Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Fwd: Good review of "I, Robot" film

Expand Messages
  • Ignacio Viglizzo
    Hi! I don t agree much with this review. I, Robot was quite a decent movie. It s a mystery; one that involves the 3 laws of robotics, almost one that Asimov
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 1, 2004
      Hi! I don't agree much with this review.
      "I, Robot" was quite a decent movie. It's a mystery; one that
      involves the 3 laws of robotics, almost one that Asimov could have
      written. It presents the city of Chicago in the near future, very
      well done, and so are the robots. It's not a mind-blowing life-
      changing movie, but I enjoyed it more tha AI and Minority Report,
      and I wasn't bored at any point.
      The review pointed to below presents an image of Will Smith pissing
      over Asimov's tomb. I think this is quite insulting, but this insult
      comes mostly from the person who created the image. :( It also ends
      by saying "105,166 people liked Will Smith more before he sold out."
      I didn't know he ever sold out. Was he like a purist of art, with a
      unique vision? He wanted to do movies that were absolutely faithful
      to works of literature? I must have missed that! ;-) At least "I,
      Robot" avoids the trademark Will Smith rap song in the end credits...

      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
      <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot
      > (Worth visiting for a couple of pictures!)
      >
      > "I, Robot" in a nutshell:
      >
      > I saw the movie "I, Robot" recently, a film based loosely on a
      book
      > written by science fiction author Isaac Asimov. In case you're not
      > familiar with Asimov's writing, here's a list of things the movie
      had
      > in common with the book:
      >
      > The title.
      > I don't know why, but after the movie I came out of the theater
      > wanting to buy a pair of Converse shoes (vintage 2004), have them
      > delivered to my local FedEx station, drive my MV Augusta SPR
      > motorcycle to pick them up, stop by the shop to have my new JVC CD
      > player installed in my Audi, pick up a couple of Dos Equis on my
      way
      > home, wash it down with an Ovaltine and then invest what money I
      have
      > left into a mutual fund with Prudential Life Insurance.
      >
      > I'm not exaggerating: this movie plugged 5 companies within a 10
      > minute block of time. That's roughly one advertisement every two
      > minutes. Most whores don't see that kind of action. What makes a
      good
      > movie good and a movie like this cunny waft is that in a good
      movie,
      > every shot counts; every word uttered has a purpose. You won't
      find
      > the characters saying things like "nice shoes" to which Smith
      > replies "vintage 2004." Thanks for the update assholes, we
      couldn't
      > have figured out that the products you're cramming down our
      throats
      > actually exist in real life.
      >
      > Speaking of sloppy story, they could have cut this movie down to 3
      > minutes and still said everything they said in its current form.
      > Here's how I would have changed this film: start out with a shot
      of
      > Will Smith in a grocery store buying a 6 pack of Dos Equis beer,
      > except instead of paying, the cashier is a Dos Equis marketing rep
      > who hands Smith a thick wad of bills. Next shot: Smith finishes
      the
      > last of the beer, walks over to Isaac Asimov's grave and lets
      loose:
      >
      > Why not? Same message, none of the bullshit.
      >
      > Other than giving creative control of the movie's content to
      > advertisers as, Will Smith stars as a nudist cyborg cop who has a
      > prejudice against robots (seriously). The director had one tight
      shot
      > on Smith's ass after another. It was enough to make women in the
      > audience squirm. I even overheard a gay guy in front of me say to
      his
      > partner "wow, this is pretty gay." Then they started making out,
      not
      > because they necessarily wanted to, but because they wanted to
      remind
      > people that they have the right, and a theater is a great place to
      > make a political statement.
      >
      > The only cool thing about the movie is that it has robots in it--
      or
      > so I thought. They turned something as inherently cool as a master
      > race of robots into a blubbering suck-fest of limp-dicked pussies
      > wimpering endlessly about their feelings. Instead of running
      around
      > beating women, children, and weaker men, the robots stood around
      > baking cup cakes and talking about boys. It was like being in a
      > candle store without a pipe bomb. Bad news.
      >
      > Don't see this travesty.
      >
      > 105,166 people liked Will Smith more before he sold out.
    • raybell_scot
      ... Did it make you want to go out and buy all the products? Talking of product placement, there s quite a blatant one in Mission to Mars where a pouch of Dr
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
        --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Ignacio Viglizzo"
        <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
        > Hi! I don't agree much with this review.
        > "I, Robot" was quite a decent movie. It's a mystery; one that
        > involves the 3 laws of robotics, almost one that Asimov could have
        > written. It presents the city of Chicago in the near future, very
        > well done, and so are the robots. It's not a mind-blowing life-
        > changing movie, but I enjoyed it more tha AI and Minority Report,
        > and I wasn't bored at any point.

