Robocop (1987 and 2014)

Send us a question!

As the conversation unfolds, we tackle the evolution of the RoboCop franchise, comparing the original's satirical edge to the more action-packed 2014 reboot. We muse over the reboot's attempt at nostalgia and the challenges posed by a PG-13 rating. From reminiscing about the classic's iconic scenes and sequels to debating the reboot's shift in tone, we leave no stone unturned. Along the way, we entertain the possibility of a RoboCop and Terminator crossover, humorously dubbed "Robonator," blending the best of both dystopian worlds.

Our discussion also takes a futuristic turn as we speculate on what lies ahead for RoboCop, particularly with modern themes like AI and machine learning on the rise. Imagine a version of RoboCop navigating today's media landscape, complete with social media and reality TV twists, while still delivering on the dark humor and societal critiques that made the original a cult favorite. We wrap up with a whimsical nod to other reboots and explore how embracing absurdity, much like the Fast and Furious franchise, could breathe new life into RoboCop.

Also, what happens when you mix the gritty world of RoboCop with the playful antics of the Muppets? Join us for a hilariously chaotic journey as we reimagine the 1987 classic through a Muppet-tinted lens. Picture Peter Weller as the human amidst plush robot parts, with Kermit as Ann Lewis and Miss Piggy in a delightfully unhinged role as Clarence Boddicker. And just to spice things up, we've cast Statler and Waldorf as the villainous duo of Dick Jones and the Old Man while Fozzie Bear tries to keep some semblance of order. It's a mash-up no one saw coming, but you'll be glad you did!

Tune in for laughter, thoughtful insights, and a generous dose of 'what if' scenarios that keep the conversation both engaging and entertaining.

Support the show

Rebooted is produced by JAMR, LLC. Our Hobby is Your Fun.

Your support helps us offset hosting and caffeine costs, to learn more and see our Patreon exclusive merchandise, visit our Patreon.

You can find us online on our Facebook Group and Twitter (@PodcastRebooted).

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome to Season 3 of Rebooted, where four former
film majors making a podcastabout Hollywood's favorite
pastime rebooting, recooling andnostalgia milking.
Every movie except Back to theFuture.
I'm Andrew, former film majorand now a director of marketing.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
I'm Jessica, former film major and now a barista.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
And I'm Rob, former film major and also a director
of marketing.

Speaker 4 (00:40):
I'm Mike, former film major and now I'm a software
engineer.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Okay, okay, okay, hold up guys.
What we got to do right now, wegot to recast the original
robot RoboCop.
Robot RoboCop has a Muppetmovie.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
Okay, so this is the 1987.
We're doing the original,absolutely.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
But you realize that RoboCop has to be half man, half
Muppet, oh of course,absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
He's going to be stuffing when he gets, when he
gets his hand blown off,stuffing is going to fly out.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Wait, so does he start out as a Muppet and then
becomes half human, or Hmm?

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I don't know, I didn't think that one through.

Speaker 4 (01:23):
Peter Weller merged with Kermit the Frog.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
Something like that.
I think so, yeah, sorry.
So who's going to be AlexMurphy then?
Is it going to be Peter Weller,merged with Kermit the Frog, or
we got other ideas?

Speaker 2 (01:35):
I feel like he should be merged with Gonzo because,
like, just the nose, like nose.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
I feel like you could do the nose and that if he's
going to be a cop, he'd be thebear, right, oh good point or um
.

Speaker 4 (01:48):
Or um Sweetums.

Speaker 3 (01:55):
He'd be big and mighty then it would be, the
robot parts right, like therobot parts of Sweetum.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yeah, you'd be like a Frankenstein Muppet going.
Oh man, maybe we should justmake Peter Weller it again and
he can be the one human, becauseI think it's getting too weird.
Otherwise, yeah, alright.

Speaker 3 (02:16):
It starts to get like David Cronenberg.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, but like, instead of like a robot body,
he's just like differentstitched together pieces of
Muppets, so like Kermit's armand like Fozzie's body.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Oh no, yeah, this is like.
This is the puppet where theMuppets take Cronenberg.

Speaker 4 (02:35):
Yeah how about?

Speaker 3 (02:41):
Mike, it's a Muppet whore if he can be the Muppet
cop and so the robot part of himis like plush, so it's like
made of like.
It still looks like a robot, soit looks like metal, but it's
made of like metal materialrather than like actual metal.

(03:02):
So he's like that part of himlike comical, like stitches
material rather than like actualmetal.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Okay, alright, I say that works.

Speaker 4 (03:06):
Like comical, like felt, like stitches.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
So he's going to be a furry.
Right, so it's Peter Weller.
When he's normal Peter Weller,then, after he gets turned into
Robocop, he gets turned into afurry Peter Weller, perfect.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
I love it.
I thought you were saying furry.
Peter Weller was regular.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
Peter Weller.
No, no, no, furry.
Peter Weller is gonna be arobot copy.
All right, ann lewis, who's whowhich?
Which muppet we got for annlewis?
Oh, I, I kind of want it to bekermit, yeah all right, we'll do
like what they did with the uh2014.
Do a gender swap, make thatkermit maybe a little, a little
bit of um.
Uh, we'll get.

(03:43):
We'll get him in like hislittle cute, little cute like
uniform with his little yeah cophat, and he'll be like you know
like, yeah, make it reallyconfusing for kermit and have,
uh, boddicker, be miss piggy.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
Nice, she has that level of unhinged but
charismatic right wait what if?

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Gonzo is Boddicker and all his like gang is
Camilla's that's pretty good too.

Speaker 3 (04:14):
Oh my gosh, all the chain.

Speaker 4 (04:17):
Camilla's holding.
Like Tommy guns.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
I'm afraid to ask because I feel like the answer
is just going to be the two olddudes.
But who's going to play DickJones and the old man?
Statler and Waldorf have?

Speaker 4 (04:29):
to be All right, they have to be the villain, right.
I kind of feel like that's like.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
Like that's kind of like going to a hot dog stand
and ordering a hot dog.

Speaker 4 (04:40):
I mean, why wouldn't you order a hot dog at a hot dog
stand Like?

Speaker 2 (04:43):
that's the reason you go to the hot dog stand.

Speaker 4 (04:45):
Oh yeah, right, well, but what about what?

Speaker 3 (04:47):
about the, the younger guy.
So there's like Dick Jones islike the old man bad guy.
And then there's like the oldold man who's the like Fozzie
Voice of reason.
At the end it would be fozzie,absolutely yeah.
Yeah reason at the end it wouldbe Fosse, absolutely yeah, so
you have Statler and Waldorffighting each other.

(05:09):
They could be the twocharacters they could be, I
think, the other guy they haveto be Dick and Jones, the
co-presidents like.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Bob, and like Jacob and Robert Marley, you take one
character Like Bob, like Jacoband Robert Marley, the.

Speaker 4 (05:28):
Christmas Carol.
You take one character and yousplit them because they're
conjoined lovers, and the oldman is definitely Fozzie
absolutely.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
And then the big robot, the one that's like that
they can't use because he kills.
The one guy is Sweetums.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
Absolutely.

Speaker 4 (05:44):
That plays into the clumsiness coming in through the
walls which they can't usebecause he refuses to kill,
because Sweetums is actually abig softie.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
And so who's going to be Clarence Boddicker's or Miss
Piggy's or her henchman email?

Speaker 3 (06:03):
We thought maybe it was going to be Gonzo.
Oh right, I'm sorry, that'sright.
So who's going to be?
We thought maybe it was goingto be Gonzo.
Oh right, right, right, I'msorry, that's right, that's
right.
So who's going to be?

Speaker 1 (06:10):
Gonzo's main henchman .
No, it's called main henchman.
He has like a named one.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
He has like a main one Rizzo, rizzo.
Yeah, absolutely, you're right.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
What about Leon Nash?
Who's going to play old Leon?
That was very wise.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Probably Skeeter.

Speaker 3 (06:28):
Scooter Wait which one is I keep thinking Muppet
Babies.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Which one's the one that's actually a Muppet
Skeeter's from a cartoon.

Speaker 4 (06:34):
Skeeter's from Doug.
Skeeter and Skeeter werebrother and sister in Muppet.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
Well they were brother and sister in the
cartoon, or cousins or something.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
You guys have it here first.
This is the 2024 Robocop remakedone by Tesla, featuring
Muppets.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
So then the flashback scenes is Miss Piggy as his
wife.

Speaker 4 (06:57):
But where do Bunsen and Beaker fit in?
They're the ones that made it.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
We'll call it Audible and we'll include Gary Oldman's
character from the new one inthis remake.

Speaker 2 (07:07):
So that's why wouldn't bunsen beaker be the
scientist that put him together?

Speaker 1 (07:12):
well, why can't they be dr norton from the new one?

Speaker 2 (07:16):
I don't know who's?

Speaker 1 (07:18):
what's the sweetest chef gonna do he'll work in the
background making sushi for them.
So all right, he works.
He works in the backgroundmaking sushi for them.

