Talk:RoboCop/Archive 1

Move Below The Menu
Would somebody please explain why the Robocop schematic picture was removed? I thought it added to the article, but it was suddenly taken out. If there aren't any answers in the next couple days, I'm going to insert it again. Viewer 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

More changes made, giving greater details to Robocop's origins. Is the entire plot of the movie going to be revealed? I don't have a problem with that, but I was just wondering how thorough people should be.

--2140, 31 Jan., 2005.

I made a few changes to the article. While it was never explictly stated what organic parts were used, I'm pretty sure it was more than his face and brain.

Also, the helmet didn't have any actual components built into it. The features were built directly into Robocop. The helmet was actually intended for protection of his face and the remainder of his head.


 * JesseG 03:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not quite true. I seem to recall an episode of the first Robocop live-action television series, and some guy was framing Robocop by using another, similar gun, and another helmet.  Both were prototypes for Murphy's equipment, if memory serves.


 * Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the helmet had moderate sensing capabilities; at the least some sort of infrared or something to let the guy see in the dark, or in extremely low light.


 * -- Last Thylacine 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

But the first live action series is considered non-canon as it disregards the second film.


 * -- Majestic-Moose 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

POV check
The "plot analysis" section is liberally scattered with uncited opinions like The Frankenstein parallel here is something the filmmakers could have made a big deal of, but it is handled surprisingly well. The tone is also informal and not particularly encyclopedic. Joyous 01:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The subject here is not Hamlet, it's RoboCop. C'mon! let's cut these folks a little slack about "uncited" opinions, Joy. A potential Frankenstein parallel in RoboCop is so mainstream, to note it at all is almost cliché. Why not just substitute your preferred version of the Frankenstein parallel? Any simple mention of the parallel will do. One's own POV is always NPOV, I've noticed. --Wetman 01:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * When I worked on the article for Robocop 2, I noted the Frankenstein parallel, but also the general theme of a non-human becoming human, which can even be found in Pinnochio, among other places. One of the recent examples I missed was the character of the Doctor in Star Trek Voyager. --SteveHFish 20:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will say this, the Plot Analysis section is a decently written essay regarding RoboCop. However, perhaps it should be hosted in a different place and linked to this article, as it does basically rehash the synopsis. It seems like a glorified book report. For the time being, we should remove this section. --Txredcoat 17:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up Needed
I'm adding a Clean Up notice, as I think the article would be a lot better if it focused on the original film instead of trying to sum up the character as well as all three films. Furthermore, the bulk of the article makes a lot of awkward tense changes (past to present and back again). --Feitclub 23:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it currently says "a cartoon series", and then goes on to say four TV series. Two of the four are cartoon series and one is a miniseries. What's a better way of putting that? Should the indication of cartoon just be removed? Hackwrench 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof of anime "inspirations"?
I'm suspicious of this entry in the trivia section:

The premise of RoboCop was inspired by the classic 1963 manga/anime series, 8 Man, and the RoboCop design was based on the title superhero of the Japanese tokusatsu series, Uchuu Keiji Gavan (Space Sheriff Gavan), the first of Toei's Metal Hero Series.

Sounds like fan speculation. I've checked on them, and unless someone can find actual documentation from the writers/designers for this, it should just be chalked up to coincidence and removed from the article. --Marcg106 04:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've watched the DVD commentary of the movie and this stuff isn't mentioned at all. Searching the internet comes up with fan sites for these show making claims of this link but with no substantive proof, other than the cooincidental plots.


 * As such, I deleted this version of the comment only for it to show up again. This time it claims that Verhoven(sp?) talked to some magazine about it being the inspiration for the Robocop story. That's clearly bogus; he didn't even write the story; he just directed it. Unless, someone comes up with some hard evidence here. I'm removing this entry. --Mitaphane talk 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also noted on imdb, although that's no primary source. I'm not sure why a director (as opposed to a writer) couldn't talk about the inspiration. He'd surely be aware of it. —Pengo talk · contribs 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you watch the DVD commentary to this movie (which I hope to add citations to in the near future), Verhoeven does talk about his inspirations. However, they're not related to the plot (i.e. rookie cop killed by drug peddling thugs gets rebuilt into a cyborg) at all; they are related to portrayal of the future detroit, the characters, and Robocop's cinematography. As far as I can tell, the only link between Metal Heros and Robocop is both have a "killed rookie officer turned into cyborg". That is a plot created by the writters of the story, not Verhoeven.


 * Yeah, IMDB isn't going to help us here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the trivia come from IMDB users' submissions? Mitaphane talk 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, IMDB is basically user-generated, although, unlike Wiki, they have editors who review user submissions before they appear on the website.


