Peter Weller talk RoboCop Returns

[ireactions]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[ireactions]

I look forward to you trashing my re-review!

As for Blomkamp -- it's not just the fact that he says he wants to ignore everything but the 1987 movie that stands out to me. It's his statements about wanting to emulate Paul Verhoeven's style. I don't feel any of the subsequent productions, no matter how much I liked or disliked them, followed Verhoeven's model where his ultraviolence is presented in such an absurd and ridiculous way that it's funny.

ROBOCOP II was very violent, but it's in a very savage, horrific way that seems purely to disgust like when Cain shoots an unarmed woman and tosses her corpse on the street or any scene with Hobb or RoboCop being stripped apart. This cruelty was not Verhoeven's style; Verhoeven's violence is willfully ludicrous and taps into his satirical criticism of Reagan-era America. I feel that Blomkamp isn't talking about continuity as much as technique, perspective and seeking to recapture Verhoeven's sense of playful irony.

None of the sequels quite recaptured that which is why, I think, there is a sense of illegitimacy to all of them and Blomkamp seems to have the awareness to correct that.

[Joined]

I look forward to you trashing my re-review!

As for Blomkamp -- it's not just the fact that he says he wants to ignore everything but the 1987 movie that stands out to me. It's his statements about wanting to emulate Paul Verhoeven's style. I don't feel any of the subsequent productions, no matter how much I liked or disliked them, followed Verhoeven's model where his ultraviolence is presented in such an absurd and ridiculous way that it's funny.

ROBOCOP II was very violent, but it's in a very savage, horrific way that seems purely to disgust like when Cain shoots an unarmed woman and tosses her corpse on the street or any scene with Hobb or RoboCop being stripped apart. This cruelty was not Verhoeven's style; Verhoeven's violence is willfully ludicrous and taps into his satirical criticism of Reagan-era America. I feel that Blomkamp isn't talking about continuity as much as technique, perspective and seeking to recapture Verhoeven's sense of playful irony.

None of the sequels quite recaptured that which is why, I think, there is a sense of illegitimacy to all of them and Blomkamp seems to have the awareness to correct that.

[Post Count]

I look forward to you trashing my re-review!

As for Blomkamp -- it's not just the fact that he says he wants to ignore everything but the 1987 movie that stands out to me. It's his statements about wanting to emulate Paul Verhoeven's style. I don't feel any of the subsequent productions, no matter how much I liked or disliked them, followed Verhoeven's model where his ultraviolence is presented in such an absurd and ridiculous way that it's funny.

ROBOCOP II was very violent, but it's in a very savage, horrific way that seems purely to disgust like when Cain shoots an unarmed woman and tosses her corpse on the street or any scene with Hobb or RoboCop being stripped apart. This cruelty was not Verhoeven's style; Verhoeven's violence is willfully ludicrous and taps into his satirical criticism of Reagan-era America. I feel that Blomkamp isn't talking about continuity as much as technique, perspective and seeking to recapture Verhoeven's sense of playful irony.

None of the sequels quite recaptured that which is why, I think, there is a sense of illegitimacy to all of them and Blomkamp seems to have the awareness to correct that.

[HOB888]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ireactions]

I'd argue that it was lunatic and dramatically necessary. Murphy was a cipher with so little screentime that his horrific murder was needed so the audience would feel for him.

[Joined]

I'd argue that it was lunatic and dramatically necessary. Murphy was a cipher with so little screentime that his horrific murder was needed so the audience would feel for him.

[Post Count]

I'd argue that it was lunatic and dramatically necessary. Murphy was a cipher with so little screentime that his horrific murder was needed so the audience would feel for him.

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[NukeLord]

Most definitely agree with HOB and RoboPimp. The original is far more sadistic and cruel than the sequel.

In regards to "Verhoeven violence", we're fans but I don't think average movie-goers realised that the violence was supposed to be "cartoony" or deliberately over-the-top/funny. I certainly never realised this until I read about is online in circa 1998/1999.

Up until then, to me it was just a violent, grisly film - which I always felt was far more violent than the sequel.

[Joined]

Most definitely agree with HOB and RoboPimp. The original is far more sadistic and cruel than the sequel.

In regards to "Verhoeven violence", we're fans but I don't think average movie-goers realised that the violence was supposed to be "cartoony" or deliberately over-the-top/funny. I certainly never realised this until I read about is online in circa 1998/1999.

Up until then, to me it was just a violent, grisly film - which I always felt was far more violent than the sequel.

[Post Count]

Most definitely agree with HOB and RoboPimp. The original is far more sadistic and cruel than the sequel.

In regards to "Verhoeven violence", we're fans but I don't think average movie-goers realised that the violence was supposed to be "cartoony" or deliberately over-the-top/funny. I certainly never realised this until I read about is online in circa 1998/1999.

Up until then, to me it was just a violent, grisly film - which I always felt was far more violent than the sequel.

[Comment]

Most definitely agree with HOB and RoboPimp. The original is far more sadistic and cruel than the sequel.

In regards to "Verhoeven violence", we're fans but I don't think average movie-goers realised that the violence was supposed to be "cartoony" or deliberately over-the-top/funny. I certainly never realised this until I read about is online in circa 1998/1999.

Up until then, to me it was just a violent, grisly film - which I always felt was far more violent than the sequel.

[ireactions]

Well, I'm hardly the final arbiter of taste and I certainly don't have opinions common to the average Robofan. For one thing, I am very, very opposed to violence and gore. I don't enjoy it, I don't like it -- but ROBOCOP (1987) is an odd exception for me. It's one of the few ultraviolent movies I've ever enjoyed and I've also noticed that TOTAL RECALL and STARSHIP TROOPERS are films where, under any director, I would not be able to watch them, but Verhoeven has a deft touch and charm and sense of irony and humour that makes them work for me.

Having recently reread Frank Miller's ROBOCOP comics, I find that Miller has a lot of Verhoeven's skill, but I don't see that reflected in the actual ROBOCOP II because Irvin Kershner is a very different director and has a very different form of madcap lunacy from Verhoeven and Miller.

I haven't quite identified Miller's touch well enough to describe it yet, but I find that Verhoeven's violence has a purposeful propulsiveness to it. ED-209 eviscerating a helpless employee is insane as is the immediate response where Bob Morton is keen to exploit the situation and the Old Man is irritated that the project has wasted money. It conveys the corporate culture of OCP. Murphy's horrific death is so the audience will connect with him as his screentime has been limited.

Emil's fate is satisfying to me where he tortured Murphy and enjoys making innocent people suffer and boasted to that terrified gas station attendant about his aim for the incredibly petty gain of refilling his motorcycle tank and in end, he's dispatched with the same indifference that he showed for all human life.

In contrast, I find that ROBOCOP II lingers on the violence and gore and there's no specific storytelling goal, no intent in juxtaposition of tone, no narrative task fulfilled. It's just to be upsetting and for me, if violence doesn't have narrative purpose, it feels excessive and repellent and I personally dislike that sort of violence.

But, like I said, most bloody violence doesn't work for me except Paul Verhoeven's. It's bizarre to me that I enjoy Verhoeven's work but can't watch shows like GAME OF THRONES or movies like ALIEN. Verhoeven's touch is an elusive, peculiar thing and if Blomkamp can match it, I would like that.

[Joined]

Well, I'm hardly the final arbiter of taste and I certainly don't have opinions common to the average Robofan. For one thing, I am very, very opposed to violence and gore. I don't enjoy it, I don't like it -- but ROBOCOP (1987) is an odd exception for me. It's one of the few ultraviolent movies I've ever enjoyed and I've also noticed that TOTAL RECALL and STARSHIP TROOPERS are films where, under any director, I would not be able to watch them, but Verhoeven has a deft touch and charm and sense of irony and humour that makes them work for me.

Having recently reread Frank Miller's ROBOCOP comics, I find that Miller has a lot of Verhoeven's skill, but I don't see that reflected in the actual ROBOCOP II because Irvin Kershner is a very different director and has a very different form of madcap lunacy from Verhoeven and Miller.

I haven't quite identified Miller's touch well enough to describe it yet, but I find that Verhoeven's violence has a purposeful propulsiveness to it. ED-209 eviscerating a helpless employee is insane as is the immediate response where Bob Morton is keen to exploit the situation and the Old Man is irritated that the project has wasted money. It conveys the corporate culture of OCP. Murphy's horrific death is so the audience will connect with him as his screentime has been limited.

