i robot

[Blaze of flames]

:shifty: Hey like I said I robot was good :ranting: so see it now if you havent. OMFG they plan to check you if you bring your own snacks to the movie's :lol: :lol: :lol: that will be a site I just keep the snacks in my hat hahahaha thats what I did with I robot. So does anybody think it was good enough to buy I think it was but that's just my opion.

[Hir_Nesta]

I think he's just ignoring all that stuff about correct english...

At least until now he didn't react on the posts...

 

Well my opinion is, (to come back 2 the topic)

I enjoyed the film very much, although I read many negative critics and many

friends telling me that its not like the book and all that stuff.

So I was very sceptic. But the film itself is actually quite good.

I liked it...it was great.

 

I've been surprised positively. (I do not know the book though)

[wallernotsowelsh]

Saw it today, wasn't hugely impressed but it was fun.

[Alexander the Great]

People dont have to burn the movie if it wasnt exactly like the book. For gods sake look at lord of the rings. They left out plenty of things. The advertising thing was funny to me. But anyway, i think Will Smith did a relatively good job with this movie. But in almost every movie he has ever been in he has to say "aw hell naw" He just has too. Anyway i found the movie great. It actually was one of the better ones ive seen this year. And yes i have read the book and many other pieces by Asimov

[DreamOfTheRood]

I agree with Alexander. You absolutely can not fault them for changing the storyline, because a lot of movies do that. Just a few examples:

Cold Mountain - In the movie, the main bad guys are more fleshed out and real. In the book, they don't show up as much.

The Lord of the Rings - Many pivotal events and characters were left out to speed up the narrative. Consequently, the movies are much better than the books.

The Matrix - Obviously, this movie is a more realized form of Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave.' Thus, they changed tons of things to fit into the storyline - like not making it the 'Allegory of the Cave.'

 

Now, as for the best movies of the year, this is an easy, easy list:

1) Kill Bill: Volume 2 - A perfect film. Without a doubt, it features the best martial arts since Les Pactes Des Loups, and the story is an emotional rollercoaster, filled with tension, humor and an homage to Superman. God bless Q and U.

2) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- The best romance film since Amelie, the best psychology movie since Seven and the best sci-fi film since Minority Report all rolled up into one big ball of heartbreak and wisdom.

3) Alien Vs. Predator - As far as pure-popcorn entertainment goes, this is the pinnacle. Both of the series' preceding films were basically sci-fi/horror films, but this one did a one-eighty straight into the action department and totally rocked. Turn off the left side of your brain, keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle and prepare to get punched apart.

4) Spiderman 2 - Comics' most relatable man in spandex plays with tentacles. When his semi-girlfriend tells him to kiss her, he goes for the full on body grope instead. That's a manly man.

 

Worst films of the year:

Van Helsing, The Village

[valdir]

Consequently, the movies are much better than the books.

Please throw yourself into moving traffic.

 

k thnx

 

~Val

[DreamOfTheRood]

Please throw yourself into moving traffic.

 

k thnx

 

~Val

Well, that didn't take very long at all. Let me defend my position here before you wish vehicular death upon me.

 

Tolkien was a linguistics and history professor. He was a big idea kind of guy, and he was very good at those big ideas. He developed intricately detailed histories for this world he called Middle-Earth and managed to populate it with rich a wonderful races. His descriptions, though dry, managed to evoke incredible imagery.

However, rich and wonderful races and cultures do not automatically equate to rich and wonderful characters, and this is where the story fails for me. The main characters seem rather vapid. I know their trials and tribulations, but their real motivations are cloaked in prophecies, destiny and other mystical forces. Tolkien doesn't let them talk their motivations out to each other, and thus the reader is left in the cold as to why the characters do the things that they do. Although I understand the plight of the characters, it seems to me that they are thrown from one plot point to the next. Tolkien doesn't give them the plot space to really think, and, consequently, the story just doesn't grab me.

So, yes, I like the plot, but the author left me to infer the characters' motivations rather than just be straightforward about them. Simply, I don't like it.

Tolkien is a professor. He was a brilliant man, but he was not a very good writer. Much of the story is written with a dry, textbook tone. It's just the meat and potatoes of a plot without getting the spicy details. His descriptions are very detailed, nearly to the point of inducing sleep. They are much more befitting a script rather than a novel, and this is something that Peter Jackson understood very clearly. He used those descriptions to design the incredible set pieces that were used in the films. He used the descriptions of the characters to perfectly cast each part - the casting itself is done so well that one cannot read the books without seeing Elijah Wood as Frodo, Sean Astin as Sam or Slugg from the Goonies as Sauron's Liutenant.

I see The Lord of the Rings as the pinnacle of the epic film, and there can be no doubt that the books kickstarted every single fantasy genre. Without LOTR, we simply would not have the level of fantasy fiction that we have today. So, that's what I see as the good and bad of it.

If you want an example of rich and rewarding fantasy literature, pick up China Mieville's Perdido Street Station.

[valdir]

Tolkien's is the best fiction I have ever read. The world, characters and everything is almost humanely real. If you can't see that, than I pity you. Tolkien's writing is brilliant and the history textbook style of writing made it seem all the more real.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, but unfortunately for you, about 90% of this forum will dissagree with you and many people will want to kill your face for speaking such blasphemy! :ph34r:

 

Clearly, you must be on drugs. :huh:

 

~Val

[Dinin]

I'm going to have to agree with dream here. Don't get me wrong, I love lotr. I was watching the 70's hobbit cartoon and the lotr cartoon on VHS back when i was like 7. But dream does have a point when he's talking about dry history book writing.

 

And its true, you are reading a history lesson in the beginning of the books and sometimes within. You are reading a history lesson on all of Aragorn's heirs and all the cities etc. Sometimes i felt like i was reading the Bible (jacob begot isaac, isaac begot joseph, joseph begot.....)

 

Tolkien did a GREAT thing when he wrote those books, but he should have been a little more vague on the past, and focused more on his present day characters (Aragorn, legolas and so forth) I mean, you almost have just as much or more information on Aragorn's father or grandfather than you do on Aragorn. Yes the history makes it realistic, but who wants to read a history book?

 

And if people want to kill my face for thinking this, then well... good luck on that.

 

edit: man, this kinda strayed from I, Robot. Sorry mods, i'm not doing too well when it comes to posting on the right topic.

[Blaze of flames]

Ok now that thats settled lets get back to I, Robot. This has been bothering me for awhile what catagory would I, Robot be put ;) in I mean its action and comedy and more. So which catagory would it go in.