I, Robot

[LordjOX]

I enjoyed it, very entertaining

 

[Trebz]

Just been to see the film and thouroughly enjoyed it, it was an entertaining film, not too taxing on the brain but not the usual dull dribble we're being force fed these days, at least there was some intelligence in it.

I've not read any of the Asimov books so I can't comment on the belief that "it rapes the books" as mentioned above, but I certainly will give them a read now, so all in all its promoted the books really, which is a good thing, no?

 

[Dillinja]

I heard that this film was one big subliminal advert. I have no problem with a couple of adverts snuck in during a movie but apparently this film has several.. it just starts to take the piss tbh, the adverts are supposed to go before the movie, not during it.

I'll rent it on DVD when it's out anyway, I've heard the action is pretty good.

 

[Trebz]

I heard that this film was one big subliminal advert. I have no problem with a couple of adverts snuck in during a movie but apparently this film has several.. it just starts to take the piss tbh, the adverts are supposed to go before the movie, not during it.

I'll rent it on DVD when it's out anyway, I've heard the action is pretty good.

Better to watch something first before commenting on it really. The film wasnt as bad as say James Bond and I only really noticed advertising in the first 5 minutes for 3 brands (one super blatant for some shoes which i cant remember the name of cos they were poo) then one for audi later. Didn't exactly ruin the film. We live our lives filled with branding, it just becomes natural in the things we watch too.

 

[harebear]

In a way having stuff we got now sorta makes the world more believable seeing as its set in 2030 or what ever, im gonna be like 40 smt then =(((

 

[old.Osy]

And this is the thing. It wasn't "inspired by" his stuff at all. To quote the Asimov online website:

If the film actually had been inspired by his stories, it would have been vastly different. It's a shame, though, that "permission of Asimov's estate" presumably implies that the real blame for this crap lies with whoever now runs "Asimov's estate".

Edit - my real objection is simply that the title and affiliation is misleading. A lot of the aspects of the story are simply not things that Asimov would have included in his books at all. They entirely conflict with the point of his stories.

I couldn't have said it better. I was very angry after watching the movie. Not what I expected.

 

[harebear]

But then he didn't make the movie so you cant expect it to be the same, plus if you make movies like books they would tend to be long and too complicated for lotsa people. *cough* (americans ) *cough*

 

[Louster]

But then he didn't make the movie so you cant expect it to be the same, plus if you make movies like books they would tend to be long and too complicated for lotsa people. *cough* (americans ) *cough*

Hey hey reviving an old thread to argue some more okay!

There's something people are kinda missing here. You can have a film "based on" a book that, while not having the exact same content, at least stays true to the spirit of the book. Bladerunner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is an example of that, I think. But you can also have, like in this case, a film that was made with NO connection to the book or the spirit in which the book was written at ALL, which then purchases the license and forces a few tie-ins into an already finished script so that they can rename the thing.

Anyway I'm not saying they should be shot or whatever, it's just an example of crappy hollywood marketting/moneymaking schemes. Even judging the film on its own merits, forgetting the licensing, it's not the sort of thing I enjoy in the first place, despite Asimov's books being some of the best scifi I've ever read. It'd be cool if someone could make a faithful movie adaptation of the Foundation series. But that'll never happen, clearly.