Speaker 3 (07:26):
So, alright, he works in the cocaine warehouse.
There you go.
Yeah, he's cutting cocaine he'scutting.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
Alright.
Well, that is, like I said,coming 2024 from, funded by
Tesla and Tesla will be thecorporation.
Alright, well, let's go aheadand get this good old 24, funded
by Tesla and Tesla will be thecorporation.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
All right, well, let's go ahead and get the good
old summaries here from Jess tokeep this old ball moving In a

(08:15):
world where crime and corruptionrun rampant, witness the
transformation of Officer AlexMurphy into a cyborg enforcer
armed with modern armor and anew origin, navigating the
blurred lines between man andmachine while confronting
contemporary issues ofsurveillance and corporate
influence.
Join us as we delve into theevolution of RoboCop across
decades, exploring the timelessthemes of identity, power and

(08:39):
the pursuit of justice.
I'd buy that for a dollar.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
I really don't like how they snuck that into the
second movie, but it was verypar for the course.
It was very bland.
I wouldn't buy that for adollar.
It's nostalgia bait.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
I mean, all reboots are nostalgia bait though.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
Oh, that's very true, I didn't even try to cover it
up, andrew.

Speaker 4 (09:05):
Some reboots are.
We're sorry, we're going to fixit.
Dune says hi.

Speaker 3 (09:12):
That is true.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
I think the biggest problem for this was that it
went from satirical to straightup action movie.
It's so funny to say this, butit like let's make robocop a
gritty reboot, when it's theoriginal is not not gritty like
it's it's the definition ofgritty but like it's like let's

(09:35):
reboot it but make it seriousthey were like that.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
Violence was too over the top but what else?
Do you expect?

Speaker 1 (09:41):
from 2014 reboot, you know like I think it was, it
was of its time, right, it wastrying to tell this gritty
action movie, whereas 1987 wastrying to do this, you know,
like a shock, shock value of all, like blowing a hand off.

Speaker 4 (10:04):
Wasn't like total recall, recall, like reboot,
kind of the same, like timeright?
Yeah, it was about the sametime director they just kept
going.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
And hey, paul verhoeven, we're gonna just redo
your movies why don't we get aredo of uh starship troopers
then?

Speaker 3 (10:22):
because that was like 10 years later, so we're we're
due for one now, though that'strue.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
I think there's one in development, but that doesn't
mean anything in the grandscheme of Hollywood.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
It's probably going to be a requel at this point.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
So and also the problem is also that they made
it PG-13 because the studio waslike we need to recoup our money
, so let's make it PG-13.
And I think that things havechanged in the last decade with
that.
But it's like make a good moviethat people want to see and it
doesn't matter if it's PG-13 orR Like.
Your problem is that now peoplearen't going to come see it
because it's a crappy movie.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
Well, and that's interesting that you point that
out, because it's like we'regoing to recoup our money, but
it domestically grossed 58.
The 2014 did off of a $100million budget.
Now it got 240 worldwide.
But it's like, if you thinkabout it in terms of like
marketing and all the stuff theyhad to do to produce, that it's

(11:13):
that's not recouping your money.
By making the that pg-13 rating, it didn't end up really
working out for them that in a49.
You know tomato rating wellright.

Speaker 1 (11:25):
you know, I thought it was interesting because and I
don't know if they just it wasjust imdb not reporting the
domestic correctly.
But the domestic for theoriginal was like not even a
million dollars more than thegross listed, uh, or sorry,
after the domestic, theworldwide was not even a million
dollars more than the domestic.

(11:46):
And I was like so did theoriginal one not really get
released worldwide or did have avery limited release, and then,
and then the remake is likethis massive success overseas.
I, you know, I don't know, itwas just, it was kind of
interesting.
It's either that or you know,imdb just had the wrong
information interesting.

Speaker 4 (12:05):
It's either that or you know.
Imdb just had the wronginformation.
It's possible it's the internet.
Could have been written by aseven-year-old, you know yeah,
yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
But this, this is a movie.
The original is one that's notgonna get a lot of people
because it is, you know, it hasat the, you know like.
It has that little cronenbergscene where it's like that or
he's covered in the toxicchemicals and it's you know, you
know gore and stuff, and so itrated r.
So I mean it does make sense,especially for 1987 not to have

(12:33):
made a lot of money, but itdefinitely was popular enough to
make.
What was it?
two sequels and then the rebootI think it wasn't there an
animated I don't know, but therewas also an animated tv series
and it's like there were gamestoo.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
Now that you say that , I do remember there was
Robocop, robocop 2 and Robocop 3and then the remake, so there
was three total of the originaland then the remake.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Now they progressively went, you know,
further and further downhill andthey got rid of Peter Weller
did they get rid of Peter Weller, or did Peter Weller get rid of
them and Peter Weller get ridof?

Speaker 1 (13:04):
peter weller.

Speaker 4 (13:04):
Did they get rid of peter weller to be like peter
weller?

Speaker 1 (13:06):
get rid of them the only thing I remember from
robocop 3 was that his armturned into a massive gun, like
a massive, massive gun, and Idon't even remember like kind of
gun, how or why?
Um no, it was like I'm gonnahave to look it up.

(13:26):
I'll we'll look it up and posta picture on our social.
That's a cute cue for rob, butI'm fairly certain.
I remember.
I'm fairly certain.
I remember it was like amassive gun.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
It feels like I replaced his arm that feels like
it definitely was, like we'regonna just swing the opposite
direction of the end of thefirst movie, which was like,
yeah, humanizing murphy.

Speaker 4 (13:50):
They're like no, go back, make him a gun okay,
actually they basically made himmegaman, did you find it I?

Speaker 1 (13:56):
found it, I'm gonna see if I can drop a picture in
our chat, but we'll definitelymake sure 90s.
We'll definitely make sure thatrob posts this picture in our
social definitely knew where Iwas going with this.

Speaker 3 (14:08):
I started typing in RoboCop 3 gun and then it was
like arm yeah, you can look atthe chat guys.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
You'll see it right now Do you mean arm Clippy comes
up.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
That was that's like.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
All I remember from that movie is his arm being like
this massive gun.

Speaker 4 (14:23):
So look at those shoulder pads though, too.
That's yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
I wasn't like a big robocop fan, so I'm not even
sure why I saw it.
I just know I had and I waslike, okay, are those like?

Speaker 4 (14:35):
are those like vertical takeoff engines on his
shoulder.
What is what I don't remember?

Speaker 1 (14:40):
the movie very well, mike, I just remember and I may
have seen it on it as like a tvmovie.
So, um, maybe this stuff wasedited for tv.
Maybe that's rob one side.
So, yes, all right.
Well, uh, I wanted to move onto our discussion questions,
because you know that's what welike to do here, is talk about
stuff.
So I had a little question Iwanted to throw your guys way

(15:03):
and I want to talk about the.
So the evolution of Murphy fromhuman to cyborg and the
conflict he faces with Omnicorp,which I believe Mike put in as
OCP for me.
So I didn't forget, I did.
I didn't forget so hisrelationship resonates very
differently in each film.

(15:24):
So do you guys, how do youthink that?
Including more of his family,so his relationship, resonates
very differently in each film.
So do you guys, how do youthink that?
Including more of his family,his emotion and the inclusion of
his eventual advocate of DrNorton, which is played by Gary
Oldman, do you think that?
How does that change the filmfrom the original?
Does it change for the betteror for the worse?
Do you think it's worth it?
It's needed, needed.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
What do you guys think?
Well, I I would say the kind ofthe first thing I felt about
the 87 film in regards to thatwith the family, like not really
being present, uh, in the filmis there's like this very hard.
It's there's a much graversense of loss with him in the
original film because he goesinto his old house and it's like
it's been put up for sale bylike a virtual realtor with the

(16:10):
little tv screens and he'shaving flashbacks to his time
before, but them not physicallybeing present in the film to
like interact with him.
Just it's very unsettling.
And so it is a very differentfeeling you get from the 2014
film because is still seeing hisfamily and they still love him.

(16:31):
They didn't like just abandonhim, and so there's a lot less
of that like hollowness to it,like he has this.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
He has this end goal, this thing he's fighting for
near the end of the film, oncehe's kind of been able to
overtake the machine part ofhimself and like in the first
one, right, they're very muchtrying to keep sort of like,
keep it under wraps a little bit, like trying to like keep him
isolated from his family too, tosort of like manage, manage

(16:59):
some of his like programming, soto speak.
And I feel like the differencein like 87 versus 2014, like it
would be a lot harder to keepthat secret in 2014 with, like
you know, social media and likejust like things being more
connected in general, like ifhe's out there on the streets,

(17:20):
like word would get back to thefamily.
So it's like it kind of makessense that his family is like
more involved, just because thenature of like communication and
like the connected nature ofour culture would like it would
be more problematic for them totry to keep him from his family
than it would to let his familybe present.
Like it would be really badpress if the family found out it

(17:42):
was like hey, they're keepinghim from us and now suddenly
they're getting told and allthis other stuff.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
So it's like I think that I think it all makes which
happens in the 2014 movie whereshe like goes to the press and
it causes a whole uh bigdramatic scene and they're
trying to like do damage controlon their side.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
So I do think that it's like there's this, though,
big difference between like,especially if you look at the
endings.
It's like it's kind of silly inthe remake that it's like, oh
my gosh, he overcame because oflove, but in the original it's
like he wasn't, he was, he was arobot, and the only reason he

(18:21):
was able to take down the badguy was because the bad guy got
fired and he still had hisprogramming.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Yeah, but didn't Harry Potter save the world
because of love?

