I remember watching Robocop storm into a drug factory and then stand still as many people shot at him simultaneously. Great scene! But I was surprised that he did not need to protect the lower (human?) part of his face.

Was that part vulnerable?

Was it even human, or an artificial construct?

  • 10
    He had a chiseled jaw which was impervious to damage.
    – Xantec
    Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 15:10

2 Answers 2


According to Wikipedia:

The technicians of the RoboCop Program, led by executive Bob Morton, used what was left of Murphy's face and portions of his cerebrum and cerebellum and applied them to a cybernetic body, in effect, resurrecting Alex Murphy as RoboCop.

His original face was probably preserved and partially exposed by the visor to "humanize" him so that the public would trust and accept him better. Further, under the Body Structure heading:

When the visor is removed, only Murphy's face (which is grafted onto a completely mechanical skull) from the top of the neck up is exposed.


RoboCop implies that only Murphy's face and brain was used in the construction of RoboCop, as Morton states that "total body prosthesis" was an agreed-upon parameter. It is unclear in the first two films whether or not RoboCop's human face is merely a replica of Murphy's, as it contains a scar where Boddicker shot him in the head, though he tells Murphy's wife, in RoboCop 2, that "they made this to honor him." After touching it, she says, "it's cold."

In RoboCop 3, Dr. Marie Lazarus, RoboCop's chief technician, stated that Murphy's face was indeed transplanted onto a mechanical skull, and that it is not a replica.

The scar from the gunshot wound Murphy sustained can be seen when RoboCop has his visor off, further suggesting his face is not a replica, but in fact his original organic one:

RoboCop, with his helmet and visor off, is facing the camera looking to the viewer's right.  His entire face and part of his scalp are visible, and a freehand red circle indicates the place on his forehead where a gunshot scar is visible.

So, presumably, his organic face could still take damage, but there is a metal skull beneath, so the damage would be purely cosmetic. I believe the scene you are pointing out occurred before RoboCop was able to remember his prior life as Murphy, and he was therefore still cold and logical. Logic would dictate that cosmetic damage is not something to be worried much about, which would explain the indifference to sustaining damage to the lower part of his face. I imagine once Murphy fully "reawakened" and remembered who he was, he might not be so cavalier with the last remaining vestiges of his organic self.

  • I wonder what proof there is for that statement. I think Wikipedia refers to "Creating a Legend (RoboCop 20th Anniversary Collector's Edition)" for that, but I have no way to verify it. Reading further: "In RoboCop 3, Dr. Marie Lazarus, RoboCop's chief technician, stated that Murphy's face was indeed transplanted onto a mechanical skull, and that it is not a replica." Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 15:08
  • @Wikis: I've been looking for transcripts of the films, in particular the third one, but haven't found anything good yet. I do however recall noticing the scar from his old gunshot wound on his forehead when he removed the visor, suggesting it is his real face.
    – gnovice
    Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 15:30
  • It seems like we're working in parallel! I can't find the script either, and I noticed the scar comment. :) Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 15:41

From just watching it - YES

In the scene where Murphy is attacked by cops in the OCP building car park, he spends most of the time protecting his face with his arm:

Sorry picture of screen couldn't screen grab:  RoboCop stands alone in front of a concrete wall with his right arm blocking the lower part of his face.  In the foreground a line of half a dozen police in riot gear are shooting at him.

Which is highly suggestive that it is vulnerable.

  • 1
    The answer above suggests that it's superficially vulnerable, that the face itself can be damaged but the underlying metal skull is (essentially) impenetrable to small arms fire.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 26, 2016 at 7:30
  • Yes, but the question asks about the "human" part of his face, which is established above as the skin only, so it is vulnerable as he has to protect it with his arm. Commented Jun 26, 2016 at 15:22
  • 2
    Yes, it's vulnerable in the sense that it can suffer damage. Clearly he values his face (irreplaceable) more than his arm (replaceable).
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 26, 2016 at 15:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.