Rate this film
- A
- B
- C
- D
- F
0 voters
I, Robot, the movie, will be out July 31 in Taiwan. I have a very bad feeling about this after having just read
I, Robot
I was under the impression that Bladerunner was essentially a reworking of I-Robot.
What’s the point in rating a film that isn’t out yet?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/trailer3/ap_lg.html
You can watch the trailer and then rate it. I gave it A. Apparently it has nothing to do with Isaac Asimov’s story. The studio just bought the name.
Notice the movie is i, Robot and the book is I, Robot.
No, Bladerunner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick, or so I’ve heard.
I’m dubious they can ever produce a decent film from Asimov’s robot stories, but I’d be happy to be wrong. Couldn’t bring myself to see Bicentennial Man; from all accounts it was pretty bad. I really loved the story, though.
Daasgrrl is right, Bladerunner was based on Philip K Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
As for “I, Robot” the movie, having watched the trailers and read the website, all I have to say is that Asimov must be spinning in his grave fast enough to power fucking New York.
No, Bladerunner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick, or so I’ve heard.
[/quote]
Doh! 
Maybe I should form my impressions on things I know about, such as movies I’ve actually seen, books I’ve actually read, etc … NAAAAH! Where’s the fun in that?
You really should read some Dick, then, he’s pretty good. The Man in the High Castle is ace - the one about the U.S. divided between Japan and the Nazis.
I don’t consider trailers as a good tool to rate a movie - they can often be very misleading.
Thus I will only rate a movie after I have seen it (which I intend to do once it’s out).
No, Bladerunner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick, or so I’ve heard.[/quote]
Yeah, sort of like “Total Recall” was “based” on “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”. 
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”][i]The bottom line here is that while the film will look cool (hey, it
Capek may’ve coined the term Robot, but Asimov’s stories and ideas were the foundation for modern robotics.
And Star Wars? Well, that depends on who you ask - sane people or George Lucas circa 1980, yes it was. George Lucas circa Phantom Menace, no, no way, it’s all his own. Much like he also didn’t crib from the Lensman series of stories.
For me Will Smith films usually fall into one of three categories.
One: Almost No acting at all. Think: Bad Boys 2, Jersey Girl.
Two: Rubbish Acting. Independence day, Wild Wild West, Bagger Vance.
Three: Creditable/Good acting. Ali, Six Degrees of Separation, Made in America, Enemy of the state. (Although im kind of reaching with the last two).
[quote]Smith, with his inability to do anything serious, does not have the depth of character to suit this part.
[/quote]
Id say that there is a fair chance that Will will (Pardon the joke) blow this film, as he has blown so many many before. But there are some good performances in his filmography, so just maybe he will pull it out of the bag.
Nice!
I heard that the Chinese name of the film will be e-robot.
I said father of the genre.
Asimov did not coin the term robot, but he is credited with refining the concept of them away from either mindless Robbie the Robots or monsters to be feared.
In fact, the three laws of robotics are foundations that basically all subequent authors have to build on.
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]I said father of the genre.
Asimov did not coin the term robot, but he is credited with refining the concept of them away from either mindless Robbie the Robots or monsters to be feared.[/quote]
Most of his stories had them screwing up in one way or another; as I recall, the investigator-protagonist always had to figure out why the robot was malfunctioning. Then again, it’s been a few decades since I read the stories (they were so dull, I never did go back to reread them).
Oh, cat barf. I haven’t seen them ANYWHERE else, other than in the rare novel where the author was deliberately tossing in an homage to Asimov.
He said “foundations” - just 'cause you can’t see 'em doesn’t mean they’re not there. Hell, even scientists working in robotics IRL have acknowledged the influence (and to a degree, guidance) of Asimov’s three laws.
[quote=“MaPoSquid”][quote=“wolf_reinhold”]I said father of the genre.
Asimov did not coin the term robot, but he is credited with refining the concept of them away from either mindless Robbie the Robots or monsters to be feared.[/quote]
Most of his stories had them screwing up in one way or another; as I recall, the investigator-protagonist always had to figure out why the robot was malfunctioning. Then again, it’s been a few decades since I read the stories (they were so dull, I never did go back to reread them).[/quote]
Heresy! I must have read them a dozen times over, the short stories, at least 
Actually, I think the Robot stories are probably the best things Asimov ever wrote. Never made it through the Foundation series…
It isn’t about robots “screwing up.” It’s about a conundrum within the laws of robotics, usually. A robot can be put into a position that any action would be breaking one of the laws.
The early short stories are rather flat compared to the later novels. As I recall, Asimov’s first robot story was written a year after his first published story (Strange Playfellow, later renamed Robbie).
They are very basic indeed compared to the later concepts.
Well said Wolf. The ones I remember were more along the lines of “This robot shouldn’t be able to do this, since surely that’s a breach of one of the Three Laws,” followed by the investigators trying to work out exactly how whatever happened was able to happen. A howdunnit rather than a whodunnit, if you will.