The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot ( talk) 22 March 2022 [1].
This article is about RoboCop, the 1987 science fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven, known for its excessive violence, prescient themes and concepts, the catchphrase "Dead or alive, you're coming with me," and that time RoboCop shot a guy in the ****. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
As hard of a cinephile as I am, I must admit I've never seen this movie. Hopefully one day; I've been a longtime Basil fan and I'm really curious as to his work here. Gerald WL
Resolved comments from Gerald WL 13:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
* "directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"-- confusing multiple use of ands here. Suggest "directed by Paul Verhoeven, with a screenplay by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"
That's all I get for Prod and Release. I plan to review the Special effects section later, but cant do it tomorrow as I'll be celebrating my birthday. You've made me tempted to buy the Criterion now-- oh yeah, the part where you mentioned Criterion Collection, the "The" must be decapitalized. Gerald WL 10:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey um, I just want to say apologies but I need some time off-wiki. Birthdays as it turns out isn't roses and birds, I've been depressed for a while recently due to some real-life problems. I just had the worst panic attack and my mind is so numb, I couldn't even write stuff in my draft. I hope this is okay, and I'll be back. Gerald WL 10:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Me back. Continuing with the review :) I won't be commenting on the Critical response section until the issue below has been resolved, for the sake of stability.. or whatever it's called. Gerald WL 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Aight getting into the last batch! Gerald WL 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Just looking at the critical reception section, I thought I would have a go at copyediting one or two of the paragraphs, but I want to be sure I understand how you've structured that section. In the paragraph starting "Some saw Robocop as a self-aware comic book film..." I see some comments about the direction, and about style, and humour, and scale. The first sentence doesn't seem to really summarize that very well -- what did you intend to be the topic of that paragraph? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have put a paragraph in a sandbox that I'd like you to take a look at. I decided to try to write a paragraph based on the comments about violence in the reviews, without re-reading your paragraph, in order to try to get an independent approach. I think your paragraph on the violence makes a good selection of quotes, and has a definite sequence that it looks like I partly matched: first the reviewers who find the violence is redeemed by comedy, then the more critical reviews. The main thing I don't like about your paragraph is that it feels listy, which is extraordinarily difficult to avoid in these sections. I am certainly not suggesting you should substitute all, or even any, of my version into the article, but I do think it reads more smoothly, and I'd like to know what you think. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
if needed)
czar
14:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Many reviewers discussed the film's violent content. Ebert and Wilmington found the violence to be so excessive that it became deliberately comical, with Ebert writing that ED-209 killing an executive subverted audience expectations of a seemingly serious science-fiction film, making them uncertain what type of film they are watching. Wilmington believed the violent scenes succeeded at creating experiences of sadism and poignancy simultaneously. Other reviewers were more critical, including Kehr and Walter Goodman who believed the satire and critiques of corporate corruption were excuses to indulge in violent visuals. Graham found the violence had a "brooding agonized quality... as if Verhoeven were both appalled and fascinated" by it, and Sterritt said critical praise for the "nasty" film demonstrated a preference for "style over substance".
Starting a fresh section for the review.
That's everything; generally looks in good shape. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Support. Your changes look fine; the rework of the "Corporate power" is a huge improvement. The overlap you removed was all I was noticing, and the explanation of Murphy's death being a post-production shot is fine; it's just my unfamiliarity with the terminology. Nice work. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Markin' my spot :) Pamzeis ( talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's try not to screw this up ;)
Still more to come... Pamzeis ( talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, think that's it from me! Hopefully, you don't mind the out-of-order comments, because I read the article out-of-order. Great article, but definitely not a film I'm interested in seeing as violence is not my cup of tea. Pamzeis ( talk) 10:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Spot-checks not included.
The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot ( talk) 22 March 2022 [1].
This article is about RoboCop, the 1987 science fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven, known for its excessive violence, prescient themes and concepts, the catchphrase "Dead or alive, you're coming with me," and that time RoboCop shot a guy in the ****. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
As hard of a cinephile as I am, I must admit I've never seen this movie. Hopefully one day; I've been a longtime Basil fan and I'm really curious as to his work here. Gerald WL
Resolved comments from Gerald WL 13:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
* "directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"-- confusing multiple use of ands here. Suggest "directed by Paul Verhoeven, with a screenplay by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"
That's all I get for Prod and Release. I plan to review the Special effects section later, but cant do it tomorrow as I'll be celebrating my birthday. You've made me tempted to buy the Criterion now-- oh yeah, the part where you mentioned Criterion Collection, the "The" must be decapitalized. Gerald WL 10:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey um, I just want to say apologies but I need some time off-wiki. Birthdays as it turns out isn't roses and birds, I've been depressed for a while recently due to some real-life problems. I just had the worst panic attack and my mind is so numb, I couldn't even write stuff in my draft. I hope this is okay, and I'll be back. Gerald WL 10:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Me back. Continuing with the review :) I won't be commenting on the Critical response section until the issue below has been resolved, for the sake of stability.. or whatever it's called. Gerald WL 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Aight getting into the last batch! Gerald WL 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Just looking at the critical reception section, I thought I would have a go at copyediting one or two of the paragraphs, but I want to be sure I understand how you've structured that section. In the paragraph starting "Some saw Robocop as a self-aware comic book film..." I see some comments about the direction, and about style, and humour, and scale. The first sentence doesn't seem to really summarize that very well -- what did you intend to be the topic of that paragraph? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have put a paragraph in a sandbox that I'd like you to take a look at. I decided to try to write a paragraph based on the comments about violence in the reviews, without re-reading your paragraph, in order to try to get an independent approach. I think your paragraph on the violence makes a good selection of quotes, and has a definite sequence that it looks like I partly matched: first the reviewers who find the violence is redeemed by comedy, then the more critical reviews. The main thing I don't like about your paragraph is that it feels listy, which is extraordinarily difficult to avoid in these sections. I am certainly not suggesting you should substitute all, or even any, of my version into the article, but I do think it reads more smoothly, and I'd like to know what you think. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
if needed)
czar
14:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Many reviewers discussed the film's violent content. Ebert and Wilmington found the violence to be so excessive that it became deliberately comical, with Ebert writing that ED-209 killing an executive subverted audience expectations of a seemingly serious science-fiction film, making them uncertain what type of film they are watching. Wilmington believed the violent scenes succeeded at creating experiences of sadism and poignancy simultaneously. Other reviewers were more critical, including Kehr and Walter Goodman who believed the satire and critiques of corporate corruption were excuses to indulge in violent visuals. Graham found the violence had a "brooding agonized quality... as if Verhoeven were both appalled and fascinated" by it, and Sterritt said critical praise for the "nasty" film demonstrated a preference for "style over substance".
Starting a fresh section for the review.
That's everything; generally looks in good shape. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Support. Your changes look fine; the rework of the "Corporate power" is a huge improvement. The overlap you removed was all I was noticing, and the explanation of Murphy's death being a post-production shot is fine; it's just my unfamiliarity with the terminology. Nice work. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Markin' my spot :) Pamzeis ( talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's try not to screw this up ;)
Still more to come... Pamzeis ( talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, think that's it from me! Hopefully, you don't mind the out-of-order comments, because I read the article out-of-order. Great article, but definitely not a film I'm interested in seeing as violence is not my cup of tea. Pamzeis ( talk) 10:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Spot-checks not included.