Speaker 2 (18:29):
And you hate that why is it different?
Why would Robocop get a pass ifyou hate that Harry Potter did
it.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
Well, I didn't say Robocop got a pass for that.
I think one thing that isinteresting too about the
difference between the movies isthat in the 2014 one, there was
definitely this need of like,having to have Alex Murphy like
buy into this concept, whereasin the original one, the 87, it
was just like Alex Murphy's likeOK, I'm RoboCop, the contract

(18:59):
says that they can put me in aRobo suit and that's just the
way it is.
I am now this mean grayfighting machine, whereas in the
new one it was I'm doing thisso I can be with my family still
, I'm doing this so we can stillhave our dad and husband and
things like that and it was likeit was definitely came across
differently because it was.
It was like he was fighting forto be a part of his family

(19:21):
still, and things like that hedidn't even robocop.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
In the new one, like he caught the bad guy at his
opening where it's like, oh look, there's a murderer.
That's just like front andcenter, rest him.
But like then there was themovie, he wasn't robocopping, it
was all like this oh, let'stalk about the science, like
let's talk about the doctor,let's talk about the corporation
, let's do this, let's go, let'sgo back to this.
And it's like what's the point?

(19:45):
He wasn't robocop, he didn't dorobocopping.
Like he didn't shoot a bad guyin the dick through a woman's
skirt, like where's that stuff?

Speaker 4 (19:55):
how, how much of the like new take, though, of like
trying to like win him over andlike pitch him on the like this
is for my family.
This is how much of that islike almost in some ways, like a
little bit more like bleak andsinister, that they're like
leveraging that against him tolike create the perfect cyborg

(20:17):
well, not even, and not evenlike so much.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
The perfect cyborg isn't the perfect way to get
around the law, right?
That was their whole thing wewe are getting around the law by
having the machine take overwhen the visor comes down, but
he thinks he's still in control,so even he doesn't know we're
skirting the law.
You know, and and I thoughtthat was interesting he's a he's
a machine who thinks he's alexmurphy.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Right, that's a great line.
Yeah, it is super bleak thatthat's kind of how the
corporation interacts in thismovie, as opposed to the
original, where it was like thecompany is doing pretty sinister
stuff and really in theoriginal robocop like they

(21:02):
basically just wipe hispersonality, like he's just he's
the machine, because the wholepoint in that movie is that
crime is so bad in Detroit thatcops want to go on strike and
they need to come up withmilitarized instruments to be
able to like fight back on crime, whereas in the remake it's

(21:25):
really more about thecorporation just wanting to make
a profit and they're alreadymaking a profit overseas with
all these other militarizedrobots and the only way for them
to be able to get it through toamerica is that to go around
this, this law that's alreadyhere, manipulating the public
with a human, human-ish facethat is like.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
An interesting difference is that in the
original the what they wanteddid not work because it was
still killing people even whenthey complied.
When the new one, it did work,but people just weren't
accepting of it because theyneeded that human element.
So that is an interestingdifferent.
I feel like in the 80s youcould get away with like yeah, I
mean, if it works, nobody'sgonna care, just do your thing.

(22:10):
It's the 80s, but yeah, likenow.
They'd be like it was the 80s.

Speaker 3 (22:14):
It was the 80s in the 80s they they go the 87 version
, they go out of their way tomake detroit look like, oh, like
it's kind of grimy and there'sa lot of crime, and in the new
one it's like Detroit lookspretty good, like.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
I know I was gonna say like they need RoboCop.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Do they need a RoboCop?
I mean, the only thing thatseems like a problem in the
remake is that other cops right,the corrupt cops, yeah, yeah
yeah, I mean, you're definitelythe first one felt it was very
much like Demolition man versionof LA.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
this was like you yeah, I mean, you're definitely
the first one felt was very muchlike Demolition man version of
LA.
This was, like you know, thatpicked up and dropped into
Detroit, kurt Russell escapingfrom New York, futuristic 1999.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Turned into a maximum security prison?

Speaker 4 (23:00):
Why haven't they remade that movie?
Why haven't they escaped fromNew York?

Speaker 1 (23:05):
They might still I feel like that's the thing,
though.

Speaker 2 (23:07):
You have these 80s movies that are silly, they're
satirical, they're something.
Then you remake them andthey're just cookie-cutter
action film and it's like if youwould have just made a robot,
cookie-cutter action film,whatever.
But to be like this is RoboCop,it's like, like it's not, it's

(23:27):
not you, it's just I don't know.
It's just so boring just tohave the same thing they take
themselves too seriously.

Speaker 4 (23:31):
I think that's that's the key is like they're trying
to be this like grand action,blockbuster, right.
They're trying to be like tomcruise, mission impossible, and
you know, yeah.
And like born movies and you'relike just like embrace the
campiness, like be campy likeyou can be a low budget action

(23:53):
movie and be fun to watch.
You don't have to like you don'thave to like go for awards like
to you know, like, just havefun with it.
Like embrace the fact that thepremise is a little bit silly,
make it a campy movie, becausepeople will watch that and
people will like it.

Speaker 1 (24:10):
Like it doesn't have to be like pretentious film, but
do you think they could do that?

Speaker 4 (24:17):
like and as I think, of 2014.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
I really don't think it can't be fun.
A whole action movie would havemade it.
You know what I mean.
We, the, the, the 2014,.
The low budget stuff that wasmaking it was like um, horror,
low budget horror, and and Ijust don't think the low budget
action would have made it likethe eighties were a special time

(24:43):
, and I don't I mean that, ofcourse, begs the question why
remake it then?
But you know which is?

Speaker 4 (24:49):
which is what we do here right to your point, though
, like like I guess campy maynot be the right, the right
choice of word, because you hearcamping, you immediately
associate low budget.
But I'm looking at like fastand furious movies.
Right, fast and furious movieshave big budgets.
They're absurd and that's partof what makes them so fun and so

(25:10):
appealing.
They, they, they, they're just,they're out here to have fun.
Like how absolutely ludicrouscan we be with these cars, right
?
let's embrace up space withfamily and ludicrous was in fast
and the furious, like and therewas ludicrous right, if you
like, if they did, if they didrobocop in 2014, like that, like

(25:30):
, like the like, gratuitouslyover the top, let's be insane,
fast and furious kind ofapproach that I feel like that
lands totally differently and Ifeel like that's right in line
with like what 2014, like youknow, campiness was of like,
let's just have fun.

Speaker 3 (25:49):
But here's the deal, mike.
Here's the deal, and we'll.
We'll get a little bit moreinto the listener questions a
little bit later, but I want topull something from it now,
which is they weren't trying tomake a campy movie, they weren't
trying to make a Robocop reboot, they were trying to make a
campy movie.
They weren't trying to make arobocop reboot, they were trying
to capitalize off of iron man.
They made, uh, one of theblandest superhero movies I've

(26:11):
ever seen.
They tried to make robocop thisto be like an origin story of
like, like an iron man type,like a superhero, and it plays
like one of those kind of likediluted, early MCU.
We don't really know what we'redoing.
This is, before you know, thefull on connected universe.

(26:34):
This was like right after theAvengers came out and they just
thought we can make RoboCop likea superhero movie and make it
PG-13 so it's accessible toeverybody and we'll make tons of
money and let's get Samuel LJackson because he was in the
Avengers movies.

Speaker 4 (26:51):
That's an interesting take.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
And here's the thing, the Samuel L Jackson scenes I
think would have if more of themovie would have been that, not
even even just like other,because we were, even at that
time we were in the 24-hour newscycle.
We had this, the cnn's, the,the fox news, the, you know,
msnbc.
What they could have had thewhole it that, throughout the

(27:16):
whole thing, just have differentviews of it from different, and
that could have been thesatirical part of it and they
wanted they.
Instead, they just focused onhis family, which, yeah, really
just watered down the wholething.
It was that's and I think theywould have done better without
the family there, but it workedfor the original robocop and it

(27:37):
just it dampened what they didwith the remake, because they
always was like I, I got to savemy family, my family's got like
and that's.
That's boring.

Speaker 4 (27:47):
It's boring.
I have to say, I didn't makethe superhero like connection
thing myself, but like yousaying it, I'm like thinking
back on it Like that's, that'sexactly what it was Like.
Let's, let's set up a franchise, let's establish a character,
give some, give some lore, justbuild a universe, and then go

(28:08):
from there because that's what'ship and that's what's going to
sell, and then it floppedbecause they didn't do it right.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
And if you look at it from the story perspective you
look at, you have, like wenormally break down the central
conflict and we talk about thesocietal context and the
technological context.
But part of the societalcontext, in a meta way, is how
we all just collectively as apublic, shifted over to

(28:36):
superhero movies and went in sohard on that that robCop took on
a lot of that for this reboot.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
Some of you did.
I'm still in it.

