I love novelizations. Just love them. It's basically reading your favorite movies as a book, and it's nothing like a transcript. It's a novel. There are movies based on novels, and there are novels based on early scripts of movies - novelizations. Novelizations went into each character's head, explained all the minutia stuff a movie didn't have time or didn't need to explain. And I just love to read books, so the marriage of books and films is a perfect mix for me. Often novelizations differ drastically from the finished movie, but sometimes they are barely different than the movie. So which one is it with RoboCop?
The novelization for the first movie was written by Ed Naha, who wrote such movies as Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, Dolls and Troll, among others. The novelization of the first film up until the climax differ very little from the finished film which was a surprise for me because I thought Verhoeven changed the script more drastically. But other than the omitted beginning (which is great and horror-like in a novel form), there's very little that's different. It's very interesting to see what's actually going on in Robo's head when he's starting his discovery about his past. It's very interesting to see how this machine, which doesn't know what it is, takes it all in step by step. It's thoughts, it's confusion, it's reaction to it all.
The original climax is terrible thought. Extremely convoluted and crowded, with repetitive gags, too many lucky coincidences and the action that is loud but not tense. There are even Doberman dogs thrown in which save the day at one point.
The novelization of the second film is also written by Ed Naha, which brings a nice consistency. I would say that most often than not, the original author returns for the sequels. So how's the second novelization? RoboCop 2 had a rushed and problematic production, and was constantly being rewritten even on the set! So as you might have guessed, the script that the novelization was based off was radically different. Basic plot points are the same, but no scene is the same as in the movie, the chronological order of them is vastly different (for example, to give you a general idea: in the novel, the meeting of RoboCop and his wife happens almost right before the climax), and many major scenes that are in the movie are not in the novel (example: The scene in which Dr. Faxx convinces Robo to allow himself to be reprogrammed never happens in the novel). Even more scenes that are in the novel never made it to the film. Example: did you know Lewis actually met with Dr. Faxx in her office, offering her money from the Officers to fix RoboCop? Or that RoboCop visited junkyard, thinking of committing suicide?
And even the scenes that appear in both the movie and novelization are radically different. For example, in the novelization, the Old Man and Faxx have nothing to do with unleashing RoboCain on the Mayor trying to make a deal with Hob. It's all Johnson, who feared that he's gonna be blamed if the city pays. Another example: in the novel, it's Lewis who gets the location of Cain's hideout from Officer Duffy, by beating him up in the restroom at the Police Station.
Most cruel bits are not in the novel, which means they had to be in the latter rewrites demanded by Kershner. For example, Hob isn't even present during Duffy's torture, and the eerie dialogue, "You said you were gonna scare him" isn't there either.
The novel also explains some things that may not be clear in the movie, like for example, why is Cain's hardcore mafia listening to Hob? It's because the police raid destroyed the scientist producing Nuke (Frank) and the only other person who knew the formula - Cain. It turns out Hob memorized the formula and is the only person who can make Nuke in the world.
I personally picked UK version of the novelization because it had the great early poster artwork of the film as the cover. The image was also used in most European VHS releases. US had a terrible BTS shot as the cover instead
RoboCop 3 did not have novelization
COMIC BOOK ADAPTATIONS
ROBOCOP
I covered the novelizations of the films, now let's move on to the Comic Book Adaptations. The original film was adapted by the mighty Marvel, at a time when comic adaptations weren't so great. It was before the phenomenal adaptation of 1989's Batman set a standard. Still, even thought one would expect a silly and half baked effort, Marvel's Comic Adaptation of 1987's RoboCop is actually not that terrible. And that's not only surprising because of the time it was released in, but also because the movie and the concept was considered silly before it came out, before Paul Verhoeven positively shocked the audiences. The title and the overall idea didn't get much faith from people outside the group who was making it. However, the cover (of the original issue) looks absolutely awful. It looks like the terrible comic adaptation that you'd expect
The Comic Adaptation, adapted by Bob Harras, follows the same script as the novelization, so it has a different beginning and a completely different climax. The scripted beginning, which actually shows what happened to Officer Frederickson, is very good but I agree with the decision to cut it from the film. Why? Because it makes it more real. How? By not participating as na audience, but instead, learning of the events and the identity of Clarence Boddicker, the cop killer, form the nightly news. As you would in every day life.
