MovieChat Forums > The 6th Day (2000) Discussion > Robert Marshall(Michael Rooker) Question...

Robert Marshall(Michael Rooker) Question - Possible Spoilers

posted 11 years ago by the_la_baker
9 replies | jump to latest

During the parkade shootout scene, Marshall's leg is shot off below the knee. He wasn't bleeding(because the "foosh" laser gun cauterized the wound?) and was hopping around shooting at Adam. He even made a remark about his boots, so he obviously wasn't dying. Later he has both legs again, which I assume means he was cloned. Does that mean they killed the one-legged version of him? They would have to right?

Thoughts/Ideas?

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 11 years ago

Yes. They did clone him.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_la_baker 11 years ago

Yes. They did clone him.

Try reading the whole post. I said they cloned him. My question was;
Did they kill the one legged version of him? [Who killed him? And how would Marshall feel about that?]

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure they did also kill the one legged version of him.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld

[–] the_la_baker 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure they did also kill the one legged version of him.

I hope they killed him before they cloned him. That would be really weird to see yourself, perfectly capible of living, taken out back and shot(or whatever).

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

They would have to right?

I reckon the film would have been better and made more impact if it was more explicit on this aspect you raise.
I think we're supposed to assume they put the original Marshall out of his misery.

[–] luxerus 10 years ago

Drucker mentions in the movie that they could reproduce any organs but the brain, which would require cloning.

So it's quite possible that the lack of blood was either cheap FX or to avoid a harsher rating, and that the character didn't care much because he knew he was going to get a replacement (hence caring more about his boots).

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

Drucker mentions in the movie that they could reproduce any organs but the brain, which would require cloning.

A leg is not an organ.

So it's quite possible that the lack of blood was either cheap FX or to avoid a harsher rating, and that the character didn't care much because he knew he was going to get a replacement (hence caring more about his boots).

The lack of blood was to give him a way to survive. Normally you would bleed out within minutes from such a wound. Either the fwoosh gun cauterized it, or its just left out so you don't question how he could lose so much blood and not die.

Even if they did clone him a new leg, as you contend, it would take weeks-months for the leg to be of any use. They cant just sew on a new limb and you can use it in 10 minutes, or at least, that was never presented in the film and thus should not be assumed.

[–] TVippy 10 years ago

I think another question is more important: why would the MAN WITH THE GLASSES keep ressurecting these STUPID USELESS goons ($1.2 mil each), when he can hire other ones (better ones) for chump change... stupid plot.

--------------------------------------------
I own you.

Robert Marshall(Michael Rooker) Question - *Possible Spoilers*

Robert Marshall(Michael Rooker) Question - Possible Spoilers