欧宝娱乐

I had marked this a TBR previously, on the basis of the movie and had no idea it was a collection of short stories and not the same content as the Will Smith movie. So I guess I will have to take a look at both.

The movie also completely butchered the three laws in an effort to make a robot a murderer. The director was a freaking idiot.

Now it's really getting interesting...I will definitely have to do both. So I can tell for myself if the director really IS a freaking idiot...but the trailer kind of insinuates that the robot was framed. The trouble with trailers is that you don't always get 'the whole story in a nutshell' and sometimes they leave out a whole lot, and important stuff, too. I can usually appreciate two widely disparate stories taken from the same source, both on their own merits and enjoy them equally as stories that are 'similar but not exactly the same'...while still dissing directors/authors/actors with my friends. LOL

spoilers.....




do not read if you want to watch the movie.






Well part of the thing is you have to refer to the comments made by the director in an interview. He had this interview where he said he "found a loophole" and proceeded to admonish Asimov - saying he didn't make the three laws as concrete as he thought.
The director then goes on to say that it's ok for a Robot to hire someone else to commit a murder.
He then only HALFWAY quoted the first law of robotics, "A robot may not harm a human." When the first law of Robotics is "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

So this director goes on and on using his butchered re-written version of the first law of robotics to make a robot character create a robot that is bereft of the three laws of robotics so the first robot can program the second robot with orders to kill.

What gets me is that he then ends his interview admitting that he never read any of Asimov's stories. If he had actually read I, Robot and any of the Foundation series, he would've discovered that the Three Laws are actually hardwired into the positronic brain of Asimov's robots to such a degree that you can't "program them out". In fact, the Positronic Brains won't function normally if the three laws are not present. It's part of their operational requirements.

Anyway, that's why I called the director a freaking idiot :D My opinion of his intelligence is mostly based off that interview. I'm not even sure you can find that interview anymore. I tried looking and it was on an "expired news item" page.

Who IS this guy that thinks he's God and can tinker with someone's creation...without even knowing more than surface stuff about it. You don't have to tell me, I can look it up on IMDB...sometimes in Wikipedia, too, they have references below, links to articles etc. that pertain to the subject...and I agree, he's a freakin' idiot, without even having read the interview you're talking about. In the trailer, they just show the robot trying to escape, and knowing Asimov's work, I assumed he was wrongly accused...well, if the scenario is as you say, what would be the point of the movie? I mean, what is the mystery, what would drive the story arc...or is that what is uncovered at the end, that it was another robot...and by the way, 'spoilers' don't deter me from wanting to see movies or read books, I don't have any less desire because of it, and I'm glad you mentioned the director's interview and remarks, which gave me a whole new insight on the backstory. Sheesh, what a jerk!

You took it only slightly better than I took it. I was really excited to watch the movie, and then saw this guy's interview. I didn't bother with the movie after I read up on the entire plot and all the reviews. I was so angry because I really believe Asimov's stories can make wonderful movies (look at Bicentinnial Man. That movie, while sad, was really awesome).

Now I should mention that there was a novel where one character theorized that a Nestor class "radiological" robot which specifically did does not have the second portion of the first law or any of the Zeroth Law (done on purpose because humans HAVE to work with them in radioactive areas) would be allowed to "accidentally" let a human die if it would benefit humanity as a whole (i.e. standing back while someone killed Hitler).

However, that theory could only work in a couple of very specific instances, and a direct benefit to humanity must be immediately recognizable by all. Even in these extreme case, it could never justify the plot of the movie - despite the director's assertions.

I have this problem with ANYONE who rapes and butchers someone else's creations. It really really makes me feel sick to my stomach because whenever someone like this director rapes someone else's creations, what they're saying is "I'm smarter and better than this person, so I'm going to show you how by redoing the whole thing!"

M Knight Shamalamadingdong has done this (he totally raped Avatar the Last Airbender). Michael Bay has done this (first transformers movie was good, but the second was terrible). Bryan Singer has done this (he did that superman returns movie. I liked some of the movie but when he turned Superman into a deadbeat dad, I just got sick of it). Barry Sonnenfeld (director of the movie The Wild Wild West) did this.

I am just tired of people who do this.


Now, there are others who idolize other's creations (Such as Dan Aykroyd or Seth Rogen or Tom Hanks) who when they see something that is amazing, they try to capture it instead of re-create it. Seth Rogen's Green Hornet is a tribute and done pretty well, very little re-write - he even has a picture of The Lone Ranger in the background of one of the scenes. Dan Aykroyd created an entire musical group as a tribute to the greatest Blues Artists of our time, and tried to expose people to those artists rather than take credit for their music. Tom Hanks always tries to give creative minds a chance to shine.

I wish more people were like these guys - showing respect and giving credit to others rather than taking and raping the brain child of someone else for their own gain.

Enjoyed your review and the conversation, Connor.

Sorry I referred to you as Connor rather than Kevin. Brain glitch!

PS - Thanks for the friendship!

It's all good :D

Although you did misspell my last name, and that I cannot forgive! Expect the Roman Centurians at your front door in the morning to escort you to the collosseum as the main event!

;D

*prepares weapons...makes will*

I shall have milk and cookies awaiting. I'm sure they'll be hungry. :-)

Oooooooooo well, I guess I can spare you if you have milk and cookies :D

Phew!

sweet-as

Hey, Kevin Conner! Libraries were shelves of useless until one boring day in Junior High I pulled out I ROBOT and read the first short story ROBBIE and cried. Asimov got me started on the road to enjoying literature, and possibly even writing a bit of it. @hg47

^^ Like the above ^^

Asimov was a as much of a social and psychological genius as he was into science!

I never saw the movie but had thought about it after reading the book,then I realized that the director/writers completely ignored the ideas and concepts of the book..which is very sad because I loved the book!! Now reading the foundation series

Excelente rese帽a. saludos

I know this is late but I love this review! I couldn't agree with you anymore about Asimov's takes on psychology.

delete your comments!