The collected version (which came out first) is in black and white, which is very good in this instance because Marvel at the time still used that classic old school art style. The comic, as far as art and presentation, looked like the 1970's Spider-Man and that's a praise. The art, pencilled by Javier Saltares and Alan Kupperberg and inked by Tony DeZuniga, is actually very good, regardless of being in a classic Marvel old school style or not.
Ironically, the only cartoonish element of it is actually the depiction of the titular character himself. He is drawn in a more stylized, cartoonish way.
This adaptation doesn't sugarcoat anything and includes all the violence, even if, in many places, cleverly and artistically censored, like Murphy's execution.
Other noteworthy bits:
- the TV anchors' genders or names are swapped. Casey Wong is an Asian woman, while Jess Perkins is a white male
ROBOCOP 3
Here's where things went differently, not only for the RoboCop series but for the Comic books as well. By that point, RoboCop was licensed to the great Dark Horse Comics, who are usually really, really good with movie-based comic books but not so good with actual Movie Adaptations. And while the adaptation for RoboCop 3 isn't bad, it's nothing exceptional or great either, which is about the only thing this adaptation has in common with the ones for the previous two movies. Dark Horse did not care to follow the format of the previous ones, nor did it have to. RoboCop 3 was never collected in a single Trade Paperback, and was only published in 3 separate (full color) issues, so as far as format, it's the furthest it can get from the style of the first two.
RoboCop 3 Comic Adaptation, written by Steven Grant, Illustrated by Hoang Nguyen and inked by Art Nichols, is very interesting because we never got a novelization for the third movie. So if there are any deleted scenes or extra bits of info, this Adaptation is the only place we can find them in.
The artwork is ok, it's not bad but I'm just not a big fan of the ink job. RoboCop's depiction is not very consistent in that in some panels he looks pretty good and accurate and in some (most) he looks funky.
Overall the story is very close to the movie but does have some very interesting extra bits and editing cuts. For example, Nikko is homeschooled because of her special abilities which aren't specified, but of course we assume it's her knack for programming for computers. The goofy, out of place comedic scenes at the Donut Shop are out, but so is the answer to why Robocop doesn't just shoot the Rehabs when they kill Lewis. The pimp car is actually a "normal" luxury car, rather than the cartoony, Naked Gun style pink car presented in the movie.
But perhaps the strangest and most shocking bit is that Dr. Lazarus is actually in love with Robocop and has hots for him...I'm also glad that it was cut
The Comic is actually more realistic than the movie. For example, when Robocop goes through the CONCRETE WALL in his Ford Taurus, and lands few stories down, the car doesn't even have a scratch on its bumper! Here it's actually all beat up with a smashed front when it lands, and that's the reason why he gets out through the roof to begin with - because the car is so wrecked the doors are jammed! In the movie it's like in Naked Gun because he can simply open the door in his untouched police cruiser but instead squeezes through the roof for no reason
The identity of the new OCP CEO, portrayed by Rip Thorn is also revealed. He's - get ready for it - Bob Morton's father. I'm glad that bit was removed from the film because it continues the tradition of OCP head being nameless and I also feel it's convoluted and unnecessary to tie him up to Morton.
Other noteworthy bits:
- McDagget is short on Rehabs because they're still fighting in the Amazon war. The CEO had to Bribe the US Secretary of Defense to spare him as many rehabs as he got
- McDagget kills Koontz himself
- Lazarus is spared by McDagget because he thinks she may know where Robocop is
- In her last breath, Bertha activates a grenade, taking few rehabs with her
- McDagget explains why the Rehabs can go to war with the Police in the final battle - because since they quit the force, they aren't Police Officers anymore.
- Robocop is more consistent with the previous films than the movie, as he is shown to have some human emotions and reactions, absent in the third film
Comments
Post a Comment