Speaker 4 (28:48):
I am too, especially with Deadpool coming out.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
I'm saying kind of generally as a public.
The zeitgeist there'spost-Avengers 2012 superhero
movie is like a pivot point.
Geist.
It's like there's there's postAvengers 2012 superhero movie is
like a pivot point, I think,for cinema to just go OK, this
is what blockbusters look likenow.
If you're going to make a bigmovie, it has to be like this

(29:14):
and it's been like that for thelast 10 years.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
If it would have been made even just a couple years
later, what would the extendeduniverse have been?
Because DCEU is still trying todo it.

Speaker 4 (29:25):
They wanted to do it for the universal monster.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
What?

Speaker 2 (29:29):
would the RoboCop universe have?

Speaker 4 (29:32):
been.
You know what would happen,right, if RoboCop would get
bought up by Disney and getpulled into the MCU.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
I would just love to tell you all a little bit about
a Sega Genesis game that Iplayed when I was a kid called
Robocop vs Terminator, and sothat's probably what would have
happened if they would have doneRobocop and Terminator in the
same universe.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
So who would win between Robocop vs Terminator?

Speaker 3 (30:02):
Terminator Probably Termocop versus Terminator
Terminator probably Terminator,probably Terminator you guys
like straight up don't believein Robocop.

Speaker 4 (30:10):
Well, I just really believe in Schwarzenegger that's
true.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
Mike's got a bumper sticker.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
I believe in Schwarzenegger, I mean now, mike
doesn't know this because he'snot a real film major.
But and if you, don't wantspoils for Terminator 2, mike,
take the headphones off.
But the only way to destroy,like I'm just going to say that,
just think about the only wayto destroy the Terminator in

(30:37):
number two.
I agree.

Speaker 4 (30:38):
I graduated.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
Jerk.
Wow, if Terminator 2 taught usanything, jess, it's that the
only way to kill a Terminator isto make it feel feeling With
love.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
With love, I mean, that's like a Robocop.

Speaker 4 (30:54):
That you have to destroy him in Mount Doom.
That's the way to disrupt mostrobots, right?
You make them feel feelings,yes.
Or you make them playtic-tac-toe and they realize
there's no way to win.
What is?

Speaker 2 (31:06):
love.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
I know that Jess said Mountain Doom, but I heard
Mountain Dew.

Speaker 1 (31:12):
I heard Mountain Dew as well that's.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
The only way to kill a Terminator is with Mountain
Dew with carbonated citrusbeverage.

Speaker 4 (31:23):
Do the dew only if you forget their way.
In rain mode, you're comingwith me only if you forget to
put the don't, if you, only ifyou forget to put them in car
wash mode, though all right.

Speaker 1 (31:32):
So how does the portrayal of justice and ethics
and the role of technology andlaw enforcement differ between
the original, uh and the remake?
I mean, and even now, with thechanges, now, 10 years later,
you know things like drones andall that kind of stuff that's
come into play.
How does that really kind ofchange or differentiate between

(31:54):
the two?

Speaker 2 (31:55):
I think that did, you know, change things because
there's a lot of public opinionin real life scenarios where we
used drone strikes and there's alot of controversy around that.
I think that I think that's abig thing about it is that is,
taking real life scenarios wherethat is a thing that people are
legitimately worried about andputting it out there but you're

(32:18):
talking about modern daysettings and drones.

Speaker 3 (32:23):
You watch that opening broadcast Samuel L
Jackson's talking about.
He gets to talk to the Pentagonon live television, which is
kind of crazy.
And then they're like let'stake you to Tehran and we'll
show you what we're doing, likethey literally for that time
period, what like Iraq,afghanistan, like these urban

(32:46):
landscapes looked like, and thenshowing you autonomous robots,
policing, and it's basicallylike the difference between the
87 and the 2014 film is like 87is we're still concerned with
the Cold War and nuclear warfareconcerned with the Cold War and
nuclear warfare, and that's whywe have like a random
commercial for a battleshipboard game, but it's about
nuclear annihilation.

(33:07):
And then in the new movie it'sbasically showing that the
United States is a police statethat can't control its own
populace kind of that seems tobe the vibe in in the 2014 film
is 2024.

(33:28):
It hadn't changed much is thatwe have this, we're the police,
the policemen of the world kindof sense, and we don't have any
other power.
They don't really talk aboutany other country having any
kind of say over anything thatthe government is deciding in
the United States, and so itkind of makes it feel like we've

(33:49):
, as a nation, pacified everyoneelse and now there's only one
market left for this megacorporation to go to.

Speaker 4 (33:59):
The thing that I think is interesting is you're
talking about, like, howtechnology has changed and like.
I feel like, like Andrew madethis point I don't know if he I
don't remember if it was likeearly on a recording or if it
was in discord but something tothe effect of like they almost
like remade it too early becausetechnology and stuff has
changed so much since, evensince 2014.

(34:19):
And I feel like the the thingthat is interesting to me is
that I think if you remaderobocop now, you, you would
probably see the human elementremoved entirely and you'd have
a robot driven by machinelearning, right, ai, almost

(34:41):
going like minority reportlevels of like crime, like law
enforcement, like preemptiveintervention, like or chapping,
like studying I haven't, Ididn't see that one, so I don't
know but, um, but like, likestudying trends to like predict
crime and stop it before ithappens, and like preemptive

(35:03):
detaining, and you'd get I feellike that's the route that that
like the next reboot of robocopwould go, or even if they were
like to, you know, make a sequelto this one, you know 10 years
later or just reboot.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
It equal the or equal the reboot.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
I feel like that's the way RoboCop would go.
Now is like the human elementof him would be gone entirely,
and it would be like the ethicsof the AI versus like is it okay
to make a cyborg that ispartially controlled?
It would just be like, hey, isan artificial intelligence the
way to go?

Speaker 2 (35:41):
I mean, I saw stealth you know that would be
interesting to have like arobocop that has, like you know,
the ai element or whatever, andthen it just starts to, you
know, have that human emotionand see the difference in that
yeah, so like it's like thenlove saves it or it goes rob's

(36:04):
route and that becomes the likerobocop terminator tie-in, where
the ai, the robocop ai, evolvesinto the terminator and then
arnold schwarzenegger has tocome back to destroy robonator
right, and now you've got, nowyou've got your franchise.

Speaker 4 (36:22):
Now you've got your franchise, now you've got your
universe Robonate.
We've done it.

Speaker 2 (36:25):
We did what Hollywood couldn't do.

Speaker 4 (36:27):
We did it.
We did it everyone.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
Robonator sounds like the title of a TV show on King
of the Hill.
It's like okay, I'm going to gowatch Robonator.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
It does.
It sounds like one of thosecrossover sci-fi channels, the
Sharktopus.

Speaker 4 (36:44):
Sharktopus Anaconda versus Mediegator.

Speaker 3 (36:47):
Python versus.

Speaker 1 (36:48):
Crocodile, since we're talking about it and we
had to set up for our PoisonNostalgia, so let's say we're
remaking this again.
What elements of the classicRobocop do you believe are
essential to maintain in anyfuture adaptations, and how do
they contribute to the enduringappeal of the franchise?

Speaker 2 (37:07):
I think we're at a point where we could make a
movie that has that satiricalfrom the original but like, also
extremely meta.
So, like you could have allthese elements where you you're
cutting to different, you wouldcut to, like the fox news, you
know, versus cnn, but you wouldalso go into, like these late

(37:31):
night pundits, you are like, youknow, like that late one, like
the late night talk shows, likecolbert and john stewart have
your instagrams and your tiktoks.
And, yeah, you have yourInstagrams and your TikToks and
yeah, you have your like realityshows where it's like a
discussion there, like you know,like, even like Real Housewives
of Detroit.
They're like real cyborgs ofAtlanta and I think you know, I

(37:55):
think it and you know we're backinto that, like you know,
goriness, that the 80s movieslike that could do, and you know
, goriness, that the 80s movieslike that could do.
And you know, like withDeadpool and stuff, you can have
that, like I said, like fourthwall, breaking meta humor, and
it would work.
Now.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
I think one of the kind of going off the meta humor
and modern day influence orculture kind of of what you and
mike are talking about, alsowith these reality shows.
Um, I think one of the thingsyou have to keep in robocop is
the fake news segments.

(38:30):
Like you're talking about thefox news and the, the cnn or
whatever the, the og 87, it waslike just like a regular news
broadcast who are reallyflipping about violence, and
then this one it's like the likepundit guy who's like super
biased towards this one company.

(38:50):
I think A different layer thatmight come about through that,
though, would be what if your,your news broadcasters were AI
fake influencers now on socialmedia?
There's like AI powered, likeit's like a AR, ai generated

(39:12):
person that can talk and theymake like make some person
thousands of dollars.
I could see like the newsbroadcast being fake too, and
some of the parts of robocopcould talk like tackle the
growing artificialness of all ofour existence that we rely so

(39:32):
much on this technology that arewe more machine than the
robocop?

Speaker 4 (39:37):
see, now you're kind of like inching close to
bringing like Matrix into theshared universe too, and I'm
kind of here for it.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Oh see, I thought I was going WALL-E.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
WALL-E, mike would still be here for that.

Speaker 4 (39:50):
Yeah, you know honestly you know, they lived a
good life in that space station.
They couldn't walk, Mike.
They didn't have to walk,Andrew.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
They didn't have to walk, andrew.
They didn't have to.
They still have arteries.

