DescentBB

One of the best films I've seen this year. Can't wait for the DVD to come out.

Anyone else see it?

Yes, and I think This page expresses my opinion of it perfectly.

I, Robot really sucked IMO.. it had almost nothing to do with the book. Not only did they change characters, plot and setting around, but they completely reversed the message. I was extremely disappointed with this one. They probably couldn't of done a worse job given the title.

If they had released this movie under a different name it would've been quite good actually. But the fact that they took Asimov's message and did an exact 180° with it just makes my blood boil.

I'm waiting for I, Robot and Chronicles of Riddick.

I didn't read the book so the movie was great for me. I can only read fantasy type books but I love Sci-fi movies.

I saw it when it came out, and found it to be a real snoozer. It had great potential, but the only part I really cared for was when that chick shot that robot with her eyes closed.

Lobber wrote:Yes, and I think This page expresses my opinion of it perfectly.

Ah, Maddox. Sums it up pretty well indeed.

When people will learn to stop thinking of books as movies and movies as books, they will become free of boiling blood.


Some books suck as movies.... some movies suck as books....

Society needs to stop combining the two together.

I never knew there were any books but I thought it was an absolutly awsome film. Better than some of the recent Steven Speilberg films. I also figured it as pretty classy. However, where it gained it's downfall was from the fact that they changed so much in it and named it and the characters after the book. They needed to say that I was based on I Robot but they shouldn't have called it I Robot. Then it would have made an awsome movie.

I will be getting the DVD however.

Jon, what was Asimov's original message?

#1 I stole this movie. I refuse to PAY for this kind of consumerist drivel.

#2

mob-messenger wrote:When people will learn to stop thinking of books as movies and movies as books, they will become free of boiling blood.


Some books suck as movies.... some movies suck as books....

Society needs to stop combining the two together.

I think you missed the point. I'll try to explain the problem... (quoting Maddox {who was linked by Lobber})

here's a list of things the movie had in common with the book:


The title.

I know it's silly and pointless of us to expect a product to deliver what it claims to deliver, but that's the problem with this movie. It should have been called <insert inane movie name here> (inspired by Isaac Asimov's "I Robot"). Whoring the book while delivering a different product entirely is the issue here. Not whether it was "well done" or "followed the book in every particular"...

Books and Movies are two decidedly different media. They present things in different ways.

When you read a book, you build the world in your head and "see" it through the filter of your own perceptions. It is a particularly rich form of participatory experience for those of us who enjoy reading. Movies however present everything to us predigested by the various people involved in making them. Hopefully they have stayed as true to their understanding of the book as possible, and that's where the debate forms as to whether they did it 'well'.

But not in this case. They basically read an OUTLINE of the Cliff's notes, pulled out a few key concepts, and threw everything else out the window...Which I feel is a valid thing to complain about, given that it was marketed as "Isaac Asimov's 'I, Robot'".

I think a movie should be judged on its own merits, rather than how much it differed from the source material. Keep in mind, I, Robot is just a collection of short stories that were written years and years apart. It was only after Asimov discovered popularity in various science trade mags that he and his editor threw all these stories into one book. In other words, its not doctrine, and it helps if you view I,Robot the movie as another short story in the collection. I personally liked the film, and loved the book. How anyone was surprised when it wasn't a translation of the book is beyond me. It was pretty evident from the trailers and ad campaign that this wasn't an adaption. I think the film fits in nicely with the book, not sure why a previous poster felt it contradicted Asimov's meaning. And Mob- the movie does say it is only based on the book.

Pandora wrote:Jon, what was Asimov's original message?

I, Robot, the book, is made up of several short stories. Each and everyone one of them drive home the same message:
Robots cannot/will not act against us (thus breaking the 3 laws).
The last story in the book stands out from the rest, because it takes that message and applies it to the future as robots get more and more advanced.

If you're at all curious about what I mean, I suggest you pick up the book and flip through it. It's just a bunch of short stories anyway. The first story and the last story are the most important to the overal message of the book. Heck, you could probably read those in the bookstore if you have 20 or 30 mins.

If you're not going to at least read the first and last stories, I've tried to summarize what I remember about them.
The first story in the book is about [spoiler]a little girl who has a large humanoid robot, which can't speak, named robbie as her best friend. The robot is really nice and they spend time together playing various childhood games like hide go-seek and the robot loves it when she reads to him (this sounds corny but keep in mind I'm summarizing). The mother can't stand the robot. She thinks it's dangerous and preventing her daughter from having real friends so she gets rid of him while she's away at school. The girl gets extremely depressed and she goes around looking for him. The mother takes her to a factory to prove some stupid point of hers about how robots are bad and while there the little girl spots robbie. Robbie is too busy working to notice her. She jumps the rail, to go see him, and runs right into the path of some really fast speeding tractor or forklift or something. The father jumps the rail and runs as fast as he can but can't possibly make it in time to save her. However Robbie sees the problem before anyone else and reacts faster than any human could, barely saving her life. After that the mother says, "he can stay until he rusts."[/spoiler]

The last story is set far after the others in the book and it talks about [spoiler]how there are four extremely advanced super computers which are at the center of the four governemnts in the world. Basically, a journalist goes around interviewing the human supervisors of these machines. The machines appear to be malfuntioning but in the end they realize that the machines are doing what they're doing in order to look after the future of humanity not just the affairs of the present.[/spoiler]

I have no problem with the movie not having all that much in common with the book. That was to be expected. But for godsakes, when you COMPLETELY REVERSE the overal meaning you sever all possible connections with the book.

