It seems in the first, he is just an oblivious pawn to the scheming of those below him, but in the second they tried to turn him into a replacement for Ronny Cox's character Dick Jones (DIIIIIIICK JOOOONES). And what's with the non-ending, where he just gets away?
shareThe CEO was certainly a very different character in the two movies.
But I don't agree with you saying he was an oblivious pawn in the first movie. He was well aware of the competition between Dick Jones and Bob Morton. He gave both of them a chance to present their project. He was an ethical man, he was upset when Dick called the killing of Mr. Kinney just a glitch. And in the end, he saves the day by yelling "Dick, you're fired!!!", that was smart.
In the second movie he's much more clueless, and just an opportunistic bastard. He lets the Dr. do her projct because she sleeps with him. And when the Robocain project goes wrong, he lets her take the fall, he's concerned for the company, not the people who died.
He doesn't care Mr. Kinney died, he just cares that ED-209's killing people will cost them money, which is what he cares about at the end of the second film. I don't understand people's perception that he was a kind old man in the first. The only real difference I see between films is that we get to see more of the Old Man.
shareI don't understand people's perception that he was a kind old man in the first.
The Last Starfighter. He's freaking GRIG in that film.
shareHave you seen halloween 3?
shareIt's a little known fact that nearly all high-ranking businessmen are evil.....
share[deleted]
I think he was still evil in RoboCop 1, they just didn't show it much on camera. That part is obvious when he doesn't fire Dick Jones after the ED 209 massacre that kills an OCP executive, instead he just says to Dick that he's just very disappointed.
Old Man: Dick, I'm very disappointed.
Dick Jones: I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback.
Old Man: You call this a glitch?! We're scheduled to begin construction in six months. Your temporary setback could cost us 50 million dollars in interest payments alone!
[deleted]
I never understood this argument. He's your classic megacorp CEO. He's a ruthless SOB who would use any tactics to further his corporation's agenda. His corporation is all that matters, his corporation *is* him. Take the scene when ED209 kills the board guy at the beginning, the Old Man doesn't give a crap about the human life, he just buries his head in his hands thinking of the millions this "glitch" is gonna cost him.
In R2 he's not evil he's the same mean, ruthless *beep* He's still wanting to make dust out of Old Detroit and its denizens, construct Delta City, privatize anything the city has in his way, capitalize on the Robocop project (which has proven successful), etc. I never saw a discrepancy between his behaviour in R1 and R2.
I think you "cliche" rather than "classic". It's a flat over the top satirical character. The real classic characters, evil or otherwise, are well rounded with intricate motivations. Hannibal Lector in the Silence of the Lambs would be a classic evil character.
shareI think he was always "evil" he just appeared nice at the end of Robocop 1 because murphy saved his life. All he said was "nice shooting son, what's your name?"
That doesn't mean he was a "nice guy."
Remember when ED 209 blew that guy to hell the CEO barely flinched, and told Dick Jones "I'm very disappointed," as casually as if he had just cost him a bunch of money and that's it (which was part of his disdain, I'm sure.)
There's no proof for his being aware of Ronny Cox's villain in the original. He was entirely unaware and came off as nice
The sequel just had him randomly become evil for no reason due to hackneyed screenwriting.
Well...he was the bad guy in Halloween 3 after all.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn
There's no proof for his being aware of Ronny Cox's villain in the original. He was entirely unaware and came off as nice
The sequel just had him randomly become evil for no reason due to hackneyed screenwriting.
Being worried more about money than the life of an employee spells "evil" to me.
shareI think this. I mean, he's running the evil corporation in Robocop and signed off on all the ruthless things they did.
-I was born in a crossfire hurricane.
he is realistically bad in the first movie and over the top villain in the second one...
shareThe Old Man was never a nice guy. In ROBOCOP 1 Jones sarcastically calls him "a sweet old man" only because is not as ruthless as him - and that's part of the satire: Jones is the bad guy since he could live with the extra cost (a.k.a. victim's relatives suing OCP) ED209 would claim. The Old Man, on the other hand, is more savy.
While I think it was pretty much unavoidable for the Old Man to become the corporate villain in the sequel, I do agree that the actual writing left a lot to be desired. In my ideal movie, he should've been morally ambiguos and definitely more machiavellic.
Dr. Faxx brought out the worst in The Old Man.
shareBecause of lack of imagination by the screenwriters?
"Miauw run off and have a lovely time."
The old man being totally evil is an inexcusable character change with no motivation shown in the finished product as to why he developed this way. He was just a crusty old businessman in the first. Anyone with any background in screenwriting understands it is lazy writing to just force his character to be the baddie because they wanted the corporate entity to be evil in this sequel.
share...but in the second they tried to turn him into a replacement for Ronny Cox's character Dick Jones...
You kind of answered your own question there. Without Dick Jones, they need another OCP villain, and they picked the Old Man.
I think they would've been better off keeping the Old Man the way he was and have Holzgang be the new Dick Jones.
I think in the first movie the Old Man was - just like Bob Morton - intended as a more ambigious, morally "grey" and "neutral" character.
Dick Jones and Clarence Boddicker were the villains. RoboCop/Murphy and Anne Lewis were the heroes. And the Old Man and Bob Morton were somewhere in-between those extremes. I think in the end these two guys were neither a force for good nor a force for evil, they were just... there.
In the second movie, the Old Man's moral ambiguity was erased and he was portrayed as a clear-cut villain just like Dick Jones was in the first movie.
@MrowietzH Fun fact: Bob Morton was originally intended to be more of a villain, but Miguel Ferrer's performance made him more likable. They discussed this on the DVD commentary track.
shareWell, Holzgang definitely was a dick.
share