Speaker 4 (40:06):
They still have Michael, all right moving right
along my new dystopian butcherthat tickled you, andrew.

Speaker 2 (40:19):
That was fun, but did .
Did anybody else think thatValen in the remake was like a
discount wish version of, uh,donald Logue, donald Logue could
have played that part Iactually don't know just wait on
my IMDB's Donald.
Logue he was.
He was the partner in Gotham.

Speaker 4 (40:40):
Oh, he was.
Yeah, no, come on.

Speaker 1 (40:46):
Bullock Got to pull a .
Mike nerd reference HarveyBullock.

Speaker 4 (40:50):
Yeah, he was great in that role, by the way, loved
him.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
As they say, opinions are like androids cold and
heartless, yet inevitable.
Mike, you're up first.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
There's something about like the original that's
just like.
It's just classic sciencefiction, right, like it's just
good, what you don't agree I'msaying?
You gave a weird look, youthrew me off my game, man, it's
not science fiction.
It is, though he's a robot cop.
He's a cyborg.
How is's not science fiction?

(41:23):
It is, though, kind he's arobot cop, he's a cyborg.
How is that not science fiction?

Speaker 1 (41:27):
because it's a man in a suit.
Even when the first movie cameout, it wasn't that far off of
being possible.

Speaker 4 (41:32):
I feel like, I feel like that's still fiction.
I was gonna say I feel like theblending of man and Machine is
like grounds for a sci-fi campepisode, sir.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
Maybe if it was more like the remake is more science
fiction than the original.
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (41:55):
They had his lungs floating in sacks.
The lungs are sacked.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
That's not what our lungs do anyway.

Speaker 4 (42:02):
Yeah, right, Like that are literally what they do
they float in sacks?
no, they oxygenate your blood.
That's that's how they anyway.
Um no, there's just somethinglike.
There's just something likeclassic, appealing, like maybe
sci-fi, sticking with it movieabout the original.

(42:24):
I feel, like we said earlier,the remake wasn't awful.
I didn't hate it.
I feel like maybe RottenTomatoes audience is a little
bit harsh on it, but I likeaction movies, so maybe I'm a
little bit biased.
I also feel like, just likeeverything else in that era, it
I'm a little bit biased, but Ialso feel like it just just like
everything else in that era, ittook itself a little bit too

(42:46):
seriously.
Embrace the fun, right, be more, be less.
Like, look at how action-y weare and be more fast and furious
, be absurd, be ludicrous, rollwith it.
People will have fun.
People are going to complainabout it.
I mean, look how successful thefat, fast and furious franchise
has been because they're likelet's, how crazy can we be?

(43:08):
Like, do that, and it landstotally differently.
That that's my, my take theywent into space all right
speaking, going to space, rob,what do you?

Speaker 3 (43:17):
think.
I think that Mike makes somegood points about the difference
between the 80s film and the2014 film, and it reminds me of
another reboot that we coveredfrom the 80s slash the 2012s,
with a Marvel-esque appearanceby Chris Hemsworth Wolverine oh

(43:41):
yes, I forgot yes very much thesame thing, was worse, wolverine
.
Oh, yes, yes, very much thesame thing.

Speaker 4 (43:45):
Yes, that's another great example.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Yes, 100% the 80s version of Red Dawn.
Over the top, a little campy,some violence.
Didn't know where the PG-13rating was.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
It was made because of that film.

Speaker 3 (44:02):
And then the new one in this same time period, 2012,
2014,.
Just kind of takes itself tooseriously and the protagonists
are kind of bland.
And that is how I feel aboutthese two films as well.
The 87, it just has personality.

(44:23):
The RoboCop feels like it'smore real because it's practical
effects, it's not floating CGvisual effects and he's just
like turns into like moldy,moldable plastic when he moves,
like in the 2014 film, which isa lot of CG at that time, it

(44:46):
just once stuff starts movingreally fast, it just doesn't
look realistic anymore.
And so, like I the 2014 Robocopuh, alex Murphy, he just
doesn't feel as real to me asPeter Weller's version did, and
so that's why I like theoriginal.

(45:09):
It knew exactly what it wantedto say.
It had a lot of stuff to sayabout corporate America and
policing and who was reallybeing hurt by those things,
which would be working classpeople and even the police
officers who were working withinthe system, and so I really
like that.

(45:30):
I don't feel like the 2014 filmever really like decides what it
really wants to be, because andit was it didn't stop to ask if
it should do something, it onlyasked if it could.
You know that's.
That's just how I felt about it.
I I don't.

(45:53):
I didn't really like the remakeall that much.
I was bored with it, but reallyloved the 87 version Very good.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Was?
Was his suit actually CG in theremake?

Speaker 3 (46:03):
I thought it was a bunch of times in it, just
anytime he was moving more thana walking pace.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
For sure I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure, the scene
where they take apart his body.
So you see his one hand, hislungs, in his face.

Speaker 4 (46:18):
I think that was cg oh, you mean those weren't his
real lungs exposed?

Speaker 2 (46:25):
to everybody, floating in balls of sex.

Speaker 4 (46:28):
Wow, they fooled me.

Speaker 3 (46:30):
You know I just thought, Joel, really you know
Joel Kinnaman, he just he's amethod actor.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
Andrew's so mad at me .

Speaker 3 (46:42):
Cut it out, don't worry, he's like.
That was very quippy, we don'tdo it on that other podcast.

Speaker 1 (46:51):
That was too much at my expense.
I'm cutting it out.

Speaker 4 (47:00):
Andrew leaves the jokes at everyone else's expense
, but cuts out the jokes at hisexpense.

Speaker 3 (47:05):
Absolutely, that's the editor's prerogative alright
.

Speaker 1 (47:10):
Well, speaking of CG Jess.

Speaker 2 (47:14):
I'm all real baby well, yeah, you are oh boy, yeah
.
So I put in my notes that the1987 film I'm just crying, we
can't get it together, okay.

(47:34):
So I think the I think whatbasically sums up the movies is
that the 1987 movie, robocop isa robot who's also a cop, and
the 2014, robocop is a robotwho's also a cop, and the 2014.
Robocop is a cop who's also arobot and I think that's like a
very Like specific, you know,description of them, because he,

(47:56):
you know, in the original hehas all his memories Erased and
he's just this very, you know,does things by the book.
He, he's a robot, he has hisprogramming.
He can't go against hisprogramming, but in the remake
he's still has his memories.
He still, you know, tries to goalong with who he was as a cop

(48:16):
and a person and then, like, atthe way we said, in the end,
love saved him.
So I think that's a very youknow, that's very distinctive
how these two are.
Um, I I've said before I reallythink that they should have
stuck with some the satire, havemore samuel jackson sprinkled

(48:37):
throughout or, like I said, hadto have different um, you know,
newscasters throughout.
You could have seen the twopolitical, because it was sam
jackson was obviously forrobocop, where it would have
been interesting to see theother takes on it.
But you know, I will say thesam jackson parts they had to
have, just, you know, done thaton a set when he was doing the

(49:00):
capital one commercials.
Because I, I, when that startedI was like dang, this feels
like a capital one commercialwith sam jackson.
And then I remembered when wesaw this movie, me and andrew,
originally, like when it firstcame out, I remember us talking
about like wow, this is like hiscapital one commercials.
Well, because it was, it wasthe day the capital one

(49:20):
commercials back then.

Speaker 1 (49:21):
I don't think they have this anymore, but it was.
It was the Capital Onecommercials back then.
I don't think they have thisanymore, but it was like him on
a circular stage and he's likewalking around, talking.
Well, there's like videosbehind him and he's like what's
in your wallet?
And it's exactly what this was.
And Jess is right, it was likethey were.
They were like what's yourwallet, robo Cops, your guy.

Speaker 3 (49:44):
You know your wallet Robocop's your guy.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
They should have had that movie tie-in commercial.
It's not hard to have beenpurposeful.
I can't imagine it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaking of purposeful, are younot done?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
I'm not done.
There's a lot of problems withthe remake.
It's just, like I said, very,very cookie cutter action film
and it's just, it's just.
So.
Many of those exist where, ifyou want to just go see, turn
your brain off and go see anaction movie.
There's plenty that come out.
If this would have been just aregular robot action movie

(50:20):
without the robocop name, Ithink it would have done better,
but the fact that it had thatstamp on it that this is robocop
, then it's not gonna be fun.
So I definitely think theoriginal is better and like
there's so many, there's so manynostalgia points that I've only
seen each movie once.
But I know so much more of whatabout the you know nostalgic
scenes of the original robocop,like I said before, the shooting

(50:42):
of the bad guy and the dick,because through the woman's
skirt, like that's so iconicwhen he, when Dick Jones is
falling out the window and hisarms are, you know, three feet
longer than they're supposed tobe while he's wailing around,
like all these things are soiconic.
The only things I rememberedfrom the new one were that you
know, you saw his, they tookaway and you'll saw his lungs in

(51:04):
his hand and the fact that he,when he escaped, he ran into
like a rice paddy field, likethat's the two things I
remembered from this film.
Yeah, and it's like that'sthose aren't.
Those aren't memorable Allright Speaking for nothing.

Speaker 3 (51:20):
Oh, sorry, I was just going say that for me it wasn't
the lungs like inflating anddeflating.
When he was in that scene wherehe's like freaking out.
It's near the end where he hasthat sobering reminder he
doesn't want to see himselfanymore and you can see him
swallow, like he has a lump inhis throat, and you can see his

(51:43):
esophagus swallow and it's likevery unsettling, but also like
somehow a little bit moreemotionally impacting when it
gets a little closer in on him.
For that, rather than the likeoh gosh, he's all he's lungs,
it's like the emotional part ofit there was.
I was like, oh, that's likesomething they probably couldn't

(52:08):
have done back in the day?

Speaker 2 (52:11):
Okay, if I remember, did they actually show if he
captured, if Valen went toprison?
Because I for the life of medon't know what happened to him.

Speaker 4 (52:21):
I don't know if he went to jail or not.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
I don't know if he killed him.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
I don't know what happened to him.
I don't know if he went to jailor not.
I don't know if he killed him.

Speaker 3 (52:24):
I don't know what happened to him.
I'm pretty sure he killed him.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
I don't even remember .
It was so unmemorable.
There's like five villains inthe remake.
It's so hard to follow it.

Speaker 4 (52:36):
It's better than three problems.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
Yeah, so for me the movie is like here's the thing I
I really enjoy the originalrobocop it's classic, it's fun,
it's everything you want in amovie.
No, not science fiction in amovie.
It's everything you want in amovie and, uh, I think the thing

(53:02):
because, rob, you've had somevery strong feelings about the
new Robocop but for me it's likeI really like Joel Kinnaman, I
really like Michael Keaton, Ireally like Gary Oldman, I like
Michael Williams, you know, Ilike Samuel L Jackson.
Like there is so many actors init that I enjoy in just seeing

(53:24):
them in things that like Ialmost give the 2014 more of a
pass than I should because it itis like a, it is like a kind of
a it's it's got good visualeffects.
I enjoy, like the this, a lotof the police scenes when they
do them.
I enjoy, like some of the, theplay with Gary Oldman and he's

(53:48):
again a chameleon, as he alwaysis, and I just there's so much
about it that I I want to likeit and like I was looking
forward to seeing the scene withhim all opened up again,
because I just I love that kindof idea and concept for for that
.
And so it's hard for me to likereally hate on the movie totally

(54:09):
and be like it was awful,especially because I like those
actors, but at the same timeit's it doesn't hold a candle to
the original Robocop, becauseit can't, because it's.
It's a different movie as muchas it's the same movie and it is
actually a reboot.
It's such a different moviethat it's hard to be like

(54:31):
they're the same.

Speaker 3 (54:33):
That's my take on it you make a really good point
about just the the collection ofactors in this film.
There are, like you're saying,you've Gary Oldman.
Joel Kinnaman is doing a greatjob in like what he's really
good at, samuel Jackson, michaelKey all those are really great

(54:56):
individually and individuallythe performances are good and I
think where it fell apart for metoo is like the collective of
it.
It's like when those all cometogether it's like there's like
good stuff here but the filmjust doesn't get there.
It doesn't become like the sumof its parts.

Speaker 1 (55:18):
Well, and for me, the hard part is is that I don't
actually feel like.
I don't feel like it would makea good robocop movie if it was
just a little better plot, justbecause, again, robocop almost
feels untouchable because it'sso classic and it's so built in
that like it is what it was withred foreman, you know as this

(55:40):
crazy bad guy and yeah heactually stuck his foot into
someone's ass.
Right, and you know, I likeRonnie Cox too and he was a good
bad guy.
He's the perfect bad guy forthat, you know.
And so, like it's, it's sofunny because it's like don't
remake Robocop, just don't.
It's like Back to the Future,don't remake it because we got

(56:01):
to cancel our podcast.
But I mean like, just don't.
It's like Back to the Future,don't remake it because then
we've got to cancel our podcast.
Let's do it.
Don't remake Robocop and justmake a different movie about.
If you want to tell a storyabout putting robots in America
as police, tell a better storyof Chappie in America, there you

(56:23):
go, remake Chappie in America.

Speaker 4 (56:24):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
Remake.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
Chappie, you can remake that one.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
Chappie was.
So Chappie was amazing for thefirst 15 minutes and then it
sucked, you know.
And Chappie was based on ashort film that was like the
first 15 minutes of Chappie.
So you know, that's where itwas, but like that would be a
much more interesting movie, Ithink, with these actors and in
American things like that, thentrying to remake something as

(56:51):
untouchable as Robocop.
So, that being said, I wouldgive it a four point five on the
scale.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
No.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
And the remake would be about 8.5.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
So there you go.
It is illegal to do theperiodic table.
It's not the periodic table.

Speaker 4 (57:15):
The periodic table.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
Alright, so our keynote listeners.
Robert has brought us thricethe questions, thrice the

(57:37):
comments, thrice the game, aMike Rogers original, rob nail
him out for us.

Speaker 4 (57:44):
I did.
Didn't bring us Thrice the Game.

Speaker 3 (57:45):
I did not bring Thrice the Game.
Actually, you could probablycheck it out on jammerfun if you
want to find Thrice the Game.
Maybe it'll be there by thetime this podcast episode.
I don't remember what ourrelease schedule is for some of
our games, but there's a lotcoming down the pipeline so we

(58:06):
want to want to cover my basebases here.
Yes, I am the king of thelisteners, that is, that is me,
and we do have three greatcomments from our listeners.
And then Andrew will have, ingreat ironic fashion, for
Robocop, a murder robot afterthat.

(58:27):
And so our first one comes fromJustin D, and he has a question
for us and he says do you thinkthe new Robocop is stronger
than the original or has theconcept of technology just
advanced to make the movie Magicmore realistic?
So maybe like fizzles out alittle bit?

Speaker 2 (58:42):
I do think that advanced to make the movie magic
more realistic, so maybe likefizzles out a little bit I do
think that they did make the newone more not hurtable, but only
because of the technologythat's in there.
It's not necessarily that he'smore resilient to the bullets
and stuff, but more that he hasthe technology to avoid the
bullets, because he had thatscene where he was training and

(59:06):
he was like avoiding all they're, like don't let him surround
you.
And he didn't because he wasprogrammed not to he was like,
uh, christian bale fromequilibrium.

Speaker 1 (59:15):
It was in that training scene, though they
specifically said the the robotshad, like, smaller calibers so
they couldn't hurt him as much.
Uh, I, I think so for me, asmuch as you want to say, sure,
yeah, the new one is obviouslymore powerful.
I feel like the fact that theymade such a big deal in the
original one that you know hewas made out of this titanium

(59:36):
alloy that like, which probablyisn't as strong as it sounds,
but it did back in 1987, youknow it, they actually went into
the movie trying to be likethis is how tough he is we're.
In the new one, it was justkind of like he's in a metal
suit.
So, yeah, he's tough.
You know he's a tough guy, he'sa tough cookie to crack.
So I, I guess I feel like themovie didn't make him seem more

(01:00:00):
tough from a plot standpoint.
I think the original, from aplot standpoint, made him feel
like he was tougher from from anactual visual standpoint.

Speaker 3 (01:00:10):
Yeah, they look about the same, talking about the
magic and it becoming morerealistic.
It's like he wasn't as specialin this movie because there were
all these autonomous robots,the EM-208s or whatever.
There was the big ED-209 guyswho were like from the original
movie, but tons of them, andthen you had these human-looking

(01:00:35):
ones.
We'll call them the Chappies.
Yeah, they were the Chappies,the Chappies, they were already.
They kind of grounded it inthat universe.
It's like, oh okay, well, he'snot special, it's just,
basically, the military envoyguy was like you have to make a
suckier version for the UnitedStates to be policed with.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Yeah, and I think that's actually a really good
point.
I didn't think about it untilyou literally just said it here,
but you're right, think thereason why also I feel like the
original was stronger andtougher is because, you're right
, there were so many of thechappy guys around that just
didn't make.
He just didn't feel speciallike he just looks, like you
said, he's just another one ofthem, you know, and so I think

(01:01:18):
you're right, I think that'swhat it was, that that fizzled
out his cool potential yeah, andthen they, he like called him
tin man and played the wizard ofoz song.

Speaker 3 (01:01:28):
It's like it was like it kind of brought him down.
Yeah, to like real levels.
It's not like in the 87 moviewhere he comes walking down this
side hall and all the cops arelike racing to go see what he is
.
Yeah, it's like oh my gosh,what is that right in this

(01:01:48):
universe?
It's kind of like hey, he'slike, he's like the chappies,
he's like the chappy, butthere's a face right he's the
aldi brand of hey, aldi is great, yeah, he's the, the Kirkland
brand.
The Kirkland brand, oh my gosh,what do we got next, rob?
All right, our next commentcomes from Aaron and he.

(01:02:15):
He had a few different thingshe wanted to talk about he.
He was kind of thinking aboutit in terms of someone who'd
watched it a while, so hethought about Samuel L Jackson
being very hammy, which I wouldagree with.
Just the opening shot beingSamuel L Jackson.
Also, them covering over thelion roar with him coughing and

(01:02:36):
like doing his vocal exerciseswas very cheesy.

