The Original I, Robot Screenplay

[TMA_1]

All of you know of the new movie out called I, Robot. It was a dream made by Isaac Asimov as well as some help from the editor of Astounding Science Fiction. Isaac wrote the novel though and though I have problems with Isaac's writing style, I give credit to his heady and creative works.

The funny thing is Isaac Asimov wrote a screenplay in the seventies with (one of my favorite authors by the way, vanguard you should like this.hehe) Harlan Ellison. Both of them said that they wanted to take science fiction and make it credable, and that their screenplay would do the job.

Sadly this movie is not based on that screenplay, and well ebert was pretty sad about it. Ebert himself is a sci fi fan, but not in the normal sense. He is an oldschool fan, favoring the more realisitic and gritty stuff during the 50s and 60s. It is sad that this film had to cop out to the action genre, and that it has none of the same intellectual observations that the book had. It is also sad that they take on the uber typical screenplay formula of a cop being taken off the beat and his badge being taken away, trying to fight back against an evil that is hard to see.

I mean talk about typical! I wish that I, Robot could have been fulfilled by the screenplay that Isaac and Harlan created. Good griefI bet it would ahve been good. But nooo they had to mess it up.lol

[GhostHunter]

(Might contain a few spoilers)

[hide]That and the fact this movie was absolutely horrible. I went to see it last night with a few of my friends. However, even they couldn

[TMA_1]

lol good review man. :)

[Vanguard3000]

Yeah, I pretty much figured it as just a cookie-cutter action movie.  Since I first heard of it, I wasn't expecting much.  Few Hollywood movies have substance these days.  My only hope was that Alex Proyas would bring things together.  I'm a huge fan of Dark City, so I thought he might be able to pull it off decently.  Alas, no.

And the robots look stupid.

HARLAN ELLISON WROTE AN I, ROBOT SCREENPLAY???  Oh sweet mother of mercy, would I ever like toget my hands on that!

[bob_fox]

So you say it's no good, eh? (I haven't seen the movie yet - it's only coming out here in early September - but I read the part of the hidden message where you said it was terrible.) That's a pity. So you wouldn't say it's worth watching even if you're a sci-fi fan?

[Digital Guerrilla]

Yeah this movie does suck if you are looking for anything related to Issac Asimov's original book what happened was some guy watched the Animatrix then read part of I, Robot and got the two confused.

[Edric O]

The robots revolt? THAT'S THE BIGGEST BUTCHERING OF ASIMOV'S WORK EVER!!! >:( >:( >:(

The reason Asimov first started writing about robots was precisely the desire to tear down the idiotic "evil robots kill humans" stereotype! The central idea of the movie is the exact opposite of Asimov's vision! GRRRRRRAHHHH!!

[Wolf]

It's easier for entrepaneurs to screw you when you're dead.

[Acriku]

To put it blatantly, stop your crying. No one has an inherent obligation to "stick with the original screenplay" or "be faithful to the book." The fact is, the book was great, and the director of the new I, Robot took concepts from that book and made an action thriller. I can't stand it when crybabies start bawling just because the movie didn't fit their naive mindset of how the movie should be. The movie is great on its own, don't judge it because they didn't stick with the book - it would be a horrible movie if it did. It only makes sense to go with what people want to see. Odds are, over half of the audiences of I, Robot have not

[Edric O]

To put it blatantly, stop your crying. No one has an inherent obligation to "stick with the original screenplay" or "be faithful to the book."

Yes they do. Otherwise they should make up their own separate story and not use the book's name. If you're not going to stick to the book at least to some extent, then don't even MENTION the book - just make your own movie using your own ideas, with your original screenplay.

Besides, this isn't just a matter of "sticking to the book". I never made the absurd demand that the movie should follow the book to the letter. But at the very least, they shouldn't have completely REVERSED Asimov's vision.

The fact is, the book was great, and the director of the new I, Robot took concepts from that book and made an action thriller.

WHAT concepts? No, really, what concept from the book plays a significant role in the movie? So far, I didn't hear of any...

I can't stand it when crybabies start bawling just because the movie didn't fit their naive mindset of how the movie should be. The movie is great on its own, don't judge it because they didn't stick with the book...

You don't seem to get the point. I don't have anything against cheesy action thrillers. But I do have something against cheesy action thrillers that use the name of a good book and butcher it.

You want to make an idiotic movie about robots attacking humans? Fine. But don't call it "I, Robot" and don't pretend that Asimov's work had anything to do with it, because it hasn't.

[Alexander_Ordos]

hmm interesting, gotta watch the movie  ;D

[bob_fox]

Yes they do. Otherwise they should make up their own separate story and not use the book's name. If you're not going to stick to the book at least to some extent, then don't even MENTION the book - just make your own movie using your own ideas, with your original screenplay.

Besides, this isn't just a matter of "sticking to the book". I never made the absurd demand that the movie should follow the book to the letter. But at the very least, they shouldn't have completely REVERSED Asimov's vision.

WHAT concepts? No, really, what concept from the book plays a significant role in the movie? So far, I didn't hear of any...

You don't seem to get the point. I don't have anything against cheesy action thrillers. But I do have something against cheesy action thrillers that use the name of a good book and butcher it.

You want to make an idiotic movie about robots attacking humans? Fine. But don't call it "I, Robot" and don't pretend that Asimov's work had anything to do with it, because it hasn't.

Exactly!

Am I right in understanding (from a review I read) that the movie's plot features everyday household robots? In 2035? That's ridiculous! It's completely against the spirit of Asimov's robot stories. Robots are supposed to be rejected by humans in general in the 21st century.

Then again, I'll probably have to see the movie before I pass judgement.

[Super-ness]

Will Smith is cool

Im gonna go watch this film

[TMA_1]

acriku, they had every right to butcher the movie, that is the point, and that is why we have a right to complain silly.lol ;) I mean if it is shitty than complain, duh! your an american, you should have figured that one out by now hehe.

yeah vanguard check out the review at chicago sun times, in ebert's reviews, he talks about it.

[Acriku]

Yes they do. Otherwise they should make up their own separate story and not use the book's name. If you're not going to stick to the book at least to some extent, then don't even MENTION the book - just make your own movie using your own ideas, with your original screenplay.

When your set out to make a movie loosely based on a book you don't change the title to make the little crybabies happy. Besides, if they did have a completely different title the same people crying right now would be accusing them of stealing concepts from the book.

Besides, this isn't just a matter of "sticking to the book". I never made the absurd demand that the movie should follow the book to the letter. But at the very least, they shouldn't have completely REVERSED Asimov's vision.

They aren't out to project his vision. They are out to make a nice buck with an action movie starring a very well known actor. Which do you think will sale more, robots that en masse try to take over the world or focus on a couple of robots through a game of logic that half the audience couldn't understand? Different people have different agendas, and the director's was obviously not to project Asimov's vision.

WHAT concepts? No, really, what concept from the book plays a significant role in the movie? So far, I didn't hear of any...

Hmm, there are robots, there are people entrusting the robots, there are the three laws (whether or not they played much of a role is in question), and there is a murder that is investigated that people wouldn't think of a robot doing because they trust them so much, and that the three laws are coded onto their hardware.

You don't seem to get the point. I don't have anything against cheesy action thrillers. But I do have something against cheesy action thrillers that use the name of a good book and butcher it.

I guess you're going to have to live with it then, because in today's world books like Asimov's do not get written into movies and remain in the least bit intact. They took the concepts and ideas from the I, Robot series that they wanted and made a movie out of it.

You want to make an idiotic movie about robots attacking humans? Fine. But don't call it "I, Robot" and don't pretend that Asimov's work had anything to do with it, because it hasn't.

But that's where they got the ideas to start with, so stop your crying.

[alchemi2]

Have you even read the book !!!  >:(

[Edric O]

When your set out to make a movie loosely based on a book you don't change the title to make the little crybabies happy.

It would be more accurate to say that when you make a cheap action flick using your own retarded ideas, you'll get better sales if you slap on the name of a famous book and insert a few irrelevant references to that book in your movie - at the very least, you'll fool the morons like Acriku.

Besides, if they did have a completely different title the same people crying right now would be accusing them of stealing concepts from the book.

No we wouldn't, because they didn't really take any concepts from the book (except the 3 laws, which don't really play a part at all, since the robots attack anyway). That's the point.

They aren't out to project his vision.

Then they shouldn't use his name, or the name of his works. END OF STORY.

They are out to make a nice buck with an action movie starring a very well known actor. Which do you think will sale more, robots that en masse try to take over the world or focus on a couple of robots through a game of logic that half the audience couldn't understand? Different people have different agendas, and the director's was obviously not to project Asimov's vision.

See above. You can make all the cheap action movies for braindead coke-saturated audiences you want - but don't call them "I, Robot". Call them "Terminator", for example.

Hmm, there are robots, there are people entrusting the robots, there are the three laws (whether or not they played much of a role is in question), and there is a murder that is investigated that people wouldn't think of a robot doing because they trust them so much, and that the three laws are coded onto their hardware.

Except for the 3 laws, all those other elements can be found in hundreds of books and movies about robots. They have nothing to do with Asimov.

I guess you're going to have to live with it then, because in today's world books like Asimov's do not get written into movies and remain in the least bit intact. They took the concepts and ideas from the I, Robot series that they wanted and made a movie out of it.

"X thing is bad, but you can't do anything about it so stop complaining" is an idiotic argument. You can't do anything about the murder rate, but does that mean you should just stop complaining, learn to live with it, and let the murderers get on with their business?

That was an extreme example, of course, but you get my point. If I find something wrong going on, I will speak up against it.

But that's where they got the ideas to start with, so stop your crying.

No, they got their ideas from their own tiny little minds, and they got the idea of slapping the "I, Robot" label on it after looking at gullible fools like you.

[Apollyon]

Now now children. This isn't PRP.  ;)

[Acriku]

Have you even read the book !!!

[Edric O]

Now now children. This isn't PRP. ;)

Step aside or you'll be caught in the crossfire. ;)

So now we're name calling? Man you are a crybaby.

Oh, please excuse me. I'll remember to refer to you as "intellectually challenged" next time, so as to avoid hurting your sensitive feelings.

And as a side note, perhaps you should notice that "crybaby" itself is a form of name calling, so, by your own logic, you are a crybaby.

The degree of which they adhered to the book may be loose, but there are very distinct connections between the movie and the book. Enough so that it would confuse people if it didn't have the title I, Robot.

Only the people who read and understood the book - but I thought you said those are a tiny minority of the audience and don't matter anyway.

They used Asimov's name in the credits because the movie is loosely based on the book. I'd say that's generous.

Why not? It's based on the book even if it is minimal.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The movie is NOT based on the book - at least not to any significant degree.

If you make a movie about humans, elves and dwarves fighting evil orc legions, that doesn't count as "loosely based on Lord of the Rings". It is simply a story in a fantasy setting, which has nothing to do with LOTR.

Similarly, the film "I, Robot" is just an action movie in a robotic sci-fi setting - not based on Asimov's book.

Oh, and sticking Asimov's name at the end of a movie that butchers his work and makes a mockery of his vision is certainly not "generous" by any standards. The poor guy must be turning in his grave.

So characters like Dr. Calvin and Dr. Alfred Lanning are in hundreds of books and movies?

The Calvin and Lanning of the movie have little or nothing to do with the Calvin and Lanning of the book. It would have been easy to just change their names.

The movie is already made, it can't be "made again" contributing more loss to society like a murderer might. You guys sounded like crybabies when I read your first posts in this thread, and I said stop it. You haven't stopped, and you don't seem the type to stop until you're satisfied that you had your cookie or bottle.

Oh, so being spineless and running away from an argument is a virtue now, and a sign of maturity? In that case, why don't you stop posting in this topic? Or perhaps you have equal determination to drive your point across (aka having your "cookie" or "bottle") as the rest of us "crybabies"?

Seriously, aren't you pushing this silly metaphor a little too far? I could go into a long rant pointing out the flaws in it, but that would take us completely off-topic.

To who? Other people at Dune2k? That's like protesting the murdering rate to your local book club!

And each member of the book club might then go on to protest the murder rate somewhere else, catching more people's attention, and so on. At the very least, a growing number of people would be warned to keep their guard up.

Besides, are you suggesting that you should never discuss the murder rate (or any other similar issue) with your friends? Not even if someone brings it up? (the equivalent of posting a topic about it on FED2k)

I'm confused as to why you think I bought into it. I was one of the early people who saw the preview in the theater and remarked that that had nothing to do with the book minus a few details. But I didn't cry about it.

I assumed you bought into it because you seemed so eager to silence anyone who mentioned the fact that the movie had nothing to do with the book. And what exactly is your definition of "crying about it"? All we did was to raise our objections, and then you came in shouting, essentially telling us to shut the f*ck up.

[TMA_1]

lol what I dont understand is why cant I say it royally sucks and rapes the book? if I have read it and know how horribly sucky it is, than sure I can complain. Also if it is a horribly done movie than I can state that because it is stating the obvious. I mean why are you so upset about people complaining acriku? I mean it is one of your pastimes.lol

besides that though do you like this movie? I mean if you do than just say it, if ou dont than whats the point of people getting angry about a stupid film. it is their choice and they can complain if they want to silly. I think it is rather idiotic to complain about people complaining, it seems really ironic and well dumb to me.lol

[Acriku]

What you want done Edric is to remove any reference to Asimov and his creation I, Robot. The point is, audiences have had that dribble for the past few decades - Terminator series, Robocop, etc. This is something different. They took various characters from I, Robot the book, including the murder investigation with a robot that turns out to be the likely culprit, and expanded from it. And audiences are drooling over it. I respect the movie for its market appeal, and it does look like a good movie by itself, TMA.

And I define crybabing as precisely this:

The robots revolt? THAT'S THE BIGGEST BUTCHERING OF ASIMOV'S WORK EVER!!! >:( >:( >:(

The reason Asimov first started writing about robots was precisely the desire to tear down the idiotic "evil robots kill humans" stereotype! The central idea of the movie is the exact opposite of Asimov's vision! GRRRRRRAHHHH!!

Caplocked characters, screaming, the "grah" etc. Boohoo.

[TMA_1]

some people are passionate about some things though. DO you appriciate anything acriku? now what if that thing you appriciated was raped beyond belief? of course you would be upset. If you werent upset than you still you shouldnt judge others for how they react to things that are personal to them, that owuld bes illy.

[Digital Guerrilla]

I guess we could say Edric is a little passionate (but he is always that way).

[Super-ness]

Like........tons of other book adaptation dudes  ::)