The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Mikezilla on March 27, 2012, 02:16:16 pm
-
I just read a snippet about the new Robocop remake, and they said that the new suit is going to allow the actors face/eyes to be visible. I think that is a mistake considering eyes convey so much emotion. I think they made it clear that Robo is still somewhat human during the last act of the orginal when he gets shot by Ed209 and it shows his eyes for the first time since he was transformed. They are also talking about making it PG-13. Im a huge Robocop fan and both of this little tidbits made me cringe. Any thoughts.
-
They are making a new Robocop?
-
I won't be buying this for a dollar!
-
I like Mike. He lives in the 80s, just like me. >:D
-
Maybe it's a testament to Peter Weller, but I thought in the original he had no problem showing emotion or lack of without his eyes visible. You could just tell how much of Murphy was creeping out in Robocop as the movie progressed. I don't know if showing robocop's eyes is necessarily a bad thing, but it is gonna most likely going to change the dynamic of Robocop quite a bit. I really liked how you could just brush him off as nothing but a machine, and everybody does except for his old partner. It will be hard to make that element work if you can look right in his eyes.
As for the rating, I really hope they don't lose that dark, yet humorous vibe to it. I would love if they play fake commercials throughout the movie like the original.
-
They are making a new Robocop?
Yes, unfortunately. The sequels were god awful, but the orginal is one of my most favorite movies, thats why Im like "wtf are they gonna do?" Same with the damn Ninja Turtles. Michael Bay...raping my childhood all over again.
I like Mike. He lives in the 80s, just like me. >:D
Right back at ya friend! :cheers:
Maybe it's a testament to Peter Weller, but I thought in the original he had no problem showing emotion or lack of without his eyes visible. You could just tell how much of Murphy was creeping out in Robocop as the movie progressed. I don't know if showing robocop's eyes is necessarily a bad thing, but it is gonna most likely going to change the dynamic of Robocop quite a bit. I really liked how you could just brush him off as nothing but a machine, and everybody does except for his old partner. It will be hard to make that element work if you can look right in his eyes.
As for the rating, I really hope they don't lose that dark, yet humorous vibe to it. I would love if they play fake commercials throughout the movie like the original.
See, I thought the same thing Vigo. Thats why at the end, when he doesnt have his helmet on, it comes full circle when he confronts the men who killed them. Same thing goes with the Terminator. In the final act, those red, cold, calculating eyes induced terror and a sense of dread. Robos eyes contained a determined, sorrowful kind of look, which I think added to the character. I agree.
Seriously. The satire was what made it great. I always laugh when I see the "Nukem" commercial. "Get them before they get you" :lol I also dont want too much CG. I love practical effects.
-
So you think they will cruise around in a 9000 SUX or has it actually gone over 9000?
-
This will be an utter trainwreck. What a lot of people don't know is robocop was supposed to be a rather inhuman cyborg... quickly and strangely skittering around a lot like the girl in splice. Budget constraints and sfx limitations at the time forced him to become a more realistic, cumbersome cyborg. And that happy accident is what made the character. Robocop was the first (and possibly only) cyborg in cinema history that actually felt grounded in reality. He was slow, bulky, half of his parts came from japan and he didn't always work right.... you know, just like real tech. ;)
What do you want to bet that now they are going to go back to the "original vision"?
I agree about the eyes thing... showing his eyes is a big mistake. The whole visor reveal thing was symbolic.... You are supposed to think of him as a piece of hardware in the beginning and as the movie progresses his humanity leaks out, eventually leading to the big reveal whish is basically a way of shouting "there's a guy in there" at the audience. And in the subsequent films this theme continues.... in vulnerable and emotional scenes his visor is off... while he's shooting up bad guys it's on, because he's all business.
I'm pretty sure you can't make a good Robocop film pg-13 either.... case in point...Robocop 3 was pg-13. ;)
Oh and related news Detroit is getting a 10 foot tall Robocop statue! About time I say.. afterall, philly has rocky!
-
I agree about the eyes thing... showing his eyes is a big mistake. The whole visor reveal thing was symbolic.... You are supposed to think of him as a piece of hardware in the beginning and as the movie progresses his humanity leaks out, eventually leading to the big reveal whish is basically a way of shouting "there's a guy in there" at the audience. And in the subsequent films this theme continues.... in vulnerable and emotional scenes his visor is off... while he's shooting up bad guys it's on, because he's all business.
I don't agree with this. The lower part of his face was exposed through the whole movie. Who didn't realize it was a guy in there? Isn't it a jolt on the head or something that makes him start to get pieces of his human memories back?
Cool movie, but its probably been almost 10 years since I've seen it.
-
I watched the prequel/remake of The Thing.
I was bored in the first 5 minutes of the movie, I have a feeling that Robocop (reboot?) will be the same old rehash, great to sleep through on a Friday night.
-
I agree about the eyes thing... showing his eyes is a big mistake. The whole visor reveal thing was symbolic.... You are supposed to think of him as a piece of hardware in the beginning and as the movie progresses his humanity leaks out, eventually leading to the big reveal whish is basically a way of shouting "there's a guy in there" at the audience. And in the subsequent films this theme continues.... in vulnerable and emotional scenes his visor is off... while he's shooting up bad guys it's on, because he's all business.
I'm pretty sure you can't make a good Robocop film pg-13 either.... case in point...Robocop 3 was pg-13.
Oh and related news Detroit is getting a 10 foot tall Robocop statue! About time I say.. afterall, philly has rocky!
Good job HC, my sentiments exactly. God Robocop 3 was such a terrible movie, there are so many mistakes its embarrassing. You cant make Robo PG-13 and be serious. I dont get hollywood, they want to cater to a bigger audience by making it PG-13, but they would make more money if it was R, cause the fan base is all old now. Like when they made AvP, it was PG-13. Granted that movie couldnt have been good even if it was R, but still.
