work. Kershner's classical direction is fine but not as powerful and intense (both in action and drama) as Verhoeven's.

I just can imagine how the movie would have improved aesthetically from these things staying closer to how R1 looked and felt, it would have been instantly considered a good sequel.


Story-wise:

I could criticize how irregular the narrative gets in the middle (with long chunks of movie without Robo appearing) or how dark, disturbing and unbalanced is the tone overall (I think R1 was a great mix and contrast of positive and negative emotions, lights and shadows, funny and drama, superficial and deep, etc.). But all that gives the movie its own distinct personality, and somewhat I learnt to respect it for what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that Murphy's journey in R2 is through depression, it looks like the subplot about stalking his wife is cut too early, but the rest of the movie is about Robo trying to cope with it, becoming obsessed with capturing Cain, being again crucified and resurrected, going through "prozac" mode, etc. I like all that and I give credit to Frank Miller, my only problem is how at the end there seems to be no character evolution at all, Robo fights Cain (who almost could be considered as the main character of the movie, kind of Joker in "The Dark Knight") and that's all, he says his ambiguous and vague final line "We are only humans" which could be an statement of accepting himself, but still it is not enough to say Robo gets anywhere in his personal journey, or how he got there. Even if I still like it, it's an ending in a fake high note.

And last but not least, Lewis is clearly underused, she kicks some asses and you can see her concern when Robo goes through failures and troubles, but other than that she doesn't have an impact in the story as she did in R1.

[Post Count]

Aesthetically:

- Blue fiber-glass suit: As much as I adored the blue suit when I was a kid, today I find it very "plastic", it just doesn't feel like heavy steel, it also feels less tight and fit, reminding more of a man inside a suit. I understand it was practical for the actor, being lighter, easier and faster to suit-up, but it didn't look the same on the screen (although it looked terrific in some production stills). It's not about the color, it also happens in R3, although I think the silver-ish look helps a bit more to give the feeling of metal.

- Soundtrack: not bad, just light years away from Poledouris master piece.

- Direction and editing: visually not bad but again flat in comparison with the original, losing the dynamic and ultra-realistic camera work. Kershner's classical direction is fine but not as powerful and intense (both in action and drama) as Verhoeven's.

I just can imagine how the movie would have improved aesthetically from these things staying closer to how R1 looked and felt, it would have been instantly considered a good sequel.


Story-wise:

I could criticize how irregular the narrative gets in the middle (with long chunks of movie without Robo appearing) or how dark, disturbing and unbalanced is the tone overall (I think R1 was a great mix and contrast of positive and negative emotions, lights and shadows, funny and drama, superficial and deep, etc.). But all that gives the movie its own distinct personality, and somewhat I learnt to respect it for what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that Murphy's journey in R2 is through depression, it looks like the subplot about stalking his wife is cut too early, but the rest of the movie is about Robo trying to cope with it, becoming obsessed with capturing Cain, being again crucified and resurrected, going through "prozac" mode, etc. I like all that and I give credit to Frank Miller, my only problem is how at the end there seems to be no character evolution at all, Robo fights Cain (who almost could be considered as the main character of the movie, kind of Joker in "The Dark Knight") and that's all, he says his ambiguous and vague final line "We are only humans" which could be an statement of accepting himself, but still it is not enough to say Robo gets anywhere in his personal journey, or how he got there. Even if I still like it, it's an ending in a fake high note.

And last but not least, Lewis is clearly underused, she kicks some asses and you can see her concern when Robo goes through failures and troubles, but other than that she doesn't have an impact in the story as she did in R1.

[Comment]

Aesthetically:

- Blue fiber-glass suit: As much as I adored the blue suit when I was a kid, today I find it very "plastic", it just doesn't feel like heavy steel, it also feels less tight and fit, reminding more of a man inside a suit. I understand it was practical for the actor, being lighter, easier and faster to suit-up, but it didn't look the same on the screen (although it looked terrific in some production stills). It's not about the color, it also happens in R3, although I think the silver-ish look helps a bit more to give the feeling of metal.

- Soundtrack: not bad, just light years away from Poledouris master piece.

- Direction and editing: visually not bad but again flat in comparison with the original, losing the dynamic and ultra-realistic camera work. Kershner's classical direction is fine but not as powerful and intense (both in action and drama) as Verhoeven's.

I just can imagine how the movie would have improved aesthetically from these things staying closer to how R1 looked and felt, it would have been instantly considered a good sequel.


Story-wise:

I could criticize how irregular the narrative gets in the middle (with long chunks of movie without Robo appearing) or how dark, disturbing and unbalanced is the tone overall (I think R1 was a great mix and contrast of positive and negative emotions, lights and shadows, funny and drama, superficial and deep, etc.). But all that gives the movie its own distinct personality, and somewhat I learnt to respect it for what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that Murphy's journey in R2 is through depression, it looks like the subplot about stalking his wife is cut too early, but the rest of the movie is about Robo trying to cope with it, becoming obsessed with capturing Cain, being again crucified and resurrected, going through "prozac" mode, etc. I like all that and I give credit to Frank Miller, my only problem is how at the end there seems to be no character evolution at all, Robo fights Cain (who almost could be considered as the main character of the movie, kind of Joker in "The Dark Knight") and that's all, he says his ambiguous and vague final line "We are only humans" which could be an statement of accepting himself, but still it is not enough to say Robo gets anywhere in his personal journey, or how he got there. Even if I still like it, it's an ending in a fake high note.

And last but not least, Lewis is clearly underused, she kicks some asses and you can see her concern when Robo goes through failures and troubles, but other than that she doesn't have an impact in the story as she did in R1.

[Archive]

It is my understanding that the biggest criticism of Robo2 seems to be that it simply isn't Robo1. It doesn't have the same suit, the same music, the same director etc. It changed too much.

