I have my take on it.. And I can tell you this: In the first RoboCop when Alex Murphy is shot, gunned down, then you see some hospitals and stuff and then you cut to him as RoboCop. My movie is between those two cuts. How do you make RoboCop? How do you slowly bring a guy to be a robot? How do you actually take humanity out of someone and how do you program a brain, so to speak, and how does that affect an individual?One trap the series should avoid is being stuck within the conventions the series established twenty five years ago. The design of RoboCop and the near future universe in which it is set is a product of the 1980s. For nostalgia's sake it would be a mistake to radically redesign the man himself, but there are a lot of technological advancements the world has seen that could bring the series not just up to date, but also into the future. The deadly spike that comes out of Robocops fist was cool, but its function was little more than a USB connector. Changing that would be a shame, but it's important that a series set in the future not be stuck in the past. Imagine if having regained his memory at the end of the first movie, Murphy decides that he wants to regain his body too. In a time where cloning is possible and scientists can grow a human ear on the back of a mouse it may be possible to give a dead character with no future, a new life. Only time will tell if a new approach will be used to make the metal man relevant for a new generation or if the character will once again become the subject of low budget series with figures found in every happy meal box. The new RoboCop needs to be as far away from the sequels to Paul Verhoeven's classic as possible.