What is the worst part of the new flick 'I, Robot'?

[Deja Q]

Well?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. You seen it?

[HawkerHurricane]

2. Another great Science Fiction story...

destroyed by Hollywood.

Gawds, Dr. A must be spinning in his grave, to see his very intelectual story turned into a shoot-em up star vehicle...

[starroute]

3. I think what Asimov would have hated most

Was having Dr. Susan Calvin portrayed as a young babe and played by an ex-model.

If you'd ever sat around in the library stacks reading old bound volumes of Astounding (the way I did in my misspent youth), you'd have encountered a lot of letters from a very young Isaac Asimov ranting about how the women in science fiction stories were all useless eye candy. (I paraphrase roughly. That term hadn't been invented yet.) And when he came to write SF of his own, he was careful to include a leading female character who was plain, awkward, and verging on middle age.

I've heard that the movie isn't actually based on Asimov's stories at all -- they just sort of licensed the title. But that really doesn't make it any better, does it?

[BlueJazz]

4. Actually, "Rotten Tomatoes"give it a fairly decent review.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/IRobot-1134097/reviews.php

On Edit: But as the poster above stated...Asimov is turning in his grave. The I, Robot series of stories were just wonderful and cerebral.

[HawkerHurricane]

5. It might be a good movie...

fun, exciting, witty...

But it is NOT Dr. Asimov's book brought to the screen. It is his title and some character names attached to someone else's story.

[BlueJazz]

6. Oh, I agree... I can remember spending many an hour as a boy...

..completly lost in the stories of Issac (and of course others, Anderson, Heinlein etc)

I doubt if Hollywood will ever release a great Sci-Fi movie that would live up to a great Sci-Fi story.

Speaking for myself, I (sadly) will accept just about ANY Sci-Fi Film...I'm THAT starved for one :)

[ben_thayer]

7. The best sci-fi movie adaption

I've seen yet is John Carpenters "The Thing" from the short story "Who Goes There"

:scared:

[bobbieinok]

20. I saw that as a kid ....... super scary........

[DS1]

8. Lack of stop-motion animation. CGI sucks

[Elginoid]

11. I have not yet seen the movie, but i definitely intend to-

some of the scenes in the trailers/commercials I've seen for it look too cartoonish. especially the one with the car.

[Nevernose]

9. The original poster said "based on the novel by Isaac Assimov"

The current editions all say "SUGGESTED by the works of Isaac Issamov." I wonder if they were sued by the estate?

[Khephra]

10. Worst part? That a talented director is involved with it.

David Goyer (The Crow and Dark City)

[PVnRT]

12. Quick, raise your hand if you've seen it already

Anyone? Anyone?

[Elginoid]

13. How many of the people that are cheezed-off about the title-

defended Michael Moore's use of Fahrenheit 9/11?
enquiring minds want to know who the duplicitous ones are.

personally, I feel that they both have every right to use whatever title they feel is most befitting their work.

that being said- saying without permission or whatever due compensation there might be that your movie is "based on (or upon)" another work by another author is another story.

[Khephra]

15. Normally I'd agree with you

But (even for me, a non-Asimov fan) the stories involving "I,Robot" have entered the collective conscience. The "Robot Rules" are so famous that scientists have said they'd program them into any future robots that they'd build.

The Robot rules are known by most SF readers, even if they haven't read the stories. Look at them and you'll understand.


Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

Science-fiction author Isaac Asimov is often given credit for being the first person to use the term robotics in a short story composed in the 1940s. In the story, Asimov suggested three principles to guide the behavior of robots and smart machines. Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, as they are called, have survived to the present:

1. Robots must never harm human beings or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. Robots must follow instructions from humans without violating rule 1.

3. Robots must protect themselves without violating the other rules.


Sound like anything you've seen from the ads?

[eyesroll]

18. Titles aren't copyrightable, so the movie can be called whatever it wants

(MPAA and other bodies might object, but that's internal; not law.)

The title "I, Robot" isn't so much concern. If it was clearly a different universe, not based at all on Asimov and not trying to make that association, fine.

But it seems that they're trying to sell this as an Asimov adaptation -- even using some character names, and the laws of robotics -- which it clearly isn't. It's a shoot-em-up.

[Terran]

19. Apples and oranges

F9/11 is not a film based on the Bradbury novel; he just borrowed a suggestion of the title; maybe it was over the line, but it's also poetic license. "I, Robot" is a direct use of the title of the Azimov anthology of stories, and therefor purports to BE that work made into a film. Yet it appears to have changed in every way the salient points of the original work. The two situations are completely different. I should think that would be obvious; or do you ahve some particular problem with Mr. Moore?

[Kenneth ken]

14. having seen only previews

I had to vote the "nothing like the book . . " option. The previews are bad enough that I think the reason the film was made is because some one hated Asimov and wants to try to destroy him now that he can't fight back.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. I just read some reviews, apparently it is described as "suggested

by a book by Isaac Asimov"??!! :puke:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. kick