Did they secure the funding for it?! Last I heard they got 50k from someone. I heard they were taking down the rocky statue in philly cause someone was bitching about it. :-[
-
I agree about the eyes thing... showing his eyes is a big mistake. The whole visor reveal thing was symbolic.... You are supposed to think of him as a piece of hardware in the beginning and as the movie progresses his humanity leaks out, eventually leading to the big reveal whish is basically a way of shouting "there's a guy in there" at the audience. And in the subsequent films this theme continues.... in vulnerable and emotional scenes his visor is off... while he's shooting up bad guys it's on, because he's all business.
I don't agree with this. The lower part of his face was exposed through the whole movie. Who didn't realize it was a guy in there? Isn't it a jolt on the head or something that makes him start to get pieces of his human memories back?
Cool movie, but its probably been almost 10 years since I've seen it.
I guess my interpretation was that most people didn't know that Robocop was once human unless they were part of the OCP Robocop project, but people assumed he was just designed to look human like.
Did they secure the funding for it?! Last I heard they got 50k from someone. I heard they were taking down the rocky statue in philly cause someone was bitching about it. :-[
:-[ People like to ruin everything awesome like that. A Robocop statue would be awesome in Detroit. I guess I could accept an Eddie Murphy From Beverly Hills Cop or Clint Eastwood with Rifle from Gran Torino as a second place statue for Detroit. ;D
-
HC, Mike and Vigo: I agree with everything said. I love Robocop as well. Part 2 was tolerable. 3?...ick. I have the series too but never watched it. I'm sure it's bad.
I live in Detroit and the Robocop statue rumor has been around for a few years. Not sure if it will really happen or if it's even real to be honest. Detroit is so poor and corrupt, this is the last thing the city needs to spend their money on. Half the city is still burnt down from the riots.
Don't get me wrong. A Robocop statue would be cool.
-
Hollywood has a cancer...the cancer is 'remakes'...
-
Saddest part about Robocop is they actually filmed it in Dallas. A bunch of the scenes were filmed in a building my dad used to work in (Renaissance Tower). A thin connection to be sure, but I will take any connection to Robocop that I can get. ;D
Ewwwww Dallas
-
Hollywood has a cancer...the cancer is 'remakes'...
Total Recall, Dredd, The Evil Dead...
Just to name a few of the upcoming remakes...
-
John Carter is a good example of the current problem. While technically not original (based on a 100 year-old book) it is not really a remake or reboot. I thought it was a fantastic movie. Word of mouth on it is great but it tanked big time. Studios are afraid of this which is why we see so many reboots or remakes. They are easier to market.
-
I think the world needs yet another shrek movie. ::)
-
I think the world needs yet another shrek movie. ::)
The first two were awesome, third was passable, I've avoided the 4th to preserve my fondness for the first two.
-
Hollywood has a cancer...the cancer is 'remakes'...
Haha good job "old man"! :lol
Yeah, the problem with John Carter was that it was poorly marketed. And the guy that made the trailer should be fired. I want to see that, but nobody else will go with me.
Total Recall is going to suck, so is Evil Dead, but Im kind of excited to see Dredd. Hopefully Judge Death will be in there. He is pretty cool.
-
Hollywood has a cancer...the cancer is 'remakes'...
Total Recall, Dredd, The Evil Dead...
Just to name a few of the upcoming remakes...
WTF, are you serious.
Are they at least using any of the original actors?
-
Nope. Bruce Campbell will not be in Evil Dead. The lead is a female.
Total Recall stars Colin Ferrell.
Not sure about Dredd.
-
Just imdb'ed it. Karl Urban (Bones from the Star Trek Reboot) is gonna be Judge Dredd. I dont see any actor credited for Judge Death.
-
HC, Mike and Vigo: I agree with everything said. I love Robocop as well. Part 2 was tolerable. 3?...ick. I have the series too but never watched it. I'm sure it's bad.
I live in Detroit and the Robocop statue rumor has been around for a few years. Not sure if it will really happen or if it's even real to be honest. Detroit is so poor and corrupt, this is the last thing the city needs to spend their money on. Half the city is still burnt down from the riots.
Don't get me wrong. A Robocop statue would be cool.
The series is actually really good. It's kind of like the Sarah Connor chronicles in that it ignores the lame third sequel and pretends it doesn't exist. Thecnically it's an alternate re-telling, but you could say that it takes place after part II. Just don't watch that god awful robocop mini series that came out a couple of years ago... that thing is garbage.
It's not a rumor anymore, the statue was bought a paid for via a kick-starter fund. It's in the process of being sculpted for the cast now... they are hoping to have it ready by fall. Right now they are trying to find a location willing to install it, which is giving them a little bit of trouble. Honestly I don't see how... I mean if I owned a building and somebody wanted to put a gaint robocop statue in front of it we'd be out in the front lot looking for a place to put it before they even finished their sentence. The kick-starter fund has also started a movement called "robocharity" for the detroit area. They hope to use the statue to raise awareness about the city's needs.
TOK: What Vigo said. Besides that I don't mean literally.... prior to the reveal people were treating him like a product... post reveal he's treated like a person and as an audenice member it solidifies that murphy's soul is still in that tin can. Just because they used a guy from spare parts doesn't mean the guy's soul is in there. That's what I was getting at.
-
As long as it's better than Escape from LA, I'll consider it a success. That movie set the low point for any sequel/remake/reboot IMHO. The surfing scene should be considered the worst scene in the history of films.
-
As long as it's better than Escape from LA, I'll consider it a success. That movie set the low point for any sequel/remake/reboot IMHO. The surfing scene should be considered the worst scene in the history of films.
I did love the Basketball scene in that movie. That was pretty cool. The rest of the movie stunk almost enough to hurt the original movie.
Worst sequel - Highlander II
-
PBJ: Judge Dredd comics are awesome. Nothing else though.