Emil's fate is satisfying to me where he tortured Murphy and enjoys making innocent people suffer and boasted to that terrified gas station attendant about his aim for the incredibly petty gain of refilling his motorcycle tank and in end, he's dispatched with the same indifference that he showed for all human life.

In contrast, I find that ROBOCOP II lingers on the violence and gore and there's no specific storytelling goal, no intent in juxtaposition of tone, no narrative task fulfilled. It's just to be upsetting and for me, if violence doesn't have narrative purpose, it feels excessive and repellent and I personally dislike that sort of violence.

But, like I said, most bloody violence doesn't work for me except Paul Verhoeven's. It's bizarre to me that I enjoy Verhoeven's work but can't watch shows like GAME OF THRONES or movies like ALIEN. Verhoeven's touch is an elusive, peculiar thing and if Blomkamp can match it, I would like that.

[Post Count]

Well, I'm hardly the final arbiter of taste and I certainly don't have opinions common to the average Robofan. For one thing, I am very, very opposed to violence and gore. I don't enjoy it, I don't like it -- but ROBOCOP (1987) is an odd exception for me. It's one of the few ultraviolent movies I've ever enjoyed and I've also noticed that TOTAL RECALL and STARSHIP TROOPERS are films where, under any director, I would not be able to watch them, but Verhoeven has a deft touch and charm and sense of irony and humour that makes them work for me.

Having recently reread Frank Miller's ROBOCOP comics, I find that Miller has a lot of Verhoeven's skill, but I don't see that reflected in the actual ROBOCOP II because Irvin Kershner is a very different director and has a very different form of madcap lunacy from Verhoeven and Miller.

I haven't quite identified Miller's touch well enough to describe it yet, but I find that Verhoeven's violence has a purposeful propulsiveness to it. ED-209 eviscerating a helpless employee is insane as is the immediate response where Bob Morton is keen to exploit the situation and the Old Man is irritated that the project has wasted money. It conveys the corporate culture of OCP. Murphy's horrific death is so the audience will connect with him as his screentime has been limited.

Emil's fate is satisfying to me where he tortured Murphy and enjoys making innocent people suffer and boasted to that terrified gas station attendant about his aim for the incredibly petty gain of refilling his motorcycle tank and in end, he's dispatched with the same indifference that he showed for all human life.

In contrast, I find that ROBOCOP II lingers on the violence and gore and there's no specific storytelling goal, no intent in juxtaposition of tone, no narrative task fulfilled. It's just to be upsetting and for me, if violence doesn't have narrative purpose, it feels excessive and repellent and I personally dislike that sort of violence.

But, like I said, most bloody violence doesn't work for me except Paul Verhoeven's. It's bizarre to me that I enjoy Verhoeven's work but can't watch shows like GAME OF THRONES or movies like ALIEN. Verhoeven's touch is an elusive, peculiar thing and if Blomkamp can match it, I would like that.

[ireactions]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ChAnOoD]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[ireactions]

Part of me wants to argue that Frank Miller's ideas would have to make it to screen in something resembling their original context and intent in order for anyone to evaluate whether or not they translated well to the film -- except I saw THE SPIRIT which Miller wrote and directed and that was quite dire. Miller's comic book writing and art is based in still images and as a director, he didn't seem to have a firm control of pacing and tone with regards to editing and directing actors. I'd like to see his SPIRIT as a comic book.

I don't quite know what to say about Frank Miller except that like Verhoeven, he makes me compelled to finish reading work that I wouldn't normally enjoy. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is... not my personal preference for what an older Batman would be, to put it mildly. 300 and SIN CITY are... not the sort of stories I enjoy reading. ALL-STAR BATMAN is... something. But Miller is so good that I read them anyway and find myself enjoying content that I would normally avoid. I cannot presently explain why.

[Joined]

Part of me wants to argue that Frank Miller's ideas would have to make it to screen in something resembling their original context and intent in order for anyone to evaluate whether or not they translated well to the film -- except I saw THE SPIRIT which Miller wrote and directed and that was quite dire. Miller's comic book writing and art is based in still images and as a director, he didn't seem to have a firm control of pacing and tone with regards to editing and directing actors. I'd like to see his SPIRIT as a comic book.

