Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 16th, 2004 12:27 am (UTC)
Well, actually, I'm betting royalty checks go to wife Janet. But, yeah, I'm not seeing any real signs of this being actually inspired by Asimov, other than some character names, and the "3 Laws" concept...

But, accepting it as a completely separate project that also uses the Three Laws, it looks like it'll be a fun action flick.

Jul. 16th, 2004 02:04 am (UTC)
You're right, of course. But, why split heirs...

I'm mostly reminded of interviews going into "The Time Machine", which was supposed to be the definitive adaptation thanks to H.G. Wells' great-grandson directing. Didn't really work out that way, though.

But, no. If the studio was at all respectful of her father's work, they'd have changed this film's title and left the door open for another company to do the job right. This is the only "I, Robot" we're likely to get for a very long time, so even if we're to accept it as a separate project, the experience still has to be better than the book in order to justify itself.

And, pretending there never was a book? It looks like we saw the whole movie in that trailer. What might have been suspense and mystery is transformed into waiting, while they fill in the gaps between everything we've already seen.

It wasn't that long ago conventional wisdom would have dictated the trailers not even show robots until everyone has a chance to see the film.

Now... I just don't see how anyone's going to leave the theater satisfied.
Jul. 16th, 2004 03:16 pm (UTC)
I like this movie's director, Alex Proyas. He did a very cool sci-fi flick called "Dark City," as well as "The Crow." He's not claiming to have filmed the book. In fact, I believe the credit reads "Inspired by" rather than "Based on." I'd give him the benefit of the doubt until I've actually seen the thing.
Jul. 16th, 2004 04:52 pm (UTC)
But, the title reads "I, Robot".

Inspired or based on, this is the only version we're likely to see for a very long time unless it warrants sequels, and those won't be the book either. That's not a tribute, an homage, or an adaptation. It's an obstacle.

I like Alex Proyas too, but every time I give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt, I get burnt and they get only positive reinforcement for their efforts by way of the box office.

We vote with our wallets, and I oppose this whole trend.
Jul. 16th, 2004 05:57 pm (UTC)
Asimov's novel was published in 1950. It took 54 years before somebody decided to turn those ideas into a film. Who, exactly, is being obstructed?

54 years without a movie adaption, you have to figure there's a reason. Many books just don't translate well into movies without a major overhaul. These guys liked Asimov's world and ideas so much that they took that essence and built their own Hollywood-friendly story around it, which his estate claims stays true to his spirit. If they made it work, more power to them. I can't judge it yet, because I haven't seen it.

But I can tell you that 99% of the people who will see this movie have never heard of the book. If the movie is good, and stands on its own merits, it'll do well. And possibly even motivate people to pick up the novel with Will Smith's picture on the cover. And if it isn't a good movie, then it'll open big because of the hype and starpower, but then die a horrible Summer movie death and six more films will take its place. Whatever.
Jul. 17th, 2004 04:16 am (UTC)
From what I've heard, the only thing imported from the book to the film, other than the title, is the 4 laws. That's about as inspired as a film called "Hamlet" about the goings on at an exercise spa, where they chant, "Oh that this too, too solid flesh would melt away."
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )


self portrait (escher)
some guy

Latest Month

October 2014
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow