Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 94

Thread: I,Robot - No one seems to be touching this one yet.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,181
    Sever's right. The forcefield story is from I, Robot - Susan Calvin uses it to catch a robot with a modified first law. However, this was simply to find the robot - it was told to 'get lost,' but had not committed any other crime.
    The murder mystery tilt of the film seems more inspired by the 'detective' books with R. Daneel Olivaw (ie: Caves of Steel)...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Sever
    Actully the story with the force fields is from I Robot. (I read it a few days ago, and loved it). :)
    I stand corrected.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    I don't think that all filmmakers just adapt a name and run off and do their own thing. It just seems like they do it with Science Fiction more than anything else. Any chance we can get Peter Jackson to do a few book-to-movie conversions? He didn't do such a bad job with LotR.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler
    I don't think that all filmmakers just adapt a name and run off and do their own thing. It just seems like they do it with Science Fiction more than anything else. Any chance we can get Peter Jackson to do a few book-to-movie conversions? He didn't do such a bad job with LotR.
    Peter Jackson butchered the characters, but at least got the locations, costumes, and general look and feel right; he also did about as well as possible in 9-10 hours of screen time on the story. But, of course, that is off topic...

    Sci-fi suffers from generally high production costs, leading conservative studio heads to want to stick with tried-and-true formula or overrated-yet-famous directors/writers (ie George Lucas). The rare case of a good writer/producer (ie JMS and B5) generally have to fight tooth and nail to get more than 13 episodes before the studio heads start inserting blond borg chicks to boost ratings. (JMS turned down an executive producer offer on Enterprise, incidentally. Gotta love a guy with integrity.)

    Another problem is that much of the best Sci-Fi writing depends on 3rd person omniscent writing where the characters' thoughts can be written out. Movie attempts to do the same usually fail so miserably as to be comical (or at least bizzare, as in the original Dune movie). Some good Sci-Fi writing contains intricate dialog between characters, which could be filmed, but would frankly be dull as all get out for 75% of the audience.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    467
    Don't forget the part where they rode the sandworm and rock music starts blaring. Classic film moment IMHO.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley
    In short, I'm not suggesting that people boycott the film. I am merely suggesting that people make the choice not to go and see it. I doubt it'll make much difference, but you never know...
    I've decided not to see this "movie"...I figure I can read how bad it actually "turns out to be" here.

    Anyhow, the last 2 Will Smith movies I've seen (WWW and MIB2) were both STINKERS. Why should this movie be any different??

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    Because Will Smith is perfectly capable of doing a damned good movie. He's like a starting pitcher in a slump, he's due for a comeback.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    492
    I am truly sorry to hear that the Movie is not the same as the book. I read the book in the '70's I believe. The first sci-fi book I ever read was "Pebbles in the Sky" by Asimov. I was smitten and read no other genre for quite a while.

    I later read a fair amount of Stephen King and was thrilled that the scariest book I had ever read(ok I was 17 at the time) "The Shining" was going to be a movie. Imagine my dimay and disgust when I actually saw the movie!! It wasn't a bad story and Nicholson was great but I hated the fact that the movie was titled after a book it barely resembled.

    There may be aspects of "I Robot" that are borrowed from the robot series but it saddens and agers me that the title is being used simply to draw the boomers into taking their kids or grandkids to this movie.

    It is rediculous that other genres can have movies that are true to the book but that sci-fi writers simply go for the gee whiz and sacrifice the original story for it.

    LotR might have been a lot more melodramatic than the book but at least the story was followed.

    Starship Troopers. Now someone needs to do that one right!
    Another example of where I was dismayed and disgusted. Yes, it needs to be done true to the book.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    (JMS turned down an executive producer offer on Enterprise, incidentally. Gotta love a guy with integrity.)
    I ran across that tidbit recently, and it floored me. 'Couldn't believe P'mount actually had the stones to offer him the helm of E'prise, after seemingly doing everything they could to undermine B5 (having passed on it themselves.) Sheesh, Hollywood. :roll:

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by DataCable
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    (JMS turned down an executive producer offer on Enterprise, incidentally. Gotta love a guy with integrity.)
    I ran across that tidbit recently, and it floored me. 'Couldn't believe P'mount actually had the stones to offer him the helm of E'prise, after seemingly doing everything they could to undermine B5 (having passed on it themselves.) Sheesh, Hollywood. :roll:
    To quote JMS on DS9: "Nice story, too bad it was ours".

  11. #41
    I hear that Will Smith is putting out a killer song for this movie.

    The track has what sounds to be a high amount of "scratching" of an old Stevie Wonder track, it turns out that is in fact merely the sound of Asimov spinning in his grave.

    Welcome to the Will-enium.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    Anyhow, the last 2 Will Smith movies I've seen (WWW and MIB2) were both STINKERS. Why should this movie be any different??
    Because its not his fault you didn't see his excellent performance in Ali?

    However:
    Quote Originally Posted by IMDB.com
    Writer Akiva Goldsman came on late in the process to tailor the script to Will Smith.
    I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

    Akiva Goldsman is the hand of death; after suffering through his Batman scripts I'll never venture to one of his films again.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    Quote Originally Posted by DataCable
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    (JMS turned down an executive producer offer on Enterprise, incidentally. Gotta love a guy with integrity.)
    I ran across that tidbit recently, and it floored me. 'Couldn't believe P'mount actually had the stones to offer him the helm of E'prise, after seemingly doing everything they could to undermine B5 (having passed on it themselves.) Sheesh, Hollywood. :roll:
    To quote JMS on DS9: "Nice story, too bad it was ours".

    DS9 was early proof that B&B have absolutely no ethics or morals.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,008
    Without seeing the movie (which I don't plan to do anyway), I'm already claiming victory with my first prediction. I just saw a preview that shows the good robot fighting one of the evil robots.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    I'm in the process of reading Robot Dreams. Next I'm going to read I, Robot. THEN I will see the movie!

    I want them to make movies for the Robot Novels, and, of course, the Foundation series.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity
    I want them to make movies for the Robot Novels, and, of course, the Foundation series.
    Yes! Definitely the Elijah Baley series. I would love to see those - if they were done well. :roll:

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    Yes!! The only book-to-movie series i have no qualms about, even if it is missing content, is the LOTR trilogy. Maybe peter jackson should do the lij bailey books?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    To quote JMS on DS9: "Nice story, too bad it was ours".
    DS9 was early proof that B&B have absolutely no ethics or morals.
    Uhmmmm... First off, one of those B's (Braga) had nothing to do with DS9 whatsoever, so far as I can find documentation of.

    As to the other, I seem to recall reading a post from JMS to the effect that he knew Berman, and didn't think he was aware of B5 when DS9 was in planning. Rather it was probably higher-up P'mount execs (who are *always* in on the development of a new series) that may have "steered" things the way they went.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    Movie tests Asimov's moral code for robots

    "Asimov's laws are about as relevant to robotics as leeches are to modern medicine," says Steve Grand, who founded the UK company Cyberlife Research and is working on developing artificial intelligence through learning. "They stem from an innocent bygone age, when people seriously thought that intelligence was something that could be 'programmed in' as a series of logical propositions."
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek
    Movie tests Asimov's moral code for robots

    "Asimov's laws are about as relevant to robotics as leeches are to modern medicine," says Steve Grand, who founded the UK company Cyberlife Research and is working on developing artificial intelligence through learning. "They stem from an innocent bygone age, when people seriously thought that intelligence was something that could be 'programmed in' as a series of logical propositions."

    Then again...

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445
    So far it's getting mixed reviews. However I read one review where the critic apologized to Spielberg because after watching I, Robot, Spielberg's A.I. seems like a much better movie now.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    467
    Oh heck. I have'nt seen a movie lately and I might as well see this one. I'll try to convince my parents.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,214
    One of my pet peeves is the whole "positronic" brain thing. Positrons are just positive electrons, why would that be special in anyway. I know Asimov coined the term, but it's still bad (I'm talking to you Data).

    The minute a robot was deactivated, the positrons would interact with normal matter and you'd have at least a multi-kiloton explosion on your hands.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    Quote Originally Posted by wedgebert
    One of my pet peeves is the whole "positronic" brain thing. Positrons are just positive electrons, why would that be special in anyway. I know Asimov coined the term, but it's still bad (I'm talking to you Data).
    The Next Gen folks used the term as an homage to Asimov, which is 100% okay by me, even if it is a silly term if you stop and think about it.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by wedgebert
    One of my pet peeves is the whole "positronic" brain thing. Positrons are just positive electrons, why would that be special in anyway. I know Asimov coined the term, but it's still bad (I'm talking to you Data).

    The minute a robot was deactivated, the positrons would interact with normal matter and you'd have at least a multi-kiloton explosion on your hands.
    In his introduction to Robot Dreams (a collection of short stories), Asimov explains his idea behind positronic brains. Great book, by the way, I suggest you check out a copy at your local library, or pick it up I'll paste his mention on positronic brains right here:

    "Positrons were exciting particles, bringing with them visions of 'antimatter.' For that reason, I thought positronic brains was a phrase that sounded good. They would not be essentially different from electronic brains, except that positrons could be made to come into being and would then be destroyed in a millionth of a second or so by all electrons that surround them, no matter where on Earth they were. They gave me the notion that they might be seen as responsible for rapidity of thought. To be sure, the energy relationships--the energy required to produce positrons in quantity or the energy released when positrons are destroyed in quantity--are horrendous, so great that the notion of positronic brains is forever impossible, in all likelihood -- but I ignored that."

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by wedgebert
    One of my pet peeves is the whole "positronic" brain thing. Positrons are just positive electrons, why would that be special in anyway. I know Asimov coined the term, but it's still bad (I'm talking to you Data).
    When Asimov coined the term...50 or so years ago...positrons were a "new" thing. He used positronic brains, in his robot stories, because it sounded more "futuristic" than electronic brains...

    You "might" be over-thinking this a bit wedgebert...it's just a story.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,214
    I don't have a problem with Asimov's use of it, it's just that lazy sci-fi writers are forever using the same terminology without learning what it means.

    I guess I'm just spoiled by writers like Stephen Baxter and David Weber who at least understand a little about science and technology.

    On a more movie related note, to anyone who's seen it (or the previews really), do the robot transport trucks remind anybody of the Phantom Menace Battle Droid transports? I kept waiting for a "Roger roger"

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    I would definitely say that Asimov was a very learned man. He knew science better than most of us ask of current sci-fi authors. He kicked himself at tiny errors, and was forever regretting making predictions that turned out to be false. If you stick to only what you KNOW is possible, science fiction loses its mystery and wonder.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by wedgebert
    I don't have a problem with Asimov's use of it, it's just that lazy sci-fi writers are forever using the same terminology without learning what it means.

    I guess I'm just spoiled by writers like Stephen Baxter and David Weber who at least understand a little about science and technology.
    here's an opening for something I've been wanting to bring up for a while. There is a glaring science error in Weber's Harrington universe. I think it might even qualify as Bad Astronomy.

    One of the major technological advantages the Star Kingdom enjoyed in the opening phases of the war with Haven was their ability to communicate FTL. This meant, among other things, that their deep space sensor arrays; some of which were located light hours or light days away from fleet bases could communicate real time positions of detected enemy forces.

    The major problem with this is that this communication was effected through the generation of gravity pulses. Artificial gravity generation is a staple of his universe and afaik is not currently shown to be impossible, so I'm not complaining about that, but isn't a key part of the general theory of relativity the concept that gravity is NOT a FTL phenomenon?

    And before you slam me. Yes, I know this series is a space opera fiction and if I can swallow the concept of using generated gravity bands as a propulsion system I shouldn't have a problem with this. But I do, so there
    :P

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Doe, John
    This meant, among other things, that their deep space sensor arrays; some of which were located light hours or light days away from fleet bases could communicate real time positions of detected enemy forces.
    Quantum entagled particles? *hides*

Similar Threads

  1. Touching stories in the news
    By redshifter in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2012-Aug-17, 06:13 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2009-Dec-09, 04:43 AM
  3. touching game
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-11, 04:34 PM
  4. Touching the event horizon
    By bjxrn in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-07, 01:18 PM
  5. This is a Touching Poem.
    By AstroGman in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2003-Feb-04, 09:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: