Yeah I was surprised with how good, or more importantly, how not bad it was. It was also cool how they showed how little of him is left. He's just a head, some lungs and a hand as a legal loophole to keep their death machines. Now I haven't delved too deep into the Robocop "canon" but In the original I pictured it more as a million dollar man scenario with a good amount of meaty bits left.
I was frankly amazed at how not bad it was, especially after the disaster that the Total Recall remake was (it was a good enough sci-fi movie in its own right, but calling it Total Recall was really just a cash grab.)
I'm disappointed that it seems to have sort of tanked with audiences/review sites, because I'd like to see a sequel in the same style.
I also learned that Samuel L Jackson looks creepy with hair.
The Robocop remake just hit Netflix, so I just saw it. Some spoilers below.
They replaced the ED-209 "Machines are inferior because they kill remorselessly" drama with "Humans are inferior because they hesitate, but there's that pesky ethical stuff, so what do we do?" drama which was a little deeper and more fully explored than in the original, so in my opinion the remake actually did add a bit. The doc hacked Murphy's brain so that when he's in "combat mode" he's a killer. Although they did get a little weak on that concept after about 10 minutes...
I kinda agree that the movie was lukewarm compared to the original, but that's true of nearly any modern action movie compared to any 80s action movie. The 80s/90s were just more over the top across the board.
Action movies don't need to be over the top, they just need to give me a character I can get behind and a clear story. Not a simple story, but one with clear motivations. The new Robocop fails on this last count spectacularly.
The original: 1. Good cop. 2. Almost dies. 3. Loses all humanity/free will when turned into a cyborg. 4. Gun fights. 5. Slowly regains his humanity. 6. Reveals his face. 7. Wins the day by sidestepping his "don't shoot company director" directive when said director is fired.
The remake: 1. Good cop. 2. Almost dies. 3. Retains his humanity/free will when turned into a cyborg. 4. Reveals his face from the start. 5. Loses his humanity by programming trickery, something that can be turned on and off. 6. Gun fights. 7. Wins the day by sidestepping his "don't shoot company director" directive by... I dunno... force of personality?
I agree the plot is murky in the new one, but I'm not sure that making it into a big fat morality play is a solution. Didn't people criticize movies for that quite a lot in the 80s?
I think some of your points about the remake aren't quite right. There's a scene where good cop's free will is deliberately tampered and it's made quite clear that it's happening. Not only is there the brain surgery scene but also the explanation from Gary Oldman's character to Keaton's character. I don't think it's clear that it can be turned on and off, he's shown having bits of his brain removed.
I DO think they could have improved the movie by developing the trainer character guy into a better asshole and the Keaton character into a better evil CEO. I think Oldman's character was done EXTREMELY well. Ethical and moral but not powerful enough to avoid getting sucked into the mess.
I actually think the "force of human will" ability to shoot the boss trumps the "legal loophole" cop out even though the latter is more funny.
The first movie is NOT a morality play. Not at all. It's just a movie with a clear story, with clear motivations. The complexity comes from how those interact. The remake doesn't have good enough writing to make the motivations clear, and the complexity comes from plot holes, and the movie trying to write itself out of those plot holes.
The "force of human will" ability is a dumb cop out. It renders the rest of the movie stupid. Nothing up until that point has shown him trying to override his programming with force of will. The ending of the original movie is not a cop out. That scene was set up many, many scenes before.
The message of the new movie is "If you believe enough, you can make it happen" while in the original the message is "Gun fights don't win the day, being smarter than your opponent wins the day (and then shoot the bad guy)."
Oldman's character and his scenes with Keaton were the only good part of the movie. Pity the movie is called Robocop and not Conflicted Medical Researcher.
Fair enough "morality play" was the wrong term. I just think the archetypes are all dialed up to 11 in the first one. I'm not sure that's a positive, although having grown up in the era of "dialed to 11" action movies I admit I have a gut preference for that type of film.
I think the Oldman character is actually pretty complex. Unfortunately he's really the only complex character in the movie. Murphy, the CEO, the trainer, etc, are all underdeveloped. The brave and loyal wife is nice to see mostly because she's tough instead of a victim/damsel in distress trope, but she's still thin as paper as a character.
I can see your point about the message but I don't think human will trumps all is such a bad one, even if you might regard it as less pragmatic. I didn't really consider the "You're fired!" solution to be so much smart as dumb luck but maybe I need to watch again.