        Did it make you want to go out and buy all the products? Talking of
        product placement, there's quite a blatant one in "Mission to Mars"
        where a pouch of Dr Pepper TM is used to find a leak in the spaceship.

        > I didn't know he ever sold out. Was he like a purist of art, with a
        > unique vision? He wanted to do movies that were absolutely faithful
        > to works of literature? I must have missed that! ;-) At least "I,
        > Robot" avoids the trademark Will Smith rap song in the end
        credits...

        True.
      • Wildfire
        Product placement is annoying but i understand why some films have to have them. As ive not seen I robot yet (although all the reviews ive read are positive)
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
          Product placement is annoying but i understand why some films have to
          have them.
          As ive not seen "I robot" yet (although all the reviews ive read are
          positive) ive no idea just how blatent the placement is but i did
          see "Mission To Mars" last week and the Dr Pepper thing was glaring,
          very bad.........
          Wildfire
          btw ..though the reviews are positive for I Robot the did say it
          was`nt Asimov story but Bladerunner was`nt PK Dicks either ..:(
          -
          -
          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
          <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
          > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Ignacio Viglizzo"
          > <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
          > > Hi! I don't agree much with this review.
          > > "I, Robot" was quite a decent movie. It's a mystery; one that
          > > involves the 3 laws of robotics, almost one that Asimov could
          have
          > > written. It presents the city of Chicago in the near future, very
          > > well done, and so are the robots. It's not a mind-blowing life-
          > > changing movie, but I enjoyed it more tha AI and Minority Report,
          > > and I wasn't bored at any point.
          >
          > Did it make you want to go out and buy all the products? Talking of
          > product placement, there's quite a blatant one in "Mission to Mars"
          > where a pouch of Dr Pepper TM is used to find a leak in the
          spaceship.
          >
          > > I didn't know he ever sold out. Was he like a purist of art, with
          a
          > > unique vision? He wanted to do movies that were absolutely
          faithful
          > > to works of literature? I must have missed that! ;-) At least "I,
          > > Robot" avoids the trademark Will Smith rap song in the end
          > credits...
          >
          > True.
        • Steve Something
          ... spaceship. ... I think it only becomes offensive to me if it is done clumsily. I rather liked the Dr. Pepper moment (and almost nothing else) in
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
            >Talking of
            > product placement, there's quite a blatant one in "Mission to Mars"
            > where a pouch of Dr Pepper TM is used to find a leak in the
            spaceship.
            >
            > >

            <SNIP>

            I think it only becomes offensive to me if it is done clumsily. I
            rather liked the Dr. Pepper moment (and almost nothing else)
            in "Mission to Mars". On my cringeometer I put it well below
            the "scenic namedropping" that goes on in any William Gibson story,
            for example.

            Of course, Mr. Gibson didn't get paid for mentioning all those
            Japanese companies, but it is hard to make a case for that being
            anything but lack of vision on his part :).

            The alternative would be to use made-up products on the lines of
            those 555 'phone numbers that always produce such a grinding of the
            suspension-of-disbelief gears when writers stupidly have them in the
            dialog.

            Product placement is the wave of the future, I'm afraid, since it
            defrays the ruinous costs of producing all those exploding spaceships
            and freeze-frame wire-fu moments that everyone but me seems to feel
            are essential components to any "Sci-Fi" movie.

            The money sure isn't being spent on dialog.

            Steve.
          • raybell_scot
            ... to ... are ... glaring, ... It was about the only plug I remember from the film, but they couldn t have made it more obvious... it was integral to finding
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 3, 2004
              --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
              <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
              > Product placement is annoying but i understand why some films have
              to
              > have them.
              > As ive not seen "I robot" yet (although all the reviews ive read
              are
              > positive) ive no idea just how blatent the placement is but i did
              > see "Mission To Mars" last week and the Dr Pepper thing was
              glaring,
              > very bad.........

              It was about the only plug I remember from the film, but they
              couldn't have made it more obvious... it was integral to finding the
              leak and saving the crew.

              The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar with
              Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
              their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
              Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
            • Steve Something
              ... Indeed not. That honour would go to Supernova methinks. Steve.
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 3, 2004
                <SNIPPY>
                > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar with
                > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.

                Indeed not. That honour would go to "Supernova" methinks.

                Steve.
              • bob_wall@yahoo.com
                ... with ... How about Solaris? I quit watching about half way through. Real stinker of a flick.
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 3, 2004
                  --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Something"
                  <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                  > <SNIPPY>
                  > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar
                  with
                  > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                  > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                  > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                  >
                  > Indeed not. That honour would go to "Supernova" methinks.
                  >
                  > Steve.

                  How about Solaris? I quit watching about half way through. Real
                  stinker of a flick.
                • buxh42a
                  ... You re right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-fi epic goes to Armageddon with Bruce Willis. Sam
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 3, 2004
                    --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
                    <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
                    > <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
                    > > Product placement is annoying but i understand why some films have
                    > to
                    > > have them.
                    > > As ive not seen "I robot" yet (although all the reviews ive read
                    > are
                    > > positive) ive no idea just how blatent the placement is but i did
                    > > see "Mission To Mars" last week and the Dr Pepper thing was
                    > glaring,
                    > > very bad.........
                    >
                    > It was about the only plug I remember from the film, but they
                    > couldn't have made it more obvious... it was integral to finding the
                    > leak and saving the crew.
                    >
                    > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar with
                    > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                    > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                    > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.

                    You're right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-fi epic
                    goes to 'Armageddon' with Bruce Willis.

                    Sam
                  • poochorange
                    ... Is that worse than Disney s The Black Hole ? Really? jr
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 3, 2004
                      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "buxh42a"
                      <buxh42a@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
                      > <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
                      > > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
                      > > <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
                      > > > Product placement is annoying but i understand why some films have
                      > > to
                      > > > have them.
                      > > > As ive not seen "I robot" yet (although all the reviews ive read
                      > > are
                      > > > positive) ive no idea just how blatent the placement is but i did
                      > > > see "Mission To Mars" last week and the Dr Pepper thing was
                      > > glaring,
                      > > > very bad.........
                      > >
                      > > It was about the only plug I remember from the film, but they
                      > > couldn't have made it more obvious... it was integral to finding the
                      > > leak and saving the crew.
                      > >
                      > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar with
                      > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                      > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                      > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                      >
                      > You're right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-fi epic
                      > goes to 'Armageddon' with Bruce Willis.
                      >
                      > Sam

                      Is that worse than Disney's "The Black Hole"? Really?
                      jr
                    • Steve Something
                      ... epic ... Well, if we are going to include the Disney catalog, you d have to make the dreadfull, aful, nasty, dreadful Tron a major contender. The
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                        <snippy>
                        > > You're right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-fi
                        epic
                        > > goes to 'Armageddon' with Bruce Willis.
                        > >
                        > > Sam
                        >
                        > Is that worse than Disney's "The Black Hole"? Really?
                        > jr

                        Well, if we are going to include the Disney catalog, you'd have to
                        make the dreadfull, aful, nasty, dreadful Tron a major contender.

                        The problem is that Sci-Fi movies are typically very bad, since the
                        least amount of money possible is spent on them. These days the
                        budgets are astronomical, but this usually represents FX and post-
                        production. The writing is still the worst that money can't buy.

                        If we are going to discuss the Worst SF Film Made topic I think we
                        have to start by making anything produced in the early seventies or
                        early eighties. The seventies were dominated by Disaster Movies (The
                        Towering Aeroquake Inferno Adventure) and the Eighties had just
                        discovered CGI was a cheaper way to post-produce FX.

                        Actually, thinking on't, it seems that my own barometer of When
                        Things Start To Get Good in either decade is the opening of an Alien
                        movie, which is not to say I particularly enjoyed the last outing
                        with its ridiculous gung-hoism replacing the stark terror (yes I know
                        it was supposed to be funny but Alien movies aren't necessarily a
                        good vehicle for overt humour at the character's expense).

                        At least it wasn't a "Scientology Movie" (ibid)

                        <Ducks> 8^D

                        Steve.
                      • membi_99
                        ... fi ... (The ... Alien ... know ... Gives Svete the Sapnoid her best teachers LOOK and resists urge to commit GBH on his tentacles. You leave Tron out of
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Something"
                          <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                          > <snippy>
                          > > > You're right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-
                          fi
                          > epic
                          > > > goes to 'Armageddon' with Bruce Willis.
                          > > >
                          > > > Sam
                          > >
                          > > Is that worse than Disney's "The Black Hole"? Really?
                          > > jr
                          >
                          > Well, if we are going to include the Disney catalog, you'd have to
                          > make the dreadfull, aful, nasty, dreadful Tron a major contender.
                          >
                          > The problem is that Sci-Fi movies are typically very bad, since the
                          > least amount of money possible is spent on them. These days the
                          > budgets are astronomical, but this usually represents FX and post-
                          > production. The writing is still the worst that money can't buy.
                          >
                          > If we are going to discuss the Worst SF Film Made topic I think we
                          > have to start by making anything produced in the early seventies or
                          > early eighties. The seventies were dominated by Disaster Movies
                          (The
                          > Towering Aeroquake Inferno Adventure) and the Eighties had just
                          > discovered CGI was a cheaper way to post-produce FX.
                          >
                          > Actually, thinking on't, it seems that my own barometer of When
                          > Things Start To Get Good in either decade is the opening of an
                          Alien
                          > movie, which is not to say I particularly enjoyed the last outing
                          > with its ridiculous gung-hoism replacing the stark terror (yes I
                          know
                          > it was supposed to be funny but Alien movies aren't necessarily a
                          > good vehicle for overt humour at the character's expense).
                          >
                          > At least it wasn't a "Scientology Movie" (ibid)
                          >
                          > <Ducks> 8^D
                          >
                          > Steve.

                          Gives Svete the Sapnoid her best teachers LOOK and resists urge to
                          commit GBH on his tentacles.

                          You leave Tron out of this!!!!!!!

                          Membi_99.
                        • raybell_scot
                          ... with ... Have you watched any of Ed Wood s stuff? I have only seen Plan 9 from Outer Space. Like a lot of B-movies, it is TERRIBLE science fiction, but I
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                            --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Something"
                            <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                            > <SNIPPY>
                            > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar
                            with
                            > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                            > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                            > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                            >
                            > Indeed not. That honour would go to "Supernova" methinks.

                            Have you watched any of Ed Wood's stuff? I have only seen Plan 9 from
                            Outer Space. Like a lot of B-movies, it is TERRIBLE science fiction,
                            but I have to hand it to Eddie, in spite of all the howlers (of every
                            kind - some unintentionally funny), he strings it along a lot better
                            than the folk who did "Pluto Nash" or even "Mission to Mars".

                            I also like Ray Harryhausen and some 50s B-movies for the same
                            reason. Terrible science fiction, and trash, but still entertaining
                            in a way that a lot of their high tech successors aren't (e.g. Xena
                            Feminist Princess)
                          • raybell_scot
                            ... Soderberg s one? Aye that was bad. Tarkovsky s version has one awful scene where a character is in a car, but otherwise I think it is a great film. I think
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                              --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, bob_wall@y... wrote:
                              > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Something"
                              > <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                              > > <SNIPPY>
                              > > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar
                              > with
                              > > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                              > > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                              > > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                              > >
                              > > Indeed not. That honour would go to "Supernova" methinks.
                              > >
                              > > Steve.
                              >
                              > How about Solaris? I quit watching about half way through. Real
                              > stinker of a flick.

                              Soderberg's one? Aye that was bad.

                              Tarkovsky's version has one awful scene where a character is in a
                              car, but otherwise I think it is a great film. I think T even said to
                              the Soviet censors that that scene was to drive the idiots from the
                              cinema before the real film could start!

                              S's version has Patricia McElhone coming across as more of a bored
                              whiner, than Natalia Bondarchuk's Hari/Rheya who is more obviously a
                              deeply troubled woman.
                            • membi_99
                              ... from ... fiction, ... every ... better ... Well just for the last comment I ll forgive you oh tentacled one. Membi_99.
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                                --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
                                <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
                                > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Something"
                                > <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                                > > <SNIPPY>
                                > > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar
                                > with
                                > > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                                > > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                                > > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                                > >
                                > > Indeed not. That honour would go to "Supernova" methinks.
                                >
                                > Have you watched any of Ed Wood's stuff? I have only seen Plan 9
                                from
                                > Outer Space. Like a lot of B-movies, it is TERRIBLE science
                                fiction,
                                > but I have to hand it to Eddie, in spite of all the howlers (of
                                every
                                > kind - some unintentionally funny), he strings it along a lot
                                better
                                > than the folk who did "Pluto Nash" or even "Mission to Mars".
                                >
                                > I also like Ray Harryhausen and some 50s B-movies for the same
                                > reason. Terrible science fiction, and trash, but still entertaining
                                > in a way that a lot of their high tech successors aren't (e.g. Xena
                                > Feminist Princess)

                                Well just for the last comment I'll forgive you oh tentacled one.

                                Membi_99.
                              • raybell_scot
                                ... with ... epic ... Certainly a good contender. Others might be Evolution , which can only really be watched once, and since we ve been mentioning onscreen
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                                  --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "buxh42a"
                                  <buxh42a@y...> wrote:
                                  > > The reviews I've seen have been mixed, those who are familiar
                                  with
                                  > > Asimov seem to tend to slam it, whereas those who only know
                                  > > their "sci-fi" from Hollywood like it. It can't be the worst
                                  > > Hollywood skyfy flick that's been done.
                                  >
                                  > You're right. The worst big-budget, star-filled Hollywood sci-fi
                                  epic
                                  > goes to 'Armageddon' with Bruce Willis.

                                  Certainly a good contender.

                                  Others might be "Evolution", which can only really be watched once,
                                  and since we've been mentioning onscreen plugs, also has "Head and
                                  Shoulders" being integral to the plot (they use a fireengine of it to
                                  kill the blob).

                                  "Deep Impact" was pretty bad, but not as cheesy as its
                                  contemporary "Armageddon". "Independence Day" is yet another, one of
                                  the "America saves everyone left and is wonderful" genre (see
                                  also "The Day after Tomorrow"), but also eerily prophetic of the
                                  September the Eleventh tragedy in a way.
                                • raybell_scot
                                  ... Haven t heard of this one...
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                                    --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "poochorange"
                                    <jonathanrobinson@s...> wrote:
                                    > Is that worse than Disney's "The Black Hole"? Really?
                                    > jr

                                    Haven't heard of this one...
                                  • poochorange
                                    ... Well, here s a pretty good summary disguised as a review: http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/black_hole_retrospective_000602.html jr
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 4, 2004
                                      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "raybell_scot"
                                      <raybell_scot@y...> wrote:
                                      > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "poochorange"
                                      > <jonathanrobinson@s...> wrote:
                                      > > Is that worse than Disney's "The Black Hole"? Really?
                                      > > jr
                                      >
                                      > Haven't heard of this one...