For me, I think it is a bit messy in its storytelling. It is apparent that they cut a lot of scenes and made a lot of changes as they filmed (Lewis is severely underused). It is also a bit cold and lack the humour from the original. Sure it HAS humour but it is a very mean humour and you really have to have the right mindset to enjoy it.

That said, I love RoboCop2 for what it is. Its ups and downs.

For a bunch of opinions on Robo2 I suggest you also check out an older topic here:
http://www.robocoparchive.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=557

[Joined]

It is my understanding that the biggest criticism of Robo2 seems to be that it simply isn't Robo1. It doesn't have the same suit, the same music, the same director etc. It changed too much.

For me, I think it is a bit messy in its storytelling. It is apparent that they cut a lot of scenes and made a lot of changes as they filmed (Lewis is severely underused). It is also a bit cold and lack the humour from the original. Sure it HAS humour but it is a very mean humour and you really have to have the right mindset to enjoy it.

That said, I love RoboCop2 for what it is. Its ups and downs.

For a bunch of opinions on Robo2 I suggest you also check out an older topic here:
http://www.robocoparchive.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=557

[Post Count]

It is my understanding that the biggest criticism of Robo2 seems to be that it simply isn't Robo1. It doesn't have the same suit, the same music, the same director etc. It changed too much.

For me, I think it is a bit messy in its storytelling. It is apparent that they cut a lot of scenes and made a lot of changes as they filmed (Lewis is severely underused). It is also a bit cold and lack the humour from the original. Sure it HAS humour but it is a very mean humour and you really have to have the right mindset to enjoy it.

That said, I love RoboCop2 for what it is. Its ups and downs.

For a bunch of opinions on Robo2 I suggest you also check out an older topic here:
http://www.robocoparchive.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=557

[artuditu]

Well, speaking from myself, my point was not about having a different suit, music or director, it was about having a worse suit, worse music and worse directing

Still I acknowledged those things in R2 weren't bad, just (significantly) worse than R1. We can of course debate if those were not worse but just different, that would be interesting to discuss, although I would be surprised to find here such opinions.

[Joined]

Well, speaking from myself, my point was not about having a different suit, music or director, it was about having a worse suit, worse music and worse directing

Still I acknowledged those things in R2 weren't bad, just (significantly) worse than R1. We can of course debate if those were not worse but just different, that would be interesting to discuss, although I would be surprised to find here such opinions.

[Post Count]

Well, speaking from myself, my point was not about having a different suit, music or director, it was about having a worse suit, worse music and worse directing

Still I acknowledged those things in R2 weren't bad, just (significantly) worse than R1. We can of course debate if those were not worse but just different, that would be interesting to discuss, although I would be surprised to find here such opinions.

[Comment]

Well, speaking from myself, my point was not about having a different suit, music or director, it was about having a worse suit, worse music and worse directing

Still I acknowledged those things in R2 weren't bad, just (significantly) worse than R1. We can of course debate if those were not worse but just different, that would be interesting to discuss, although I would be surprised to find here such opinions.

[Stan The Man]

As I don't have a whole lot of time right this minute to go over it, I pretty much concur with most of what is posted by artu, 93 and Archive. Archive's in particular summed it up pretty good to me.

Granted most of my thoughts on R2 are in that old topic, and they really haven't changed, but even so I'll be happy to mull over my own take (again) a bit later. But all told, I like R2 quite a bit. Almost could say I love it. Almost. For me, it being not R1 was both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, in that there were many differences I thought were neat and interesting changes while others were a mistake or, at least, paled in comparison to what the original did. I think artu made a point about whether we consider those changes really 'worse' or just different. I think it's a mix of both, but again, more on that later.

I think Archive said it with it 'not being R1' for the most part. And indeed it isn't so much. In spite of that, R2 still retains much of the tone and atmosphere of the original, which almost nothing else as a whole in the franchise does, and with me, goes a long way toward having such well regard for it - It seems more a RoboCop film than any of the others. Just how I've always seen it, and still see it today.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

As I don't have a whole lot of time right this minute to go over it, I pretty much concur with most of what is posted by artu, 93 and Archive. Archive's in particular summed it up pretty good to me.

Granted most of my thoughts on R2 are in that old topic, and they really haven't changed, but even so I'll be happy to mull over my own take (again) a bit later. But all told, I like R2 quite a bit. Almost could say I love it. Almost. For me, it being not R1 was both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, in that there were many differences I thought were neat and interesting changes while others were a mistake or, at least, paled in comparison to what the original did. I think artu made a point about whether we consider those changes really 'worse' or just different. I think it's a mix of both, but again, more on that later.

I think Archive said it with it 'not being R1' for the most part. And indeed it isn't so much. In spite of that, R2 still retains much of the tone and atmosphere of the original, which almost nothing else as a whole in the franchise does, and with me, goes a long way toward having such well regard for it - It seems more a RoboCop film than any of the others. Just how I've always seen it, and still see it today.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

As I don't have a whole lot of time right this minute to go over it, I pretty much concur with most of what is posted by artu, 93 and Archive. Archive's in particular summed it up pretty good to me.

Granted most of my thoughts on R2 are in that old topic, and they really haven't changed, but even so I'll be happy to mull over my own take (again) a bit later. But all told, I like R2 quite a bit. Almost could say I love it. Almost. For me, it being not R1 was both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, in that there were many differences I thought were neat and interesting changes while others were a mistake or, at least, paled in comparison to what the original did. I think artu made a point about whether we consider those changes really 'worse' or just different. I think it's a mix of both, but again, more on that later.