I think WarAdvocat said it well: "title whoring"

The number one problem with the movie was the IMMERSION of Robots into the Earth Culture. According to the ENTIRE theme of the WHOLE series of I ROBOT short stories, there was ALWAYS a legal BAN on all ROBOTS being on EARTH. (After the first one of course).

Every story took place on some other planet or space station, except of course, the last book, which used supercomputers, and one individual who masqueraded as human, illegally.

To summerize, the movie point blank countradicted the whole concept of the books.

in reply to Lobber

IIRC, robots were allowed on earth. Just not ones where the 3 laws were tampered with. They're just not allowed to impersonate humans? I think that was the reason for that one case.

A few of the stories did take place on earth. Besides the ones you mentioned though, I don't recall any taking place outside of the USR building.

One detail isn't enough to have a movie completely contradict the books. Whether or not robots are allowed on earth or not is just a technical thing IMO. That wouldn't of really bothered me.

BigSlideHimself wrote:I think a movie should be judged on its own merits, rather than how much it differed from the source material.

You know, if you weren't so busy barking up the wrong tree, you'd almost have a point...Just don't call it something it's not! Title Whoring, (to coin a phrase) automatically earns a movie, it's producers, directors cast and crew jeers from me.

And I quote, from page 742 of the book: Isaac Asimov, bound in leather, with gold lettering:

Susan Calvin shrugged her shoulders, 'Of course, he didn't. That was 1998. By 2002, we had invented the mobile speaking robot which, of course, made all the non-speaking models out of date, and which seemed to be the final straw as far as the non-robot elements were concerned. Most of the world governments banned robot use on Earth for any purpose other than scientific research between 2003 and 2007.

I stand corrected.

WarAdvocate,


I agree with your point that it is "title whoring".

That is the point I'm actually trying to make. The thing is, that a lot of movies recently have nothing to do with the originals or the books. IE: I Spy, one of the single biggest peices of crap ever. Other than Owen Wilson being in it.) Or Starsky and Hutch.

Another example, Harry Potter. I've gone into a movie and I've left with my friends complaining about some broomstick that showed up in the wrong part of the film (Thunderbolt if I remember correctly). Most cases, people complain about movies made after books. There are also many variations of The Secret Garden. None of them match the book that well. The thing is, that I Robot as I understand, was made of a bunch of short stories all strung in together. If they had made the movie exactly after the book, it probably would have been a bit boring to most unless they made it into a television mini-series on Sci-fi.

What I actually meant by saying that it should have mentioned that it was based on I Robot, was that it should have said that it was inspired by the book. Sorry about that.

It was, however a great film unlike I Spy on it's own. So I do respect it for that.

You can look at it from this point of view. There is no way they will stop this kind of crap. Look at what we have on TV!! Andromeda (a public insult to any Sci-fi series), Baywatch (not on anymore but people went nuts over it), Xena, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and Herculese. In the morning, we see 3-4 different court room shows, a boat load of soap operas and the all famous "Boobah" a copycat of Telletubies (like we need another one of those in the morning.). Then we have a bunch of court room shows, ER even had a copycat if I remember correctly.

My point is this, it will go on forever in a circle and will only get worse so try to at least enjoy what shows do come out that ARE good and require some level of intelligence to watch. Just try to enjoy the good where it lies. Make lemonade out of lemons so to speak.

Although, I do agree, they did "title whore".

Here's my point: It's one thing to make a movie of a book, and re-arrange (or just omit) some deatils for continuity and/or to condense the storyline to feature length. It's quite another to whore the title and then just go ahead and write a movie that has nothing to do with the spirit of the book, or even the universe the book was written in.

I would have been 'ok' (not happy, just 'ok') with a "Susan Calvin" movie. That is, a movie with a Robot Psychologist as protagonist, exploring the 3 laws of robotics, attempting to puzzle out how robots bound by the Three Laws managed to engage in apparently malevolent behavior. Even if it didn't follow any of the storylines in the book (as it should if it's going to take the title), if an attempt had been made to stay true to the original concepts.

Instead, we get a male protagonist, who is "robo-phobic"...and happens to be a cop. Oh yeah, and they slip in a robot not bound by the three laws. Asimov would have viewed that as cheating at best.

movie-

A quick history of I, Robot the movie: It was originally a script called "Hardwired", which is pretty close to the final product. Once Alex Proyas came on board, they changed the title to I,Robot and shoehorned in the 3 laws, I,Robot names, etc. So yea, it's pretty much whoring the name out. I don't agree that the movie goes against the spirit of the book though, and given the fact that I,Robot is just a collection of stories, what's the harm in them making their own stories to fit in with that collection? If they had made Hardwired with the 3 laws, you all would be bitching that they didn't call it I,Robot. BTW, to talk to Alex himself, head over to www.mysteryclock.com, you can pose your challenges and whatfor to the director himself.

Isn't it nice that we can all have opinions, and no matter how mistaken we are, nobody can take them from us. Even if they're utterly indefensible.

Some food for thought: If the MOVIE had been in the 'spirit' of the BOOK, the 'bad guy' robot would have been acting within the Three Laws of Robotics.