                                      Well, here's a pretty good summary disguised as a review:
                                      http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/black_hole_retrospective_000602.html

                                      jr
                                    • Ignacio Viglizzo
                                      The whole thing about bad /good movies is very subjective... I liked Armaggedon more than Deep impact, it didn t take itself so seriously, and was nowhere as
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                        The whole thing about bad /good movies is very subjective... I liked
                                        Armaggedon more than Deep impact, it didn't take itself so seriously,
                                        and was nowhere as corny! I was deeply impressed by the black hole
                                        (but, OC, I was 8 or 9 years old)...
                                        If you are looking for scientific accuracy in a sf movie, Id say you
                                        are looking in the wrong place. I don't mean that I don't appreciate
                                        it when it's present!
                                        Best,

                                        --
                                        Ignacio
                                      • bell_raymond
                                        ... seriously, ... you ... I disagree. While someone once said that Science Fiction is no more for scientists than ghost stories are for ghosts, I also think
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
                                          <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
                                          > The whole thing about bad /good movies is very subjective... I liked
                                          > Armaggedon more than Deep impact, it didn't take itself so
                                          seriously,
                                          > and was nowhere as corny! I was deeply impressed by the black hole
                                          > (but, OC, I was 8 or 9 years old)...
                                          > If you are looking for scientific accuracy in a sf movie, Id say
                                          you
                                          > are looking in the wrong place. I don't mean that I don't appreciate
                                          > it when it's present!

                                          I disagree. While someone once said that Science Fiction is no more
                                          for scientists than ghost stories are for ghosts, I also think that
                                          there should be at least SOME scientific accuracy in it.

                                          While it is a bit modernist, and we're officially now in post-
                                          modernism (whatever the hell that is!), I think that SF is still very
                                          much a kind of speculative fiction at heart and should explore
                                          possibilties, especially when they are grounded in some kind of
                                          science. Arthur C Clarke for example, wrote some excellent material
                                          grounded in some real science.
                                        • Ignacio Viglizzo
                                          Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**. He had some hand in 2001, the movie, which is one of the few exceptions in that it gets the science right. I m not against
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                            Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**. He had some hand in 2001, the
                                            movie, which is one of the few exceptions in that it gets the science
                                            right. I'm not against that. But It's like going to McDonalds and
                                            complaining that they don't serve sushi, or pizza, or you cannot get
                                            champagne there. Sure, those are good things, but not to be found
                                            there...
                                            Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
                                            good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still produce
                                            some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
                                            that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)

                                            On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 16:53:11 -0000, bell_raymond <bell_raymond@...> wrote:
                                            > > If you are looking for scientific accuracy in a sf movie, Id say
                                            > you
                                            > > are looking in the wrong place. I don't mean that I don't appreciate
                                            > > it when it's present!
                                            >
                                            > I disagree. While someone once said that Science Fiction is no more
                                            > for scientists than ghost stories are for ghosts, I also think that
                                            > there should be at least SOME scientific accuracy in it.
                                            >
                                            > While it is a bit modernist, and we're officially now in post-
                                            > modernism (whatever the hell that is!), I think that SF is still very
                                            > much a kind of speculative fiction at heart and should explore
                                            > possibilties, especially when they are grounded in some kind of
                                            > science. Arthur C Clarke for example, wrote some excellent material
                                            > grounded in some real science.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >


                                            --
                                            Ignacio
                                          • Wildfire
                                            ... from ... fiction, ... every ... better ... = Hey i liked Pluto Nash bad SF it might have been but it was actually fun to watch Wildfire
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                              > Have you watched any of Ed Wood's stuff? I have only seen Plan 9
                                              from
                                              > Outer Space. Like a lot of B-movies, it is TERRIBLE science
                                              fiction,
                                              > but I have to hand it to Eddie, in spite of all the howlers (of
                                              every
                                              > kind - some unintentionally funny), he strings it along a lot
                                              better
                                              > than the folk who did "Pluto Nash" or even "Mission to Mars".
                                              >
                                              > I also like Ray Harryhausen and some 50s B-movies for the same
                                              > reason. Terrible science fiction, and trash, but still entertaining
                                              > in a way that a lot of their high tech successors aren't (e.g. Xena
                                              > Feminist Princess)
                                              =
                                              Hey i liked Pluto Nash bad SF it might have been
                                              but it was actually fun to watch
                                              Wildfire
                                            • Wildfire
                                              ... seriously, ... you ... - I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think the Doc would have
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                                --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
                                                <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
                                                > The whole thing about bad /good movies is very subjective... I liked
                                                > Armaggedon more than Deep impact, it didn't take itself so
                                                seriously,
                                                > and was nowhere as corny! I was deeply impressed by the black hole
                                                > (but, OC, I was 8 or 9 years old)...
                                                > If you are looking for scientific accuracy in a sf movie, Id say
                                                you
                                                > are looking in the wrong place. I don't mean that I don't appreciate
                                                > it when it's present!
                                                > Best,
                                                >
                                                > --
                                                >
                                                -
                                                I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo
                                                the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think
                                                the Doc would have liked it....Will Smith did`nt go over
                                                the top and the SFXs great though the film is basicaly an
                                                action film i thought the SF elements were well done .....
                                                overall it s not Asimov but it is good SF
                                                Wildfire
                                              • raybell_scot
                                                ... But you d be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even outshining them sometimes). ... produce ... Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                                  --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
                                                  <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
                                                  > Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**.

                                                  But you'd be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even
                                                  outshining them sometimes).

                                                  > Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
                                                  > good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still
                                                  produce
                                                  > some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
                                                  > that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)

                                                  Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar Man "We have the
                                                  technology". There's little excuse for dodgy science in movies. In
                                                  fact SF has done an excellent propaganda job for science, and against
                                                  its abuse, beyond the weapons industry. Many astronauts (cosmonauts
                                                  too perhaps) and space scientists grew up with SF and it spurred them
                                                  on to greater things. The one good thing about films such
                                                  as "Armageddon", "Deep Impact" and "Meteor" (Sean Connery film) is
                                                  that while they are popular, they also point out the need to monitor
                                                  our skies, and spend less money on blowing each other up, and more on
                                                  preventing comets and asteroids from killing us all off.

                                                  It may just be that SF is the one way to advance the human race by
                                                  telling people about what can be, and what shouldn't be.
                                                • raybell_scot
                                                  ... It was bad everything. I hate it when other genres (gangster/action in this case) masquerade as skyfy. It wasn t even a good action film either, and it was
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                                    --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
                                                    <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
                                                    > Hey i liked Pluto Nash bad SF it might have been
                                                    > but it was actually fun to watch
                                                    > Wildfire

                                                    It was bad everything. I hate it when other genres (gangster/action
                                                    in this case) masquerade as skyfy. It wasn't even a good action film
                                                    either, and it was riddled with cliches. Remove the Moon and what do
                                                    you have? The same film basically.
                                                  • raybell_scot
                                                    ... I m laying into you tonight, but don t take it personally Wildfire! I have to admit, I hate it when people talk about effects... why? Because in a few
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
                                                      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
                                                      <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
                                                      > I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo
                                                      > the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think
                                                      > the Doc would have liked it....Will Smith did`nt go over
                                                      > the top and the SFXs great though the film is basicaly an
                                                      > action film i thought the SF elements were well done .....
                                                      > overall it s not Asimov but it is good SF
                                                      > Wildfire

                                                      I'm laying into you tonight, but don't take it personally Wildfire!

                                                      I have to admit, I hate it when people talk about effects... why?
                                                      Because in a few years, 9/10, they look crap and dated. And what's
                                                      more, Hollywood has sacrificed plot and character development for
                                                      explosions that aren't even the real thing anymore.
                                                    • Brandon
                                                      ... But there s no reason why a big budget picture CAN T be scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the trouble -- presumably because their
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                                                        Ignacio Viglizzo wrote:

                                                        > Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**. He had some hand in 2001, the
                                                        > movie, which is one of the few exceptions in that it gets the science
                                                        > right. I'm not against that. But It's like going to McDonalds and
                                                        > complaining that they don't serve sushi, or pizza, or you cannot get
                                                        > champagne there. Sure, those are good things, but not to be found
                                                        > there...
                                                        > Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
                                                        > good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still produce
                                                        > some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
                                                        > that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)

                                                        But there's no reason why a big budget picture CAN'T be
                                                        scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the
                                                        trouble -- presumably because their audience demonstrably
                                                        does not care.

