I think the biggest thing robots would get stuck up on is perceiving what is real and not. you could be able to trick it with good acting, or place a video screen in front of its face ala speed, or treat it like a naive child and have it think dad is really beating mom when the lights are out and their door is locked.
I, Robot
- Thread starter Executioner
- Start date
Any Asimov fans seen the movie yet? Is there anything in the movie that has to do with his stories besides the title, the "Three Laws of Robotics" and a few character names? In other words, is there any justification for them not coming up with an original concept, since no Asimov robot ever killed a human, and only once or twice even injured one?
It was late at night and you use confusing syntax, so I made a mistake. Nothing like reading dozens of posts to slip up a little on at least one?
*Sigh* I'm an Asimov fan, but I won't be seeing the movie for at least another week, since I've visiting family on the other side of the country. Still, I haven't seen the slightest thing on the movie to convince me that it respects Asimov's works at all, besides slight mentions.
Isn't nice that someone programed and outfitted the robots to glow red when evil?
*Sigh* I'm an Asimov fan, but I won't be seeing the movie for at least another week, since I've visiting family on the other side of the country. Still, I haven't seen the slightest thing on the movie to convince me that it respects Asimov's works at all, besides slight mentions.
Isn't nice that someone programed and outfitted the robots to glow red when evil?
welsh
Junkmaster
Kotario- you might want to check out the Harlan Ellison screenplay that Asimov approved. It might be interesting to compare the stories.
I still haven't seen the flick so I am going to hold back criticisms. Recent Sci Fi has gotten, overall, better.
The remake of Solaris, Minority Report, AI were all fairly intelligent movies. Perhaps I Robot won't be a disappointment.
I still haven't seen the flick so I am going to hold back criticisms. Recent Sci Fi has gotten, overall, better.
The remake of Solaris, Minority Report, AI were all fairly intelligent movies. Perhaps I Robot won't be a disappointment.
Eric the Viking
First time out of the vault
Montez said:
While I haven't seen the movie, (previous movies based on his books have been shocking), I have read or own most of the books written by Issac Asimov. The book, I, Robot is a collection of stories written between 1941 and 1950. Most of these stories first appeared in the science fiction magazines which were so popular around this time.
The characters of Dr. Alfred Lanning, Dr. Susan Calvin, Lawrence Robertson and the corporation of U.S. Robotics are all recuring characters in many of his robot stories. The character that Will Smith plays is not.
For the record, the Three Laws state...
(1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
(2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
(3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The stories in the book, I, Robot , basically explore the workings of these Three Laws and their intreptation.... by both robot and human alike.
Asimovs style of writing was what I'd describe as 'talkie'.... that is, there was not a great deal of action. The characters spend their time talking and needless to say, that's not the type of thing that makes for a good movie.
I suspect we can expect more stories of his to end up on film... Sci-Fi movies are doing quite well, particuarly with the computer generated stuff we have today.
Bradylama said:
Another reason is also that today, with the general population being better educated, fact is rapidly becoming stranger than fiction... the Quantum and Superstring theories being an example.
Cheers,
Eric
I agree that Asimov doesn't have much true action in his stories, but it would be easy enough to add some and stay true to what's written. How cool would a movie based on "Caves of Steel" or the other robot novels have been, for example? Or the foundation series? Instead of making a great movie out of great stories, they steal a few concepts and water them down so much that they have only the barest superficial connection to the books. Why? I just don't understand it, it seems like such a waste.
I still can't get over how cool a movie ACTUALLY based on "Starship Troopers" would be, instead of that idiotic 'facsit teenagers with guns' movie they made. I'd expect alot of people on these forums to have read the book, as there's about a billion references to it on the Enclave's oil rig in Fallout 2.
Malkavian said:
The movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book. Its an okay movie on its own merit, but the book is far superior in every aspect, and having it associated with the movie sullies the name of Heinlein.