Speaker 1 (01:02:41):
Oh see, I disagree.
I like that part right.
I like I liked when they wentover the logo with him doing the
x-rays.
It just kind of like I don'tknow.
I like it when they screw withthe intro logo.
It's like uh what was that?
Was it resident evil, where thelady standing with the torch
and the zombies come up toattack her and she whacks them?

Speaker 4 (01:03:02):
You know I don't remember.

Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that seems like a comedy
zombie.
Yeah, not a Resident Evil.
Yeah, I don't think.

Speaker 4 (01:03:11):
I don't think Resident Evil, I think
Zombieland.
I just like it when they dothat kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
Or there's even that like the Matrix, how it like
fuzzes it out to green.
You know, in P in pitch.

Speaker 4 (01:03:23):
Perfect how they sing the uh universal pictures theme
song.

Speaker 2 (01:03:28):
Yeah, yeah, that one too, although samuel jackson did
get his uh motherfucker thrownin there, although it was beeped
but he did.
It was like down.

Speaker 3 (01:03:37):
Uh, aaron had one more comment that he wanted to
talk about, and that was thatthe challenge with the remake is
that they didn't really changeit enough if they were going to
change it, so they had alreadyretreaded something.
Robocop is like this one of one, as aaron was saying.
It's like very novel andinteresting for its time.
He he compared it to maybedoing something where it's like

(01:04:01):
Tron versus the Matrix, whereyou they're a similar concept of
like going into software, butthe environment and the theme
are completely different.
And so if you're going tochange it and this is something
we talked about earlier whereit's like RoboCop is it's one of

(01:04:25):
one thing and, as Andrew said,don't just don't do it, don't
remake it.
Or you had this other kind ofconcept that you could have just
done and it'd be differentenough that we'd be talking
about this as if it was anadjacent instead of like a full
on reboot.

Speaker 4 (01:04:42):
So there's our extended universe movie tron and
matrix the tron and the matrix,another tron, yeah, tron yeah,
it's interesting because I'm not, I guess I'm not entirely sure
what the question is here, but II think it's more uh, more of a

(01:05:04):
comment aaron is is hitting on.
You know, the thing that we've,the thing that we've been saying
all along, is that the 2014 wasjust like kind of a misstep,
and the matrix thing is actuallyis actually an interesting
point.
Um, like the, the matrixresurrection was that title of

(01:05:25):
the new one right in many ways,like truly retold the story of
the first matrix it was.
There were like like majorparallels to the first story
that was told, but like wrappedup in a modern In, and I feel

(01:05:51):
like you know the the RoboCopthing.
Just to go back to what I wassaying earlier about if, if they
did RoboCop now, I think, likeyou know, if they had waited,
you know, another 10 years anddone RoboCop now instead of in
2014, then you can get the likeAI based reboot that I was like
hinting would happen if theywere to do it now and like

(01:06:14):
remove the human elemententirely and go around the like
ethical controversy of like AIversus not, and it's like you
can tell the same story and havethe similar beats, but you put
like a modern skin on it and Ifeel like that kind of thing
like like would land, you know,a little bit, a little bit

(01:06:35):
differently.
I do still think they can'ttake themselves too seriously.
But yeah, I think uh, yeah, I, Ithink I would agree.
I think there was a way thatthey could have done the reboot,
but they didn't take it.

Speaker 3 (01:06:54):
All right.
Well, that brings us to ourlast commenter, derek, and this
was the commenter that I alludedto earlier, the superhero.
And so he talks about RoboCopin 87 being kind of like a
cyberpunk, robotic sci-fi film,and then the 2014 being more

(01:07:18):
closely resembling like asuperhero comic book movie,
which very much a sign of thetimes in 2014.
But he also touched on that the2014 doesn't really it doesn't

(01:07:42):
generate the same kind ofsympathy for the title character
that the original did, um and,like he said, like he says here
in his comment, he says that the2014 remake um, it offers
plenty of things to like um, butit doesn't really offer
anything for you to love.
And so that was Derek's commenton it.

(01:08:04):
He that's kind of his rating ofit.
Um, he likes the original umand the 2014 one.
He just he liked some things init but didn't really enjoy it
overall, but the thing he gaveyou to love was love that saved
the robot.
It did save the robot.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
You know, I will say, I think, as a dad, that's where
I disagree a little bit withDerek, just because I think
there was some very almostheart-wrenching scenes with Alex
Murphy and his kid, know, oreven with his wife, and you're

(01:08:47):
like, oh, they'll never get totouch again, essentially they'll
never get to have an intimatemoment again, and and and being,
and it's like he's like he says, I'd rather you killed me
because it's like you, you know,and that's.
I was just like, that's like Ithink kind of like an emotional
moment for me as a dad to belike, yeah, if I, if I could

(01:09:07):
still, you know, I don't want toleave my kids or my wife or my
family, but I don't know if Icould and if I could not after a
serious accident, I couldn'ttouch them, I couldn't emote
with them, I couldn't do thethings that I do with them as a
dad.
Like to me, there was a lotmore emotion in that than in the
original, where his family justwas absent and you didn't.

(01:09:29):
They think you're dead.

Speaker 4 (01:09:31):
Period, full stop, you know well, I think that's a
good point, like circling backon like the, you know, like it
feels more like a superheromovie kind of thing, right, like
this was in that window whereeverything's a franchise, right.
They're like everything'sgetting like sequels and
trilogies.
There really aren't you know aton of like one-off things that

(01:09:53):
are kind of floating aroundright, because the MCU is
exploding and everybody's likewe got to have our major tie in,
you know series like longrunning thing, and I think like
there's so much of what theremake is like that you were
saying, rob, that's likeestablishing a character, it's
setting up a universe and it'sbuilding a world that you know
maybe somebody was hoping wouldyou know, do well enough to like

(01:10:16):
green light, a second and athird movie where I think you
would start to see more of thelike stuff to love about the
character and then.
But then like, because you likedrew the iron man comparison,
the thing that iron man diddifferently is like iron man set
up a franchise like it didn'tnecessarily tell, like it told a
an origin story for a characterand opened the door for more

(01:10:41):
things to come.
But there was so much of whatiron man did as a super as like
the like, I would argue like thefirst of the modern superhero
movies in a lot of ways.
Right that like right like thatmoment at the end where he's
like he's got the note cards andhe throws them and he's like I
am iron man and everybody goesnuts it.
It's like like there were,there wasn't anything like that

(01:11:05):
like explosive, like oh my goshin this movie to really like
propel it into, you know, asecond or a third outing that
would, you know, potentiallyhave solidified the character
and made the character moreappealing.
Oh, you know, over time, yeah,it doesn't really.

Speaker 3 (01:11:27):
It doesn't really.
It doesn't catapult it intolike, oh, we're gonna get
another sequel.
It almost feels like at the endof the movie well, that's it,
that was the RoboCop story andmaybe we feel like we might not
get a another movie out of thetitle card at the end right,
he's gotta be.

Speaker 1 (01:11:47):
Yeah, I mean they gotta keep keep that going,
gotta be murphy all right.
Well, as rob uh hinted, we dohave our hot takes with a murder
robot and, um, you know thatwas that's meg three and
dropping some hot takes on us.
And this, this times, thisweek's, this episode, wherever
you want to call it hot take wasI love RoboCop Not surprising

(01:12:10):
for a murder robot, and thenI've never seen the remake.
Oh, it was a weird hot take,but it's what.
It's what the murder robot gaveus.
So, just for a little extrakicks and giggles, I went and
asked the other murder robot Iknow, which is, of course, open
AI and uh open AI's hot take was.

(01:12:34):
Robocop Isn't just a sci-fiaction flick.
It's a sharp critique ofunchecked capitalism and the
dehumanizing effects ofcorporate power.

Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
So there you have it.
I didn't realize.
Your open AI wore a monocle.

Speaker 1 (01:12:48):
You remember Ass Jeeves?

Speaker 3 (01:12:51):
Did you tell him your name is actually Ass Jeeves
yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:12:56):
Dear open AI, you will now be Ass Jeeves and I
said understood, here we go Justpassed away.
So that's what we got from our,our murder robot here.
So, all right, wow, let's takea go ahead and go ahead and take
our moment here and talk aboutupcoming movies and things we're
excited to see.
Uh, and then if you guys wantto check back real quick on

(01:13:18):
anything you talked aboutpreviously, you wanted to see
and you did end up seeing, youcan mention that real quick.
So, mike, why don't?

Speaker 4 (01:13:24):
you hit us off.
I mean, at the time ofrecording this, I am still
itching for Deadpool.
We're about a week and a halfaway at this point and it's just
getting everything you gottaget that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:39):
It's checked out.

Speaker 4 (01:13:40):
No, I need this movie yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:13:47):
I'm jacked it's almost uncomfortable how much
you talk like this you're.

Speaker 2 (01:13:52):
Hugh Jacked man, oh boy no, but I'm also.

Speaker 4 (01:13:59):
I'm also kind of excited for the Dogman movie.
I think that's going to be afun movie to go see with my kids
.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
Oh boy, I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:14:17):
At least you didn't knock yourself out this time.

Speaker 4 (01:14:20):
Yeah, I feel like I've done that before.
That's a story for another day.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
No, I heard it.

Speaker 3 (01:14:27):
Yeah, you're like a story for another day, a
previous day, a previous day.

