The minute I saw that Rhianna did the "song" for Star Trek I knew it was bad news, and it was enough to stop me watching it.
I'm glad the review has told me all I needed to know, and confirmed I made the right choice by not seeing it.
The original Star Trek series and subsequent sequels stubbornly and persistently refused to frame their dramas in black-and-whites. Balance of Terror, for example, transformed heretofore-unseen Romulans from villains into tragic heroes over the course of an hour. As happened in so many episodes, the writers avoided the cheap …
I, Robot did have many good moments - but they served mostly to illustrate all the ways in which the rest of the movie was so poor.
There was one good twist revelation at the end, but overall I think the writers were too unwilling to take risks and deviate from the tried-and-tested cliches. Killer robots and computers bent on world domination are tried-and-tested plot elements that usually get a good audience reaction. But they are so overdone all you really get is a very generic action movie.
It's made all the worse for having read the book - which was focused on subverting those very cliches. The final chapter is set as a dinner conversation, as a board of engineers discover that the robots are conspiring to overthrow human government. Then they take a look at what human government has achieved, realise that the robots are obliged by their design to act always in the best interests of those governed and incapable of doing otherwise, and decide to just keep quiet about the matter and let the robots win.
I'd probably have been fine with that movie if they had called it anything except "I, Robot." Although the movie was ok, I seethed my way through it because it had nothing (and I do mean absolutely nothing) to do with Asimov's fine collection. Good or bad (and much as I enjoy Will Smith's performances), I refuse to ever watch it again.
I think with I, Robot, they took the three laws to the extremes and the not possible. The first law they have to follow is simple...
a robot can't harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
I want to go do some dangerous activity, I do it because it's dangerous and there is a risk I will get harmed. The first law there would be "okay, we have to stop you from doing that, Master". In Asimovs' world it would be "we'll stop you by making it much safer" (followed by the Shrink lady discussing with the robots why Humans need to do stuff which may be dangerous to themselves), in I, Robot it was "we'll kill you and enslave you to save you from yourself". Was a good robot film, a terrible Asimov film.
"The three laws are complete bollox.
one only had to go to a Car assembly line and stand in the way of a robot to see that."
The robots on car assembly lines are simply following a set of pre-programed routines with no decision making involved, they are therefore not robots in the sense that we are talking about.
A human would have realised that... What are you?!?
"A slightly dented human from standing too close to a car assembly robot I would assume..."
Slightly dented? On July 1, a worker in a Volkswagon plant in Germany was grabbed by a robot and shoved into a metal plate, crushing his chest, killing him.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/robot-crushes-contractor-death-vw-motor-plant-germany-n385541
This post has been deleted by its author
I am amazed at the narrow-minded hatred for I Robot - a really good action-SF film, with Will Smith doing a fine job as the hero, beautifully supported by Alan Tudyk as Sonny, the philosophising robot.
No, the film doesn't follow any of Asimov's stories. But it does expand on Asimov's Three Laws in a very intelligent way - more than intelligent enough to support what is essentially an effects-driven action film. It's not like Asimov's writing was all that magical, either. His ideas were great, but his writing tended to be pretty dry. (Recall that he wrote a future history of the human race, in three thick volumes, without including even one female character. We're not talking Tolstoy here - or even Tolkien.)
Apart from its other virtues, I Robot (the film) is the best warning ever against the dangers of automatic updates. It's a very sharp observation, especially coming so many years before Microsoft's current cloud-based software coup d'etat.
"I am amazed at the narrow-minded hatred for I Robot [..] No, the film doesn't follow any of Asimov's stories."
That's because the script originally had nothing to do with Asimov or his stories, and the "I, Robot" name was later slapped on, along with some references to Asimov's laws:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)#Development
This may go some way to explaining the negative reception among some sci-fi fans.
I've never seen the film myself, except a brief clip where I was flicking through TV channels and the CGI robots and the way they moved and looked appeared *really* fake, even by the standards of ten years ago. Robots should be far easier to do mimic convincingly than humans or animals, and they didn't even manage that.
"...That's because the script originally had nothing to do with Asimov or his stories..."
I'm not aware of this background, but I'll take your word for it. However, the story as filmed does hinge rather neatly on Asimov's three laws, so I felt it was a worthy homage to the author. The film's key observation is that true intelligence in a robot could be recognized - or maybe even defined - by its ability to violate the Three Laws. That's pretty deep for what is basically an action movie.
"the CGI robots and the way they moved and looked appeared *really* fake, even by the standards of ten years ago"
Actually, the fluid motion of the robots is a key feature of the story, and works extremely well in making them scary. These aren't your Robbie the Robot clunkers - they're physically far superior to humans in every way. That seems like a pretty reasonable extrapolation. Any technology capable of building an anthropomorphic robot of this sophistication would surely give it mechanical capabilities to rival its mental ones.
I thought that, as far as movies, Starship Troopers was a more egregious straying from the source material than I Robot was. I Robot actually had some interesting moments with robots making certain decisions to save people or try to become more human. Starship Troopers was basically a bug shoot-em-up, though I did enjoy the portrayal of the future of human governance being some kind of kindly, media-driven fascism. "Would you like to learn more?"
I think that if you ask the people who (like me) love Starship Troopers or hate Starship Troopers, they will both say that the film adaptation is the biggest "fuck you!" to the source material conceivable.
If they'd have stayed true to the book, IMNSHO opinion it'd have been like a NSDAP political broadcast as directed by Michael Bay.
Even swapped my DVD for free from Flipper to RSDL, even copied to video tape while it was being swapped.
A really enjoyable and well made film, nothing like the original story, but good enough to stand on its own feet.