 * Atlant 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * &lt;Since I am not good at English, right translation or a right opinion may not be expressed. However, I do my best. Please you be tolerant if you please:-)&gt;
 * This story is very famous in Japan, and is indicated by Wikipedia of Japanese too. The feature of a story is this that it is supposed that it is the most leading;
 * A source is the old movie mag put on the market in Japan.
 * When Paul Verhoeven visited Japan with Starship Troopers, he received coverage of Japanese movie mag.
 * The journalist asked about the relation of huge insect and animation of Japan as one of many questions.
 * Paul Verhoeven answers they have no relation.
 * Instead Paul Verhoeven revealed that RoboCop was heavily inspired by the success of Japanese live-action Metal Hero TV shows Uchuu Keiji Gavan (宇宙刑事ギャバン) and 8 Man (エイトマン) Kikaida (TV series) (人造人間キカイダー). (correction of mistake--125.30.37.3 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Since I am only a reader and a translator, it is regrettable that this story cannot fully be guaranteed again:-( However, it is the feature that sauce is a magazine at a happy thing unlike the false rumor of the Internet. I think that it will ask for offer of information by Wikipedia of Japan so that I or other editors can show sauce and more concrete information. --125.30.37.3 04:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is good. At least we know that this is not just fan speculation. It should be in the article if it's true, but I've never heard it from an authoritative source.  Do you know the name of the magazine? The date it was published? Name of the interviewer? Does the Wikipedia JP have any source information? Any of these things would help much with the validity of the article. I would appreciate any information you can give.  Mitaphane talk 19:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice this older conversation and figured I'd toss in my two cents in the event it is pursued. I have no idea if the inspiration itself is true or not, but Space Sheriff Gavan wasn't about a resurrected police officer.  Basically the gist of the story is that he is an intergalactic lawman who arrives on Earth to protect it from danger.  I would think that any inspiration, if there actually is any, is purely in costume design.  There's little to no resemblance in character, story or personality.  As for the aesthetic inspiration, I certainly could see it but I could also see it as coincidence.  Theredcomet2000 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that even if RoboCop's design was inspired by Uchuu Keiji Gavan, that show is NOT anime. It's a live-action program. Further, to address the question of Starship Troopers, that film is based on a novel by Robert A. Heinlein from 1959. It's possible though unlikely that Heinlein was at all influenced by Japanese TV shows. Gigantic animals of every type were quite common in science fiction films by that point.

In the making-of on the MGM dvd among the influences cited Paul mentions the robot Maria from Metropolis, check the pictures here on wikipedia the design asthetic are clear. LamontCranston 13:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Robocop's gripping strengh?
From the current entry: "His hands were capable of exerting 420 foot pounds (570 N·m) of energy, which would be enough to crush every bone in a human hand." Aside from the fact I think this goes far beyond the level of detail that is necessary for a Wikipedia entry, it seems to be incorrect. In the film, it is said that Robocop can only exert 400 foot pounds of energy with his hands. However, 420 might be a more precise number. Also, a foot pound isn't energy. The units aren't correct then. MMX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_(energy) 108.18.246.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Fair use
There are 4 images in the article, 3 of them "fair use". I propose we delete at least 2 of the "fair use" pics, they don't provide much value here, and just make the Wikipedia less free. Taw 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidates being placed/Some poor schmuck volunteering
I understood that Murphy's move to the precinct (and other staff changes made by OCP) were deliberate changes by Bob Morton to get his 'project' going. E.g. "We've restructured the police department and placed prime candidates according to risk factor". This particularly cynical and unpleasant idea seems worth mentioning in the article.

I agree, although never explicitly stated, it did seem as though Murphy was transfered to be placed in danger in order to be killed and used as the subject of the experiment. This is very subtle however and subjective, it could possibly been a "coincidence". I didn't notice this myself until after viewing the film many times. Davidac18643 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Robocop!
Robocop, who is he?


 * Guess! --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A Deeply Moving Film
robocop is a great movie that is chock full of touching moments and has undertones of inhuman romance. Not really, it's just a great movie.


 * no one asked your opinion and this is not a forum on the movie. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot section is too long
Reading through the Plot section I found that it is far too long. It would almost be quicker to just watch the movie than read this synopsis! I think a lot of irrelevant details can be excised. Overall, we need to consider what a reader coming to this article would actually want to know about the movie.

Also, it is WP policy to write Plot summaries in 'permenant literary present tense'. Ashmoo 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Anyone wanna take this up.  Maybe some kindly fan that knows the basic movie by heart and can slash and burn this plot summary?  --Newt ΨΦ 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thirded!! I'm going to upload a new synopsis in a moment. Hopefully it won't be reverted. Mine is about as long but more concise and less dramatic. Tommyt 16:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Robocop Remake
Does anyone know anything about the Robocop remake/sequel? There's some news on Robocoparchive.com but none on Wikipedia. Someone should post something about it.
 * It seems it's not even a remake Alastairward (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus theme
If I'm not mistaken Paul Verhoeven in the commentary track, stated that there is a Christ metaphor in the movie (i.e. RoboCop is a resurrected savior), and even went so far as to say that a scene near the end where RoboCop is walking through water is made to be seen as RoboCop walking on water. Anyone else know of this? I figure if it's the director's theme it should be included. --Newt ΨΦ 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's his theme, yes. I think it oughtta be mentioned in the Themes section, as he states explicitly that he wanted to show a "modern Jesus."  Near the end, during the battle between Murphy and Bodiker, Bodiker stands in the water up to his shins or so, whilst Murphy's feet barely sink in.  That was an intetional walking-on-water shot.


