Robocop Remake Page 3

  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:27:16
    Well that's obviously not true.

    :)
  • jerrymanu 6 Jan 2010 14:29:03 3,119 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Good riddance I say. Robocop doesn't need a remake, full stop. Stop bastardizing cult classics and develop the next generation of classics you cock sucking fuck wits.

    "Help me, Help me"
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:31:03
    The original is cracking, ground breaking even, but this guy could have done something really interesting with it. It's the only remake I haven't gone WHAT THE FUCK at when I saw who was on board.

    Now of course it's likely to get handed to some twat who'll do whatever the studio tells him to do. Or Michael Bay. :(

    EDIT: Actually, I'm vaguely interested in how the new Predator will turn out with Rodriguez backing it, even though he's not directing.
  • Hunam 6 Jan 2010 14:31:57 20,674 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MrED209 wrote:
    Well that's obviously not true.

    :)

    How kalel sees EG

    Could have done the inline comments too, but that would have taken too much work.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:33:04
    All I want is the proper orginal uncut Robocop available on its own without the fucking sequels. Possibly on blu ray.
  • jerrymanu 6 Jan 2010 14:34:51 3,119 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    All I want is the proper orginal uncut Robocop available on its own without the fucking sequels. Possibly on blu ray.

    I'd buy that for a dollar!

    /taxi for 1

  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:38:44
    Ah, apparently such a thing exists. Excellent.
  • jerrymanu 6 Jan 2010 14:41:21 3,119 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    link? All I can find is a DVD transfer that, according to reviews, is the same quality as the DVD release.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:45:58
    Here.

    The customers reviews say it's the uncut one.
  • Vroom 6 Jan 2010 14:47:14 4,644 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    jerrymanu wrote:
    Good riddance I say. Robocop doesn't need a remake, full stop. Stop bastardizing cult classics and develop the next generation of classics you cock sucking fuck wits.

    "Help me, Help me"

    Jesus! I'd forgotten how awesome that was.

    Vroom

  • jerrymanu 6 Jan 2010 14:54:58 3,119 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Here.

    The customers reviews say it's the uncut one.

    TA. Looking on Amazon and seeing the 'Other people who bought this also bought' suggestions has put me in a nostalgic mood. This weekend I'll try n get hold of, in no particular order:

    Total Recall. Running Man. Terminator. Predator. Robocop. Commando. Falling Down.

    Schwarzenegger FTW! O.o
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 14:55:47
    Vroom! wrote:
    jerrymanu wrote:
    Good riddance I say. Robocop doesn't need a remake, full stop. Stop bastardizing cult classics and develop the next generation of classics you cock sucking fuck wits.

    "Help me, Help me"

    Jesus! I'd forgotten how awesome that was.
    The exploding acid man was the single most amazing gore effect I'd ever seen when I was about 14 watching this on a dodgy pirated VHS copy from a mate at school. Played it back over and over again, one frame at a time :D
  • RetardStrong 6 Jan 2010 15:15:50 3,229 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Indeed. Keep a pretentious twat like Aronofsky away from it.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 15:17:16
    MrED209 wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.
    Aye but there's a difference between compositing stuff that's actually been shot on film and sticking a fairly empty scene into a computer and turning it into an all singing all dancing explosion of robots and whatnot. I mean look at the original Star Wars compared to just the Special Edition stuff, let alone the new ones. With the originals that was all compositing but the X-wings and the Death Star and the mammoths the Sand People ride and all that stuff, it's all real. And then Lucas spunks a great big sodding computer-generated Mos Eisley all over it and the magic is gone in one fell swoop.

    Yes, but that's because he made a choice to do that. I could bring up an example of spunking practical effects everywhere hoping they'd stick too. ;)

    My point is that no matter how you swing it, Aronofsky's use of practical effects in The Fountain could be seen as much a gimmick as 3D. He probably could've used computer effects to produce something similar, but he made the choice not to. That I personally found the movie empty otherwise makes it an effects movie to me. Despite its lofty themes, the unemotional, actorly approach distanced the film from me and almost made light of the fairly weighty subject matter. It's undeniably beautiful, but hey, so is a lot fo Pandora in 3D in Avatar.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 15:19:35
    figgis wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.

    True. But like Moon it's one of those films that looks better for using real stuff rather than CGI. (Both done on the cheap as well.)

    That's because it suited the production. It really does. But Robocop?

    If Aronofsky could make a big budget action film using physical effects and no CGI without making it looking clunky, I'd applaud him. But the tools are there, so why not use them? Good CGI is an exception rather than a rule, but it's perfectly possible. There's tons of films out there that make use of practically invisible CGI effects.

    Again we could all toss examples all day. It's what you do with it that counts - that's the point.
  • The-Bodybuilder 6 Jan 2010 15:26:45 14,439 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Hunam wrote:
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.

    Except for people like us who can only see through ONE EYE.
  • Hunam 6 Jan 2010 15:27:22 20,674 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Go to the 2D screenings then. My point about only using subtle 3D affects was about it being transferable to 2D without them audience realising 3D was ever there.
  • speedofthepuma 6 Jan 2010 15:29:55 13,320 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    Hunam wrote:
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.

    Except for people like us who can only see through ONE EYE.

    I don't think we can change everything for cyclopses or any mythical beasts for that matter.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • The-Bodybuilder 6 Jan 2010 15:30:16 14,439 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.

    True. But like Moon it's one of those films that looks better for using real stuff rather than CGI. (Both done on the cheap as well.)

    That's because it suited the production. It really does. But Robocop?

    If Aronofsky could make a big budget action film using physical effects and no CGI without making it looking clunky, I'd applaud him. But the tools are there, so why not use them? Good CGI is an exception rather than a rule, but it's perfectly possible. There's tons of films out there that make use of practically invisible CGI effects.

    Again we could all toss examples all day. It's what you do with it that counts - that's the point.

    What would you need CGI for in a robocop remake?
  • The-Bodybuilder 6 Jan 2010 15:30:48 14,439 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    Hunam wrote:
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.

    Except for people like us who can only see through ONE EYE.

    I don't think we can change everything for cyclopses or any mythical beasts for that matter.

    :(

    Or trolls. ;)
  • Hunam 6 Jan 2010 15:31:25 20,674 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Because it's easier than making real life robots?
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 15:35:33
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.

    True. But like Moon it's one of those films that looks better for using real stuff rather than CGI. (Both done on the cheap as well.)

    That's because it suited the production. It really does. But Robocop?

    If Aronofsky could make a big budget action film using physical effects and no CGI without making it looking clunky, I'd applaud him. But the tools are there, so why not use them? Good CGI is an exception rather than a rule, but it's perfectly possible. There's tons of films out there that make use of practically invisible CGI effects.

    Again we could all toss examples all day. It's what you do with it that counts - that's the point.
    You're right of course but you're forgetting that he was up against a studio exec that wanted a 3D smorgasbord. I guarantee you that restrained subtle use of time-and-money saving CGI is precisely NOT what she has in mind.
  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 17:11:14
    You don't know that. She'd probably just point at Avatar and say "give me a similar experience". Not all producers are brain dead pieces of trumped up arsejuice. ;)
  • woodnotes 6 Jan 2010 17:14:33 4,943 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    Hunam wrote:
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.

    Except for people like us who can only see through ONE EYE.

    I don't think we can change everything for cyclopses or any mythical beasts for that matter.

    .(

    Or trolls. .)
    Fixed.
  • speedofthepuma 6 Jan 2010 17:15:10 13,320 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Very funny.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • mrpon 6 Jan 2010 17:17:03 29,560 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    Hunam wrote:
    I don't see what's wrong with 3D. You don't have to have things jumping out the screen, just use the subtle stuff from Avatar to give screen space and everyone is happy.

    Except for people like us who can only see through ONE EYE.

    I don't think we can change everything for cyclopses or any mythical beasts for that matter.

    .(

    Sorry.

    Gah, woody!

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • speedofthepuma 6 Jan 2010 17:17:54 13,320 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ? look up mrpon.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • Fake_Blood 6 Jan 2010 17:30:24 4,445 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I don't know what it is with cgi, but I went from loving the stuff to hating it.
    Maybe it's the 20 years playing video games, but I can see CGI from a mile away.
    It's been a very long time since I've been fooled or impressed by it.
    But then again it's almost always used in over the top scenes with impossible camera angles.
    Cloverfield and gollum are exceptions and did make good use of cgi.
  • silentbob 6 Jan 2010 17:32:13 29,026 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Here.

    The customers reviews say it's the uncut one.
    It is, I have it.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Deleted user 6 January 2010 18:17:50
    The Bodybuilder wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    figgis wrote:
    The Cosmos stuff in the fountain was real! It's footage of liquids interacting, Macro photography I think it's called. There is no major CGI use in the film.

    There's some hefty modern compositing going on though.

    True. But like Moon it's one of those films that looks better for using real stuff rather than CGI. (Both done on the cheap as well.)

    That's because it suited the production. It really does. But Robocop?

    If Aronofsky could make a big budget action film using physical effects and no CGI without making it looking clunky, I'd applaud him. But the tools are there, so why not use them? Good CGI is an exception rather than a rule, but it's perfectly possible. There's tons of films out there that make use of practically invisible CGI effects.

    Again we could all toss examples all day. It's what you do with it that counts - that's the point.

    What would you need CGI for in a robocop remake?

    Why would you inhibit yourself if the tools are at your disposal?

    edit - I'm firmly of the belief that I don't think it needs remaking. But if there's one thing CGI is really good at, it's creating believable metal beasties. So why NOT use it, is the question.

    As for 3D, take it or leave it, really. It's great when it acts as a window (Avatar) otherwise it's just totally pointless.
  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

Log in or register to reply