                                                        "Armageddon" is an obvious example, but you see it all the
                                                        time in big budget films, in more subtle ways: for example,
                                                        in "Twister", when the supposedly highly-trained
                                                        tornado-chasers try to outrun a tornado in their car. When
                                                        that fails, they jump out of the car and run into a frame
                                                        building to hide! You don't even have to be a scientist to
                                                        know THAT was wrong -- you just have to have lived in the
                                                        midwest for a year or two.
                                                      • Brandon
                                                        ... Except, of course, that along with the watch the skies message comes the we can slap together a deep space mission out of existing technology in a
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                                                          raybell_scot wrote:

                                                          > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
                                                          > <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          >>Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > But you'd be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even
                                                          > outshining them sometimes).
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >> Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
                                                          >>good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still
                                                          >
                                                          > produce
                                                          >
                                                          >>some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
                                                          >>that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar Man "We have the
                                                          > technology". There's little excuse for dodgy science in movies. In
                                                          > fact SF has done an excellent propaganda job for science, and against
                                                          > its abuse, beyond the weapons industry. Many astronauts (cosmonauts
                                                          > too perhaps) and space scientists grew up with SF and it spurred them
                                                          > on to greater things. The one good thing about films such
                                                          > as "Armageddon", "Deep Impact" and "Meteor" (Sean Connery film) is
                                                          > that while they are popular, they also point out the need to monitor
                                                          > our skies, and spend less money on blowing each other up, and more on
                                                          > preventing comets and asteroids from killing us all off.
                                                          >
                                                          > It may just be that SF is the one way to advance the human race by
                                                          > telling people about what can be, and what shouldn't be.
                                                          >


                                                          Except, of course, that along with the "watch the skies"
                                                          message comes the "we can slap together a deep space mission
                                                          out of existing technology in a matter of days to ake out a
                                                          dinosaur killer" -- so we don't have to worry about actually
                                                          making any preparations, right?
                                                        • raybell_scot
                                                          ... Gattaca was a mainstreamish film and didn t do horrendously badly. Minor slip ups are one thing - hiding in a frame house is another!
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                                                            --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon <jchance@a...>
                                                            wrote:
                                                            > But there's no reason why a big budget picture CAN'T be
                                                            > scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the
                                                            > trouble -- presumably because their audience demonstrably
                                                            > does not care.
                                                            >
                                                            > "Armageddon" is an obvious example, but you see it all the
                                                            > time in big budget films, in more subtle ways: for example,
                                                            > in "Twister", when the supposedly highly-trained
                                                            > tornado-chasers try to outrun a tornado in their car. When
                                                            > that fails, they jump out of the car and run into a frame
                                                            > building to hide! You don't even have to be a scientist to
                                                            > know THAT was wrong -- you just have to have lived in the
                                                            > midwest for a year or two.

                                                            Gattaca was a mainstreamish film and didn't do horrendously badly.
                                                            Minor slip ups are one thing - hiding in a frame house is another!
                                                          • raybell_scot
                                                            ... You have a point, but films such as these at least alert people to the danger, and it becomes an electoral issue. I believe that with present technology we
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                                                              --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon <jchance@a...>
                                                              wrote:
                                                              > Except, of course, that along with the "watch the skies"
                                                              > message comes the "we can slap together a deep space mission
                                                              > out of existing technology in a matter of days to ake out a
                                                              > dinosaur killer" -- so we don't have to worry about actually
                                                              > making any preparations, right?

                                                              You have a point, but films such as these at least alert people to
                                                              the danger, and it becomes an electoral issue.

                                                              I believe that with present technology we are capable of deflecting
                                                              dinosaur killers if we tried, but not in a matter of days
                                                              unfortunately.

                                                              "Meteor" had an anti-Cold War message in it which had some
                                                              validity... that if the US and USSR spent less time on posturing and
                                                              more on natural defence, then the problem could have been dealt with
                                                              more quickly.

                                                              Armageddon was a crap film, but I hope it started alarm bells
                                                              ringing. Warning people about the incredible risk, every day in
                                                              documentaries, articles, popular culture etc, and getting few results
                                                              is like banging your head against the wall. It does at least prove
                                                              that astronomy has a function beyond observing remote phenomena.
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.