HC: I will check out the series one day. Also, yea I looked into it and you're right. They really are doing the Robocop statue. That's cool. And how can they not find a place for it? Every few feet is a burned down building, and you can buy a lot with an abandon building for $1,000 in Detroit. Just buy the lot and demo the building and put the statue there. Seriously...the entire city is burned down except for where Comerica Park and the Casinos are. That little area is nice for the tourists, but if you make a wrong turn down a side street you're in Pakistan.
-
As long as it's better than Escape from LA, I'll consider it a success. That movie set the low point for any sequel/remake/reboot IMHO. The surfing scene should be considered the worst scene in the history of films.
I did love the Basketball scene in that movie. That was pretty cool. The rest of the movie stunk almost enough to hurt the original movie.
Worst sequel - Highlander II
Nope. This guy said it best:
There are no sequels to Highlander, there are no sequels to Highlander, there are no sequels to Highlander!
But the last made for tv movie that Sci-Fi made/aired a few years ago was terrible. It made the 2nd sequel with Mario Van Peebles look like the greatest thing ever.
But to my point, there are no sequels!
-
At least when they re-edited the "highlander sequel", they changed it from absolute ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to just absolute crap. That's an upgrade. :dunno
-
At least when they re-edited the "highlander sequel", they changed it from absolute ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to just absolute crap. That's an upgrade. :dunno
Didn't see that. Which sequel? I mean, there are no sequels.
That final Sci Fi channel movie was just awful. Awful.
-
There were actually two attempts to fix that steaming pile. Highlander II: Renegade Edition. They basically recut the film to try to hide the fact that they had scripted the immortals to really be aliens from another planet. It took out that one atrocity, but the alternate was not much better....that the immortals were banished to various points in history for some dumb reason I can't remember. They did seem to fix the problem with gaping plot holes every 20 minutes though.
Then they did a special edition, ala George Lucas style. Added a bunch of CGI to the renegade edition in hopes that people would suddenly like it. I haven't seen it, but I am guessing that unlike Star wars, people were not offended because the source material sucked to begin with.
-
PBJ: Judge Dredd comics are awesome. Nothing else though.
HC: I will check out the series one day. Also, yea I looked into it and you're right. They really are doing the Robocop statue. That's cool. And how can they not find a place for it? Every few feet is a burned down building, and you can buy a lot with an abandon building for $1,000 in Detroit. Just buy the lot and demo the building and put the statue there. Seriously...the entire city is burned down except for where Comerica Park and the Casinos are. That little area is nice for the tourists, but if you make a wrong turn down a side street you're in Pakistan.
Thats awesome that they are going ahead with the statue! Wow, I didnt know Detroit was so bad. I mean, I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. :scared
-
Battlefield Earth.
:puke
-
I've got an otherwise intelligent friend that's a big fan of Highlander 2. He's also a big fan of Battlefield Earth.
:dizzy:
I remember going to see the Highlander sequel in college at the theater right by our apartment. Took the girlfriend and I'm sure that was the beginning of the end of that relationship. I can't believe a movie could be that bad.
Until Snake Plissken started surfing.
-
I've got an otherwise intelligent friend that's a big fan of Highlander 2. He's also a big fan of Battlefield Earth.
:dizzy:
I remember going to see the Highlander sequel in college at the theater right by our apartment. Took the girlfriend and I'm sure that was the beginning of the end of that relationship. I can't believe a movie could be that bad.
Until Snake Plissken started surfing.
Yeah that was brutal. The effect itself looked horrible. Did John Carpenter do that one as well?
-
I guess Highlander II was so bad that during filming Christopher Lambert Threatened to leave.
How bad does a film have to be that Christopher Lambert doesn't want to touch it?
-
So the plot thickens gentlemen... Just saw a commercial for a remake of The Three Stooges. I don't know about you, but I think most of these remakes are terrible. I can't think of one I like, other than the 1985 remake of Alice in Wonderland/Looking Glass with Carol Channing and Sammy Davis Jr.
-
Remind me never to watch the highlander sequel then.
I really liked it the first time I saw it. I had never heard of highlander and I didn't even know it was a sequel. However when you are 7 alot of things seem pretty cool.
I also remember liking robocop 3. I even saw it in theatres I think. I think the problem is you guys were all way to old when those came out.
-
So the plot thickens gentlemen... Just saw a commercial for a remake of The Three Stooges. I don't know about you, but I think most of these remakes are terrible. I can't think of one I like, other than the 1985 remake of Alice in Wonderland/Looking Glass with Carol Channing and Sammy Davis Jr.
I heard about the 3 stooges movie this morning as well....terrible idea. Some things are not meant to be updated. I predict this will be as big of a train wreck as when they released "the munsters today" in the 80's.
Inversely, I am somewhat interested in Bill and Ted 3, probably because it can't get any campier than Bogus Journey.
-
PBJ: Judge Dredd comics are awesome. Nothing else though.
HC: I will check out the series one day. Also, yea I looked into it and you're right. They really are doing the Robocop statue. That's cool. And how can they not find a place for it? Every few feet is a burned down building, and you can buy a lot with an abandon building for $1,000 in Detroit. Just buy the lot and demo the building and put the statue there. Seriously...the entire city is burned down except for where Comerica Park and the Casinos are. That little area is nice for the tourists, but if you make a wrong turn down a side street you're in Pakistan.
Thats awesome that they are going ahead with the statue! Wow, I didnt know Detroit was so bad. I mean, I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. :scared
Yea Detroit is pretty bad. I live right outside of Detroit. About 1 minute away. There's like a street that serves as a border and as soon as you cross that street you can instantly tell. Every other building is burned down and spray painted. The whole city is in ruin and the people who run the city just don't care. They only care about the area where Comerica Park and the Casinos are. I am not exaggerating when I say that there are still thousands of burned down/abandoned buildings from the riots in the 1960s that are still there. A lot of the residential streets will have 4 houses that aren't burned down/abandoned. And people live that way. On a street that is more than half burned down. Then the crime is pretty bad too. Detroit and Flint are usually neck in neck for the crime capitol of the world each year. I should take pictures sometime and post em. It's pretty sad.