I don't quite know what to say about Frank Miller except that like Verhoeven, he makes me compelled to finish reading work that I wouldn't normally enjoy. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is... not my personal preference for what an older Batman would be, to put it mildly. 300 and SIN CITY are... not the sort of stories I enjoy reading. ALL-STAR BATMAN is... something. But Miller is so good that I read them anyway and find myself enjoying content that I would normally avoid. I cannot presently explain why.

[Post Count]

Part of me wants to argue that Frank Miller's ideas would have to make it to screen in something resembling their original context and intent in order for anyone to evaluate whether or not they translated well to the film -- except I saw THE SPIRIT which Miller wrote and directed and that was quite dire. Miller's comic book writing and art is based in still images and as a director, he didn't seem to have a firm control of pacing and tone with regards to editing and directing actors. I'd like to see his SPIRIT as a comic book.

I don't quite know what to say about Frank Miller except that like Verhoeven, he makes me compelled to finish reading work that I wouldn't normally enjoy. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is... not my personal preference for what an older Batman would be, to put it mildly. 300 and SIN CITY are... not the sort of stories I enjoy reading. ALL-STAR BATMAN is... something. But Miller is so good that I read them anyway and find myself enjoying content that I would normally avoid. I cannot presently explain why.

[RoboWags]

I think Frank Miller had an idea which Irvin Kershner and Walon Greene perverted. I don't think his full vision for RoboCop would have translated well to the screen, however. That being said, R2 is a good movie and had it been directed by Verhoeven it would've been a masterpiece of a sequel.

I for one am looking forward to a new movie. I think having Weller back will sway the purists but I do agree with Archive that the movie will likely suffer the same "dark fate" as Terminator . Movies these days are all about the special effects and the pacing. R1 wouldn't hold up by today's box office standards and the younger audience is so used to the CGI effects and over-simplified plots that they wouldn't appreciate the dark humor and satire. I hope Blomkamp is sincere in his pledge to bring back the old Robo. If Weller's participation helps achieve that goal, I'm all for it.
_________________

[Joined]

I think Frank Miller had an idea which Irvin Kershner and Walon Greene perverted. I don't think his full vision for RoboCop would have translated well to the screen, however. That being said, R2 is a good movie and had it been directed by Verhoeven it would've been a masterpiece of a sequel.

I for one am looking forward to a new movie. I think having Weller back will sway the purists but I do agree with Archive that the movie will likely suffer the same "dark fate" as Terminator . Movies these days are all about the special effects and the pacing. R1 wouldn't hold up by today's box office standards and the younger audience is so used to the CGI effects and over-simplified plots that they wouldn't appreciate the dark humor and satire. I hope Blomkamp is sincere in his pledge to bring back the old Robo. If Weller's participation helps achieve that goal, I'm all for it.
_________________

[Post Count]

I think Frank Miller had an idea which Irvin Kershner and Walon Greene perverted. I don't think his full vision for RoboCop would have translated well to the screen, however. That being said, R2 is a good movie and had it been directed by Verhoeven it would've been a masterpiece of a sequel.

I for one am looking forward to a new movie. I think having Weller back will sway the purists but I do agree with Archive that the movie will likely suffer the same "dark fate" as Terminator . Movies these days are all about the special effects and the pacing. R1 wouldn't hold up by today's box office standards and the younger audience is so used to the CGI effects and over-simplified plots that they wouldn't appreciate the dark humor and satire. I hope Blomkamp is sincere in his pledge to bring back the old Robo. If Weller's participation helps achieve that goal, I'm all for it.
_________________

[Comment]

I think Frank Miller had an idea which Irvin Kershner and Walon Greene perverted. I don't think his full vision for RoboCop would have translated well to the screen, however. That being said, R2 is a good movie and had it been directed by Verhoeven it would've been a masterpiece of a sequel.

I for one am looking forward to a new movie. I think having Weller back will sway the purists but I do agree with Archive that the movie will likely suffer the same "dark fate" as Terminator . Movies these days are all about the special effects and the pacing. R1 wouldn't hold up by today's box office standards and the younger audience is so used to the CGI effects and over-simplified plots that they wouldn't appreciate the dark humor and satire. I hope Blomkamp is sincere in his pledge to bring back the old Robo. If Weller's participation helps achieve that goal, I'm all for it.
_________________

[Stan The Man]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]

[RoboPimp]

[Joined]

[Post Count]

[Comment]