If you hate it, I don't mind, I just like the cheesiness of it, and the overblown ridiculousness. Yes I did notice a very authortarian rule. But the use of not very well known actors and actresses stopped it becoming a vehicle for actor X.
BTW a tape copy was actually pretty good, much much better than any retail tape, worst thing was surround sound was downgraded to Prologic from 5.1.
Actually that tape was one of my best recordings ever. Showed how much better the loser in the video tape war was than the winner.
Starship Troopers was basically a bug shoot-em-up
No. No, it wasn't.
Starship Troopers - the first one - was a satirical look at how a society based upon militaristic views always sets itself up as the "good guys", regardless of who actually starts the conflict, and always considers any and all actions to be warranted. I think it's a good film.
The later movies were just unadulterated shit. Even Jolene Blalock cannot be considered a saving grace...
Vic.
The hatred is due to some of us loving the Gentle Doctor's original works, which the title of the film refers to and the film itself craps all over. If you find the film's alterations "very intelligent" - I weep for you.
As for the Foundation trilogy - while I'll grant there aren't a lot of female characters, claiming "none" proves your ignorance of the work; I'll mention just two: Bayta Darell, and her granddaughter Arcadia ("Arkady") Darell. Neither are wilting flowers - in fact, Bayta is instrumental in the defeat of The Mule.
I feel your pain, Grunchy. I knew about I, Robot from the off, but I've just learnt that he's playing Deadshot in Suicide Squad. I wasn't much invested in that item to begin with, but now it's arrived at "Aw HELL no"sville.
(Okay, I'm still faintly intrigued to see Jared Leto Joker, because he has in my mind always been the-guy-you-call-when-Heath-Ledger's-not-available, so this casting was no great surprise. I expect I will forevermore watch his movies and ponder how Heath would have played it, but that's my psychosis. Oh, and a hot Asian chick with katanas is never a reason *not* to watch a movie in my book. But still, probably gonna pass on balance.)
Hancock was also a tragic waste of a good premise, but I only give him a small share of the blame for that trainwreck.
Thanks for the background, Ian. That pic of Kirk standing disconsolately in a veritable ball-pit of them would be rendered quite horrendous by the notion that they were all crapping all over him all the while.
.
.
.
(Horrendous but undeniably tittersome. I am a bad human being.)
This post has been deleted by its author
"Next episode the Enterprise will hunt Pokemons..."
Licensing error...How about Tribble-mon...?
- At the very least people will get bored of the fad a lot quicker and we won't have to endure it too long....'gotta catch em' all!' - 'why? they all look alike'.
I do think the author looks at the original series through a rose-tinted vizor. There was some good episodes that were deep, but just as many that had really poor writing (just how many parallel earths did the original series encounter? Most of the series (stng, ds9,voy,ent) were much the same to one degree or another.
If they had had CGI then (or much, much more money), you would have seen less reuse of existing movie sets. Being feasible within the budget was a big constraint, and ideas had to be reworked to use what was available.
While not all scripts were of equal quality, the number of very good ones is high. Many scriptwriters today are too arrogant and too ignorant at the same time, and not only Star Trek ones. The appalling quality of many productions is a direct result of that. CGI attempts to fill the void, but works only for children and very 'naïve' people....
//decloak
"There was some good episodes that were deep, but just as many that had really poor writing (just how many parallel earths did the original series encounter?"
The only thing bad about TOS is the fact that CBS treated the show like crap. Literally, like a piece of garbage. Go check the wikipedia article on TOS, CBS went OUT OF THEIR WAY to treat the fans and the creators of TOS like trash. Any failure in the show after the middle of season 2 are all due to CBS, nothing else. Period.
Here's a sample of CBS' "love" for TOS:
1) they moved the show to Friday nights; death to a series that is popular with young viewers
2) they lied about how many fans wrote in to say they loved, or other positive comments, about TOS. Over a million people wrote in, and CBS claimed it was about 116K. CBS is a shit network. This is a fact.
3) CBS is a shit network
4) this is a fact
5) there is NO REASON 5
6) TOS was years ahead of its' time, and the execs at CBS still in the fucking stone ages
7) There would be NO FUCKING STAR WARS unless there was a TOS. Period.
8) SEMPRINI!
9) get back to work you fucking IT slackers!
10) I'm still in Devops, and it's still pretty fucking sweet, you dopes
11) FU, muggles!
//cloak
"Any failure in the show after the middle of season 2 are all due to CBS, nothing else. Period."
CBS rejected the whole show because they already had a science fiction show, Lost in Space.
Star Trek (TOS) aired on NBC, even though CBS - realizing its error - eventually bought the rights to the Star Trek franchise.
The real key to the greatness of Star Trek TOS was the show's emphasis on actual SF ideas, driven by a ground-breaking use of actual SF authors for scripts. I can't think of another continuing (non-anthology) series where you might have seen an accumulation of names like Sturgeon, Bloch, Brown, Spinrad and Ellison. The show also gave a start to some great new writers, most notably David Gerrold. Even Dorothy Fontana, the in-house script editor, ended up turning in some excellent work.
The early Trek movies tended to hit a much lower standard, but at least paid lip-service to the original tradition. Meanwhile, the TV sequels continued to emphasize intelligent writing - with challenging SF ideas in STNG, and really strong political drama in DS9.
By comparison, the recent Trek reboots have been consistently bereft of intelligence, drama, or even basic logic. They make the Transformers films look like works of genius. I can only hope that the upcoming Trek TV series won't be able to get away with that kind incompetence, going up against the really strong SF/fantasy/superhero series we're seeing these days on Netflix, HBO and elsewhere.