But anyway...back on topic. I remember seeing Escape From LA and feeling so empty inside...I loved Escape From New York and LA turned the entire thing into a joke. I am a huge John Carpenter fan but he really fell off after the 80s. Everything he did in the 80s was gold to me.
Highlander II I remember seeing once. I don't remember understanding much of it. I think it was II.
-
That Three Stooges remake looks dumb as hell. Plus it has the cast of Jersey Shore in it so it is an instant fail.
Remakes from the past weren't so bad, it's the current remakes that suck. A few I can mention that I liked: John Carpenter's: The Thing
and The Fly (with Jeff Goldblum). I'm sure there are more but I can't think of em off the top of my head at the moment. I'm sure someone else can think of more.
-
Little shop of horrors was an excellent remake I would add to the list, although I think that was made into a musical before the film.
-
Not to nitpick, but The Thing is actually a prequel.
-
That final Sci Fi channel movie was just awful. Awful.
Absolutely painful. I can stomach Highlander II even as bad as it is. Highlander IV is actually pretty good but that last one...words fail me.
I guess Highlander II was so bad that during filming Christopher Lambert Threatened to leave.
How bad does a film have to be that Christopher Lambert doesn't want to touch it?
:laugh2:
-
Actually The Thing (1982) is a remake and The Thing (2011) is a prequel to that remake :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World)
"There are no Highlander sequels" I like that idea. If enough of us accept this then eventually it will become reality for everyone.
-
Good point. I never saw the original.
Really bad remakes: Conan and Clash of the Titans.
-
That Three Stooges remake looks dumb as hell. Plus it has the cast of Jersey Shore in it so it is an instant fail.
My mom is a huge Three Stooges fan. She grew up on them and still watches them. What is odd is that she cannot wait for the remake to come out. I'll probably end up taking her to see it. Be interesting to see how she feels after watching it.
-
lordnacho1: yes I was talking about the 1982 version not the 2011 one. The 1982 one is a remake of The Thing From Another World as already mentioned. I like all three. The 2011 one I thought was more watchable than half the remakes out there today. Conan and Clash of the Titans were both very bland remakes. The originals are classic. I wanted to like Conan....but I just couldn't.
wp34: I am also a huge Three Stooges fan, but the remake looks dumb. They are making it a parody of itself by having them in modern times and having everyone make fun of them including the Jersey Shore cast. Plus all of the jokes are recycled from the originals so I say...why not just watch the originals?!
-
Damn Bootay, I had no idea it was that bad, I would like to see some pictures. Thats crazy.
Im not as old as you think Green Giant, I saw Robocop 3 in theatres, and I was only 11 ;D Of course back then I thought it was awesome, now its hard to watch. There are so many things you can spot that are wrong with the movie. :lol
I cant get into the stooges. They are just too old. I like a few of the gags from the old ones, when they show a clip of them or something, but I would never go pay to see a movie, set in modern times about the stooges. ESPECIALLY if Jersey Shore retards were in it. My how far the Farrely Brothers have fallen.
Lordnacho: Yeah man, I wanted to like Conan so bad. That was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid, and I actually hoped because Marcus Nispel is a decent director. But man, that thing blew. Hard. The best part was the begining when the molten steel fell on Ron Pearlman, everything else sucked.
-
Get used to it, all the money is in PG-13 and most the money is international. Action movies are really easy to translate and no swearing means no religious sensibilities are being offended. Notice the complete lack of casual nudity in movies lately? C'mon, every 80s cop movie had a pointless strip club scene. It's gotten so bad that actresses are wearing long sleeves in most block busters.
:P
Swearing poses no problems internationally. It's not like the word ---fudgesicle--- or ass translate literally. They have to be interpreted, and they can easily be interpreted with something as offensive as ---fudgesicle---, damn or darn according to the demands of whatever market the movie is being sold in. As for nudity, how many markets are more puritanical than ours? Latin American media is hypersexual. Western Europe regularly shows nudity on broadcast television.
Moreover, I'm not even sure such a taming of Hollywood is taking place domestically. Look at the direction TV is moving, Sopranos, Deadwood, Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, True Blood, Weeds, The Wire. There's no shortage of bad language and sex and nudity to go along with the escalating levels of violence and gore on display in most of these shows.
Granted, you don't see nearly as many of the Porky's and National Lampoons and Bachelor Parties, but that strikes me as nothing more than normal changes in taste rather than a shift toward puritanism. You don't see butt rock either, but it's not because we think it's evil. We just like other stuff for the moment. And, unfortunately, butt rock will probably make a comeback before too long. Who knows . . . maybe crappy 80s movies will make a comeback too.
-
You don't see butt rock either
What the hell is that?!?! :o
-
This is the third definition on Urban Dictionary, but it is the best. The top two refer to the likes of Nickelback and Creed and I don't think that's correct. At any rate, the following definition is how I was using the word:
Term, often used disparagingly, that refers to a type of rock music popular during the 1980s and early 1990s typified by band members (predominantly male) who wore makeup and tight leather or spandex pants, and used gratuitous amounts of hairspray in their overzealous 'dos. Responsible for the "power ballad" and music that promotes depravity and glorifies cheap, meaningless sex.
-
Get used to it, all the money is in PG-13 and most the money is international. Action movies are really easy to translate and no swearing means no religious sensibilities are being offended. Notice the complete lack of casual nudity in movies lately? C'mon, every 80s cop movie had a pointless strip club scene. It's gotten so bad that actresses are wearing long sleeves in most block busters.
:P
Swearing poses no problems internationally. It's not like the word ---fudgesicle--- or ass translate literally. They have to be interpreted, and they can easily be interpreted with something as offensive as ---fudgesicle---, damn or darn according to the demands of whatever market the movie is being sold in. As for nudity, how many markets are more puritanical than ours? Latin American media is hypersexual. Western Europe regularly shows nudity on broadcast television.