I'm not going to get in an argument about it here, though. But I will say that Hollywood is terrific at butchering books. For example, the Bourne Identity had little to do with the book, and the upcoming sequel, the Bourne Supremacy, has even less. The book - except for a very small opening part - happens exclusively in China, while the movie appears to happen in Europe.
Eric the Viking
First time out of the vault
Books and films are just fundamentally different mediums.
Compromises have to made in the translation from one to other.
I wonder if it works in reverse... are books which are based on a movie better or worse?
I only read the Red Darwf Omnibus AFTER having seen the TV series... and it highlighted my enjoyment of the book. (while was probably only due to the perfectly chosen and excellent actors.
Cheers,
Eric
Oh, I thought Starship Troopers was terribly funny. Just so hammy. With some decent actors, it could have been better. ST2 was just terrible. The Wing Commander movie anyone?
Compromises have to made in the translation from one to other.
I wonder if it works in reverse... are books which are based on a movie better or worse?
I only read the Red Darwf Omnibus AFTER having seen the TV series... and it highlighted my enjoyment of the book. (while was probably only due to the perfectly chosen and excellent actors.
Cheers,
Eric
Oh, I thought Starship Troopers was terribly funny. Just so hammy. With some decent actors, it could have been better. ST2 was just terrible. The Wing Commander movie anyone?
Ugly John
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Jabbapop said:
No, in Animatrix; second rennaissance part I, it was robots gone wild.
Eric the Viking said:
I think what was great about Starship Troopers was the cynism of the presentation. It being presented as a military propaganda tape was a great idea. For some reason I remembered that movie when I watched CNN during the "war on evil terrorists" in Iraq (gotta love those 3D animations of bombs and jet fighters with technical stats all over them -- made it look like a bloody great RTS).
I didn't even know there was a second movie. Most likely a sellout.
Wing Commander was shown in cinema over here. For an outstanding entire week. The sad part is I thought it could be a decent movie until it came to tv about four years later (IIRC a movie is released as VHS/DVD after a half or one year, then shown on payTV after two years and on freeTV after four years -- something like that).
The movie turned out to be miserable.
I think the movie "The Bourne Identity" was set in France and Switzerland mostly.
I kind of liked it tho. Especially the original English version.
I have never read a book based on a movie, but I think they tend to be worse because they most likely do not take all the freedom required to make a story work good with a different medium.
Most movies based on books just CAN'T be "the book as a movie" because stories need to be presented in different ways.
An oldish example for that is "Educating Rita", the author of the book also directed the movie and while the book (more of a theater play, technically) was set in one room only, the movie had dozens of locations. Both were equally good, tho, IMHO.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No, that was more Part 2. Part 1 was filled to the brim with the worker bots that had ovular bodies and egg-shaped heads that you see in i, robot.
I agree compromises have to be made, but in the case of Starship Troopers they removed the very important elements. In the book, the Terran Federation is a society with virtually unlimited personal freedom, the troopers wore power armor and we're launched from their orbitting ships via capsules - hence the name "cap trooper" that they throw around during the movie - and the bugs were about the size of labrador retrievers and carried guns. Not to mention the fact Johnny Rico is Phillipino, not a blue-eyed, blonde-haired poster boy for the Arian race. I compare the movie to FOBOS, because the makers of that didn't play previous Fallout games, and the guy who wrote the original script of the movie was the only one involved who read the book. The original script - which can be dug up on the internet - is half decent and remains true to the book.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
If anything, the movie can be paraphrased as All Quiet on the Western Front meets Aliens.
The parallels are instantly noticeable, though, I don't recall them establishing a concrete reason for why the bugs dropped an asteroid on Rio de Janeiro.
I know in the book it was because the bugs were allied with a race that humans were oppressing, but I think the movie's reason was more based on territorial disputes.
The parallels are instantly noticeable, though, I don't recall them establishing a concrete reason for why the bugs dropped an asteroid on Rio de Janeiro.
I know in the book it was because the bugs were allied with a race that humans were oppressing, but I think the movie's reason was more based on territorial disputes.