Tuesday, December 28, 2004

The whining pedantic critic


I swore I wasn't going to write a review of I, Robot that came across as just a screed against their lack of truth to Asimov's stories. Honestly, I had come to terms with that direction well before I sat down to watch the movie. My review was mostly thought out even... then I saw the little documentary with Alex Proyas telling me that he wanted to capture the greater thread of the stories, which is flat-out a lie.

There's fucking nothing I hate more than a liar, and that was a dirty fucking lie.

I can understand that taking a screenplay that resembles some elements of Asimov's work and marketing on Asimov's name has a certain marketing logic to it, and I can live with it. That's fine, but don't lie to me. That just demonstrates poor character, and makes me think you're a shitbag.

Yes, Alex Proyas is officially a shitbag in my book.

Anyway, The Isaac Asimov FAQ has an interesting and very reasonable explanation of what is in common between the two works -

"The film is billed as 'suggested by Isaac Asimov's book', meaning that it incorporates some elements of the robot stories that appeared in Asimov's 1950 short story collection. The film started as a screenplay titled 'Hardwired' by screenwriter Jeff Vintar. Then, with the permission of Asimov's estate, the title was changed and the story modified to use some characters and plot elements from Asimov's stories. The final product clearly contains some of Asimov's ideas, but a story that belongs to Vintar and fellow screenwriter Akiva Goldsman."

Acceptable.

Claiming to be an full adaptation...

Well, as Susan Calvin says in the third story...

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Google Analytics