Moreover, I'm not even sure such a taming of Hollywood is taking place domestically. Look at the direction TV is moving, Sopranos, Deadwood, Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, True Blood, Weeds, The Wire. There's no shortage of bad language and sex and nudity to go along with the escalating levels of violence and gore on display in most of these shows.
Granted, you don't see nearly as many of the Porky's and National Lampoons and Bachelor Parties, but that strikes me as nothing more than normal changes in taste rather than a shift toward puritanism. You don't see butt rock either, but it's not because we think it's evil. We just like other stuff for the moment. And, unfortunately, butt rock will probably make a comeback before too long. Who knows . . . maybe crappy 80s movies will make a comeback too.
The shows mentioned are on cable which is different. And the movies you mentioned have been replaced with movies like Hot Tub Time Machine, Superbad, and 40 Year Old Virgin which are still movies about people trying to get laid while telling dick and fart jokes. And God I hope "Butt Rock" doesn't make a comeback. ;D
-
Then the crime is pretty bad too. Detroit and Flint are usually neck in neck for the crime capitol of the world each year.
Hey now, St. Louis took the crown while I was living there. Great city to get robbed at gun point in broad daylight and it always happened within a 1 mile radius of the light rail stops. Hrm. My wife worked at Washington University, their "premier institution" and had to have an escort to and from her car if it was dark.
Sounds a lot like Detroit. LOL
-
The shows mentioned are on cable which is different.
Different than what, though? Different than broadcast, sure, because cable and satelite aren't subject to the strict FCC rules for broadcast. But it's still Hollywood. It still represents the direction Hollywood has been moving with TV.
And even when it comes to broadcast TV, I think you'd be hard pressed to support the premise that the U.S. has become more, rather than less, restrictive in the last 20 years regarding the content that is or can be shown on broadcast TV.
-
This is the third definition on Urban Dictionary, but it is the best. The top two refer to the likes of Nickelback and Creed and I don't think that's correct. At any rate, the following definition is how I was using the word:
Term, often used disparagingly, that refers to a type of rock music popular during the 1980s and early 1990s typified by band members (predominantly male) who wore makeup and tight leather or spandex pants, and used gratuitous amounts of hairspray in their overzealous 'dos. Responsible for the "power ballad" and music that promotes depravity and glorifies cheap, meaningless sex.
That's in incorrect definition..... butt rock doesn't have a set time period or rock sub-genre. It's any rock in which the lyrics and/or guitar are so distorted that you can't make out the words/melody. In other words, it sounds like the music is coming out of one's butt... thus "butt rock". What you just described is hair metal... typically is the most melodic metal out there and therefore would never be considered butt rock. That doesn't mean that it isn't bad, but rather it's a totally different type of bad. ;)
Btw about the censorship on tv thing...... there are distinct legal differences in the things you guys are talking about. First off, swearing in any langauge is typically against braodcast regulations. The reason is common sense really.... what if you are watching a english program in spain with spanish subs but you can speak english? Obviously you'll catch the curse word. Also most curses are universal. I'll bet you there are kids in Okinawa who know what f*** and s*** mean.
HBO and cable are different as well and thus have different regulations. You paid for it and therefore are actively seeking the content... technically speaking cable channels can show whatever they want, but most choose not to show anything too hardcore. There is a law about "offensive" shows being aired after 10:00pm though. Broadcast shows, because they can be picked up freely over the air, have stricter, federally enforced, guidlines. I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way, I'm just saying that it is.
That being said, cable HAS laxed a lot. The two ground-breakers, believe it or not, were south park and WWE raw. South Park was the first to say s**** in primetime, raw was the first to say a** in a non-donkey related context. There was actually a run-on joke with Billy Gunn back in the day... they couldn't use his stage name until after 10:00pm. ;) There is currently a show on SyFy, which is considered a basic cable channel, called "Lost Girl" suprisingly the language is completely uncensored on that show. That is a big step forward imho, have langauge uncensored on a "regular" channel and not just on HBO or one of the premium channels.
About remakes... they are crap, BUT I find myself oddly drawn to the Three Stooges movie. First of all, we get to give it a pass because the property is SO old and underutilized. It's like when Peter Jackson remade King Kong.... he remade a black and white film from 1933... it was due a remake. Secondly the trailer made me chuckle.... a legitimate chuckle.... very few things have that effect on me. It probably will be crap, but I'm willing to give it a chance.
One thing I've noticed about some of these people doing remakes is that they don't seem to get that sometimes it's the actors that made the film, and not the story. Conan and Total Recall come to mind..... those were films that could have been so-so but turned out to be awesome because Arnold was in them. One of the cast members me an off-color comment about the remake of TR saying "yeah we decided to go with actors this time" well good luck with that because Total Recall wasn't a acting film, it was an action film, and mister skinny boy just ain't gonna cut it.
A nightmare in elm street is also a prime example...... people say that part one was a masterpiece and the others were so-so, but I don't necessarily agree with that. The first film was great because it was a horror concept never explored before and in that way it was ground-breaking... BUT the freddy in that film was one of Englands blandest portrayals of the character.... it was all about the story. This is why the remake failed btw.... the story had already been told, and the acting was decidedly low-key, so there was no reason to watch it over the original. Anyway, the sequels were all about Robert Englund and THAT is what made the franchise and that is what made Freddy a household name. Anybody could have played freddy in part one, but any subsequent sequels, perquels or remakes HAVE to be played by Robert because he simply wasn't playing freddy... he WAS freddy. The sequels were all about giving RE a sandbox to play in for an hour and a half, and in that merit they were all really good, in some ways better than the first. Sure the plots were crap, but slasher films aren't exactly known for their plots.
