MovieChat Forums > RoboCop (1987) Discussion > Question about one scene.

Question about one scene.

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (12520)
27 replies | jump to latest

Now, without meaning to generate too much controversy and/or outrage, or even outright "agree" that RoboCop was "wrong" to do so, I kind of wonder... Why does he shoot that male r-ists d*ck off? I mean, RoboCop is a machine etc and even if he knows how terrible such a crime is, why would he think like that that blowing a guy's nuts off is acceptable, shouldn't he perhaps maybe shoot him in the leg and then have him arrested, or did he AIM for the LEG and shoot that organ off by accident?

I mean, let's say a real on duty human police officer did that, he probably wouldn't be seen as a hero (at least by the police department he works for) and may end up suspended? Yeah, that guy maybe horrible and wrong and certainly does deserve punishment, but there are also rules and laws to follow. Or are those types of male offenders to be considered fair game now, and should be executed or shot painfully in their peckerwood by police and have everyone agree that it was right?

In addition, with this scene, what do you think this film and its director was trying to say? That even a machine and a computer programmer is incredibly shocked and offended by rapists that even they feel the need to punish them in a very specific way? Oh and why did he let the OTHER guy next to him go?

P.S. I find it also kind of weird that director Paul Verhoeven included such a scene in this movie. But with Basic Instinct (1992) however, he had that notorious scene between Michael Douglas' character and Jeanne Tripplehorn and besides filming it in a particular way with which audiences and critics disagreed with, he also left Douglas' character unpunished which made audiences feel as if maybe Verhoeven was somewhat "glorifying" the act. And over 20 years later with his French film "Elle" (2016) that also had "that theme" to it, although the perpetrator does get his comeuppance in the end, many viewers have felt that he didn't deal with the subject matter sensitively enough "as a male director" etc.

But hey, in RoboCop, he had the scene with the perpetrator getting his pecker torn off by RoboCop's gun, oh well. What gives?

[–] ProgsReturn (1763) 3 years ago

"protect the innocent" and that shot was probably the only clear shot he had. Besides, who doesn't want to see a rapist shot in the balls?

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

"HE WAS COMING RIGHT FOR HIM!"

He shot him in the balls dude, not the head like he could have.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

"Besides, who doesn't want to see a rapist shot in the balls?" - well, perhaps some might, but then what about rules and laws that follow, and if he wasn't a direct threat to him or the victim when he had him held at gunpoint, maybe he should've shot him in the leg and then have him arrested, no?

Heck, if you remember the film "Dirty Harry" (1971) for instance, when Clint Eastwood's character stepped on the injured leg of the serial killer Scorpio, his department not only wasn't happy with him but they even had to let the Scorpio character go.

And OK I get how a lot of us might feel a sense of joy and relief at a scene like this but plot-wise, how would a MACHINE know and have enough related feelings to, well, shoot a male rapist in the balls? Its almost, but it wasn't confirmed in the film, as if they inserted some kind of programme into him which described how terrible those perpetrators are and should therefore you know, be shot like this painfully when come across by cops, but since it wasn't shown, how would RoboCop know such feelings?

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

And yeah, why did he let the guy next to him go, why not also shoot or maim him or show him getting arrested? Did he have a detailed file on both of them, and was the guy next to him not as guilty or as evil?

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 3 years ago

The "guy next to him" didn't get away; he surrendered immediately.

They just didn't show us the cuffs getting slapped on.

Actually, that's a good point in Robo's favor: shooting the would-be rapist in the crotch not only incapacitated him without killing him, but also terrorized his partner into giving up immediately.

Plus, it was just an awesome scene. I was in college when it came out & saw it twice. The audience reactions were off the chart. People (OK guys only) were talking about it in public at stores & bars & such. It was graphic, poetic justice of the type we're NOW accustomed to from Verhoeven and his ilk, but was a definite HOE-LEE SHEET moment back then.

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

And OK I get how a lot of us might feel a sense of joy and relief at a scene like this but plot-wise, how would a MACHINE know and have enough related feelings to, well, shoot a male rapist in the balls?

Because he's not a complete machine? Murphy is still in there making some human-related decisions. That's why they wanted a human brain for the project because they still needed that human part to react in ways that a robot might screw up, as evident with ED-209 and all those other failures in Robocop 2.

"Besides, who doesn't want to see a rapist shot in the balls?" - well, perhaps some might, but then what about rules and laws that follow, and if he wasn't a direct threat to him or the victim when he had him held at gunpoint, maybe he should've shot him in the leg and then have him arrested, no?

Well the only other clear shot was to the guy's head. Would you prefer he kill him instead like a lot of the cops do in real life?

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

And plus, in lots or even some cases, it can be hard to shoot a guy in that place by accident.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He didn't want to kill the perp

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 3 years ago

bingo

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

The guy was holding a knife to an innocent woman’s neck, the rapist should be grateful Robocop didn’t kill him

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

OK, so basically then, it wasn't just his hatred for perps of his kind that caused him to do it, it was in a way an act of (not quite self but still) defense and he was making de-facto threatening gestures? And also possible, in a way not too dissimilar to when John Coffey in The Green Mile (1999) punishes both Percy and that creep, even if the victims there were mostly children but still, it could be that in RoboCop and in this scene, maybe he had a detailed file on him not too dissimilar from "The Terminator", right? So maybe he knew that he was a real menace and danger possibly guilty of other offenses too, right?

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

Also, imagine if our RoboCop character later appeared in Verhoeven's "Basic Instinct" (1992) and his later "Elle" (2016), what would he do then to Michael Douglas' character for what he did to Jean Tripplehorn's character in that movie and that perp who repeatedly violated Isabelle Huppert's character, if neither say were reported to the police?

Hmmmmmmmm. :)

"Balls down pals", lol, or better, instead of shish kEbAB it would be - Shish KA BALLS, LOL. :)

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

In addition to that, how risky was that shot, what if he missed and shot the woman in the leg instead? Or was his gun highly state of the art to make such mistakes?

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Robocop s targeting system was state of the art and that was pretty much the only shot he had.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

I've NEVER heard a murder victim, guilty criminal or not, by police or not, "grateful" to someone who KILLED them. )

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Answer

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

What about some who only use them to pee? (Hahaha...) OK no offense of course and not to, you know...

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It takes balls to be grateful in a situation like that

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Or no balls lol

[–] donotwantto (17) 2 years ago

Well, if you aim to incapacitate someone with as little risk as possible of killing them a dick shot is better than a leg shot since there's that large artery thing in the leg. As for the annoyance and inconvenience of having your dick shot off, Murphy would have been able to relate but at that time the Murphy part of him was probably mostly dormant since he had just been brought back and it's not until later more of Murphy comes back. For a man to prefer a leg shot over a dick shot is pretty natural even though the risk of death is higher with the leg shot (same for a woman I guess), for a machine to have that same preference though, someone would probably have to add that to it's programming. I don't think Morton and the others cared enough about the genitals of criminals to add a "Try to avoid shooting the dicks of criminals" feature to the programming. For a machine that prefers to incapacitate it's targets and has no sentimentality about genitals, a dick shot might just be considered one of the best possible shots.

Also, the first thing he shoots (discounting the target practice at the shooting range) after becoming RoboCop is a guy's dick and the last thing he shoots right before the movie ends is a guy named Dick, you just can't argue with the brilliance of that.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 2 years ago

I honestly thought that RoboCop simply wanted to teach that creep and offender a brutal and vengeful Death Wish-style lesson, and maybe, he also had some kind of computer file on that guy that revealed him to be a mass sex offender and hence decided to, you know...

[–] donotwantto (17) 2 years ago

After his confrontation with Emil he went to a police computer to access files on Emil, Clarence and the other guys who murdered him. That would mean he didn't have some directory of files on criminals installed. Maybe you could argue he should have had and that the makers of the movie should have been able to foresee the possibility of storing lots of data on much smaller devices that far into the future. Since he could record and store the footage of everything (?) he experienced it would make sense for him to also have the storage capacity for files on violent criminals.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 2 years ago

In T2: Judgment Day (1991), Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Terminator" character pretty much "had" those "detailed files". :)

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

When you hold a woman hostage with a knife it’s game on. And Robocops first priority was to protect the innocent, the rapists balls were a very distant secondary priority.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 2 years ago

OK I get it now, I just kind of wrongly assumed he did it intentionally in a "Death Wish-like" (yes, I am indeed referring to the Bronson classic Death Wish from 1974, as watchable to OK as sequels were, original was the best) vengeance scenario, but as it turns out, that perpetrator also posed a tough scenario and RoboCop himself had little choice, I see now.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 2 years ago

For example, in the Russian film "The Rifleman of the Voroshilov Regiment" (1999), the old man shot INTENTIONALLY at least one of the perpetrators in the nuts for abusing that way his granddaughter, not "accidentally" or in self-defense, and in plenty of the "I Spit on Your Grave" and its ilk revenge themed movies, the victims also did it with supreme grudge-oriented intent, and I wondered if RoboCop was along similar lines also.

P.S. What does this say, albeit NOT necessarily wrongly as AT LEAST some err (cringe) MRAs (or even a lot, ESPECIALLY cringe then) may think, about men, their genitals and IF they happen to be GUILTY or about to attempt an act of sexual violence etc, its seen as morally well at least UNDERSTANDABLE without any "justifiable complaints" even about EXCESSIVE force on those who are GUILTY and "may deserve it", to attack and blow away with bullets their "balls"? (The various aspects of harsh reality and downright sensitivity surrounding the de-facto issue of 'sexual abuse' in all its terrible nature and aspects of existence notwithstanding.)

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 2 years ago

I also ask this because that 'rapist' looked, acted and even seemed on the outside to be pretty STUPID and, as evil and downright wrong and criminally offensive as he may in fact have been, I couldn't quite foresee him OUTSMARTING a state of the art, futuristic and tough looking ROBOT police officer with a gun, and it kinda looked and seemed to me that, even with him having a female hostage and holding her with a knife to her throat, he wasn't that effectively or cleverly using her as a human shield and that a simple shot to the LEG would've subdued, incapacitated and stopped him just FINE.