I think Archive said it with it 'not being R1' for the most part. And indeed it isn't so much. In spite of that, R2 still retains much of the tone and atmosphere of the original, which almost nothing else as a whole in the franchise does, and with me, goes a long way toward having such well regard for it - It seems more a RoboCop film than any of the others. Just how I've always seen it, and still see it today.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

As I don't have a whole lot of time right this minute to go over it, I pretty much concur with most of what is posted by artu, 93 and Archive. Archive's in particular summed it up pretty good to me.

Granted most of my thoughts on R2 are in that old topic, and they really haven't changed, but even so I'll be happy to mull over my own take (again) a bit later. But all told, I like R2 quite a bit. Almost could say I love it. Almost. For me, it being not R1 was both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, in that there were many differences I thought were neat and interesting changes while others were a mistake or, at least, paled in comparison to what the original did. I think artu made a point about whether we consider those changes really 'worse' or just different. I think it's a mix of both, but again, more on that later.

I think Archive said it with it 'not being R1' for the most part. And indeed it isn't so much. In spite of that, R2 still retains much of the tone and atmosphere of the original, which almost nothing else as a whole in the franchise does, and with me, goes a long way toward having such well regard for it - It seems more a RoboCop film than any of the others. Just how I've always seen it, and still see it today.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[artuditu]

I want to note how this is not the typical case when you are in love with a movie and then a sequel comes and you are disappointed with everything that's different because you expect/want to see exactly the same again.

That could be the case of the reboot, but not of R2, at least for most of us. Although I have memories of "life before R2", and yes R1 made the first big impression in my childhood, I have to say I absolutely adored R2 when I saw it as a kid, I even remember for some time liking it more, and for another period not really being sure which one was better. So, I didn't want R2 to be like R1.

It was with time, when years passed, with different eyes, and after dozens of reruns, that I could identify how R1 was truly superior, making a greater impact. I have never thought R2 was rubbish, in fact right now I have a better consideration of it than maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I respect its tone and style, its story, what it tries to deal with, what makes it look and feel different from R1, but being honest in "objective" (yes, objective) things such as pure directing R1 is a jewel, the camera work and editing are amazing, top notch, dynamic, close to the action, ultra-realistic, that is why we could take thousands of screenshots from the movie that could make for a poster, or remember the exact frame of so many iconic moments. I encourage you to take any scene in R1 and analyse it shot by shot, where is the camera, how close or far to the characters, high or low, what is the point of view, is it moving and how, where are the cuts and editing, what is the feel you get from every choice and decision the director and editor made, you would be amazed how inspired and committed to the movie they were.

Now do the same with R2 and you will see how "flat" the directing and editing is in comparison, witout it being bad of course. I insist, it's not that I want R2 to be something else, I respect it for what it is, but there are some key things that are like comparing the game of Michael Jordan at his prime with the average professional player, you have to be objective and say ok, that other guy was good, but Mike played in another league.

About the suit, for example, I understand you can love the blue color (I loved it too when I was a kid), as well as the shiny black parts, that is a matter of taste, subjective, but if you pay attention to the material you can't deny the plastic and weaker look being more evident than R1. These things are objective, I'm not discussing the plot or the actors, which are really more subjective topics even if we could agree easily.

[Joined]

I want to note how this is not the typical case when you are in love with a movie and then a sequel comes and you are disappointed with everything that's different because you expect/want to see exactly the same again.

That could be the case of the reboot, but not of R2, at least for most of us. Although I have memories of "life before R2", and yes R1 made the first big impression in my childhood, I have to say I absolutely adored R2 when I saw it as a kid, I even remember for some time liking it more, and for another period not really being sure which one was better. So, I didn't want R2 to be like R1.

It was with time, when years passed, with different eyes, and after dozens of reruns, that I could identify how R1 was truly superior, making a greater impact. I have never thought R2 was rubbish, in fact right now I have a better consideration of it than maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I respect its tone and style, its story, what it tries to deal with, what makes it look and feel different from R1, but being honest in "objective" (yes, objective) things such as pure directing R1 is a jewel, the camera work and editing are amazing, top notch, dynamic, close to the action, ultra-realistic, that is why we could take thousands of screenshots from the movie that could make for a poster, or remember the exact frame of so many iconic moments. I encourage you to take any scene in R1 and analyse it shot by shot, where is the camera, how close or far to the characters, high or low, what is the point of view, is it moving and how, where are the cuts and editing, what is the feel you get from every choice and decision the director and editor made, you would be amazed how inspired and committed to the movie they were.

Now do the same with R2 and you will see how "flat" the directing and editing is in comparison, witout it being bad of course. I insist, it's not that I want R2 to be something else, I respect it for what it is, but there are some key things that are like comparing the game of Michael Jordan at his prime with the average professional player, you have to be objective and say ok, that other guy was good, but Mike played in another league.

About the suit, for example, I understand you can love the blue color (I loved it too when I was a kid), as well as the shiny black parts, that is a matter of taste, subjective, but if you pay attention to the material you can't deny the plastic and weaker look being more evident than R1. These things are objective, I'm not discussing the plot or the actors, which are really more subjective topics even if we could agree easily.

[Post Count]

I want to note how this is not the typical case when you are in love with a movie and then a sequel comes and you are disappointed with everything that's different because you expect/want to see exactly the same again.

That could be the case of the reboot, but not of R2, at least for most of us. Although I have memories of "life before R2", and yes R1 made the first big impression in my childhood, I have to say I absolutely adored R2 when I saw it as a kid, I even remember for some time liking it more, and for another period not really being sure which one was better. So, I didn't want R2 to be like R1.