-
:stupid on Freddy. Englund is the whole reason to watch the others. My fav is number 4, I can watch that one again and again. Campy and scary blended very well. Everything a teen horror should be. I'm pretty psyched for the Thing remake myself just because I want to see how they handle the effects. Carpenter's version is one of my favorite films of all time though so my tolerance for crap will be very low.
-
I don't know, where I'm from they call Glam Metal "Butt Rock" or "Cock Rock". Either way that stuff sucks.
On the Freddy subject, I personally like Freddy as a dark character vs. a comedic jokster so I prefer the first film, but 3 is a masterpiece and the first one that he starts with the jokes. (Sure the first film had a couple of gags but not on the level of later films) The 3rd film had jokes but they were still dark and not quite as silly as the later films. 4, 5 and 6 were tolerable but it lost all of it's scare factor by then due to the comedic elements. Those movies peaked at 3 for me. But I can watch them all. I am a huge horror fan.
-
That's in incorrect definition..... butt rock doesn't have a set time period or rock sub-genre. It's any rock in which the lyrics and/or guitar are so distorted that you can't make out the words/melody. In other words, it sounds like the music is coming out of one's butt... thus "butt rock". What you just described is hair metal... typically is the most melodic metal out there and therefore would never be considered butt rock. That doesn't mean that it isn't bad, but rather it's a totally different type of bad. ;)
You're wrong. I've heard the term used a million times, never in the way you say. Here's another definition from Urban Dictionary:
buttrock is also referred to as cockrock and hair bands... The most amazing music to grace this earth and occured mostly in the 80's.
Rock you like a hurricanne.
you shook me all night long
"Wow did you see Ozzy bite the head off that bat? What a true buttrocker."
The other definitions say that it's stuff like Nickelback and Creed, i.e., bands with singers who make their voice falsely low (but not difficult to understand). Not a single definition for butt rock on Urban Dictionary matches yours.
-
Not a single definition for butt rock on Urban Dictionary matches yours.
Until Howard goes on Urban Dictionary and adds it himself.
-
I have never heard anyone, ever, use the term buttrock. And Im into metal, and my uncle is in a semi decent, well known band (in San Diego haha)
-
Mike, I am into Metal too...but not "Buttrock". I prefer heavier stuff like Slayer. I don't even consider "buttrock" (aka Poison, Warrent, etc.) Metal even though a lot of people do.
Wow this thread is just all over the place. LOL
-
I have never heard the term "buttrock" before either, mostly stuff like glam metal, hair metal and power rock. Is "buttrock" only suppose to refer to the ---smurfy--- lame over the top stuff, or is that suppose to cover the whole era? Even slayer had 80's rocker hair and studded leather vests back in the day. Would GnR and 80's Aerosmith be "buttrock" as well? How about glam rock like early Bowie or Queen?
-
No...buttrock would be simply glam metal. As in...dudes that dress like chicks on stage. Poison, Warret, etc. GnR is close..but I consifer them riding the lines of buttrock. It is also often the power ballad hair metal bands like Whitesnake that didn't dress like chicks but sang sappy love ballads. Slayer is not buttrock in any way, leather and spikes doesn't fall into the buttrock category, and they really only did the leather and spikes on the first album anyway. I would say 70s Aerosmith is not, but 80s Aerosmoith was. Queen and Bowie I would say are not buttrock. I don't write the rules, but to me buttrock is just simply Glam Metal and Power Ballad bands from the 80s. Whitesnake, Warrent, Poison, White Lion, Skid Row, Europe, Cinderella, Ratt, Motley Crue.
-
Haha, great explanation! Somehow the inner core of my being couldn't swallow being a fan of anything called "buttrock". I am glad that by your definition I wouldn't be. Yeah, I like Aerosmith and GnR in general, but I don't rock out to White Lion or Warrant or anything like that.
*Vigo stuffs his monster ballads CD down the laundry chute and hides* :angel:
-
Buttrock...Whitesnake, Warrent, Poison, White Lion, Skid Row, Europe, Cinderella, Ratt, Motley Crue.
Merde. Now I have to retitle my workout playlist... Buttrock Jamz here I come.
-
LOL I like GnR and old Aerosmith. I even like the first 3 Motley Crue albums. And for the record I generally don't call any bands "buttrock" but I have heard them referred to as that. I just call it glam rock...cuz it sure ain't metal to me. heh
-
Not a single definition for butt rock on Urban Dictionary matches yours.
Until Howard goes on Urban Dictionary and adds it himself.
EXACTLY! Urban Dictionary is worthless. Somebody hears somebody else use a term and they sort of get it, so they go home and type a incorrect definiton.
The term buttrock, as far as "going mainstream" goes, originated from a episode of x-play... around 2004-2005ish? I watched the episode and got the definition from them. Even then we've used the term for ages around here and it has always been a generic term for poorly played rock, typically metal. Cockrock does NOT equate to ButtRock as a matter of fact cockrock is the glam/hair rock equivelent of buttrock.
You've all heard buttrock... you know when a local band can't play or sing worth a crap so they crank it up to 11, turn the distortion to the max, and then proceed to play as quickly as possible with the lead screeching unintelligable lyrics in the hopes that you won't notice that they can't actually play the guitar or sing? That's butt rock.
As I said before it's impossible for glam metal or hair metal songs to be butt rock because that is some weak crap...buttrock is at least metal. If the lead is carrying a tune, you can understand the lyrics and actual notes are coming out of the instruments it's too good to be considered buttrock.
-
HC: Maybe where you're from. Where I'm from people call Glam "Cock Rock" or "Butt Rock" and they've been calling it that way before X-Play was around. First time I heard it was about 2000 or 2001. I don't call it either terms though because I don't believe in insulting other people's musical tastes. I do not like anything considered Glam aside from a few bands but..whatever.
As for your definition of Butt Rock would it just be any band with Cookie Monster vocals or does the music have to sound like trash too? There are some bands that sound real good if they get a new singer. Would that still be butt rock?
-
Until Howard goes on Urban Dictionary and adds it himself.
His definition would exist there, but it would just have a bunch of thumbs down votes because that's not what butt rock is.
And p.s., I'd be interested in a source for the term originating on an episode of X-play. Even if you heard the term like 8 years ago while watching an episode of X-play you presumably have more to go on than that to conclude that this was the first time the term had ever been used.
-
Can’t believe there has not been any Robocop vs. Terminator. That was just as big 90's as Align vs. Predictor and look how many movies they mad of that.
-
HC: Maybe where you're from. Where I'm from people call Glam "Cock Rock" or "Butt Rock" and they've been calling it that way before X-Play was around. First time I heard it was about 2000 or 2001. I don't call it either terms though because I don't believe in insulting other people's musical tastes. I do not like anything considered Glam aside from a few bands but..whatever.
As for your definition of Butt Rock would it just be any band with Cookie Monster vocals or does the music have to sound like trash too? There are some bands that sound real good if they get a new singer. Would that still be butt rock?
Butt Rock just refers to a talentless band that uses gimmicks to cover up the fact. So it's on a case by case basis. It can be either/or or both. Also if the band is good, it isn't butt rock even if they do use such gimmicks. Motorhead and Metallica come to mind.... they've both relied heavily on garbled vocals and extreme distortion on certain albums, but the fact that they can actually play and sing negates any negative labels.
Btw, cock rock is essentially the same thing, but it uses totally different gimmicks to cover up a crappy band. Gimmicks like having a really skeevy vocalist that wears tight spandex pants, over used smoek machines, teased hair, laser shows, gymnastics, ect...
I think there is a breakdown in communication on this one and we are all agreeing on the same thing. The problem is people think that Glam Rock is both a musical style and a style of dress. It isn't, it's a musical style. Twisted Sister wore spandex pants, had teasted hair and such, but it isn't glam rock. Practially EVERY band in the 80's had the glam rock look... but not the glam rock musical style. Many of these glam rock bands mentioned thus far, I would consider either really crappy soft rock, or really crappy metal.
Just for arguments sake:
I never said that was the first use of the word by any means, I said that was the first time the word had been "brought to mainstream" in other words used on a national broadcast. I am by no means saying it is the only definition, but rather it is the best one. Afterall, the term makes sense when I explain it, but when you guys do you are left thinking "where does the butt part come in?"
Not worth arguing about though... back to Robocop
fallacy:
Be thankful that there hasn't been. Those AvP films were TERRIBLE. They took those mega villains and reduced them to glorified slasher villians. Seriously go back and watch those and you'll realize that they play more like a syfy channel slasher flick than the two franchises that they are supposed to represent.
If I remember right there was a script going around several years ago, but at the time it just wasn't going to happen. They waited too many years and now Arnold and Weller are just too old to do it.
RvT never meshed with me story-wise anyway. Robocop's distopian future was just too divergant from Terminators for you to be able to shoe-horn them together via some conveniant plot devices. Also as cool as robo is he's fairly fragile and is slower than dirt. A terminator is virtually indestructable via conventional weapons and as agile as a person.... I can't really suspend my disbelief enough to think that robo could go 10 seconds with a terminator, much less a whole world of terminators.
-
I never said that was the first use of the word by any means, I said that was the first time the word had been "brought to mainstream" in other words used on a national broadcast. I am by no means saying it is the only definition, but rather it is the best one. Afterall, the term makes sense when I explain it, but when you guys do you are left thinking "where does the butt part come in?"
Lol . . . your definition doesn't make any kind of literal sense. Nobody would listen to anything you characterize as butt rock and actually think that it sounded like sound coming from a person's butt. That's absurd. Anyway, what's next. Are you going to say that Heavy Metal refers to the Blue Man Group because they actually make their music by banging heavy objects (often made of metal) together? You may say that Urban Dictionary is useless, but I say there are a half dozen definitions on there with hundreds of votes and not one of them comports with yours. It's no OED, but it's better evidence by far than what you're providing. Also, you have no way of knowing that the term had never been used in national broadcast prior to when you saw it on X-play. You're just making ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up. Otherwise, can you explain how you know this?
By the way, I've read court of appeals opinions in which the judge relied on urban dictionary as a source. There are, afterall, real words and terms (butt rock, for example) that can't be found in a traditional dictionary.
-
New addition for Urban Dictionary:
Butt Thread: Any message shmokes or Howard Casto reply to. :lol
-
Not worth arguing about though... back to Robocop
(HowardC suggests shmokes switches to decaf)
-
Not worth arguing about though... back to Robocop
(HowardC suggests shmokes switches to decaf)
Lol, yeah I saw that. "I'm right for this reason, this reason, and this reason. And with my last word in I now declare this argument to be not worth having, so no responses please."
-
Wrong as usual man. If you'll notice Bootay asked some questions about my definition, so I answered him.
It would be pointless to continue any argument with you because you are incapable of seeing reason whenever I am involved. You always think I am wrong, not because you have evidence to support such theory, but because it's me. I guarantee you that if it was anyone else you wouldn't have fought back so much, nor would you have insulted their character. You do realize you essentially called me a liar in a public forum don't you? But of course it's me, so I guess that somehow makes it alright. I was trying to take the high ground and just stop before another thread gets ruined. But of course your ego can't allow that can it. Besides, I am quite capable of ending the discussion at any time as are you for that matter, we are the only ones arguing over it. Feel free to shout at the heavens to yourself though.
-
Come now, Howard. We agree on things pretty regularly here. If you really want me to I can link to plenty of threads where we're two peas in a pod. And I have been arguing here with both reason and evidence. Obviously my definition is informed by my own experience of how I've heard the word used over the years. But I also linked to and provided quotes from Urban Dictionary. Which was, in your words, useless. And I used reason to deduce that you couldn't possibly know (at least based on the info you provided) what you claim to know about the word's first appearance on a national broadcast. You are telling me that I'm using a term incorrectly based on info that I think is faulty and incorrect--what response would you expect from me? What response would you give in that situation--you're pretty stubborn and outspoken yourself, ya know.