 * Jesus in an era of (rather enhanced) Reaganomics, those were amongs the, if not the, main themes that Verhoeven was going for.


 * All of this I'm saying based on the commentary track I'm listening to as I type this. :)


 * -- Last Thylacine 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus carried a Cobra assault cannon. :|

-G

Miranda Rights
There seems to be a problem with the continuity of Robocop's use of Miranda rights in the plot section it says his programing disregards them but then it also says he reads Boddicker his Miranda rights while throwing him through window. I suggest removing the the line "(his programming seems to disregard Miranda rights)"


 * I concur. Robocop follows the miranda mandates. Moreover, since i interacts mostly with people who are in the midst of breaking the law, usually while the perps are armed, miranda doesnt really apply. This isnt law and order he isnt serving search warents or stoping jay walkers.


 * I was going to make the same comment. Reading miranda rights falls broadly under "uphold the law" anyways, and it's not within the general Wiki guidelines.  I'll call that three strikes with no one defending it, so I'm going to remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't personaly see a problem with Robocop not reading the miranda rights. It is a little known fact that in real police work. A cop dosn't have to read you your rights if they witnessed the crime, or if there is a warrent out for your arrest. Since it appears to me that Robocop witnessed at least one crime of each individual that he either arrested or killed would negate the obligatory miranda rights. The only time you'r read your rights is if your are arrested on suspision of a crime or for an unrelated offence and theres no warrent. Exmpl: your pulled over for changing lanes without signaling, and your cought with drugs in your lap. You'd then be read your miranda rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.79.53 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Character Robocop
Why doesn't the character Robocop have it's own page? Same goes for the Robocop 2 character. ED-209 has one.
 * Please sign your comments. First off, the ED-209 article is very poorly written, and could probably be merged with this article.  Secondly, this article is a bit confused, as it's supposed to be about the film, and stays pretty much on task, but then switches to a "Capabilities" section on RoboCop's fictional capabilities and accessories.  A separate article could possibly be made, but it would need to focus on the actors that have played RoboCop, possible differences (cited) between RoboCop's depictions in film, a little more about RoboCop's depictions in other media such as video games and comic books, and more about the costume.  Really, I don't think it needs to be made just yet,  but those are some ideas of what would be contained in the article.  Remember, these are not "pages" but rather "articles" and thus should be encyclopedic.  --Newt ΨΦ 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of Trivia & Cult Ref
After talking with Newt ΨΦ, we've come to the conclusion that the both the Trivia & Cultural References sections should be eliminated and replaced with sections like "Cultural Influences", "Production", & "Themes". We are using the Blade Runner article as template of what Robocop should look like; Blade Runner is a sci-fi movie and it is a featured article.

While some of the information in the cult ref & trivia lists is relevant information about Robocop's production, themes, and its influences on pop cultural, most of it is pretty inconsqeuntial information(mc chris mentioning Robocop in a song does not tell a reader why RoboCop is an important movie); Both sections have become flypaper for any random bit of semi-related RoboCop info. With the removal of these sections, hopefully we will get Robocop closer to Good Article status. --Mitaphane talk 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed some stuff from the Themes section. Here it is:


 * Illegal drugs, cocaine in particular, also take center stage; Clarence and his gang are cocaine entrepreneurs seeking to expand their empire, and Bob Morton cavorts with two prostitutes while snorting a large amount of the stimulant.


 * The movie is also a condemnation of Reagan's America, such as "free trade" movements and privatization of social services that allows a corporation like OCP to take over the police force. Also criticized is Reagan's Star Wars program, which causes the deaths of two ex-presidents in a firing malfunction.  The media is also mocked for its perkiness and support of the corporate party line.

The first is a plot element, not a theme. The second is perhaps not felicitously stated; while the movie can certainly be seen as a satire of where Reagan's America might lead, uh, Reagan did not actually privatize the police force. Not to mention that "free trade" never even comes into the movie.

Actually, for that matter, why isn't the word "satire" in this article somewhere? The movie is pretty over-the-top, and I mean that in a good way. The media stuff mentioned above as well as the corporate ladder type things are handled that way, I'd think. SnowFire 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I don't like editing entries myself, but somebody might want to work on this: "Nancy Allen as Officer Ann Lewis. Cast as Murphy's and later RoboCop's partner, Allen was instructed to cut her hair in order to remove any kind of sexual tension between her and RoboCop.[citation needed]" The Criterion DVD commentary somewhat contradicts this. It's mentioned that in Officer Lewis' introductory scene (whupping on the prisoner attempting to escape), they'd intended for her long hair to cascade out from under her helmet when she took it off, then realized that, for the rest of the movie, they'd have to deal with it, and it would be obviously impractical for a cop. Gooshy 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the commentary for the trilogy (mine doesn't say "Criterion" anywhere on it that I can see; here is what I have), Edward Neumeier--one of the writers--admitted that in the orignal script, he'd written that long hair cascaded down when she took off her helmet for that introductory scene. It was mentioned that that was too cliché, to which he agreed, so it was cut for that reason.


