Well if you are not aware I will make it so. I, Robot, A personal favorite of mine writen by Isaac Asimov, is being adapted into a movie starring none other then.. Will Smith!
Which I can let that slide even though it seems an odd choice. As long as he lays off the token comedic relief then I won't punch the movie screen. However, what I am enjoying is the campaign going on very suttle like right now..
http://www.irobotnow.com
I have had more then one person ask me.. 'Have you seen that robot commercial?' I just tell them yes robots are real and they are coming!
I have also heard Foundation is being adapted into a movie or maybe Two. I just thought I'd shed some light. It is still a bit early I think to see if it has hope but if Alex Proyas screws it up death is the only answer!
I've never read the book and this still looks really interesting.
Is it just me, or is the film industry actually looking up lately? We're getting lauded films like LOTR, Kill Bill, the Matrix, etc. Not to mention that independant film is incredibly popular right now.
I, Robot is a great book and I'm interested to see what they do with the movie version. It'll be interesting to see how much they 'modernize' it.
Have you ever seen I, Borg? (The episode of Star Trek The Next Generation) it was by far my favorite episode in all the seasons of TNG. It was interesting how it tied in with I, Robot.
Anyway ... we'll see what Wil Smith can do with the role. He, in my opinion, is capable as long as he doesn't 1/2 ass it like he did in Independence Day.
])]v[
As much as I have read, they only got Asimov in there for commercial reasons. It isn't an adapation of I, Robot (how can one be done?), and at first it wasn't planned to have anything to do with it.
There's the plot outline from IMDB.com:
QuoteSet in a future Earth (2035 A.D.) where robots are common assistants and workers for their human owners, this is the story of "robotophobic" Chicago Police Detective Del Spooner's (Smith) investigation into the murder of Dr. Miles Hogenmiller, who works at U.S. Robotics (run by Greenwood), in which a robot, Sonny (Tudyk), appears to be implicated, even though that would mean the robot had violated the Laws of Robotics, which is apparently impossible. It seems impossible because.. if robots can break those laws, there's nothing to stop them from taking over the world, as humans have grown to become completely dependent upon their robots. Or maybe... they already have? Aiding Spooner in his investigation is a psychologist, Dr. Susan Calvin (Moynahan), who specializes in the psyches of robots...
So, basically, the only thing that makes it Asimov-related is the use of US Robotics, for commercian reasons purely.
I'd disagree with that. The plot structure and future are all Asimov derived. Perhaps the use of the title to explicitly state the nature of the the plot was misguided, but it is very much in the Asimov vein, and of the nature of Caves Of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots Of Dawn, that is, mysteries that hinge on the 3 laws.
And I can't find anything to pre judge this film badly as many seem to have done, I would rather wait to see the result before spurting fanboy virulence.
That said, I dislike Proyas, and his pretentions would seem to collide with the lack of pretentions that are a strength of the Doctor's writing [suprising considering his arrogance].
Tshyeah, like when they took one of the best Polish SF books, Solaris, and filmed George Clooney's buttocks instead.
Trap:
If you haven't read much or any Asimov.. I, Robot is a good start. I would also recommend Robot Dreams (it's a collection of short stories) Foundation and Nightfall.
I dunno if the Movie industry is looking up but Sci-fi and fantasy movies are alot more popular lately then they have been. Which always comes with the good and the bad..
Darth:
I was never much of a trek fan. Not for any reason really just never really watched any episodes or movies. But I'd like to see it.. Chance of catching it rerun style or no?
And.. my only problem with Will Smith is that he spent his earlier acting career in a comedic role.. Do now every role he takes all the directors think he has to be funny. When he doesn't.. I mean comedic relief is fine but most of the time it feels like he has to make a joke.. It is like when someone says "Say something funny" and your all like.. "Um... poop!" and they are all "You suck".. Yep that is will smiths career in a nut shell.
Barcik:
I will agree that it isn't really I, Robot made into a movie but from what has been released it has been faithful to Asimov. The Three laws are present, Positronic brain, Names are being used from the book.. as well the things Las pointed out. I would have liked a more faithful version of the book but if they can nail what Asimov did then I will be happy enough.
Las:
I only ever read Caves of Steel.. I will have to give Naked Sun and Robots of Dawn a spin.
Goldmund:
I didn't know that was originally a book. Has it been translated to English? Who was the author?
:D :D :D
I love that book, I accidentally put it in the wash, but then I got an another copy and read it! Asimov was my favorite since childhood, since I always loved sci-fi. *dances happily because of the news*
isn't "I, Robot" also an old isometric C64 game?
Quote from: Sylpher on Mon 22/12/2003 03:11:47Goldmund:
I didn't know that was originally a book. Has it been translated to English? Who was the author?
