An Addendum To 'Wikipedia Style Guide': RoboCop Remake

During my brief research for the Wikipedia Style Guide article (which could've been better) I discovered that there is a planned release of a new RoboCop in 2014. Let the wrongness of a fucking RoboCop remake sink in for a moment. It doesn't feel good, does it? I mean, the RoboCop sequels were themselves inexcusable but inevitable, given the era in which they were made. The remake is even more inevitable, really, by the same ratiocination. I shouldn't be surprised in the least, except I rarely see movies at theaters, let alone the multiplexes that screen the impressive trailers of the next generation of big and dumb or deep and profound who-gives-a-fucks*.

I suppose I'm an idiot to object, but the remaking of a solid 80's masterpiece in the corporate wasteland of the 21st century which it was originally set in seems wrong to me on a fundamental level. It's almost a twisting of physical laws, as if a yottoscopic black hole passed through my mind while I had a perverse thought about how weird a relation it would be, and then via singularity that thought manifested itself as part of reality, or as possibility in minds close to the film industry. It's that weird to me. It's like the manifestation of a nightmare – but that's essentially what the world has been, behind the scenes at least, for my entire life and probably all other humans as well... which is the point of entertainment.

Overstatement. It's more fun than saying that a bunch of hacks want to release a new movie based on an old concept, as if they have anything meaningful to add to a concept they're borrowing for lack of inspiration. Profit trumping history. I guess that's what it is to live in 2013. Detroit is actually declaring bankruptcy (check out RoboCop 2 if you think I'm schizoid) and cocaine is as big a problem in America as ever, to the point where they either need to construct many real-life RoboCops (as well as a small army of ED-209s) to stop the trafficking or just let it win and stop making a fuss.

I don't want to be the wanker who says that a movie was 'eerily prescient' about 'modern society' because RoboCop was eerily contemporary about 80's culture and eerily great in every possible way, but movies aren't prophets and that particular one was only proven right because of the sheer amount of subliminal and/or retrograde insight the movie possesses. I bet the remake will make multiple references to drones. I am told that's a bet I'm not allowed to make. Mark my words: fuck RoboCop 2014, that shit ain't right.  

"Get ready for a hip, new RoboCop who understands EDM music and doesn't mind a bromance... or two!"

It boggles my mind, and then along comes this fucking remake which I'm sure can safely be judged on what kind of car the new RoboCop drives. Probably written by committee, guided by fuckers, and destined to be a grave insult to the spirit of the original in every possible way. Corporate slickness, top-40 EDM song in the trailer, GFX up the ass, possible box-office hit, dialogue from idiot hell, blood-curdlingly dumb and sensationalistic in every way... I'd buy that for a dollar and so will you!

**** I suppose they more commonly go by the colloquialism 'movies' or 'films', but when intelligent people band together and overthrow the world order they will be referred to as who-gives-a-fucks, I have it on good authority, since they generally function as soulless propaganda, socially acceptable narcotic, profit-motive, and distraction. Various cinema will still be allowed, for obvious reasons, but it is hoped calling them who-gives-a-fucks will be humbling to the industry.

That Time of The Year, Pt.2 : Based on a True Story

In 2011 this rule held true: if it was December there were a lot of movies coming out 'based on true stories'. I feel like 'based on a true story' is the sort of phrase that deserves to always be put in quotes. It stands out. I remember going to a theater and seeing two or three 'based on a true story' movies. Could be my memory is destroyed. You can check for yourself in many ways, I'm sure, but I will provide one.

I guess seeing a fabulous movie with roots in the mundane, grimy, desperate reality of life is a heart-warming thing. It's not terrible. You can't simply hate the story for being insipid or unbelievable. However, you can throw shovelfuls of shit onto the screenplay, script, and performances. I'm not one for 'true story' movies myself, but I can see the appeal. Recent Denzel vehicle Flight was also allegedly 'based on a true story' in the trailers. There is some discussion about that. Again, maybe my memory is shot.

It seems to me, after some reflection, that the winter months and the final weeks of autumn is the key season for 'based on a true story' movies. I guess film-goers need their hearts warmed, too. I will include in this discussion biographical films. I saw The Master this year in an independent cinema in late November. It fits the bill, even though the movie was released much earlier. I just wanted to say that I watched a movie. Was it good? Hell yeah it was interesting. I've never seen such a good, unbiased movie about Scientology in my life. The word 'Scientology' isn't even used once, as far as I know, in the movie. That's brilliant. L. Ron Hubbard is renamed. It's a work of art. Drags a bit. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in it and he's a masterful actor who positively keeps the damn thing going.

But I digress. Take one of recent history's most successful and critically lauded Milk, which was released on November 26, 2008. It was a movie 'based on a true story' and some might have called it a 'biographical film' or even a 'biopic'. I'm more or less an idiot, but even I can see this trend. I won't go ahead and say December is peak month for this type of movie, but it is certainly roughly in the middle. It is the median month for 'based on true story' entertainment.

Though, following this line of reasoning, every war movie ever made is 'based on a true story' and most crime movies as well. Then, let's get existential and very post-modern critical and just say that every movie and every book and every narrative ever is 'based on a true story'. Most music is probably born along those lines. Everything creative is partly 'based on a true story'. This is problematic, because I mean a specific type of feel-good, heartwarming, nonthreatening, almost unconscious type of movie. The type that would star Sandra Bullock and a minority actor, and you'd find your girlfriend watching it late one evening – absorbed, transported, and entirely quiet. Why can't she be like that when Ted is playing?

Except that movie with Sandra Bullock is not really so unconscious. I feel bad for considering it problematic. It's probably legitimately progressive, and probably has integrity as a work of art, as a consumer product, and as a social statement. I don't actually know, though. I never saw it. All I know is that, apparently, it was based on a true story, and according to that logic probably came out between mid-November and late-February.

90s Science: Demolition Man vs. Judge Dredd

Science fiction movies in the 90s were all over the map. One year you might see gloriously well-presented dinosaur melodrama, the next year you might give up in distress and learn to appreciate art or literature. In many ways, the inconsistency of the past carried into the future. Some people talked about how the 'movies these days' were full of 'special effects', except in that time special effects were something rare and spectacular that tended to be applauded. That or they were incredibly shitty and overused. In many ways, nearly two decades later, things are similar.

90s movies had a certain quality that no longer really exists in the medium. Many of them were totally unwatchable wrecks, many of them aged horribly, and there was much lazy writing and gnashing of directorial teeth. Such is life. I post here today to summarize my experience with two Sylvester Stallone, marginal, action/sci-fi movies from the 90s. Abandon all logic and subtlety, ye who would be so foolish as to follow me. The movies are Demolition Man (1993) and Judge Dredd (1995).

Demolition Man is an insane movie. Stallone jumps out of a helicopter and explodes an entire building before the title sequence. Everything else after that is awesome, but muddled in a stupid, obtuse, poorly-written version of the future. But none of that matters because that future exists only so Wesley Snipes, playing a gleefully violent criminal, can fight Sylvester Stallone, who accidentally killed 20 children when he exploded the building from the beginning of the movie. Both of them were frozen in time because that's how sentencing worked in 1993's idea of 1996.

Demolition Man has an agenda so broad, and so stolen, that even dogs raise their eyebrows when they see it. The future is a utopia, peace and calm reign, but society atrophies because there is no aggression, no uncertainty, no explosions, and no action. Death is by natural causes, spicy foods are outlawed, and people get fined for swearing. It's the original Campy Darwinism. Sandra Bullock and company say shit in the opening half hour that sounds so hideously, hilariously, clumsily out of place that the only explanation is that a computer was given the scenario and two hours to write it. Apparently only intellectual-sounding words would make the future enough of a gutless wimp for two 90s badasses to thoroughly work it over.  "Info assimilated." "Mellow greetings."

In this future, which exists out of sheer laziness, society is childish, naive, and inherited by total fucking infantile eunuchs with too-large vocabularies. But it's still fun. Things get shot up. Wesley Snipes taunts everyone and shoots everything. The whole plot is a weird mixture of old utopia/dystopia books such as 1984, The Time Machine, and Brave New World mixed with basically every science fiction/action film up to its point. It's not particularly smart, or achingly funny, and the satire is dull, but nobody cares. Ten minutes in you know this movie doesn't care. You shouldn't, the movie told you not to. And there's just enough quality action, gun-play, and insanity that you feel okay when you watch it. This was the model for mediocrity. These days it seems awesome only because our current mediocrity is even more slick and bland than the future proposed in Demolition Man. The future-colloquial dialogue is feeble and stupid while trying to make a point about how weakness, pacifism, submission, and herd intelligence are related. Wesley Snipes' awesome action kicks, dozens of quality explosions, at least ten snappy one-liners, and all the swearing make this movie worth it. 1993 was probably just a simpler time.