 * -- Last Thylacine 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that would be _two_ sources that debunk the 'sexual tension' idea, then. Gooshy 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was Verhoeven who decided that Lewis character should have short hair to remove sexual tensions. It is logical since eliminating sexual segregation has been a recurrent topic in Verhoeven futuristic film's RoboCop and Starship Troopers.80.26.84.138 22:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I understand why the police changing room had men and women. --Error 01:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, if them nekkid boobies weren't creating any sexual tension, long hair ain't going to do it. (Not without a whopper of a backstory, anyway.) Gooshy 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Production details
The trivia section has been completely reworked under the new "Production details" header. Cultural references is up for grabs by someone else. --Steerpike 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done some editing on Cultural References myself now, but I still think it could use some trimming (or references). Additionally, the cast has been moved to the casting section of the "Production Details". I've simply kept the actors' names and their respective roles. Details concering their characters are provided in the plot section. The soundtrack section that was originally part of "Sequels and Spin-offs" has also been moved to "Production Details". Themes has been moved below "Production Details", although this section still needs extensive referencing. Screenshots were resized to 250 pixels in width. --Steerpike 13:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References deleted
I allowed this section to stick last time around but now I think it's better to do away with it completely. As previously said, it's no more than a veiled "trivia" magnet. It's nearly impossible to stop this from growing out of control. If RoboCop has had a notable impact one or more aspects of popular culture, or the development of certain media as a whole, than it is worth mentioning, but simply citing references and quotes across television shows and video games is non-notable in my opinion. --Steerpike 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, seeing numerous examples of appearences in popular culture reveals how well known and how much of an impact something is. I also find the information useful because seeing references to something I like sometimes motivates me to look up those other things. I'm sure I am not alone. --Stilanas 12:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok but what do you make of stuff like this:
 * In another Simpsons episode, "Kill the Alligator and Run", a cyborg very obviously based on RoboCop called "The Cyborganizer" appears on a TV show being watched by Homer.
 * An episode of Saved By The Bell Screech wears a RoboCop-type costume and calls himself "RoboScreech".
 * A the Red Dwarf Series III episode of "Polymorph" the main character, Lister, is changed into a superhuman to ward off a shape shifting alien. This transformation turns him into a "Half Human/Half Robocop" like hero.
 * In Malibu's Most Wanted, when B-rad's friends gather their weapons at one of their houses, Kal Penn's character, Hadji, calls Monster "What are you supposed to be, Robo-Bitch?"
 * The Game Deus Ex features the "Delta-2 Peacebringer" robot that is very similar to the design of ED-209.
 * The expansion to the popular MMORPG World of Warcraft has robotic enemies called Arcane Patrollers in the Blood Elf starting area. When attacking, they often say one of Robocop's Prime Directives.

I could just delete the really trivial stuff but like I said, trivia sections (which is what this has become) are like flypaper. This will soon grow back out of proportion, and it bothers me that few people revert that stuff. It just sticks around until it takes almost half of the space of the article. --Steerpike 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is suffice to say that Robocop had a significant impact on popular culture and has created many people to parody it. Add a few good examples and that is all that needs to be said about this topic within RoboCop. This article is about the movie, not every single reference made to it. Moreover, this topic, without any references, borders on WP:OR; without any references(which "...in popular culture" sections always lack) that say explicitly this is a reference to RoboCop, it is essentially a list of things that editors themselves have deemed a reference to RoboCop because the similarity of names, characters, or whatever. — Mitaphane  ? 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I Wouldn't Buy That For A Dollar
The "I'd Buy That For A Dollar" jpg for messed up somehow and I have no clue how to fix it.

Lots42 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it didn't have a fair use rationale. I'm going to remove the link from the article.. --Kjoonlee 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added reference in other media
There was an episode of Beavis & Butthead, where they watch a show that spoofed our metal hero. I added the reference. meh. 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Santa Monica Presidents
In one of the Media Breaks, we hear that the "Peace Platform" (part of SDI) has misfired its lasers against Santa Monica, California, causing fires that kill 150(?) people including two former US Presidents. Our article on Santa Monica does not mention any president living there. Is this a reference to somebody in particular? --Error 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Seemed a pretty obvious little jab at Reagan and Nixon to me. A movie like this isn't going to make any _direct_ references, but what do you get when you combine "southern California", "SDI" and "US President"? Reagan. Since they said two died, the second one would have to be Nixon (of San Clemente). Or as far into the future as the setting is, it could easily be two former presidents we've never heard of. Contextually, I always felt the allusion was meant to be towards Reagan and Nixon. Verhoeven would say, I think, it means whatever you think it means.

Gooshy 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But what you have to remember is that the film is set in an undisclosed time (the near future) so it could be a president that has yet to be elected by our time...

Maybe I'm a bit of a conspiricy theroist by from the very first time I saw the movie. I think I was 10, I've always thought that the fire was a coverup for some faction that exicuted the two former presidents. At least thats what I think it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.79.53 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Filming Locations
In the main article, it states that Detroit was used as a filming location, yet the literature with the DVD box set and the special feature documentarys both state otherwise - that though it was set in the city, Detroit never actually appeared in any of the Robocop movies. Should this be changed, or does anyone know better?--decorativeedison 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD release?
I just thought it worth mentioning that while the "20th Anniversary Collector's Edition" was released in the US on the 21st, it was released in Australia on the first (as "The Definitive Edition"), and I think in the UK before the US as well. Perhaps this is worth mentioning on the page, if anyone knows the release date of the UK DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.138.188 (talk) 11:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the Choice of the name Murphy
I've read somewhere that the use of the name "Murphy" for the identity of the man who becomes Robocop in the course of the movie was not a random decision but an intentional one. My source states that Murphys was chose in line with the concept of aptronym or nomen est omen. Namely it is supposed to be an allusion to the famous idea of Murphy's Law which states that everything that can go wrong will go wrong - which is pretty much the destiny that the character of Alex Murphys does experience in Verhoevens movie (being transferred to the most crime-ridden district of Detroit, then being confronted with the most dangerous criminals of the city during his first day on the job and finally taking a risk [entering the steel works without reinforcements] and paying dearly for it). Is there any expert on Robocop who can confirm that - or who at least thinks that this is plausible - or do you reckon the idea is to far-fetched? Thank you very much indeed for your efforts, --Zsasz 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Murphy's law as an inspiration for that name, I took it as a stereotypcial police officer's name.--RLent (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Murphy is an irish name and most of the Irishmen are Roman Catholics. In the Robocop 2 article there are clear mentions that Murphy's religious values not allows him to suicide like other (failed and religious views not stated) candidates to be the next Robocop (Robocop II). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officer Boscorelli (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Genre is not cyberpunk;
I changed the opening paragraph. It is science-fiction. I don't see it described as cyberpunk by its creators or the press - at least nowhere near as much as science-fiction. The principle technology in the film is a cyborg, not hackers or low-lifes with strange technology. In fact apart from Robocop, much of the rest of the film is not futuristic. Sorry not a wikipedia member yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.130.239 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is futuristic. In a robocop movie, I have seen the character walk through his old house and they had a futuristic guide. If anything, the reason that the movie does not seem futuristic is because it is a very realistic approach to the future. It is not going to suddenly change or anything. The film has many cyberpunk elements; it focus' on high technology and low-life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.66 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. Please demonstrate that the movie is widely considered cyberpunk. There is no computer hacking or virtual reality. The only "cyber-" is a cyborg. The only "punks" are street punks who couldn't send an e-mail. --12.168.68.84 (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've considered removing it myself. The "futuristic guide" is simply a hologram that says pre-programmed things. It's not like it is actually conversing. Besides, that's a very minor element to the film. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mercy
I'd like to delete the parenthetical in the following:


 * He eventually arrests Boddicker in a cocaine bust, and is on the verge of killing him, when Boddicker admits that he works for Dick Jones of OCP and manages to appeal to Robocop, telling him he's a cop (thus appealing to him to show mercy).

As Robocop is choking Boddicker, he says "You're a cop!" and the screen shows "Directive 3: Uphold the law" immediately prior to his confirming, "Yes, I am a cop," and letting go. Hence, it would seem that the decision not to kill was due to Directive 3, and not due to any mercy in the traditional sense of the word. I'll delete the statement, but it's preserved here in case people vote to reintroduce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change. It makes sense, as it accords with what is actually shown in the film (rather than being based on a viewers judgement). Prof. Philips (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this?
http://filmonic.com/robocop-poster-revealed http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234721/

Should it be added?--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold blood?
"ED-209 kills an OCP executive in cold blood" - shouldn't that be "cold oil" instead?

Seriously, the phrase as given falsely implies a level of self-awareness on the part of ED-209 which is in no way justified by the content of the movie. The killing was a glitch, not a choice - and no other reason is implied.

Don't accuse ED-209 of murder! It was manslaughter at worst. :D PMaranci (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mechanical glitch for sure! --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And a relatively minor one at that. Dick Jones wouldn't lie. 124.148.55.129 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Video montage
This site: [] has a montage with this excellent american movie.Agre22 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

Robocop in wrestling
I found it odd that this article makes no reference to when RoboCop randomly appeared in pro wrestling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNybksDGjcE - I think this is a relevant enough thing to be in the article, since it's the actual costume from the movie and everything. 24.185.87.88 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move
I've moved the page back to it's original article name. The previous move was in my eyes disputed already, it was never even discussed. The reason apparently is the possible new movie coming out in a few years. But no article exists, no disambiguity page has been and the article RoboCop became a simple redirect, for which was no reason. If a new movie ever comes out, we can rethink that situation, but even then I think this article should stay under the current name (most used) and a new disambiguity page could be created for all other RoboCop articles including the new film.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Academy Award?
The main paragraph says "The film won the 1987 Academy Award for Best Picture and was nominated for and won numerous other awards and honors, mainly for direction, writing, and acting."

The heck? 86.27.82.79 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot: 4th Directive?
I recently changed the wording about Jones' protection under the 4th directive near the end of the movie. I'm still not sure it is correct. It has been a while since I've seen the movie, but, the way I remember it, It was RoboCop, not Jones, who explained he (RoboCop) could not act against an officer of OCP. Which is correct? SlowJog (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Year of RoboCop ?
I like to know in which year the plot of RoboCop takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Surrogates to 2017, Demolition Man is in 2032, I Robot in 2035 and Total Recall is set to 2084. --Solphusion (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the authors and screen writers of those movies specified years, there is no compulsion for others to do so. I guess we will have to be satisfied with "the near future." SlowJog (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Robocop supposedly takes place in 1993, if I remeber correctly (posted by Tim Correll 10:47, 18 July 2011).

split apart
This article is unwieldy, the non-film information takes up about alot of room. I thin that the non-film stuff should be split off into a franchise article RoboCop (franchise), like many other articles have (like Star Wars, Star Trek, etc)

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a RoboCop (franchise) page and moved a lot of the information not directly related to the film from this page. It seemed crazy that a film with two sequels, four tv series, and various comic books and video games did not have such a page.  Please help to improve it. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists' view of the film
...has been inserted twice and now removed twice. I struggle to see the relevance and there's more than a whiff of POV but if I have missed something, please discuss and establish an alternative consensus to that which currently exists (2:1) before re-insertion. --89.211.77.83 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, please discuss first as you are removing sourced material. --Ckatz chat spy  07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the information, at all. I am - and as is another - disputing its relevance for inclusion. That does indicate a very narrow consensus for exclusion. What else is there to discuss? (and I am not being flippant - I am happy to do whatever it takes (within reason!) to improve this article.) --Weirdingmodule (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got anything to add before the para is removed in line with the established (and narrowest!) consensus? --Weirdingmodule (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the paragraph is largely irrelevant on this article. It doesn't add to the discussion, and just because one person liked it, and another didn't, and that they are both feminists doesn't actually mean that "feminists have disagreed".  Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think that makes 3:1 against retention for the time being. Another day or so to see if there are any more viewpoints to consider. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the section was removed again before, perhaps, discussion (!) had been concluded here. Nonetheless, a clear consensus (4:1) has established the irrelevance of what feminists think of the film in this arena and so out it comes as uninteresting and, frankly, a bit silly. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Make it 5:1 for future reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The material was properly sourced, and I have restored it, this time to the "reception" section rather than the "themes" section. Sourced opinions about RoboCop are obviously relevant to an article about RoboCop; that Weirdingmodule (now indef blocked as a sockpuppet, incidentally) doesn't find the material "interesting" and even considers it "silly" is totally irrelevant. Not personally liking sourced material is never a good reason for removing it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, given that Verhoeven has stated that the film is meant to be a religious parable on Christ's resurrection, how relevant is one complaint that female characters are incidental—especially since one of the main "good guys" (Murphy's partner) is female (meaning there's one more than the 'source' it's based on)? It does seem a little shoe-horned in, more so in light of how fleetingly the source actually mentions RoboCop specifically (from what I can find online, the film and its first sequel are specified merely in one aside). It's probably better used on Action movies or 1980s in film, rather than any specific film from an unexpanded-upon list. GRAPPLE   X  18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Capitalist?
Someone should address the anti-capitalist nature of the film. This film was a brilliant social critique. I heard that on a DVD commentary that the writer of Robocop was intentionally writing the film to be anti-capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.216.176 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Paroling v. Bailing Out
I changed the phrase from Jones paroling Boddiker to Jones bailing him out. Boddiker wasn't in prision and, therefore, did not need to be parole. So you have to assume that he posted bail for him.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.154.200 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2006‎ (UTC)

X-Rating Claim Deleted
The statement made in the paragraph concerning the film's MPAA rating controversy to the effect that "At the time, the X rating had not yet been associated with pornography" (my paraphrase) is simply not true for a film released in the late 1980's.

Although that would have been a valid point for certain early 70's movies like Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange and Walking Tall which earned X ratings for non-pornographic sexual content and/or graphic violence, by at least the mid-70's, an X-rating undeniably connoted hardcore pornography to the public at large. Certainly by 1987, the year of Robocop's distribution, few audiences would have failed to make the connection.

For that reason, I've deleted the reference. 68.174.183.104 17:40, 17 November 2007‎ (UTC)

Dick Jones is NOT Senior Vice President
Dick Jones is the Senior President of OCP. It is referred to in many instances in the film. I'm going to change the inaccurate information. SChaos1701 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008‎ (UTC)

Category move
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Themes section needs to be expanded
The theme section does not spend much time discussing the political satire aspects of the story. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick Jones
Dick Jones is NOT the Senior VP of OCP. He is the Senior President. He is referred to this in the film several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.158.84 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, the senior president is The Old Man, not Dick. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dick Jones is the Senior President. "The Old Man" is either the CEO or the Chairman. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest that Officer Boscorelli rewatch the movie, but seeing as he's banned, I don't think that's necessary. Thanks for the backup there Harizotoh9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

RoboCop (1987 film)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 03:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Robocop → RoboCop (1987 film) and RoboCop (disambiguation) – See Robocop (2014), RoboCop (character), RoboCop (comics), Robocop (franchise), etc. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment are you going to provide a reason? And what would occupy "RoboCop" if this moves? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if this does not move, then RoboCop (1987) should redirect here. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NCF says it would be RoboCop (1987 film) not "(1987)" just as the 2014 article is located at RoboCop (2014 film). -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - firstly because the 1987 film is primary topic, secondly as 70.50 notes, WP:NCF says it would be RoboCop (1987 film) not "(1987)" just as the 2014 article is located at RoboCop (2014 film). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move to RoboCop (1987 film), per WP:NCF.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per precedent at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this film is a seminal work of science fiction, as evidenced by these sources:
 * "Rust-belt Messiah: RoboCop (1987)" in Projecting tomorrow : science fiction and popular cinema
 * Tech-noir film : a theory of the development of popular genres
 * Cinema futura
 * Action speaks louder : violence, spectacle, and the American action movie
 * Alternate Americas : science fiction film and American culture
 * Pretend we're dead : capitalist monsters in American pop culture
 * Early modern tragedy and the cinema of violence
 * "The science fiction film as uncanny text: RoboCop" in Science fiction film
 * Science fiction filmmaking in the 1980s : interviews with actors, directors, producers, and writers
 * Hard bodies : Hollywood masculinity in the Reagan era
 * There are plenty of results in Google Books that focus on this film. In terms of determining a primary topic, the other articles are mere extensions of this film, which transcends the rest in having "long-term significance... it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the primary topic by far, everything originates from this film. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dishonoreds FA nom! 23:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As the franchise originated from this particular film, this article about it is the primary topic so the move is not necessary here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The primary topic in this case is either the initial film or the franchise as a whole, and the original work should generally get the spot until it is clearly shown to be superseded, as when the original is not particularly notable but later installments make the series notable. This is the opposite case, where the original remains by far the most important installment in the franchise, more important than all others combined. bd2412  T 02:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least until the new film is out and we have an idea if it surpasses or equivalent to the original. (It doesn't sound like it is, but one never knows). Come 2-4 months from now and this 2014 film has clearly become the new version of Robocop, then we can talk disambig, but not now. --M ASEM (t) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Year movie takes place:
Recent change(s) placed the movie as taking place in 2014. There is nothing in the movie itself to indicate that this is the year the movie takes place in. The book suggests it taking place in the 2040s oor 2050s and the TV series suggests sometime in the 1990s but as for the movie itself? Nothing in it tells us the year. Edited the opening to the plot summary to remove the reference to the movie taking place in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.48.3.149 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Our RoboCop Remake
There's a (partially NSFW) scene-for-scene (crowd-sourced) fan remake called "Our RoboCop Remake". --82.136.210.153 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fault in the chapter filming
In the chapter "filming", the following can be read:

"walks outside to electrocute himself to wipe all directives"

But did not this occur in Robocop 2, and not in Robocop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.65.227.85 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

In the "Filming" section of the article, the sentence "One scene, as RoboCop walks outside to electrocute himself to wipe all directives, shows the One Shell Plaza in downtown Houston in the background (a white building with a tall mast on top.)" refers to a scene in the film's sequel, Robocop 2, not the film itself, and should be removed. Boingo the Clown (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not ambiguous.
If the primary topic of this term is not the 1987 film, then it is the franchise as a whole (see Star Wars, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). bd2412 T 19:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

rookie cop?!
i dont think muprhy was a rookie cop, he was someone who got transferred in from another department 82.16.132.135 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

RoboCop was a superhero
What it appeared to be it was a superhero between cyberpunk and action, reason why it is a superhero because due to RoboCop's actions in stopping crime, by upholding the law in criminal charge. That's why it is a superhero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpunk? How on earth is Robocop cyberpunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.96.67 (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on RoboCop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080521033853/http://www.explorepahistory.com:80/hmarker.php?markerId=788 to http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=788
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130718170224/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBkjTxD1a0 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBkjTxD1a0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur commercial
As we all know, there is a scene of a dinosaur in the 6000 SUX commercial. Should we add the category:Dinosaur films or is it not noteworthy enough?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, categories should only be added if they are defining characteristics. The general rule is that unless reliable sources routinely call it a "film about dinosaurs" or "dinosaur film", it shouldn't be categorized as such.  This keeps the categories easily navigated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, while the film features a dinosaur, it's only within a fictional commercial within the film's storyline and setting. In reality any of the two categories require a more extensive appearances of dinosaurs and which have an impact on the narrative of a film's plot, thus it cannot be categorized in any way for the two categories mentioned, or any other involving dinosaurs. GUtt01 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Capitalizing the "c" in Robocop is idiotic. I am looking at the DVDs of ALL seven movies right now. The only time "cop" is capitalized is when all the letters are. Otherwise, they spell it "Robocop." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Asb7uf's changes
, talk your heart out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that I did start a discussion here for now 9 days ago, and the user has continued to not engage or explain changes in edit summaries either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Paula Lucchesi
The reference Sammon, Paul M. "Shooting Robocop" is not to come by, but the name Luchessi cited in the article is surely spelled wrong, as the special effects model builder Paula's last name is Lucchesi [] and not Luchessi (which cannot exist according to the conventions of building Italian family names). The few hits with Luchessi are solely WP and copiers. 2003:F5:6F03:400:F407:C89:7385:AF1C (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Marco PB

Use Non-Free Cast Portraits
it's been a while since i've seen RoboCop. when i looked at the cast section i literally did not recognize any of the male characters. there's been 30 years of aging between when the movie was filmed and when the pictures were taken. this goes for Dan O'Herlihy as well. i had no problem at all recognizing Nancy Allen's photo from 1984. also it seems a bit odd that Nancy Allen's picture is left out of the "Cast" section, since she was a starring cast member. 157.131.250.246 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't use non-free pictures of people in non-bio articles purely for the purposes of viewer identification. It won't pass FA that way. The best solution is to travel back in time and take pictures of them in their prime and release them onto the internet for free. Or wait 70 years after they die at which point, assuming copyright hasn't somehow been further extended retroactively, we can use all the nice behind-the-scenes photos. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Dick Jones
Dick Jones is NOT the Senior VP of OCP. He is the Senior President. He is referred to this in the film several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.242.68 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When? Because even the IMDB quotes doesn't mention him as Senior President. Even the villains wikia lists him as VP and the fan wikias are the nerdiest sources you can find. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just one instance. Watch at the 1:30 mark. youtu.be/BmJQpjwWVgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.242.68 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote from Clarence Boddicker while he's being arrested further proving my point. "Goddamn it. Goddamn it! Listen to me! He's OCP. He's the SENIOR PRESIDENT. Listen to me, you fuck! There's another guy.......It's Dick Jones!.....I work for Dick Jones! He's the number two guy at OCP. OCP runs the cops!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.242.68 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Joel Kinnaman
Joel Kinnaman does not appear in this film. It is a very strange choice to include an image of him here. Just because you can doesn't mean you should: the availability of a good quality freely licensed image is not a good reason to include it in this article. The 2014 Robocop film gets only the briefest mention in this article, it is not even a significant part of the Sequels section. Including an image of Joel Kinnaman is WP:UNDUE emphasis (an image of Richard Eden who played Robocop far more than Kinnaman would still be incongruous, but at least he played Robocop more than once). I have removed the image to avoid putting emphasis on something that is not about this film. -- 109.79.72.156 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not undue, we have the image and he's mentioned in the section which is not primarily about this film but what came after and he's a) the only actor with an image and b) the only other actor to play RoboCop in a separate reboot franchise. The point of images is illustration and to avoid long stretches of just text also. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if a picture is not worth a thousand words it is still a whole lot of emphasis for barely any relevance to this article. Kinneman gets only perfunctory mention in that subsection. Peter Weller, Robert Burke, Richard Eden, Page Fletcher, and Joel Kinnaman have all played Robocop but only Weller is relevant to this this film and this article. I like Kinneman but there is nothing special about his work as Robobcop/Murphy, and the failed attempt to reboot the franchise makes his one film appearance less relevant not more so. It is not like he made multiple appearances as Robocop, or was highly praised for his performance, or that the reboot had any great impact at all, he really is not any more relevant than Richard Eden. I understand the temptation to include a readily available good quality freely licensed image but the relevance here is extremely low and "he's the only actor we have images for" is not a good reason to include the image. This is an encyclopedia, long stretches of text will happen, and a low relevance image should not be added just for the sake of having an image. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe my point would be clearer if I presented it in a different context, and if we were talking about adding an image rather than removing one that has already been included. Would you really recommend including a picture of actor Robert Pattison in the Batman (1989 film) article? That's what this feels like. -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because the next major actor with a picture would be Christian Bale, and yes I'd include that picture as the next person to play Batman on film in a major trilogy. If you have another image I can add there, let me know, otherwise it does have relevance even if you believe it to be minor, because he is mentioned in the section and the only actor to play him in film in a separate film universe. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)