Have a little perspective. It was you that started this argument by telling me that I misused the term butt rock. I didn't come in here looking for a fight with you. And I honestly think that you're wrong and I've provided compelling reasons supporting as much.
-
So how much of Murphy physically did they keep for Robocop? I always wondered if his face was real or synthetic. I mean, he never has to shave, not even a 5:00 shadow. Also, how does he poop? He has got to have a fecal port on him, but where?
Sorry, Robocop pooping is by far much more interesting to me than arguing over the definition of buttrock. :dunno
-
So how much of Murphy physically did they keep for Robocop? I always wondered if his face was real or synthetic. I mean, he never has to shave, not even a 5:00 shadow. Also, how does he poop? He has got to have a fecal port on him, but where?
Sorry, Robocop pooping is by far much more interesting to me than arguing over the definition of buttrock. :dunno
Quit thread crapping. This thread is about how bad the Highlander sequels are. ;)
Don't get me started on the SciFi "movie" either.
-
Good Job. You just made Mario Van Peebles Cry.
-
So how much of Murphy physically did they keep for Robocop? I always wondered if his face was real or synthetic. I mean, he never has to shave, not even a 5:00 shadow. Also, how does he poop? He has got to have a fecal port on him, but where?
Sorry, Robocop pooping is by far much more interesting to me than arguing over the definition of buttrock. :dunno
See, thats the thing, they arent very consistent on that. In the original, they say that he needs to eat to "sustain his organic system", which I think is awesome. He has his brain, and his face, some of his spine, and some of his nervous system. They never mention anything about his face being synthetic. Then in the second movie, Frank Miller got a hold of Murph and changed a bunch of stuff. They didnt mention him eating at all, then he had Murphy tell his wife that they made his face to honor him so she would stop thinking about him and left it at that. Then the doctor said "you are just a couple of chunks, not even a corpse". But how much does one really need to be considered human? Some nerve endings? Just a portion of the brain? Thats why I always thought Robocop was so cool, there is some much room to expand on the character. Fecal port. :lol Then again, if his system is THAT effiecient, then he wouldnt need to poop right?
Im with you on that Vigo, this whole "buttrock" thing is borderline retarded. ::)
-
It never registered to me that that was an artistic change between the first and second movies. (I guess I was just too busy noticing that they changed his armor to some rainbow color changing paint scheme.) From the first film, I had the impression that most of Murphy's core was human. Computer interfaced with his brain, probably most of his organs were synthetic. I thought his face was real, and I think they even kept the bullet wound in his skull.
Then the second film I really had the impression that all was kept was just the same as the villian. Brain, eyes, spinal column. I never even thought about him not eating, but you are right. I guess it could be that robocop had no digestive system from the beginning and that the baby food stuff is about that can be synthetically digested.
-
Oh man, the change and tone were isanely different. They said the frank millers sequel couldnt be filmed, and the guy that directed it (Irv Kershner, did Empire Strikes Back) signed on to do the original script but the studio said hell no. I hated the plastic/blue look of the armor in the second one. The suit had a better design(the butt didnt wiggle when he walked when shot from the back) but his movements were way too mechanical, and he looked like a toy (all the plastic was too damn shiny)
They say in the first one that they want "total body prosthesis" so I guess that means he doesnt have any real parts, like arms or legs. Yeah, I was under the impression that it was his face, and yes, they kept the bullet hole. It was a plug. The effects/makeup/suit from the original were so awesome, and it was considered low budget too.
-
Good Job. You just made Mario Van Peebles Cry.
Pretty sure that was Gunny Highway who made him cry in Heartbreak Ridge.
And the second sequel was worse than the first sequel!
-
Oh man, the change and tone were isanely different. They said the frank millers sequel couldnt be filmed, and the guy that directed it (Irv Kershner, did Empire Strikes Back) signed on to do the original script but the studio said hell no. I hated the plastic/blue look of the armor in the second one. The suit had a better design(the butt didnt wiggle when he walked when shot from the back) but his movements were way too mechanical, and he looked like a toy (all the plastic was too damn shiny)
They say in the first one that they want "total body prosthesis" so I guess that means he doesnt have any real parts, like arms or legs. Yeah, I was under the impression that it was his face, and yes, they kept the bullet hole. It was a plug. The effects/makeup/suit from the original were so awesome, and it was considered low budget too.
Very interesting about the sequel! I hated the paint scheme as well, I wish they would have just kept or improved on the brushed steel look. I am guessing it probably looked much cooler off film or something, because I don't get why they would make the change to the plastic look.
It's been a couple years since I saw either Robocop movie. I think I will have to give them another watch side by side to compare the two.
-
Good Job. You just made Mario Van Peebles Cry.
Pretty sure that was Gunny Highway who made him cry in Heartbreak Ridge.
And the second sequel was worse than the first sequel!
:lol He might just be crying the his name is Mario Van Peebles. It's a little hard to hold a badass persona when people mix your name up with a children's breakfast cereal.
-
Yeah man, watch em again. The first one holds up perfectly. I actually prefer the stop motion of ED 209 vs the stupid CG they are gonna do in the remake. The second one, although extremely violent, isnt any good, and the third one is pointless, dont bother.
As a matter of fact I just got the original on blu ray this last weekend! ;D
-
Good Job. You just made Mario Van Peebles Cry.
I had to think about that one for a second. :laugh2:
-
I never saw 3 and I haven't watched 2 in a while but I remember liking it. The forst one i watch pretty regularly. It's a timeless classic.
-
I never saw 3 and I haven't watched 2 in a while but I remember liking it. The forst one i watch pretty regularly. It's a timeless classic.
:cheers: