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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- 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.