I know I'm not Goldmund, but here you go anyway - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027607/qid=1072108934/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5454999-6552801 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027607/qid=1072108934/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5454999-6552801)
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Mon 22/12/2003 00:23:24
I'd disagree with that. The plot structure and future are all Asimov derived. Perhaps the use of the title to explicitly state the nature of the the plot was misguided, but it is very much in the Asimov vein, and of the nature of Caves Of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots Of Dawn, that is, mysteries that hinge on the 3 laws.
It seems to fit this structure, yes, but I have a feeling that the Three Laws were added to the initial draft by the studio's request.
Goldmund:
I think Solaris (the movie) was a good adaptation to Solaris (the book) - it kept faithful to its unique atmosphere.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 21/12/2003 18:10:51
Anyway ... we'll see what Wil Smith can do with the role. He, in my opinion, is capable as long as he doesn't 1/2 ass it like he did in Independence Day.
Will Smith half assed it in Independence Day because it was directed by that other idiot Rolland Emmerich.
That guy bugs the crap outta me.
C.
Quote from: c.leksutin on Tue 23/12/2003 16:12:25Will Smith half assed it in Independence Day because it was directed by that other idiot Rolland Emmerich.
That guy bugs the crap outta me.
That's hilarious!! Because I can't stand Dean Devlin. I like Emmerich's solitary stuff, like The Patriot and Stargate. But when he teams up with Devlin I tend to dislike the movies, ID4 and Godzilla.
Devlin makes the movies too comic bookish for my tastes. The scene that jumps out at me is the part in ID4 where Will Smith, in the F-18, is runnin' from the alien ship and he's taunting it, "Come on baby ..." or "Woah, low bridge" or "Hope you got an airbag" it was so stupid sounding ...
Anyway ... just another $0.02 from me!
])]v[
I've just come back from The Day After Tomorrow, and I get a look at the theatrical trailer of I, Robot. Horrible! Tying Asimov's name to this project is an insult! He must be rolling in his grave now. The plot of this movie, apperantly, involves robots becoming a menace to mankind, and battling it. This sort of stories Asimov himself defined as Robot-as-Menace. Asimov despised Robot-as-Menace stories. Almost all of his stories are what he described Robot-as-Pathos, with the exception of a few which didn't quite belong to the other category as well. Bloody Hollywood producers.
I too have seen the trailer and it looks utterly retarded.
I've seen the trailer. THe robots look like stupid. Like really stupid. mainly the big ugly white bits on the robots. And the faces. Uggh. I'll till see it, but they really should have made the robots more'realistic' hehe.
I haven't read I, Robot (unfortunately), so I can't tell...
But I'm glad about foundation, I loved it.
Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Mon 22/12/2003 16:04:07
Quote from: Sylpher on Mon 22/12/2003 03:11:47Goldmund:
I didn't know that was originally a book. Has it been translated to English? Who was the author?
I know I'm not Goldmund, but here you go anyway - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027607/qid=1072108934/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5454999-6552801 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027607/qid=1072108934/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5454999-6552801)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/solaris.html
QuoteLem writes in Polish. His most important books have never appeared in English. Even his best-known novel, Solaris, is available in US bookstores only as an English translation of a French abridgement of the Polish original.
I can't find any reference to this together with the name of the authors, but considering Wired's reputation and the fact that the translation you linked to is from 1970 or so and is the only English version I can find it sounds unlikely that the Wired author didn't notice it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=solaris%20stanislaw%20translation%20french%20abridged
Here's the google search I used to dig up links about this if anyone wants to prove I'm wrong. If I am, please do.
[Just wanted to pass on some possibly true trivia, carry on your 6 month old conversation people]
I don't know why fanboys have to get so upset when things are changed.. And then automatically trash the film before it even goes on final print.. YEESH
It's not merely a change. It is utterly against the essence of I, Robot. Imagine they put hardcore porn in The Lord of the Rings. :P
That'd be totally awesome!
...WHAT?!?
They could've at least shown Liv Tyler in a see-thru gown or something ;)
Yeah, I saw the trailer a couple weeks back and, although LGM is right it is hard to say anything without seeing the movie. What I have seen is horrible.
So considering all we have to go off of is the trailer then the movie at this point is.. poo. A part of me knew it was gonna happen but the rest of me didn't want it too.. Oh well, another classic bites the dust..
Well.. Having not read the book.. I don't really care if it's an actual adaptation or not. If it's a good movie, it's a good movie. If it's poo, it's poo. LOTR wasn't necessarily good because of how well it followed the book (or didn't) It was good, because PJ made it that way.
Ergo, If the screenwriter of "I, Robot" can make an interesting story, and the director can make it look good.. Then it will be a good movie. Fuck the book. If you want to be a close minded cynic, just stick with the book and read it while curled in a ball rocking back and forth giggling to yourself and drooling whilst cursing the movie industry.
