I see it as a more fundamental flaw. As what makes robocop not a hero. I guess i see it more politically. The idea that a "perfect policeman" is a machine that follows rules like a computer program, and that privatisation of public services allows for private interests to define these rules. Robocop is the deshumanisation of a policeman, and the logic of both legalism and privatisation pushed to an extreme (thinking of it, yes, they are two right-wing values : strict police enforcement, and private interests before state). So, directive 4 is directly robocop. It's his purpose. Not an exterior threat but his own nature. The robocop is a social timebomb. Fighting directive 4 is a self-destruction - and robocop can't. He depends on others to invalidate, contextually, the directive's condition. He's still an OCP tool, by design.

It's a bit different from kryptonite, or yellow colour for the green thingies guys. Directive 4 illustrates the reason why robocop should not exist. And why robocop is the enemy of alex murphy. Maybe, in a way, directive 4 would be closer to the hulk's rage (I don't know hulk well, is his green state a liability for good guys too?). That's one superhero parallel one could make. But again, hulk is probably a weird kind of superhero : in the same way, his "power" makes him more under-human than super-human. Or maybe both relate to doctor jekyll, in some way.

Or it's a matter of perspective. But this is the angle through which I percieve these things.

I thought it was a cool teaser. I'm definitely looking forward to the movie.

Looks interesting,
My main issue is I am not a big Zack Synder fan;his films look real nice but his has real problems with charecters (his mistakes with several of the charecters in "Watchmen",the villian in particular really damaged that film).

Point is you should NOT have to read the comic to understand what is going on in the film. If that happens, that is just plain poor screenwriting. or poor editing.
The same faults happened with "Sucker Punch" . Synder seems to have problems with complex plotlines.

Watchmen was considered "unfilmable" because of its complex nature. And, as I said, the Ultimate Edition (which was Snyders vision for the film) did a very good job and can stand on its own.

I haven't seen Sucker Punch, but I'm fairly certain that it isn't based on a comic book.

You know what I realize the cover of superman's first comic does not showcase anything heroic about superman actually it is quite the opposite

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/26394/Superman_Will_Not_Have_Red_Shorts_Man_Steel_New_Set_Photos_Show_Off_Faora_Costume_1314171472.jpg

That does not look like a hero saving the day.....at all

I knew nothing about Watchmen (comics) when I went to see the movie, and quite a lot of it was indeed gibberish to me, and I was wondering why some comics freaks in one forum were raving so much about the movie. Apparently there were so many references to or turning upside-down of superhero cliches etc. that it was a treasure chest to them, but not me.

I felt mostly puzzled while watching it, asking myself:

"Umm, why did those two heros suddenly decided to have sex right after a successful mission? Doesn't make much sense, apparently the director wanted to say something here."

"It is a bit odd how one of the heroes is a god-like entity that could destroy the whole world with his finger, while the other heroes in the team are just normal people with some physical prowess. Why would such a godlike creature team up with mere mortals? He could do pretty much everything by himself." (and maybe that was the reason he distanced himself from the rest of the team, as far as I could tell...)

And so on and so forth... maybe the extended version would indeed make more sense to non-comic readers.