Could be a lynching in the offing...

[ducati_EL34]

Originally Posted by ablethevoice

Well...one of the primary things Asimov was trying to get away from when he began his robot stories was the "Frankenstein" concept of the robot ultimately being a mistake and the creator being forced to destroy his creation. It was the main reason he formulated the 3 laws. There was no "good robot/bad robot" element in his stories. In the stories no matter how "wrong" the robot's behavior seemed to be it could ultimately be explained by the robot attempting to apply the 3 laws to a difficult situation.

Good points, but I guess Hollywood figures a movie without a villain, will not sell well.

The "mainframe with an agenda" concept was torn straight out of D.F. Jones' COLOSSUS and duct taped to a few pieces of Asimov's story.

I saw that movie. It was boring.

If I wanted to see as many commercials as there were crammed in that film (Audi, Converse, JVC, Dos Equis beer, Enigma ceiling fan), I'd just watch a couple hours' worth of any commercial TV channel.

The only two "logos" I saw was Audi and Converse. What I came with from that was that Spooner liked things from a past era, like the Converse High tops, real audio equip. and a gas powered motorcycle. It defined who he was.


He is similar to some here who have an obsession some have for vintage audio gear.

Will Smith. He's wearing more than a little thin. Same personality, different script. How many films have you seen where he DIDN'T say. "awww, HELL nah..."?

Oh you mean like DeNiro and Pacino?

I freely admit that the SFX were quite impressive, but without a really good story all I saw was another demo reel showing off gigabytes worth of great number crunching and paper thin everything else.

While it was not 100% faithful to Asimov, I thought the story was good. Remember, in "I Robot", the 3 laws were flawed and would lead to anarchy. That is an interesting twist to Asimov's story.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by ablethevoice

I was literally wincing at the dialog in the new Star Wars prequel trilogy.

There was a prequel trilogy?

I remember (1) awesome film in '77 and a pretty decent second installment in 1980. Somewhere in the mid 80's there was something proclaimed as the 3rd installement with a lot of muppets and dwarf actors clad in groundhog suits living in trees or something. There was a fight and someone was electrocuted with evil soul lightning. All I can recall.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by danj

My 10 year old grandson thinks "Ultraviolet" is cool to look at but better with the sound off.

Big fan of Ultraviolet. Until your post I didn't realize there was any dialogue.

[ablethevoice]

Even with the sound ON, there wasn't any "dialogue"

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by ablethevoice

I freely admit that the SFX were quite impressive, but without a really good story all I saw was another demo reel showing off gigabytes worth of great number crunching and paper thin everything else.

You could apply that statement to any number of films with SFX run amok!

I realize that this thread has veered WAY into OT but it is a good examination of what is so incredibly wrong with many recent films such as Spiderman 3, Indiana Jones & Crystal Skulliens, SW 1, 2, $ 3, etc. There was no plot, just a series of plot devices strung along to advance the CGI. My God Spielberg, you had John Hurt & all you had him do was drool on himself and babble incoherently! I mean really, how fucked up is that?

I do believe however that LOTR was a turning point and some paid attention to what more were looking for in a film. It even appeared to affect Michael Bay who turned out a great sci-fi (to me), 'The Island'. Maybe some in film land just get it, more are starting to, and others will continue to be punished at the box office? Let's hope so.

[rooster18]

Being a longtime SF fan, I think the common thread is that without budgetary pressure, SF movies usually stink. Think about it. The 1st Star Wars movie (1977) was a milestone in SF acheivement. Even though it was more fantasy than anything else, it set the bar VERY high for SF-type movies. I think this is because the budget was limited compared to what Lucas wanted to do, so the entire production team had to think their way around it. If you look at the really good SF movies, "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "Planet of the Apes", "Dark Star", "2001", and that ilk, they never had the money to do what they really wanted. Everything that came out with an adequate budget (all Star Wars movies beginning with Episode VI, Alien 3, I Robot, etc.) didn't have to be as creative, because the money was always there.

Perhaps there should be a $5 million cap on SF budgets from now on, and we might get some good movies again.

Or, I could be completely full of crap. It's what I do.

rooster.

[ablethevoice]

Very unique and insightful post there, rooster! That may be the issue. The filmmakers just pour money on a project and lose sight of the fact that STORY is primary. That concept goes back to the original Star Trek TV series. Their budget was abysmal at best, yet look where the franchise is today.

[piece-it pete]

One thing I think really added to the 1st Star Wars was, they used real models with real explosions.

I love the thought of Foundation and hope they do well. What I didn't like about I Robot was, they gunked it up with non-Asimov stuff. 'That is the question' - wonderful. Cocky attitude, not Asimov. Overall not a bad movie though IMO.

"RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" - one of my favorites from Clarke too.

Pete

[Cleve]

I got a bad feeling about this.

[Holst]

[QUOTE=soundmotor;2196940]There was a prequel trilogy?

QUOTE]

I think Simon Pegg said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkCJDkG3fg

[danj]

"FOUNDATION" is, imho, arguably the greatest work in all of science fiction. It would work better as a mini-series, preferably done by the British, than a movie. It's just too complicated a story and I would hate to see it bastardized and butchered like "Dune" was.

I really liked the "I, Robot" film. It was not good Asimov but it was a very good entertainment.

I would love to see a good miniseries done of the Philip Jose Farmer "Riverworld" series. The rights were bought up back in the 80s and there had been talk of something going but ..... doing that right could be even more difficult than doing justice to "Foundation."

I guess there is a "Rama" film in the works. I hope they do it justice!

[ablethevoice]

Originally Posted by danj

"FOUNDATION" is, imho, arguably the greatest work in all of science fiction. It would work better as a mini-series, preferably done by the British, than a movie. It's just too complicated a story and I would hate to see it bastardized and butchered like "Dune" was.

I really liked the "I, Robot" film. It was not good Asimov but it was a very good entertainment.

I would love to see a good miniseries done of the Philip Jose Farmer "Riverworld" series. The rights were bought up back in the 80s and there had been talk of something going but ..... doing that right could be even more difficult than doing justice to "Foundation."

I guess there is a "Rama" film in the works. I hope they do it justice!

Already been done very poorly indeed, judging by the comments made by PJF fans who saw this.

As far as RWR being put on film, so far as I know that project is dead.

[danj]

I had forgotten about that tv movie dreck. It was strictly a by-the-numbers cheapo production with very little in common with the books plots. "Riverworld" would make a great mini-series if the script followed Farmer's plotlines.

I hadn't seen that blurb about Rama being cancelled. I think it would make a great movie, in the right hands. If hacks are gonna work on it then I would rather it just die in development.

[fotno]

Kudos to Able for mentioning something I've been saying (and even yelling at the screen on occasion) for at least 10 years. Script, script, script!

It's not just Sci-Fi movies either, it's Hollywood film-making in general. There's such a focus on getting a product out there, that all thought of creating a story worth being told seems to go out the window. It's especially frustrating when the source material is so good, and the subsequent film so poor.

The Star Wars prequels have been mention several times in this conversation, and I can't stop myself from adding my own 2¢ to those comments. I had my doubts from the start that Lucas (who is famous for his poor directorial skills) would be able to create three films that would be even worthy shadows of "Episode III", but I had no idea that his attempts would be painful to watch. I came away feeling like I had just spent eight dollars to see a local theater production of Grandma Edna's very first play! Piss poor script, atrocious acting (often from normally talented actors), frequently poor casting choices, and CGI that distracted more than it ever added.

Honestly, I choose to think of Star Wars as a stand alone film, and forget that anything else was ever added to that story. I won't even watch the "enhanced" version.