So basically.. Shut up and watch the movie.
Sorry to be so irritable, but I see these reactions far too many times.. And as an aspiring movie director, I don't want this to happen to me if I decide to make my AGS experiences into a movie and turn CJ into a hot, sexy blonde bikini babe.
Well Mr. huffy pants. There is a little thing called respect and fucking admiration. Proyas, from what we have seen, has taken all the psychological and ethical ideas Asimov brought out in his books and taken a nice big fat turd on them. I don't care how good the movie is. Don't call it 'Based on an Isaac Asimov book' If you are going to go against everything the book is talking about and ideas it is trying to get across.
It is like someone making an adaptation of the bible and making Jesus a little more bad ass and possibly wearing a leather jacket saying "aaaaeeeiiii" all the time and rather then teaching with love and understanding he uses his trusty sword-chucks. If it works fine... But don't call it the bible.. Because last time I read it, that isn't how it happened.
There is no reason for this movie to be called I, Robot.. No reason for it to be affiliated with Asimov. No reason for it to even be respected on any sort of level as Asimov has gained because Proyas is bullshitting his way through the movie. This is 100% evident through the trailer.
So keep swallowing your watered down mind numbing simplistic bullshit adoptions. Maybe one day you will gain a comprehension that a story goes much deeper then plot.
There is an argument, which many of these people would use, that should you choose to make a film, using another's trademark [as it were] for something of a different nature [if it involves robots as a threat it's the antithesis of the underlying basis of all Asimov robot stories].
If it's a good film, it needn't use a title of a more or less unrelated product to sell itself, perhaps misleadingly.
I won't cast judgement not having seen the trailer, but I will mention that Proyas is a charlatan.
In short, I don't think anyone here would mind the title I, Robot being applied to a film where robots are governed by the three laws, and is thus thematically similar.
But if it's a film with a golem or Frankenstein complex [that life/intelligence created by humanity will inevitably work against it], well, it'd be like fighting a bloody battle in Gandhi's name. It doesn't quite work.
But hey, branding is the name of the game.
meh.. I just think back to the trailer for Supernova.. The trailer for Supernova made it look actioned packed, funny, and great.Ã, But then it turned out to be a bit boring and crappier than it led the audience to believe.
Maybe this is what the trailer is doing.. Making the movie seem like one thing, but actually is another.. It could be to draw people that wouldn't normally see a movie of that nature..
I don't know if I'm making sense.. But if you are correct about Asimov not writing about Robots being a menace.. Then truly the movie is messed up.. Because if I'm not mistaken.. The robot kills a human, no?
And I wasn't being huffy.. I'm just sick of people bitching about a movie that hasn't even come out yet. If I, Robot turns out to be another Planet of the Apes, THEN your bitching will be justified..
I'm just saying.. Trailers sometimes are misleading.
Well, provided the murder is done by a twisting of the 3 laws, it's alright, but otherwise...
Couple of Asimovs basic ideas..
Robots are not dangerous using logic (Edit: Well las brought it up. But still robots are not dangerous using logic.. Doesn't mean humans are angels)
Robots replacing manual labor creates new jobs for humans not take them away
Robots don't leap out of buildings and do gravity defying leaps off of cars and crush tables
Robots are not gonna take over the world in some crazy mad scientist evil plot for world domination
To put it more specific.
Before Asimov there existed the Golem complex. Asimov decided that, as we put seatbelts in cars, parachutes in planes and fuses in electrical boxes, it would be completely irrational that humans would make robots without safety mechanisms. These he surmised int eh form of the three laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_Of_Robotics which forms the basis of the brains of all robots in his stories [on a side note, the Oxford English Dictionary cites Asimov as the creator of the word Robotics, much to his surprise].
He then wrote many many stories describing various ways in which the laws could be twisted, fail, be misused etc.
QuoteWell, provided the murder is done by a twisting of the 3 laws, it's alright, but otherwise...
As it seems, it begins pretty much like the Caves of Steel, with a robot being the main suspect of a murder. But from there onwards, it seems to freak out, with robots going crazy etc.
Quote from: Las Naranjas link=topic=10450.msg176484#msg176484
date=1086430156
[on a side note, the Oxford English Dictionary cites Asimov as the creator of the word Robotics, much to his surprise].
About what he later wrote:
"As time went by, I made other discoveries that delighted me. I found for instance, that when I used the word 'robotics' to describe the study of robots, I was not using a word that already existed but had invented a word that had never been used before.
The word has now come into general use. There are journals and books with the word in the title and it is generally known in the field that I invented the term. Don't think I'm not proud of that. There are not many people who have coined a useful scientific term, and although I did it unknowingly, I have no intention of letting anyone in the world forget it."
He's a funny guy when writing about himself.
Ind. Day has 4 sequels???