It's still a far better remake than Total Recall. I guess my standards have been ground down. I still don't think Red Foreman was a great bad guy so much as a generic archetype as could be found in any Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Van Damme film throughout two decades, but Keaton was milquetoast, so... meh.
I didn't really consider the "You're fired!" solution to be so much smart as dumb luck but maybe I need to watch again.
When you watch it again you'll see he tried to arrest the same guy earlier, but couldn't due to him being a board member. He returns to do it again, but know it won't work. He shows the video to the CEO, who fires him, Murphy says thank you, and shoots. He knew exactly what was needed, worked for it, and got it. It's very satisfying because the character reveals his intelligence through his actions a step ahead of the audience, and brings them along.
In the movie, the ending has none of that satisfaction. How much will was going to be strong enough to override his programming? This much? More? Less? What scale is this even using? Do we see him try hard, but not as hard, before? No. We just see a result out of nowhere.
Chappie has major problems of its own in terms of plot and logic, but unlike the Robocop remake I never found it not-fun. Proper action and violence so visceral you want to look away.
Calculus should be taught in middle school (early secondary school), preferably before algebra.
That wouldn't work.....you need algebra to do calculus.
You need algebra to understand why the calculus works, but it is not necessary to do it, at least not up through differential calculus. There are ways to do it without algebra, which is how my professor taught it.
The most difficult part of it was learning the concepts, not the math. In fact, the only time that the was more difficult than simple multiplication was on a section that I needed a TI-89 instead of the TI-84 that I had.
As for learning the concepts, I think that would be easier to do around the time when Geometry is taught, which for me was before Algebra. After you understand the concepts though, it is quite simple and for people who are interested in going into engineering, or any field that uses calculus a decent amount, it could be a way of helping them learn the skills they need earlier or to know if they may not be interested in that field after all.
Also, learning calculus earlier could help to show students how more advanced math influences everything around them in nontrivial ways, which might spur on more people into getting into math related fields. The number of people I know who changed to a math related field in college after calculus if far higher than the number who switched way from one after the class.
Calculus is like the secret shortcut in a Souls game. You have to suffer to get there and open it but shit is so much easier to progress once you opened it.
IMHO the idea that engineers need to know the equations but don't need to know how how the math works is a joke. Engineering isn't about solving a sheet full of equations. Whatever systems you're dealing with (electrical, mechanical, etc.) follow a set of mathematical models. Understanding the math (and the cases where it breaks down) is understanding the system itself. If you don't actually understand differential equations you won't understand why an LCR circuit or a car suspension acts the way it does, or how that behavior will change if yo modify the system.
I agree with that. I was just saying teaching it younger would be more beneficial, and maybe more helpful for getting people into math. If they learned in calculus how math affects the world, and then went on to learn in Algebra how it relates to calculus, they could see how the numbers affect the world. I am not disagreeing with showing how algebra relates to calculus, but rather teach it in a different order and earlier.
I agree with that. I was just saying teaching it younger would be more beneficial, and maybe more helpful for getting people into math. If they learned in calculus how math affects the world, and then went on to learn in Algebra how it relates to calculus, they could see how the numbers affect the world. I am not disagreeing with showing how algebra relates to calculus, but rather teach it in a different order and earlier.
All the subjects I learned at school were started as abstracts on how they related to the world except possibly learning a language or learning how to type. Also learning how to use LOGO on the computer when I didn't have a computer at home was completely useless (386 PC days).
I think the problem with mathematics is that is taught at such a slow rising curve, arithmetic should be over by year 4 or 5 and you should be doing algebra. I was allowed this because of an accelerated learning program run by my state Government (ooh socialism), by the time everyone else got to see quadratics in high school I could do 90% of problems in my head. I had to wait till year 10 to start on calculus. My Physics teacher was annoyed that I was using calculus to solve all his Physics problems in year 11.
I don't know how to address the learn at your pace approach but the standardisation of knowledge at certain grade levels can hamper some people.
Quick, call the white tech-bro uber defence squad to condescendingly blame it on the algorithm, then claim they don't care because it's better than taxis anyway, and that taxi drivers are worse via a blatant and obvious misunderstanding of statistics.
Hey @Apreche Does the forum have this turned on? I was thinking about trying to write an android app.
Yes, it is turned on. That is how the automatic episode posts are made.
The problem is that Vanilla does not have support for fine-grained permissions on the API. Only one user can be granted API access at a time, and a special secret access token is required. The access level of that user is 100%. They can do anything. I would gladly give additional users limited API access, but Vanilla doesn't support that.
Really, I wish I could just make the parts of the API that can be public, public, but they don't support that either. I mean, why shouldn't you be able to access the data that is already public in JSON format instead of rendered HTML?
My experience with just about anything beyond vanilla Vanilla is a pain in the ass. I use this package on a much smaller site because I like the clean presentation, but even the officially sanctioned/endorsed plugins are riddled with bugs and break constantly.
Everyone who will make software like Vanilla wants it to be a managed service to sell forever. The open versions will always be a pain in the ass to run and lag ever further behind, and the not open versions will always be restricted in arbitrary and pointless ways.
Regarding calculus, I disagree that it would be easier or more beneficial to teach it before algebra or geometry or any other math that is derived from it. That would be akin to trying to teach children the difference between past perfect and conditional perfect before they've learned how to say words. Or as a closer comparison, teaching the physics of gravity on objects before showing them the concept that when you throw something, it falls to the ground. It is much easier for people to accept that something simply is before they are shown how or why it is.
That being said, I totally agree that the way they teach math in the US in general is way too slow. I was already grasping the concepts of algebra by the time I was 8 years old, 6 years before most children are taught it in high school. Granted I actually believe that most people don't need to actually learn calculus at all, it's really a specialty that few people need, but by pushing more fundamental math like algebra and geometry into pre-high school years, that frees up the high school classes to be more advanced and teach things that all people can actually use, like basic financing, accounting, statistics, and logic.
There was a great TED Talk, that I very much agree with, about how probability and statistics should be the primary focus of math education in high school. That's the kind of math that is relevant to everyone's life, regardless of occupation. It's also the kind of math that people get wrong most often, and there is actual suffering because of it.
I know calculus, and despite working in computer science, I have not once needed to use that knowledge outside of Calculus classes. It is not helpful or useful in every day life. Only people who need to know it, like physicists, should bother learning it to any great degree. Of course, anyone who wants to be properly educated should definitely learn the fundamental concepts of calculus, but the same can be said for many areas of study.
I'm mostly using vanilla because my PHP based Lith forum clone stopped working on my host and this was my solution rather than fix my code. I sort of regret it now. :P
I'm mostly using vanilla because my PHP based Lith forum clone stopped working on my host and this was my solution rather than fix my code. I sort of regret it now. :P
There are no good we forum softwares anymore. Vanilla is just the best because the competition is so weak. If someone wants to pay me a year's salary, we can take over the market.
I'm mostly using vanilla because my PHP based Lith forum clone stopped working on my host and this was my solution rather than fix my code. I sort of regret it now. :P
There are no good we forum softwares anymore. Vanilla is just the best because the competition is so weak. If someone wants to pay me a year's salary, we can take over the market.
300k kickstarter to make the best forum software in the world in 1.5 years.
Comments
I'm disappointed that it seems to have sort of tanked with audiences/review sites, because I'd like to see a sequel in the same style.
I also learned that Samuel L Jackson looks creepy with hair.
I kinda agree that the movie was lukewarm compared to the original, but that's true of nearly any modern action movie compared to any 80s action movie. The 80s/90s were just more over the top across the board.
The original:
1. Good cop.
2. Almost dies.
3. Loses all humanity/free will when turned into a cyborg.
4. Gun fights.
5. Slowly regains his humanity.
6. Reveals his face.
7. Wins the day by sidestepping his "don't shoot company director" directive when said director is fired.
The remake:
1. Good cop.
2. Almost dies.
3. Retains his humanity/free will when turned into a cyborg.
4. Reveals his face from the start.
5. Loses his humanity by programming trickery, something that can be turned on and off.
6. Gun fights.
7. Wins the day by sidestepping his "don't shoot company director" directive by... I dunno... force of personality?
I think some of your points about the remake aren't quite right. There's a scene where good cop's free will is deliberately tampered and it's made quite clear that it's happening. Not only is there the brain surgery scene but also the explanation from Gary Oldman's character to Keaton's character. I don't think it's clear that it can be turned on and off, he's shown having bits of his brain removed.
I DO think they could have improved the movie by developing the trainer character guy into a better asshole and the Keaton character into a better evil CEO. I think Oldman's character was done EXTREMELY well. Ethical and moral but not powerful enough to avoid getting sucked into the mess.
I actually think the "force of human will" ability to shoot the boss trumps the "legal loophole" cop out even though the latter is more funny.
The "force of human will" ability is a dumb cop out. It renders the rest of the movie stupid. Nothing up until that point has shown him trying to override his programming with force of will. The ending of the original movie is not a cop out. That scene was set up many, many scenes before.
The message of the new movie is "If you believe enough, you can make it happen" while in the original the message is "Gun fights don't win the day, being smarter than your opponent wins the day (and then shoot the bad guy)."
Oldman's character and his scenes with Keaton were the only good part of the movie. Pity the movie is called Robocop and not Conflicted Medical Researcher.
I think the Oldman character is actually pretty complex. Unfortunately he's really the only complex character in the movie. Murphy, the CEO, the trainer, etc, are all underdeveloped. The brave and loyal wife is nice to see mostly because she's tough instead of a victim/damsel in distress trope, but she's still thin as paper as a character.
I can see your point about the message but I don't think human will trumps all is such a bad one, even if you might regard it as less pragmatic. I didn't really consider the "You're fired!" solution to be so much smart as dumb luck but maybe I need to watch again.
It's still a far better remake than Total Recall. I guess my standards have been ground down. I still don't think Red Foreman was a great bad guy so much as a generic archetype as could be found in any Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Van Damme film throughout two decades, but Keaton was milquetoast, so... meh.
In the movie, the ending has none of that satisfaction. How much will was going to be strong enough to override his programming? This much? More? Less? What scale is this even using? Do we see him try hard, but not as hard, before? No. We just see a result out of nowhere.
Well... it was sorta topical?
Will have to come back and re-assess/compare when I've seen Chappie. :P
The most difficult part of it was learning the concepts, not the math. In fact, the only time that the was more difficult than simple multiplication was on a section that I needed a TI-89 instead of the TI-84 that I had.
As for learning the concepts, I think that would be easier to do around the time when Geometry is taught, which for me was before Algebra. After you understand the concepts though, it is quite simple and for people who are interested in going into engineering, or any field that uses calculus a decent amount, it could be a way of helping them learn the skills they need earlier or to know if they may not be interested in that field after all.
Also, learning calculus earlier could help to show students how more advanced math influences everything around them in nontrivial ways, which might spur on more people into getting into math related fields. The number of people I know who changed to a math related field in college after calculus if far higher than the number who switched way from one after the class.
I think the problem with mathematics is that is taught at such a slow rising curve, arithmetic should be over by year 4 or 5 and you should be doing algebra. I was allowed this because of an accelerated learning program run by my state Government (ooh socialism), by the time everyone else got to see quadratics in high school I could do 90% of problems in my head. I had to wait till year 10 to start on calculus. My Physics teacher was annoyed that I was using calculus to solve all his Physics problems in year 11.
I don't know how to address the learn at your pace approach but the standardisation of knowledge at certain grade levels can hamper some people.
Quick, call the white tech-bro uber defence squad to condescendingly blame it on the algorithm, then claim they don't care because it's better than taxis anyway, and that taxi drivers are worse via a blatant and obvious misunderstanding of statistics.
The problem is that Vanilla does not have support for fine-grained permissions on the API. Only one user can be granted API access at a time, and a special secret access token is required. The access level of that user is 100%. They can do anything. I would gladly give additional users limited API access, but Vanilla doesn't support that.
Really, I wish I could just make the parts of the API that can be public, public, but they don't support that either. I mean, why shouldn't you be able to access the data that is already public in JSON format instead of rendered HTML?
That being said, I totally agree that the way they teach math in the US in general is way too slow. I was already grasping the concepts of algebra by the time I was 8 years old, 6 years before most children are taught it in high school. Granted I actually believe that most people don't need to actually learn calculus at all, it's really a specialty that few people need, but by pushing more fundamental math like algebra and geometry into pre-high school years, that frees up the high school classes to be more advanced and teach things that all people can actually use, like basic financing, accounting, statistics, and logic.
I know calculus, and despite working in computer science, I have not once needed to use that knowledge outside of Calculus classes. It is not helpful or useful in every day life. Only people who need to know it, like physicists, should bother learning it to any great degree. Of course, anyone who wants to be properly educated should definitely learn the fundamental concepts of calculus, but the same can be said for many areas of study.
EDIT: Found it
http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education?language=en