Speaker 4 (01:14:33):
Yesterday.
Yeah, no, I'm excited.
I'm excited for Dog man.
Like, not as like.
I can't wait to go see thismovie myself, but I think my
kids are going to love it.
And it can't wait to go seethis movie myself, but I think
my kids are gonna love it andit's gonna be a fun movie to go
see, to like take my kids to andlike make a a family like movie
night out of it like getpopcorn, get snacks and just

(01:14:54):
watch like a really fun movie.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
Kids movie was it that one where batman's dog
meets someone else's dog?

Speaker 4 (01:14:59):
okay, good super pet, no, no that's super, that's um,
yeah, that's super.
Pets.
Batman ace meets crypto okaythat was actually like kind of
entertaining as the a dc nerd.
But no, no, this is a.
Um, it's a.
Like a.
It's a.
It's a movie adaptation of aseries of graphic novels for

(01:15:22):
kids by the author of theCaptain Underpants series.
I'll be passing on that, Ithink you're.

Speaker 3 (01:15:31):
I feel like.

Speaker 4 (01:15:33):
I feel like your kids .
I feel like your kids would digDogman in a big way and I
actually think you would do.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
I think there's aspects of this that I'm not
into the whole CaptainUnderpants thing, so I'm pretty
sure we whole Captain Underpantsthing I'm pretty sure we have
one of the books.
Oh boy I don't like wearingUnderpants.
Fetch 22, lord of the Fleas,okay.

(01:16:00):
So really, what I was saying isthat these books are just dad
jokes.
They're just dad joke titles.

Speaker 4 (01:16:03):
There's a lot of dad, dad jokes there's a robot in
the books called 80 HD.
Um, it's it, it's, it'sentertaining.
I, yeah, yeah all right, rob.

Speaker 1 (01:16:17):
What are you looking forward to?

Speaker 3 (01:16:20):
so, uh, looking forward to alien Romulus, I'm I
kind of I'm hoping that it uh isgood.
I this episode might come outaround the time that it's in
theater, so, uh, I am hopingit's it's good.
It does seem to kind of harkenback to the original two, um

(01:16:41):
little scarier uh, and kind ofsticking more to the horror side
of things, and also to go backto something that I talked about
wanting to see.
We talked about Furiosa and Idid end up getting to see that

(01:17:02):
and after watching it I textAndrew the very next day and
said do you want to talk aboutthis?
And I freaking love that movie.
So I really enjoyed Furiosa.

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
I don't know why you waited a whole day.
I was ready to talk about it assoon as I got to the theater.
It was that night, it wasprocessing it, but it was a
really great film, and Will, itwas at night, it was processing
it.

Speaker 3 (01:17:23):
I would have.
It was a really great film.
It's in the schedule now forseason three.
I freaking love that movie.
Really.
It's good.
It's so hard to say you haveMad Max Furiosa and you had
Furiosa.
There was that big gap betweenthose two films that really

(01:17:47):
scared me, like, oh man, is thisreally gonna?
But it was.

Speaker 1 (01:17:51):
It was a great film I think what it was and I think
one of the reason why I thinkgot a little panned and whatnot
was is that if you didn't, ifyou weren't like a fan of, or I
should say, if you didn't wantmore of the story of Furiosa,
the film did very little for you.
Right, it wasn't just, itwasn't another fetch quest movie

(01:18:13):
like the original one was.
It was a story about Furiosa.
So if you didn't really careabout the character Furiosa, the
movie did nothing for you.
But I really like the characterFuriosa, so it did a lot for me
.

Speaker 3 (01:18:24):
It was perfect.

Speaker 1 (01:18:25):
Yeah, it was great.
It was great, jess.
What about you?
What are you looking forward to?

Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
So I this is a new looking forward to and it's
funny because it's actually intheaters now.
But I had not heard at allabout the Nicholas Cage long
legs movie and then all of asudden it started blowing up on
like my tiktok and reddit andI'm like I want to see this
movie what is this?

(01:18:50):
it's a psychological horrormovie where he's like a serial
killer and I think there's likea like, a like a supernatural
element to it.
So I'm it apparently.
It's like incredibly freaky andnow I really want to see it.

Speaker 3 (01:19:06):
Can I see a daddy long legs?
Was it on your fat page?

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
I don't know, it was on my flip page.

Speaker 1 (01:19:11):
On your fat page.

Speaker 2 (01:19:13):
Stop it.
No, I want to update my list toalso add this movie of things.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
I want to see.

Speaker 4 (01:19:18):
Okay, all right, add this movie of things I want to
see.
Okay, alright.

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
Well, and I also want to see the new M Night
Shyamalan movie Crap.

Speaker 1 (01:19:31):
Shyamalan Ding dong.

Speaker 2 (01:19:33):
Yeah, I'm curious.
I'm curious about it.
I'm a little excited.
I want to see it.

Speaker 4 (01:19:38):
The only Shyamalan movie that I remember actually
liking was Sixth Sense.
You didn't like the half-meat.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
What Shyamalan movies , what no I?

Speaker 4 (01:19:58):
liked the Sixth Sense .
That is the one that I liked.

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
You didn't like Avatar the Last Airbender.

Speaker 4 (01:20:03):
Oh, you shut your mouth.
Nobody liked his airbender.

Speaker 2 (01:20:14):
That sounded very dirty.

Speaker 1 (01:20:16):
Yeah, that was like a euphemism.
I heard one.

Speaker 4 (01:20:22):
Nobody likes Shyamalan's airbender nobody
likes sham lam's ding dong whatwell, surely not nobody, but
anyways.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
So for me I what for me?
I saw a trailer just recentlyfor a movie called lee starring
kate winslet uh, who is?
It's a story of the characternamed lee, who's a fashion model

(01:20:56):
photographer, and she becomes awar correspondent for vogue
during world war ii.
So it's.
It looks really good, it's goodit's got annie sandberg in it
weirdly, but he actually lookslike good in it, like so being a
dramatic actor yeah, and it'slike kate winslet and um
alexander skarsgård so I don'tknow.

Speaker 4 (01:21:20):
Like a biopic, like, is it based on the true story?

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
I well, I, I don't think so, but I mean, it's kind
of take like take the movieCivil War and put it in World
War 2 and you got something umnot much, but it could be a life
form Rob got it so anyways,that's, that's what I'm looking

(01:21:47):
forward to.
I also saw Furiosa what was itcalled?
again, lee.
I also saw Furiosa, like Robdid, and I am still looking
forward to Twisters, which isout in the next couple days.
I believe the marketingdepartment released a bunch of

(01:22:07):
tornadoes on our area toadvertise for it.

Speaker 4 (01:22:10):
You should see the map man.
One of them went right by me.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
We delayed recording a day that was freaky.

Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
I was like see the movie late, recording a day.
Because yeah, I was just you'refunny seeing a movie.
We had taken the kids down tothe basement and my parents were
down there with us and as wewere heading upstairs I said to
my dad I said, man, this is apretty good marketing for the
twisters movie.
And he says to me oh, they'remaking another one.
And I'm like yeah, gotta listento my podcast pop just scream

(01:22:47):
we're going in so, anyways,that's my movies, alright.
Well, that's going to do it forus in this episode.
We want to thank you all forlistening and would like to
remind you to check out ourwebsite, wwwjammerfun.

Speaker 2 (01:23:06):
That's j-a-m-rfun cut what jess I've seen www.

Speaker 1 (01:23:16):
Okay, that threw me off.
All right, mark.
And be sure to follow us on oursocial media, which you can
find in the description for thispodcast down below, because
they are wild.
There you can interact with ourgood, good social boy, rob, who

(01:23:36):
knows all about the socialmedia because he is the oldest
one here.
That's how it works.
That's how it works.
That's how it works.
That's right.
All right, well, thank you allfor joining us once again.
And remember, check out ourPatreon, check out our social
media and, most importantly, letyour friends know that you love
Rebooted, and maybe get aT-shirt to let them know you
love it too, or a hoodie, youknow, or a hoodie, if you're

(01:24:00):
Mike.
We'll see you in the nextepisode where we're going to be
talking about those good, goodangels from Charlie Bye.

Speaker 2 (01:24:10):
Bye Murphy.

Speaker 4 (01:24:15):
Bye, sam Eagle, we'll go.
Sam Eagle, sam Eagle.
Ray Wise played the devil inReaper, the TV show I know.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
But actually I think I really feel like Samwise and
Raywise and San Eagle could bethe same person.
I could see it.
What tickled?

Speaker 2 (01:24:31):
me.
I made you like guffaw fromyour belly me yeah, when I said
Wally, you were like you'relaughing, nice Old man.

Speaker 1 (01:24:51):
I'm not an old man.
I don't know why that remindedme of.
Then we'll get our pants offand we'll sing a song.

Speaker 2 (01:24:57):
Honey, here's my pants.
Why can't the Lego movie?

Speaker 1 (01:25:01):
do it.

Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
Wait, did the Lego movie come out the same year as
the?
So Lego movie do it.
Wait, didn't Lego movie comeout the same year?
So Lego movie could do thesatire.
Let's do the different things,but RoboCop didn't it did come
out the same year.

Speaker 3 (01:25:12):
Let's get it together no-transcript.