I, Robot

Cafe Society
1

I just got back from a showing. I thought that it was a cool movie, even if they seemed to miss Asimov’s point a bit. The book was about figuring out why robots were malfunctioning within the laws of robotics, while the movie

was about how the robots were circumventing the laws of robotics.

Still, some cool action sequences, especially one near the end on some girders. The camera did a great job bringing out the dizzying heights.

All in all, a good action sci-fi flick with a little bit of an Asimov aftertaste. Great popcorn movie.

2

OK, so they did, in fact, completely slaughter the book. Thank you, that’s all I needed to know about the movie. While I would much have preferred that it be otherwise, I’m at least glad that I don’t need to spend any money on this monstrosity.

3

Hubby and I will be going to see it this evening. The reviews I’ve read have all said pretty much the same thing: If you’re expecting the classic sci-fi tale brought to life on the big screen, you’ll be disappointed. But if you like Will Smith being his usual screen persona self, and good special effects, you might enjoy it. Well, we like that stuff, so we’ve decided to see it. I don’t think I’ll be disappointed, as I’ll know what to expect.

4

This sounds like another flick I can miss until it’s on cable.

I’m a bit surprised Asimov’s estate would allow the story to be changed.

5

Thanks, Bravo, for taking the bullet.

Since it’s just another Summer action flick, I’ll wait to enjoy the experience. I weep for the future of adaptations, tho.

6

Apparently it takes place in 2035, so let me just say that Susan Calvin is really hot looking for a 53 year old.

7

What if I ordered you to see the movie in the theater? I’d think you’d kind of have to, in that case.

8

I wasn’t all that disappointed, to be honest. I mean, I wouldn’t expect anyone to do a faithful movie adaptation of the book. How do you adapt a collection of short stories into a two-hour movie? A friend predicted (before we saw it) that Asimov fans wouldn’t like it because there wasn’t any way it could be all that faithful, and that action fans wouldn’t like it because it would be too boring and introspective.

At least it manages to be a good action flick.

9

I read the review on MSNBC.com and it mentioned that the movie did not start out as an adaptation of the Asimov book at all, there was a pre-existing script and story. This was then modified a bit to to include some stuff from the book to semi-justify using the name.

Personally, after the Lord of the Rings triumph, I can’t believe anyone in Hollywood is still dumb enough to believe that simply using the title of a famous book will attract the fans of that book to a movie with the same title. Doing things like they did here with I, Robot only antagonizes the fan base, which ultimately costs the Studio money. Naming this movie I, Robot was a bad, stupid move, I think.

10

I agree with Rufus.

Movies like I, Robot also get me very mad at the idiots that watch LOTS and complain about things like the Balrog’s wings or Faramir being more ambivelant about letting Frodo and Sam go. At least he didn’t take the ring and kill Sam, a change that is far more in line with what usually happens when a book is adapted into a movie!

11

That’s LOTR, not LOTS. :smack:

12

LOTS = Lord of the Silentgoldfish?

13

You should read the Ellison script for I, Robot to find out.

I’m not surprised though. Very few in Hollywood would be able to make Asimov’s puzzle stories exciting, not to mention Asimov rarely if ever wrote villains. (I don’t consider The Mule a real villain, and he is about as close as they come.) Still, I suppose it could be worse. The review in the San Jose Murky News objected to the lack of sexual tension between Susan Calvin and the Will Smith character. :eek:

14

Heh. You can bet that when my novels get made into movies, it’ll be ME that writes the script and directs it!

Still, I think I’ll see I, Robot. Why? Looks fun, 's all. Frankly, I weep for the people that can’t just shrug and have a little fun… what happened, steel rebar in your spine? :smiley:

15

Well, we just got back from seeing it. Anyone reading this thread that thinks Will Smith is totally hot should go see it just for the semi-nude scenes of him! :smiley:

We enjoyed the movie, but didn’t go in expecting more than what it was; and I noticed that, at the end, the credits said “Suggested by the novel”, not “based on the novel”. I think that the powers that be in Hollywood would have done better to call the movie something different.

16

Of course, that would result in Second Law’s head exploding, but then, I guess that Second does take priority over Third.

17

I think it was meh. A good summer flick. A terrible insult, though, to Asimov, if you see it as an adaptation of his work.

18

Second Law governs – he does have a sense of self-preservation! :dubious:

19

What dumfounded me was that they made no mention of the Zeroth Law, which was what Vikki was following. I hate to sound like a nerdboy here, but the First Law explicitly states that a robot cannot allow a human being to be harmed, which is exactly what she did. However if she was programmed with the zeroth law, then it would have made more sense.

20

I agree to an extent. I just thought that it was extremely predictable that VIKI circumvented the 3 laws with that logic. Isn’t that the most predicatble way to get around following the 3 laws?