It was with time, when years passed, with different eyes, and after dozens of reruns, that I could identify how R1 was truly superior, making a greater impact. I have never thought R2 was rubbish, in fact right now I have a better consideration of it than maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I respect its tone and style, its story, what it tries to deal with, what makes it look and feel different from R1, but being honest in "objective" (yes, objective) things such as pure directing R1 is a jewel, the camera work and editing are amazing, top notch, dynamic, close to the action, ultra-realistic, that is why we could take thousands of screenshots from the movie that could make for a poster, or remember the exact frame of so many iconic moments. I encourage you to take any scene in R1 and analyse it shot by shot, where is the camera, how close or far to the characters, high or low, what is the point of view, is it moving and how, where are the cuts and editing, what is the feel you get from every choice and decision the director and editor made, you would be amazed how inspired and committed to the movie they were.

Now do the same with R2 and you will see how "flat" the directing and editing is in comparison, witout it being bad of course. I insist, it's not that I want R2 to be something else, I respect it for what it is, but there are some key things that are like comparing the game of Michael Jordan at his prime with the average professional player, you have to be objective and say ok, that other guy was good, but Mike played in another league.

About the suit, for example, I understand you can love the blue color (I loved it too when I was a kid), as well as the shiny black parts, that is a matter of taste, subjective, but if you pay attention to the material you can't deny the plastic and weaker look being more evident than R1. These things are objective, I'm not discussing the plot or the actors, which are really more subjective topics even if we could agree easily.

[Comment]

I want to note how this is not the typical case when you are in love with a movie and then a sequel comes and you are disappointed with everything that's different because you expect/want to see exactly the same again.

That could be the case of the reboot, but not of R2, at least for most of us. Although I have memories of "life before R2", and yes R1 made the first big impression in my childhood, I have to say I absolutely adored R2 when I saw it as a kid, I even remember for some time liking it more, and for another period not really being sure which one was better. So, I didn't want R2 to be like R1.

It was with time, when years passed, with different eyes, and after dozens of reruns, that I could identify how R1 was truly superior, making a greater impact. I have never thought R2 was rubbish, in fact right now I have a better consideration of it than maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I respect its tone and style, its story, what it tries to deal with, what makes it look and feel different from R1, but being honest in "objective" (yes, objective) things such as pure directing R1 is a jewel, the camera work and editing are amazing, top notch, dynamic, close to the action, ultra-realistic, that is why we could take thousands of screenshots from the movie that could make for a poster, or remember the exact frame of so many iconic moments. I encourage you to take any scene in R1 and analyse it shot by shot, where is the camera, how close or far to the characters, high or low, what is the point of view, is it moving and how, where are the cuts and editing, what is the feel you get from every choice and decision the director and editor made, you would be amazed how inspired and committed to the movie they were.

Now do the same with R2 and you will see how "flat" the directing and editing is in comparison, witout it being bad of course. I insist, it's not that I want R2 to be something else, I respect it for what it is, but there are some key things that are like comparing the game of Michael Jordan at his prime with the average professional player, you have to be objective and say ok, that other guy was good, but Mike played in another league.

About the suit, for example, I understand you can love the blue color (I loved it too when I was a kid), as well as the shiny black parts, that is a matter of taste, subjective, but if you pay attention to the material you can't deny the plastic and weaker look being more evident than R1. These things are objective, I'm not discussing the plot or the actors, which are really more subjective topics even if we could agree easily.

[Slash Man]

Severely weakening RoboCop early on in the film as a means to get him broken, and OCP taking people for idiots and going full nazi.

Again, my main problems with it were mainly nitpicks. The story as a whole could have been much more concise, but I don't really know how to describe it.

[Joined]

Severely weakening RoboCop early on in the film as a means to get him broken, and OCP taking people for idiots and going full nazi.

Again, my main problems with it were mainly nitpicks. The story as a whole could have been much more concise, but I don't really know how to describe it.

[Post Count]

Severely weakening RoboCop early on in the film as a means to get him broken, and OCP taking people for idiots and going full nazi.

Again, my main problems with it were mainly nitpicks. The story as a whole could have been much more concise, but I don't really know how to describe it.

[Comment]

Severely weakening RoboCop early on in the film as a means to get him broken, and OCP taking people for idiots and going full nazi.

Again, my main problems with it were mainly nitpicks. The story as a whole could have been much more concise, but I don't really know how to describe it.

[ChAnOoD]

I think a lot of people said the right things about the film. To me, I think it´s too dark. And I´m a pessimistic and love dark themes, but I think Miller´s stuff works better on paper, where you can find it more cartoony than on film. Everybody in Robo2 is a SOB, it looks everybody is bad, even the "good" ones. The soundtrack make it dark as well; not a good character development in the film (all look sketched and nothing more), and the baddies are "regular thungs", not memorable guys. Think on Clarence, for example. Yes, that dude could transform you into meatballs, but hey, if you work with him, you could have fun with him. Ok, you could feel scared if you screw something, but Boddicker liked to have fun as well.

Someone here put that they didn´t get the same mix between fun and sad, bright and dark, and I agree. The future in the first RoboCop is scary (and it´s looking like our present, which is terrifing), but you have time to smile at some scene or laugh at a gag. Also, the emotional aspect is present there (not ashamed to say I could feel my eyes wet when Robo goes home or gets blasted by cops after going to Jones office), while the second opted for a more action oriented film. I do care for Murphy.

As for humour, there are some gags funny here (the R2 prototypes, some of the MadiaBreak adds), but others doesn´t work too well. The "baseball kids" robbing it´s an example: while I could image Miller adding satire and fun there, in the film it goes more "straight" to me. Don´t know, maybe it was a mistake by Kershner, going "too serious" with the themes instead of having fun directing it.

Well, according to some actors, filming that movie wasn´t too fun, so maybe it shows in the picture as well.

[Joined]

I think a lot of people said the right things about the film. To me, I think it´s too dark. And I´m a pessimistic and love dark themes, but I think Miller´s stuff works better on paper, where you can find it more cartoony than on film. Everybody in Robo2 is a SOB, it looks everybody is bad, even the "good" ones. The soundtrack make it dark as well; not a good character development in the film (all look sketched and nothing more), and the baddies are "regular thungs", not memorable guys. Think on Clarence, for example. Yes, that dude could transform you into meatballs, but hey, if you work with him, you could have fun with him. Ok, you could feel scared if you screw something, but Boddicker liked to have fun as well.

Someone here put that they didn´t get the same mix between fun and sad, bright and dark, and I agree. The future in the first RoboCop is scary (and it´s looking like our present, which is terrifing), but you have time to smile at some scene or laugh at a gag. Also, the emotional aspect is present there (not ashamed to say I could feel my eyes wet when Robo goes home or gets blasted by cops after going to Jones office), while the second opted for a more action oriented film. I do care for Murphy.

As for humour, there are some gags funny here (the R2 prototypes, some of the MadiaBreak adds), but others doesn´t work too well. The "baseball kids" robbing it´s an example: while I could image Miller adding satire and fun there, in the film it goes more "straight" to me. Don´t know, maybe it was a mistake by Kershner, going "too serious" with the themes instead of having fun directing it.

Well, according to some actors, filming that movie wasn´t too fun, so maybe it shows in the picture as well.

[Post Count]

I think a lot of people said the right things about the film. To me, I think it´s too dark. And I´m a pessimistic and love dark themes, but I think Miller´s stuff works better on paper, where you can find it more cartoony than on film. Everybody in Robo2 is a SOB, it looks everybody is bad, even the "good" ones. The soundtrack make it dark as well; not a good character development in the film (all look sketched and nothing more), and the baddies are "regular thungs", not memorable guys. Think on Clarence, for example. Yes, that dude could transform you into meatballs, but hey, if you work with him, you could have fun with him. Ok, you could feel scared if you screw something, but Boddicker liked to have fun as well.

Someone here put that they didn´t get the same mix between fun and sad, bright and dark, and I agree. The future in the first RoboCop is scary (and it´s looking like our present, which is terrifing), but you have time to smile at some scene or laugh at a gag. Also, the emotional aspect is present there (not ashamed to say I could feel my eyes wet when Robo goes home or gets blasted by cops after going to Jones office), while the second opted for a more action oriented film. I do care for Murphy.

As for humour, there are some gags funny here (the R2 prototypes, some of the MadiaBreak adds), but others doesn´t work too well. The "baseball kids" robbing it´s an example: while I could image Miller adding satire and fun there, in the film it goes more "straight" to me. Don´t know, maybe it was a mistake by Kershner, going "too serious" with the themes instead of having fun directing it.

Well, according to some actors, filming that movie wasn´t too fun, so maybe it shows in the picture as well.

[Stan The Man]

^ Well said. R2 is definitely harsh all throughout, and it just doesn't serve the film. R1 was good enough to give you some light and tender moments inside of the admittedly dark and cold world they had established. In R2 it's all dark and cold, even into what should be more emotional and positive moments, and indeed it just brings it down.

I think artu made a good note as well - I agree most of what many consider bad or horrid things about R2 are mostly subjective. There are certainly some things that decidedly aren't, but otherwise it just depends on the construction we all each want to put on it for many of those elements.

That all being said, I still rate it as #2 in the franchise because despite it's flaws I generally prefer it to what the other films and TV shows did. R2, despite being as off the mark as it is, is still closest to the original in spirit, if that makes any sense. Granted I think a big portion of that is due to some central components - namely Weller - but also it retained some of the original's elements, even if it did nothing or went the wrong way with them; The graphicness of R1 in the violence and content, even if it does them too straight and hard, unlike R1 which did it more as humor. Many of the characters were still there, even though they weren't the same either. I really can't put my finger on what I'm trying to get at except how I've always put it - That overall, it has always seemed like it really belongs, that has a spiritual connection to R1 and what it created, still has a similar atmosphere and aura - Something that I have rarely if at all felt with anything else in the franchise. It of course differs in many basic and fundamental ways as well, to an extent I like that - I like that it wasn't entirely a cookie-cutter sequel and brought a bit of new stuff, tried new things. It's certainly not generic or boring, even at many of its bad spots. However, I can agree somewhat that R2 might've changed a bit too much and do think if it kept more to R1's aesthetic just a bit and/or cleaned up it's story mess just a tad, it would be eons better.

Bottom line, it is what its always been to me - The only other RoboCop film. And a good film with bad components to it. But still a good film. I cannot call it a bad film, just can't. With just a bit of work on some elements and aspects, it would be a all-around good film, maybe even great. It could never match R1 on its best day, just ain't possible. I do think it could have been better, for sure. But it is quite good for what it is, and given it's difficulties behind the screen, it could have been considerably worse. I give it credit, it does deserve it. I cannot exactly say the same thing for other parts of this franchise.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

^ Well said. R2 is definitely harsh all throughout, and it just doesn't serve the film. R1 was good enough to give you some light and tender moments inside of the admittedly dark and cold world they had established. In R2 it's all dark and cold, even into what should be more emotional and positive moments, and indeed it just brings it down.

I think artu made a good note as well - I agree most of what many consider bad or horrid things about R2 are mostly subjective. There are certainly some things that decidedly aren't, but otherwise it just depends on the construction we all each want to put on it for many of those elements.

That all being said, I still rate it as #2 in the franchise because despite it's flaws I generally prefer it to what the other films and TV shows did. R2, despite being as off the mark as it is, is still closest to the original in spirit, if that makes any sense. Granted I think a big portion of that is due to some central components - namely Weller - but also it retained some of the original's elements, even if it did nothing or went the wrong way with them; The graphicness of R1 in the violence and content, even if it does them too straight and hard, unlike R1 which did it more as humor. Many of the characters were still there, even though they weren't the same either. I really can't put my finger on what I'm trying to get at except how I've always put it - That overall, it has always seemed like it really belongs, that has a spiritual connection to R1 and what it created, still has a similar atmosphere and aura - Something that I have rarely if at all felt with anything else in the franchise. It of course differs in many basic and fundamental ways as well, to an extent I like that - I like that it wasn't entirely a cookie-cutter sequel and brought a bit of new stuff, tried new things. It's certainly not generic or boring, even at many of its bad spots. However, I can agree somewhat that R2 might've changed a bit too much and do think if it kept more to R1's aesthetic just a bit and/or cleaned up it's story mess just a tad, it would be eons better.

Bottom line, it is what its always been to me - The only other RoboCop film. And a good film with bad components to it. But still a good film. I cannot call it a bad film, just can't. With just a bit of work on some elements and aspects, it would be a all-around good film, maybe even great. It could never match R1 on its best day, just ain't possible. I do think it could have been better, for sure. But it is quite good for what it is, and given it's difficulties behind the screen, it could have been considerably worse. I give it credit, it does deserve it. I cannot exactly say the same thing for other parts of this franchise.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

^ Well said. R2 is definitely harsh all throughout, and it just doesn't serve the film. R1 was good enough to give you some light and tender moments inside of the admittedly dark and cold world they had established. In R2 it's all dark and cold, even into what should be more emotional and positive moments, and indeed it just brings it down.

I think artu made a good note as well - I agree most of what many consider bad or horrid things about R2 are mostly subjective. There are certainly some things that decidedly aren't, but otherwise it just depends on the construction we all each want to put on it for many of those elements.

That all being said, I still rate it as #2 in the franchise because despite it's flaws I generally prefer it to what the other films and TV shows did. R2, despite being as off the mark as it is, is still closest to the original in spirit, if that makes any sense. Granted I think a big portion of that is due to some central components - namely Weller - but also it retained some of the original's elements, even if it did nothing or went the wrong way with them; The graphicness of R1 in the violence and content, even if it does them too straight and hard, unlike R1 which did it more as humor. Many of the characters were still there, even though they weren't the same either. I really can't put my finger on what I'm trying to get at except how I've always put it - That overall, it has always seemed like it really belongs, that has a spiritual connection to R1 and what it created, still has a similar atmosphere and aura - Something that I have rarely if at all felt with anything else in the franchise. It of course differs in many basic and fundamental ways as well, to an extent I like that - I like that it wasn't entirely a cookie-cutter sequel and brought a bit of new stuff, tried new things. It's certainly not generic or boring, even at many of its bad spots. However, I can agree somewhat that R2 might've changed a bit too much and do think if it kept more to R1's aesthetic just a bit and/or cleaned up it's story mess just a tad, it would be eons better.

Bottom line, it is what its always been to me - The only other RoboCop film. And a good film with bad components to it. But still a good film. I cannot call it a bad film, just can't. With just a bit of work on some elements and aspects, it would be a all-around good film, maybe even great. It could never match R1 on its best day, just ain't possible. I do think it could have been better, for sure. But it is quite good for what it is, and given it's difficulties behind the screen, it could have been considerably worse. I give it credit, it does deserve it. I cannot exactly say the same thing for other parts of this franchise.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

^ Well said. R2 is definitely harsh all throughout, and it just doesn't serve the film. R1 was good enough to give you some light and tender moments inside of the admittedly dark and cold world they had established. In R2 it's all dark and cold, even into what should be more emotional and positive moments, and indeed it just brings it down.

I think artu made a good note as well - I agree most of what many consider bad or horrid things about R2 are mostly subjective. There are certainly some things that decidedly aren't, but otherwise it just depends on the construction we all each want to put on it for many of those elements.

That all being said, I still rate it as #2 in the franchise because despite it's flaws I generally prefer it to what the other films and TV shows did. R2, despite being as off the mark as it is, is still closest to the original in spirit, if that makes any sense. Granted I think a big portion of that is due to some central components - namely Weller - but also it retained some of the original's elements, even if it did nothing or went the wrong way with them; The graphicness of R1 in the violence and content, even if it does them too straight and hard, unlike R1 which did it more as humor. Many of the characters were still there, even though they weren't the same either. I really can't put my finger on what I'm trying to get at except how I've always put it - That overall, it has always seemed like it really belongs, that has a spiritual connection to R1 and what it created, still has a similar atmosphere and aura - Something that I have rarely if at all felt with anything else in the franchise. It of course differs in many basic and fundamental ways as well, to an extent I like that - I like that it wasn't entirely a cookie-cutter sequel and brought a bit of new stuff, tried new things. It's certainly not generic or boring, even at many of its bad spots. However, I can agree somewhat that R2 might've changed a bit too much and do think if it kept more to R1's aesthetic just a bit and/or cleaned up it's story mess just a tad, it would be eons better.

Bottom line, it is what its always been to me - The only other RoboCop film. And a good film with bad components to it. But still a good film. I cannot call it a bad film, just can't. With just a bit of work on some elements and aspects, it would be a all-around good film, maybe even great. It could never match R1 on its best day, just ain't possible. I do think it could have been better, for sure. But it is quite good for what it is, and given it's difficulties behind the screen, it could have been considerably worse. I give it credit, it does deserve it. I cannot exactly say the same thing for other parts of this franchise.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[HOB888]

The Mayor was a little bit too much.

Also i'm sad that a lot of scenes were cut , especially the scenes developing Cain.

But overall it's a masterpiece, different from the original but great enough as a sequel.Like Predator 2 or Die Hard 2.
_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[Joined]

The Mayor was a little bit too much.

Also i'm sad that a lot of scenes were cut , especially the scenes developing Cain.

But overall it's a masterpiece, different from the original but great enough as a sequel.Like Predator 2 or Die Hard 2.
_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[Post Count]

The Mayor was a little bit too much.

Also i'm sad that a lot of scenes were cut , especially the scenes developing Cain.

But overall it's a masterpiece, different from the original but great enough as a sequel.Like Predator 2 or Die Hard 2.
_________________
http://robocop2directive5.blogspot.fr/

[RoboPimp]

nothin

[Joined]

nothin

[Post Count]

nothin

[Comment]

nothin

[Stan The Man]

To address the topic properly and with my own load of bullshit, most of what I disliked about the film was the story, or rather it's presentation in the final product - it's an unqualified mess. Again everyone else pretty much nailed it so I won't be redundant but to put it simply, the story is screwy and inconsistent, the narrative fails all over the place. Bringing up Murphy's wife only to do almost nothing with that aspect. Bah, wtf? The striking cops just up and deciding to join Murphy because he survives and electrocution and says "Cain's bugging me"? Yeah awesome, but makes no sense. And so on.

Lewis was underused. And it's not that she wasn't around in terms of time, she just doesn't resonate in the film, has no major presence or feeling of 'needing to be there' except in a couple of instances. Given her significance stemming from the original, that's unacceptable.

It's clear several chunks were missing from the film, and frankly, some of those deleted scenes should have been left to help flesh at least some things out more.

A lot of folks disliked the silly directives. I myself found it slightly funny but more that it made a powerful point - It was a showing how ultimately Robo is a pawn in regards to OCP and it's interests, still a mere 'product' to them to be manipulated however they want or need. Now, it being done the way it was in the film, so in your face right after his sizable period in limbo where he is absent from the film totally, wasn't so great though. Another failure in the narrative.

Rosenman's music I liked and found good for what it is. That said, it is decidedly inferior to Basil's music.

I liked the blue suit, and thought it was a neat change. It looked stunning in some shots. That said, I get artu's point about the suit lacking from the original on a technical level. But that's mostly one of those 'minor' nitpicks for me.

Many of the subthemes in the film, like the anti-drug message, the 'Nazi' OCP takeover, kids being criminals, etc are kinda heavy-handed. That doesn't bother me too much, but still.

Some of the direction and cinematography I agree wasn't as dynamic as the original. But it's still good; it's mostly not too big a deal to me.

I won't say it's a 'masterpiece' like HOB888 but I will say it was a good sequel that was generally a departure from its original film, though still quite reminiscent of it's original set-up much in the vein of Predator 2 as he mentioned.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Joined]

To address the topic properly and with my own load of bullshit, most of what I disliked about the film was the story, or rather it's presentation in the final product - it's an unqualified mess. Again everyone else pretty much nailed it so I won't be redundant but to put it simply, the story is screwy and inconsistent, the narrative fails all over the place. Bringing up Murphy's wife only to do almost nothing with that aspect. Bah, wtf? The striking cops just up and deciding to join Murphy because he survives and electrocution and says "Cain's bugging me"? Yeah awesome, but makes no sense. And so on.

Lewis was underused. And it's not that she wasn't around in terms of time, she just doesn't resonate in the film, has no major presence or feeling of 'needing to be there' except in a couple of instances. Given her significance stemming from the original, that's unacceptable.

It's clear several chunks were missing from the film, and frankly, some of those deleted scenes should have been left to help flesh at least some things out more.

A lot of folks disliked the silly directives. I myself found it slightly funny but more that it made a powerful point - It was a showing how ultimately Robo is a pawn in regards to OCP and it's interests, still a mere 'product' to them to be manipulated however they want or need. Now, it being done the way it was in the film, so in your face right after his sizable period in limbo where he is absent from the film totally, wasn't so great though. Another failure in the narrative.

Rosenman's music I liked and found good for what it is. That said, it is decidedly inferior to Basil's music.

I liked the blue suit, and thought it was a neat change. It looked stunning in some shots. That said, I get artu's point about the suit lacking from the original on a technical level. But that's mostly one of those 'minor' nitpicks for me.

Many of the subthemes in the film, like the anti-drug message, the 'Nazi' OCP takeover, kids being criminals, etc are kinda heavy-handed. That doesn't bother me too much, but still.

Some of the direction and cinematography I agree wasn't as dynamic as the original. But it's still good; it's mostly not too big a deal to me.

I won't say it's a 'masterpiece' like HOB888 but I will say it was a good sequel that was generally a departure from its original film, though still quite reminiscent of it's original set-up much in the vein of Predator 2 as he mentioned.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Post Count]

To address the topic properly and with my own load of bullshit, most of what I disliked about the film was the story, or rather it's presentation in the final product - it's an unqualified mess. Again everyone else pretty much nailed it so I won't be redundant but to put it simply, the story is screwy and inconsistent, the narrative fails all over the place. Bringing up Murphy's wife only to do almost nothing with that aspect. Bah, wtf? The striking cops just up and deciding to join Murphy because he survives and electrocution and says "Cain's bugging me"? Yeah awesome, but makes no sense. And so on.

Lewis was underused. And it's not that she wasn't around in terms of time, she just doesn't resonate in the film, has no major presence or feeling of 'needing to be there' except in a couple of instances. Given her significance stemming from the original, that's unacceptable.

It's clear several chunks were missing from the film, and frankly, some of those deleted scenes should have been left to help flesh at least some things out more.

A lot of folks disliked the silly directives. I myself found it slightly funny but more that it made a powerful point - It was a showing how ultimately Robo is a pawn in regards to OCP and it's interests, still a mere 'product' to them to be manipulated however they want or need. Now, it being done the way it was in the film, so in your face right after his sizable period in limbo where he is absent from the film totally, wasn't so great though. Another failure in the narrative.

Rosenman's music I liked and found good for what it is. That said, it is decidedly inferior to Basil's music.

I liked the blue suit, and thought it was a neat change. It looked stunning in some shots. That said, I get artu's point about the suit lacking from the original on a technical level. But that's mostly one of those 'minor' nitpicks for me.

Many of the subthemes in the film, like the anti-drug message, the 'Nazi' OCP takeover, kids being criminals, etc are kinda heavy-handed. That doesn't bother me too much, but still.

Some of the direction and cinematography I agree wasn't as dynamic as the original. But it's still good; it's mostly not too big a deal to me.

I won't say it's a 'masterpiece' like HOB888 but I will say it was a good sequel that was generally a departure from its original film, though still quite reminiscent of it's original set-up much in the vein of Predator 2 as he mentioned.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Comment]

To address the topic properly and with my own load of bullshit, most of what I disliked about the film was the story, or rather it's presentation in the final product - it's an unqualified mess. Again everyone else pretty much nailed it so I won't be redundant but to put it simply, the story is screwy and inconsistent, the narrative fails all over the place. Bringing up Murphy's wife only to do almost nothing with that aspect. Bah, wtf? The striking cops just up and deciding to join Murphy because he survives and electrocution and says "Cain's bugging me"? Yeah awesome, but makes no sense. And so on.

Lewis was underused. And it's not that she wasn't around in terms of time, she just doesn't resonate in the film, has no major presence or feeling of 'needing to be there' except in a couple of instances. Given her significance stemming from the original, that's unacceptable.

It's clear several chunks were missing from the film, and frankly, some of those deleted scenes should have been left to help flesh at least some things out more.

A lot of folks disliked the silly directives. I myself found it slightly funny but more that it made a powerful point - It was a showing how ultimately Robo is a pawn in regards to OCP and it's interests, still a mere 'product' to them to be manipulated however they want or need. Now, it being done the way it was in the film, so in your face right after his sizable period in limbo where he is absent from the film totally, wasn't so great though. Another failure in the narrative.

Rosenman's music I liked and found good for what it is. That said, it is decidedly inferior to Basil's music.

I liked the blue suit, and thought it was a neat change. It looked stunning in some shots. That said, I get artu's point about the suit lacking from the original on a technical level. But that's mostly one of those 'minor' nitpicks for me.

Many of the subthemes in the film, like the anti-drug message, the 'Nazi' OCP takeover, kids being criminals, etc are kinda heavy-handed. That doesn't bother me too much, but still.

Some of the direction and cinematography I agree wasn't as dynamic as the original. But it's still good; it's mostly not too big a deal to me.

I won't say it's a 'masterpiece' like HOB888 but I will say it was a good sequel that was generally a departure from its original film, though still quite reminiscent of it's original set-up much in the vein of Predator 2 as he mentioned.
_________________
I don't wanna pay that, PhotoBucket. Now maybe you haven't heard, but I'm the guy in old Archive. So hows about you just shit snow for a year and I'll figure out something else. Sayonara!

[Superquad7]

I'm still catching up on this thread now and thanks to Archive for the link to the previous thread. Everything you guys are sharing here is EXACTLY what I wanted to read about. As stated, I have my own particular bias here, as I absolutely love the film for what it is, and I'll freely admit that not only was this my first rated "R" movie that I was permitted to see (with adult supervision due to my age), but I actually watched this movie not long after I watched the first one as a rental. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, even to the point of potential blindness of something's flaws.

Despite loving this movie so much, I'll be quick to note it's not the masterpiece that the first movie is. From a non-biased, armchair film critic's perspective, the first RoboCop movie is arguably the most masterful movie made. That can certainly be a another discussion for another thread/time, but I've watched R2 twice recently and keep engaging myself in this exercise that we're discussing here. When I get a really good chance, I want to share a few of my thoughts as well on this topic.

"Patience, Lewis. We're only human."

[Joined]

I'm still catching up on this thread now and thanks to Archive for the link to the previous thread. Everything you guys are sharing here is EXACTLY what I wanted to read about. As stated, I have my own particular bias here, as I absolutely love the film for what it is, and I'll freely admit that not only was this my first rated "R" movie that I was permitted to see (with adult supervision due to my age), but I actually watched this movie not long after I watched the first one as a rental. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, even to the point of potential blindness of something's flaws.

Despite loving this movie so much, I'll be quick to note it's not the masterpiece that the first movie is. From a non-biased, armchair film critic's perspective, the first RoboCop movie is arguably the most masterful movie made. That can certainly be a another discussion for another thread/time, but I've watched R2 twice recently and keep engaging myself in this exercise that we're discussing here. When I get a really good chance, I want to share a few of my thoughts as well on this topic.

"Patience, Lewis. We're only human."

[Post Count]

I'm still catching up on this thread now and thanks to Archive for the link to the previous thread. Everything you guys are sharing here is EXACTLY what I wanted to read about. As stated, I have my own particular bias here, as I absolutely love the film for what it is, and I'll freely admit that not only was this my first rated "R" movie that I was permitted to see (with adult supervision due to my age), but I actually watched this movie not long after I watched the first one as a rental. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, even to the point of potential blindness of something's flaws.

Despite loving this movie so much, I'll be quick to note it's not the masterpiece that the first movie is. From a non-biased, armchair film critic's perspective, the first RoboCop movie is arguably the most masterful movie made. That can certainly be a another discussion for another thread/time, but I've watched R2 twice recently and keep engaging myself in this exercise that we're discussing here. When I get a really good chance, I want to share a few of my thoughts as well on this topic.

"Patience, Lewis. We're only human."