I, Robot a must rent at least (1 Viewer)

[Shawn Perron]

It's one thing to make a movie based on existing material, but it's another to so disrespect the work that it's insulting. The stories were about the social interaction of benevelant robots and humans. I, Robot looks like attack of the killer robots... Call me a purist if you like, but it's insulting to slap the prior work's name on this movie.

Now Peter Jackson showed how you should aproach these classics, with love and respect for the original material. If you are not going to remake the book, call it something else and give it a "based on" in the credits.

 

[Lars_J]

Did you actually see the film? Because that was certainly the impression that trailers gave (erroneously IMO), but the film is far different from that.

I was frankly surprised at how many Asimov ideas were contained in the film, even if specific plots were not. Especially since Asimov himself tackled that same idea in later writings (after the I, Robot short stories) of Robots moving "beyond" the three laws of robotics.

The presence of Will Smith can admittedly be hard to move beyond , but I think that there really is a lot of Asimov spirit in the film.

 

[DaveGTP]

Old fogeys? I'm 25!


I bowed out of the I, Robot thread once the movie actually started showing...no use aggravating masses of people who just wanted to talk about the movie.


The whole point is not that the movie "wasn't as good as the book". People assume the griping is that (like the changes PJ & Co did to LOTR). No. That's NOT IT AT ALL. The point is the movie runs in opposition to Asimov's Three Laws. Spouting some technobabble excuse for why the robots can disobey the three laws is no excuse.

Yes Asimov did write a few stories that introduced a philisophical, or otherwise clever reason for Robots breaking the laws (like one were robots wouldn't know humans are in spaceships, so they wouldn't know not to destroy the ships). But the spirit was that technology like robots would never turn on their creators and hurt them. He HATED that idea, and says so numerous time. The few times a robot did harm a human purposefully the robot bit the dust for it (like when Giskard did it for humanity's good).

It's like making a Lord of the Rings movie where the hobbits, instead of journeying to Mordor to destroy the ring...

Frodo decides that with the ring he can kick Sauron's ass with it by controlling Sauron's own forces of evil and turning them against him. Despite the fact that the ring corrupts, he successfully turns the armies of Mordor upon Sauron. Then, despite the massive power he has and the corrupting influence of the ring, he then throws it away without too many ill consequences, and goes home and lives happily ever after.


This would run totally against Tolkien's themes, despite "ideas" and "characters" drawn from the books. And us LOTR fans would be pissed.

That's how I feel about I, Robot. So anti-Asimov in theme that I refuse to support it.

 

[Michael Harris]

Well said.

If being 45 is an old fogey, so be it. I grew up on Asimov and Clarke. My father, no fan of SF, loved Asimov's robot stories precisely because the Three Laws provided strict rules around which the stories hung and any apparent violation was logically explained within the confines of those laws.

I wonder how many folks bought the book with the movie tie-in cover only to say, "What the hell is this" when reading Asimov's short stories.

I loved "Lord of the Rings" despite some wholesale deviations from the book.

I loved "Master and Commander, The Far Side of the World" despite the fact that in the book "The Far Side of the World" the enemy ship was American and not French.

Movies are a different medium then books. I don't expect slavish adaptations, just respect for the source, the characters, and the author's intent.

 

[STARKILLER1138]

Same here! I also thought of The Age of Spiritual Machines. I didn't see I, Robot in the theater, but I like Will Smith and most Sci-Fi movies, so I did a blind buy on this. Fascinating film, and the DTS track frikkin ROCKS! At the very least worth a rental.

 

[Michael_EC]

I have never read any Asimov. I went to see the movie because I enjoyed the other Proyas movies that I've seen. I was very disappointed in the movie and would probably list it among the worst I've seen in the theatre this year.

 

[cafink]

So, your problems with the film are related to its title more than to its writing, direction, acting, editing, execution, etc.?

Same here, and that's precisely why I liked it so much.

 

[BrentWW]

I tend to agree with Lars on this one. The trailers seriously make this movie look like an all-out action film like "Will Smith Vs. Killer Robots."

Even the advertising said "one man saw it coming" like the stereotypical disaster movie. (Reminds me of a short film that "Weird Al" Yankovic shot..something to the effect of "Chance of Rain" where Yankovic is running around going "Someone's got to tell these people whether or not they have to wear a jacket!!")

I was pleasantly surprised when the movie turned out to be more of a mystery thriller than a killer robot movie. Advertising is what did so much damage to I, Robot IMHO. Perhaps a different title or different trailers would have helped.

Either way, I enjoyed the movie.

 

[Rich Malloy]

When I was fresh young lad, I once read an Asimov short story, and it might have even been part of whatever "I, Robot" series this movie was based on. I seem to recall that it was about a robot.

"I, Robot", the film, I did see. And I thought it sucked. Terribly. In fact, it was easily the worst movie I saw last year, and I tend to be fairly good at avoiding the stinkers.

So, my faint impression of Asimov took a beating as a result. I suspect his novel (series of novels?) is a good bit better than this film to have endured over the years, but I have no desire to read them. To whatever extent I've internalized this experience, it's soured me on Asimov.

So, assuming the novel (series of novels?) is/are worth a damn -- or, at the very least, worth more than this pitiful film -- then, I'd understand why the author's fans are down on it. The film diminishes the stature of the novel to those of us who know it only through the film.

A personal example: my favorite author is Nabokov (or Roth or Proust, depending on the day). It seems my trio gets routinely snookered when it comes to film versions, with the only decent ones I recall being Kubrick's "Lolita" and Ruiz' "Time Regained". While it may not be the worst adaptation ever, Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" is laughable to the extent to which it either purposefully or idiotically misreads the novel. I never miss an opportunity to trash it and (hopefully) embarrass the director and screenwriter by pointing out how hilariously wrong their interpretation is. It's obvious to me and anyone who knows the novel, but it's likely not obvious (or even apparent) to someone who does not.

So, I understand when a fan becomes frustrated by the very real notion that his favorite author or favorite novel has been presented to the masses in an adaptation that fails to convey the brilliance of the original work, or as in the case of Lyne's "Lolita" (and perhaps too Proyas' "I, Robot"), makes the original work seem one dimensional, hackneyed, or otherwise unworthy of the slightest merit. It's frustrating.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Rich,

Keep in mind that the Book I, Robot is a collection of short stories, not a novel. The plot of the film is pretty much unrelated.

I thought that The Human Stain was a good film, although I haven't read the book. I know that some major characters in the book are reduced to very small roles. (Also, Nicole Kidman, playing a low-class janitor, has *perfect* hair and makeup at all times. Not quite as ridiculous as in Cold Mountain though.)

 

[Steve Christou]

I see the forum fogeys are out in force, run away! ..wait a minute aren't you the same antiquated bunch that hated Van Helsing, Hellboy, Riddick and Day After Tomorrow earlier this year? hmmmm.

First of all I,Robot wasn't based on any particular Asimov story, and secondly Asimov himself wasn't above bending the Three Laws whenever it suited him. IMO looking desperately for a reason to hate a film is not big and it's not clever. I remember one guy in another thread saying he hoped Peter Jackson's upcoming King Kong would fail because he dared to remake a beloved classic and there was no way he'd go see it. Where do you people come from?

 

[Jordan_E]

Such a heated debate over a Will Smith movie! Will wonders never cease? I still have yet to watch the DVD I rented. Damn Blockbuster and that Movie Pass! Making me lazy with my DVD watching!

 

[Shane Martin]

And he'll go see it out of the hype and call it a bad movie based on his previous mindset that it will suck. See a movie for what it is, not for what your mind has it setup to be.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Loved "Hellboy", haven't seen "Riddick". You wouldn't get me near a theater showing dreck like "Van Helsing" and "The Day After Tomorrow".

I'm not particularly egalitarian on this point. There is greatness and there is mediocrity in both the high and the low, and describing the difference as "entirely subjective" is a cop-out.

It's not that this or that is light, or low, or lacking gravitas, or simply pop-culture. And it's not that it seeks to entertain rather than enlighten. Rather, it's the difference between a work created from the joyful play of the imagination vs. one cynically cobbled together to appeal to the least of us for the purpose of separating fools from their money. It won't be long before that realization might also merit a "hmmmmm"!

EDIT: Steve, aren't you too a fogey, just like the rest of us post-30s who aren't to be trusted?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Rich, I understand what you're saying but you might want, at least, to give Isaac Asimov a chance. Why not read, oh, The Gods Themselves? At least with that novel, you can make a snap judgment. Asimov was one of the greatest writers to come out of SF. (He is routinely spoken of in the same breath as Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. To many SF fans he is the greatest. JB

 

[Rich Malloy]

You're right, of course, Jack. My point was mostly rhetorical, in that I don't believe some Will Smith vehicle that happens to share the same name as a work by a respected author should color my opinion of said author. But, for many, it might. I think a good many folks really believe that Lyne's "LOLITA" is a faithful adaptation of its source. That's as frustrating to me as I imagine this film might be to an Asimov fan.

Then again, what do I know? The movie "I, Robot" just might be a faithful adaptation. On the other hand, it might be a cynical attempt at cashing in on the cache of Asimov's name and the popularity of his work. I'm just saying I understand the frustration of someone who loves Asimov, and is concerned that this film isn't doing his legacy any good. I guess it depends on how much one honors the great artists and thinkers, and the products of their imaginations. If one puts little value in these, then one won't be bothered should they be exploited, bawdlerized, and cheapened beyond all recognition in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

But don't worry... I haven't scratched his name off my reading list!

 

[Aaron Silverman]

What's wrong with a little gratuitous sex?

(I assume you meant bowdlerized?)

 

[Steve Christou]

I love Asimov, along with Arthur Clarke my two favorite SF authors. I,Robot is a robot mystery much like many of his short stories, it's a 'what if' movie, what if the robots positronic brains are somehow reprogrammed to ignore the three laws of robotics?
It's an Alex Proyas movie loosely suggested by Asimov's robot stories. The movie and books can co-exist. Liberties have been taken in regards to the Three Laws but what big summer blockbuster would it be if the worst the robots were seen doing were ironing, cooking and other household chores?

Rich I may be a fogey, but a very open-minded fogey, i can watch and enjoy anything.

 

[Rich Malloy]

YES! :b

 

[Rich Malloy]

I've got one for you from earlier-this-week viewing, and it also helps to show that I try to be non-fogeyish, at least in the rare Netflix rental: "The 6th Day".

Am I an irredeemable fogey for turning it off with 45 minutes left to go? And are you actually capable of watching and enjoying this movie?

Just tryin' to ascertain how low you'll go!