Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:25 pm
DCrazy wrote:Topher, don't go turning this into SomethingAwfulForumsJr.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:16 pm
Any movie with women in skin-tight outfits is a good movie regardless of the plot and acting.AceCombat wrote:Cat Woman looks to be promising aswell
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:56 pm
You'll be disappointed. The only things common to this movie and the story is the title, The Three Laws, and Susan Calvin. That's it. Oh - and I bet SC is played by some gorgeous blonde, when in the books she was described as a dour old woman...woodchip wrote:It's been more than 30 years since I read the book. Long enough to forget the actual story line and enjoy how the movie moguls abbreviated it.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:20 pm
Hmmm, I never knew there was a book called I Robot?
I just saw a couple of clips. The one where Spooner is chaseing one of the robots (I won't say who) through the repair bay.
Anyway, if you didn't know there was a book, go see the movie. It was still a really good story and a good movie. However, the fact that they changed the whole story-line tends to bother people. This also lowers the movie on my scale by a lot.
Why on Earth, when they do this, don't they either follow the original plot, or else call it something different, re-name all of the characters, slap on a completely different title, and say that it was lightly based on the book?
I just saw a couple of clips. The one where Spooner is chaseing one of the robots (I won't say who) through the repair bay.
Anyway, if you didn't know there was a book, go see the movie. It was still a really good story and a good movie. However, the fact that they changed the whole story-line tends to bother people. This also lowers the movie on my scale by a lot.
Why on Earth, when they do this, don't they either follow the original plot, or else call it something different, re-name all of the characters, slap on a completely different title, and say that it was lightly based on the book?
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:55 pm
Because books and cinema are two different playing fields. If they were to make it it's own movie with a different title, it wouldn't have the same market share as one with a popular title. If they were to make the book into a movie, word for word, it would be 10 hours long and feel like a documentary. Movies need to be exciting and entertaining and so some artistic leisure is needed to make it worth while.mob-messenger wrote:Why on Earth, when they do this, don't they either follow the original plot, or else call it something different, re-name all of the characters, slap on a completely different title, and say that it was lightly based on the book?
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:37 pm
4 hour movie would be nice.
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:38 pm
Just saw the movie, I've never read the books so I thought it was pretty good. Not academy award material, but worth going to see, IMO.
No, not blonde and not that gorgeous. Not really a dour old woman either though... I guess that was a smart way of getting around the whole matterand I bet SC is played by some gorgeous blonde, when in the books she was described as a dour old woman...
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:05 pm
Well I really liked the Alan Parsons Project tune I Robot and it had nothing to do with the book either. So maybe there is hope for the movie.
I have read all of the Asimov robot series, a very thoughtful study on the phobias and conflicts of technology vs people and clever whodunnits based on the logic of the three laws of robotics, so I am sure none of it is in a Hollywood movie.
I have read all of the Asimov robot series, a very thoughtful study on the phobias and conflicts of technology vs people and clever whodunnits based on the logic of the three laws of robotics, so I am sure none of it is in a Hollywood movie.
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:51 pm
Actually, for someone that hasn't seen the movie, you hit the movie right on the head. It was definitely a movie worth seeing at the movie theaters. I also saw Bourne Supremacy, and it was more-than-likely better than the first one (I'd have to watch the 1st one again), and I'd gladly go see it again if someone asked me, because it was a very good movie.Ford Prefect wrote:I have read all of the Asimov robot series, a very thoughtful study on the phobias and conflicts of technology vs people and clever whodunnits based on the logic of the three laws of robotics, so I am sure none of it is in a Hollywood movie.
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:57 pm
Someone needs to show the cinematographer of the Bourne Supremacy how to use a Steadicam or Tripod 