I Robot movie (Isaac Asimov)

[HanaBi]

My wife enjoyed this film for what it was - an action thriller. But then again she's not a fan of Asimov and subsequently read any of his books.

I, on the other hand, hated the film even though I was desperate to be objective in my viewing. But Hollywood has yet again took some major "poetic licence" with his book to produce this trashy effort.

Interestingly the entry in IMDb quite Asimov as a writer by "suggested by book", which is an interesting turn of phrase, not even an adaption, just a "suggestion" here, "suggestion" there.

Quite frankly unless some serious-minded director such as Pete Jackson was ever offered the idea of brining the Foundation books (say) to the screen (unlikely I know), then Hollywood should stay well away from Asimov.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by HanaBi

My wife enjoyed this film for what it was - an action thriller. But then again she's not a fan of Asimov and subsequently read any of his books.

I, on the other hand, hated the film even though I was desperate to be objective in my viewing. But Hollywood has yet again took some major "poetic licence" with his book to produce this trashy effort.

Interestingly the entry in IMDb quite Asimov as a writer by "suggested by book", which is an interesting turn of phrase, not even an adaption, just a "suggestion" here, "suggestion" there.

I'll reiterate. The movie was never originally conceived as being from Asimov. They (FOX iirc) bought the rights to use the IP later on.

If it's not based on the book there is no poetic licence...

Oh; and I forgot to mention that I thought it was extremely bad form for them to use the name. What they should've done is called it something else (perhaps taking a quote from a story) or stuck with the original title. I think fanboys would have been accepting if that had been the case.

[Gav]

2)what AVS says above is exactly the problem -- while the robots themselves may not turn out to be Frankensteinian individually... there is still that same tired old storyline that has been around in sf films since the 1920s (or possibly earlier) and in literature for an even longer period... and it is, frankly, tiresome. The number of films done on this theme are far too numerous to name; let's get something a little more original -- or at least a little less hackneyed -- going here. It's not like we don't have enough stories to choose from, now is it?

Have you seen the film yet?

The plot motif is more complex than you seem to think. Yes - there certainly is an element of "frankentstein" in the film and yet there is also a lot of "anti-frankenstein" in there too. The end of the movie is also quite ambiguous (well once you get past the predictable bit).
Perhaps people are too distracted by the hollywood gloss (yep there is bucketloads of it) but I have to say that I think it's one of the better Hollywood SF films. Certainly it's far better than the way it was sold (as a basic SF themed action blockbuster). Interestingly it was directed one Alex Proyas who also happened to direct the excellent Dark City.
When I saw this movie I thought I was going to hate it, in fact I wanted to, but I was genuinely glad I saw it.

[Hilarious Joke]

From a person neutral to science fiction, I thought this film was enjoyable and stimulating.

[HanaBi]

Originally Posted by Gav

I'll reiterate. The movie was never originally conceived as being from Asimov. They (FOX iirc) bought the rights to use the IP later on.

If it's not based on the book there is no poetic licence...

Oh; and I forgot to mention that I thought it was extremely bad form for them to use the name. What they should've done is called it something else (perhaps taking a quote from a story) or stuck with the original title. I think fanboys would have been accepting if that had been the case.

Yes I accept your points, but it still erks me when Hollywood take so many liberties to the point of besmirching Asimov's work. Indeed they should have renamed it if it wasn't going to bare hardly any resemblance to the book.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

From a person neutral to science fiction, I thought this film was enjoyable and stimulating.

I didnt read SF when i saw the movie and even then i saw it was a stupid movie.

Sure some fun action scenes and some fun scene cause of Will Smith but thats it.

[matisamd]

that film was no more to do with isac asimov then data in tng is, actually tbg has more to do with him. it was another cheap taci will smith movie good fun to watch but nothing to learn, no intresting questions posed just lots of money made. Ed. the only emotional bits in the film are the bits ware isac had an influence the rest is holiwood ( bolsar wood ) productions which is about as deep complex as a plate.

[ghost8772]

as far as the two hollywood movies that were made using Asimov's name, they both tacked in the three laws of robotics, then treated them like they were supposed to be guidelines of conduct instead of LAWS. the quotes from his daughter are at least some credibility that transferring a story from paper to cellulose are going to have differences, and hollywood lookingto draw in the most people for one overpriced showing....... howver in I, robot, there was a lot of dialog about there being only this one robot that was made without three laws (if I were to use the book it would be the one about the nester that had almost no first law capability don't remember the title) yes, V.I.K.I reached a levle of complexity where she decided to save humanity from itself by forcing them into a minority role with robots becoming parents....

however there were several instances in both bicentennial man and I, robot where a robot ignored the first law. bicentennial man at the end where whatshername ordered Galatea to disconnect her life support so she could die...... and the point where the robot saves one person in a sinking car by tearing him half apart, and leaves another to die, because of the lack of percentage of being able to save the other one..... good hollywood story, but fumbled the ball on following a LAW qithin a computer decision making program. sigh, unfortunately this is how hollywood ends up making movies. the ones that bring in big money and are loved by millions, are nothing like the book they took their name from, the ones that are nearly identical (2001) put people to sleep in their seats, and are on DVD within 6 months.

[j. d. worthington]

The tale about the Nestor robot is titled, appropriately, "Little Lost Robot"... which is a variant on the locked-room mystery, incidentally....

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I just looked up the Wiki entry on the story, and found out it has been adapted...

Little Lost Robot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second paragraph....

[steve12553]

I remember that now that you mention it. A few more little episodes like that and it might have justified its title. On the other hand Commander Data's positronic brain is nearly as much as a tribute,

[HardScienceFan]

I'll say it again

Asimov always was low on pyrotechnics.

That's what made the movie a little....

uh...
somehow not in keeping with

i mean
will they mangle the End of Eternity like that?

[ghost8772]

Sadly, considering Hollywood lately, my only real response to any Book to Movie translation done withing the United states is a resounding "DUH".

[white_wanderer]

Having read asmiov from one end to the other and back again, the film was nothing like the books.
However, the film stands up on it's own as a good movie. Will Smith is an excellent actor, being able to play straight roles, comedy, action, you name it. His portrayal of Spooner is excellend and he makes it totally believable.

The positive side of this movie is that it will get those kids that "haven't got time to read books" to actually sit down and read something for a change.

[Connavar]

Agree Will Smith was good in the movie. Only good thing about the movie IMO.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by white_wanderer

The positive side of this movie is that it will get those kids that "haven't got time to read books" to actually sit down and read something for a change.

problem with that is they will decide they now KNOW the respective book and don't need to read it, they are now BETTER than the person who actually read the book. with I, robot that is not the case. with the bicentennial man it is closer, but not quite.

further back in the posts, I laughed about the Data positronic brain being more of a nod to asimov, ALL of the items described , Bicentennial man, I, Robot, and Data/Lor/etc... have positronic brains, and NONE of them adhere wholly to the three laws of robotics. Data is GUNNER on enterprise, his prime directive is to learn, and to try to be more human. Data has no laws of robotics in his brain. at least none asimovian.