Post: Reply | Quote

Finally Azimov's work gets a visit from Hollywood.

www.irobotmovie.com/

Science fiction, with a message.
"Careful what you wish for."

Hopfully by then I can take a break from writing long enough to go to the movies ">

Post: Reply | Quote

Sorry Terame, but the last time I checked, the Three Laws of Robotics weren't...

1. They cannot hurt us.
2. They must do what they're told.
3. They can defend themselves.

First they add three books to the Foundation series, after Asimov's dead, now were expected to watch this crap. It looks even worse than Bicentennial Man...and that was bad enough.

How far down can dumbed-down actually go? oapbox">
GIVE ME A BREAK !!!

Adios

Post: Reply | Quote

ahhh
Looks around. Why are you saying Sorry? um I didn't write the blurb on their trailer. Really.

If someone told you I did it's a terrible lie ">

Seriously though...
Wait. Me? Serious? pfffff - anyway; sorry you didn't enjoy Bicentennial Man

(Damn - there's that 'sorry' word again - I didn't do it captain someone FORCED my hand to write the script - probably Klingons)

Post: Reply | Quote

Considering they are trying to put the Three Laws into trailer-parlance, they did fairly well. Each statement captures the essence of each Law:

1. No robot may harm a human or by omission of action allow a human to come to harm
2. A robot must always obey the orders of a human except where those orders contravene the First Law.
3. A robot must protect itself from harm except where such action contravenes the First and Second Laws

I will agree that it is a shame that this isn't a more faithful interpretation of Asimov's work but I'm afraid that the vast majority of the movie-going public would either not understand it or would find it boring.

Personally I was hanging out to see Jodie Foster play Dr Susan Calvin in the version that Harlan Ellison was working on...

(For the record - I enjoyed Bicentennial Man, purely on it's own merits)

Jay

Post: Reply | Quote

"The hardest thing on this, or any other planet, about which to be subjective: a movie about your favourite book."


"Why, mazel tov, it's Asimov,
A blessing on your head!
For many years, I've lived in fear
That you were long since dead."


Well Jay, Asimov is cactus, so that only leaves me to defend him.


You, "enjoyed Bicentennial Man, purely on it's own merits?"
What merits?
Where in the book does Andrew have sex with a human?
Where in the book are the dancing-robots...etc.etc.etc?
At what point did the movie even vaguely resemble the book?
Give me a friggin' break !!!

AND...now, based on that piece of brilliance, you want to suggest that, despite the preview, they've done fairly well with I Robot?
That it's OK to dumb-down a masterpiece so that the trailer-trash can dig it without their brows knotting in unaccustomed concentration?

Jay, you can either plead the fifth...and repeat the very first thing quoted above.
Or, you can duke it out like a man
(In which case we'll have a couple of tequilas at the bar, whille my seconds sneak-up on your thirds and hit them over the head with big, blunt, heavy things.)
Up to you dude?

Adios

PS: Really sorry to meet you this way.
In fact, I'm going to the General place and give you an official Hello right now.

Post: Reply | Quote

No offense meant or taken, Dragonemisis. Pleased to meet you. ">

I'll start with this: usually when I give my impressions of a film based on another work, I give two responses: one looking at the film while ignoring any linkage to the original work and the other taking the original work into account. I didn't do that in this instance which could have saved us the misunderstanding. Mea culpa and my apologies.

For BM:

By "on it's own merits", I meant ignoring any link to the short story (which I've read and enjoyed many times). I've learnt through bitter experience that SF films based on an original work rarely do that work justice. However now I just tell myself "it won't be the same" when I go to see the film or even hear about it. Otherwise, I'd be nitpicking the whole way through and that's not why I go the movies.

For I, Robot:

Personally I'm just viewing the inclusion of US Robotics and the Three Laws as tips of the hat to Asimov, rather than a serious attempt by the film-makers to make a faithful version of the original story (which the movie obviously isn't).

I'm on your side in that I don't agree with the conversion of these SF classics to film in a less-than accurate way. The same thing happens to me when I watch films based on Stephen King books - they are never anywhere near as good as the book (with the possible exceptions of Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile).

I woudl love to see a faithful rendering of I, Robot on the big screen, but I know that the vast majority of the viewing public would take one look, scratch their heads and go and watch something else. The studios want bums on seats and if they can get by butchering a classic story and then putting Asimov's name on it, thinking that this will be enough to rope in the fan-boys (and fan-girls) like us, they will do just that. We can growl about it until we are blue in the face but it won't make a scrap of difference.

In closing, I'll give my two reviews:

As a retelling of the short story, BM sucked, but on it's own, ignorign the Asimov connection, I enjoyed it.

As a retelling of I, Robot, the new film looks very bad, but on it's own, I'm looking forward to it (it has a couple of my favourite actors in it - Bruce Greenwood and Chi McBride).

On reflection, all that sounds like I'm fence-sitting. Probably so, but I like the view from up there (even if the pickets do hurt my butt). ">

First round of tequila is on me. ">

Post: Reply | Quote

Last night I saw [b][i]I, Robot[/i][/b], but first I'll pick up on this conversation... Hi Jay, you raised a very pertinent point that covers the differences between the movie medium and the written one. Namely, Stephen King Movies. Few authors get as involved in the movies as Stephen, yet why do they stray from the original so? For the same reason Stephen is a successful writer. Understanding it is a business. It can be said of every movie I've ever seen that has been based on a book. With the only notable one being The Abyss, where the two were designed to be complimentary. They usually only carry the important messages from the point of view of the people responsible for making the movie. [b]The movie...[/b] I'd say don't see it DM, as if past experiences have been anything to go by you will hate it, as I thoroughly enjoyed it Just as Jay said of Bicentennial Man, by considering it on it's own merits. I was expecting the pandering to Will Smith's patented humour, but this was done at appropriate moments. I really enjoyed the little things that made the movie more about characters, their reasons and the final message of the film. At the same time the popcorn munching action scenes were suitably fast paced. Is it the short story? Pffffff! Yeah right. Did it maintain the central theme of the problems regarding the three laws? Yes, but that's all. To call the roboto-phychologist nondescript, would be a stretch of the imagination. The greater plot was predictable, but those 'little pieces' of the characters proved character is plot for me. It was very Independence day, yet with a few social commentaries on human prejudice. *****