10/10

This is I, Robot:
http://www.crcstudio.arts.ualberta.c...y/15-71low.jpg
The Will Smith movie was a knockoff.

Will, I'm coming to your house with his rap CDs and some DVDs of the Fresh Prince for New Years.

We'll make sweet smiggity-smiggity-Smith music together.

Can ya feel it?

Fresh Prince? Shit yes. Rap? It had better be Pac. I doubt you'd catch Jay-Z quoting Shakespeare or openly supporting the Black Panthers.

Jay Z is too busy getting that dirt off his shoulders and making up "albums" with tracks that consist of ghetto grocery lists and expletives.

"Muthafuckin'" isn't an article or a conjunction after a hundred plus uses on one disc.

...

I like the I, Robot special effects where he has a fake arm and sparks fly off it. Yay for things I wish I had.

I kept expecting the "awakened android" in I, Robot to have Robin Williams' voice.

...

I wonder if the I Am Legend vampires will have huge '70s collars and bad accents a la 30 Days of Night.

same here! maybe not at the movies but i'll definitely rent it!

From the comments here, I went out and picked up the book yesterday and read it through in a few hours. I really wish I hadn't now though. I was so excited to see the movie, but now I'm having serious doubts...

In my mind, it's not even the setting, or the explosions, or the vampires that bug me the most... It's the fact that it's Will Smith playing Robert Neville.

Don't get me wrong. I usually think Will Smith plays some decent characters in movies, but all throughout the book, even knowing that it would be Will Smith in the movie, I pictured a guy looking more like David Wenham (The blonde guy that "narrates" 300). I can't imagine seeing Will Smith with a big thick beard running crazily after "someone". Then again, I'm sure with this adaptation, he won't be chasing "someone" at all.

Aliens will probably fly in to save him or something stupid like that...

I don't expect movies to mirror the book.

You just can't take a 400 page book and turn it into a two hour movie.

What I don't understand though is why they change things which do NOT need to be changed. Character personalities, stupid subplots, complete reworking of the central themes, all of which added nothing.

I think part of it is ineptitude. It really takes a great director to turn a book into a reasonable film that captures the essence of a book, most directors, are not great ones. I think the other part is directors want to play artist and make it 'theirs' its MY interpretation of this book. They might not even have understood the book but damn they are going to make it how it SHOULD have been.

Starship Troopers was a political book, the movie, well it had bugs and the name.

Jurassic Park wasn't a deep book but it was an interesting scenario with character development. The movie had black and white characters, most of which didn't match their counterparts in the books even remotely.

Dune....dear god enough said.

Its not even that the movies are 'bad' its that they didn't need to be what they were, they could be good and keep a least close to the book.

i had the same thing with The DaVinci Code. I read it and thought of William Peterson (Gil Grissom from CSI) as Robert. Tom Hanks was all wrong

Don't forget the fact that both the DaVinci code book and movie were some of the worst pieces of shit I have ever wasted my time on. I wouldn't wish either on anyone.

I think they did a decent job with Stephen King's The Stand, considering all the other crap that has gone through the book-to-flick meat grinder.

Then again, that movie was longer than a Boone's Farm piss at midnight.

this is the space that I'm in too. I saw the trailer on TV last night, and thought that it was very Twilight Light Zone-ish. I am looking forwards to it.

Generally book to movie conversions are crap. Doesn't matter if it's a classic or a modern book. I can list numerous book to film conversions and film to book conversions that were underwhelming. For those of us that haven't read the book I'm hoping the film will at least be entertaining. I was tempted to read the book before seeing the film, however, after reading intecel's comments I changed my mind.

Out of curiosity when you mention Dune are you talking about the 1984 version, the 2000 version or both?

Pretty sure he means the 1984 version. They're both sub par, but the 1984 Dune stands as one of the worst film adaptations in the history of the world.

Then the movie shouldn't be using the books Title, Main Character, critical story elements, etc.

There are hundreds of movies that have a quick byline in the credits, "Adapted from Blahblahblah by Writey McAuthorson". Those movies are judged against themselves, not the books they were derived from, and they do just fine.

That being said my distaste for what they have done to Matheson's story will likely outweigh my love of big screen horror/vamp flicks. I'll see it, but I'll be damned if I contribute full movie ticket price to the venture.

The 1984 version. Its really a shame because they had the budget to make it great. Dune would not be an easy book to make a movie out of, so I can give it some slack there, but they took that slack and made a noose out of it.

The 2000 version I've seen ridiculed, but it really did a much better job of following the book, and I did enjoy it. My only major complaint is that Irulan became the uber narrator and sort of 'tie every loose end together' character.

Well, when you don't have five sequals to do it in like Herbert did, you sort of need somebody to do that...

My college creative writing professor was a good friend of Frank Herbert. He said that the whole experience of having his vision wrested away from him and turned into this disaster of a film plunged him into a spiral of poor health and depression that, my professor felt, lead to his death. Bad adaptations kill people!

Well in all fairness every sequel pretty much sucked until the last one.

Dune really was a masterpiece though, and if that is indeed true, then my noose analogy was more apt than I could have imagined.

It is a shame people didn't realize that David Lynch doesn't make movies that entertain people. His movies are designed to make you think... (EXPLAINATION) Spoiler: when I say think I mean have the left and right side of your brain argue with each other. After watching his films your notice that your eyes no longer blink in cadence!

People want to make money, simple as that. And if they have to take a book and crash it in a plane only to rebuild it... make it better... faster... stronger...
I'll see it and know full well I walk into a movie where I can switch my brain off for the next two hours.

For those that argue that it's impossible to make a good movie from a book, I'd like to mention the Jason Bourne series. The movies were better than the books (overly complicated, not particularly strong writing).

Will still go see this. Just cos i was such a fan of the 1971 version.

The key thing for me is when you said, "make it better" and so often book to movie adaptions don't do that for some reason or another.


I'll agree with you there. I liked the films a hell of a lot more than the books.

However, I wouldn't say it's impossible to make a good movie from a book. I will say Hollywood often seems to buy the rights to a book because it was good. Then, in the name of making it fit into a nice two hour package the book is completely bastardized in its big screen conversion.

First of all... don't dis Omega Man. It's one of the great dystopian films of all time, and it's part of the Charlton Heston cannon of cheese.

As for Dune, the 1984 version, it wasn't as bad as all that. It was relatively faithful to the source material up to the moment that Paul and his mom crash in the desert and meet the fremen (TFP's Fremen would know this if he'd ever read Dune-- sorry I couldn't resist the dig).

I am not saying it's perfect, just that it wasn't the worst adaptation ever. That accolade goes to any number of Stephen King novels adapted to film.

I've found that the trailer doesn't necessarily give away much of the film. So, I'll reserve judgment.

Based on a novel, adapted from, sparked by ... no matter. The film you see in your head while reading a book can never be translated properly onto film because we all see it differently when we read it anyway, right?

*RAISES HAND* I'm going to see it!

@Prophecy:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I need a way to make my words [sarcastic]sarcastic[/sarcastic].
I know that it's damn near unlikely that a movie will be better than the book. That is only what Hollywood thinks they can do.

The Omega Man is a pretty good movie for a Sunday afternoon. Not a great interpretation of the book, no. But, a good 70's action film with a typical gun toting Chuck Heston nonetheless.

Will Smith ... not sure if I see him in this film. After I Robot, I think I'll wait for the DVD ... if then.

True, and the 1984 version wasn't a bad movie it just wasn't Dune.

The 2001 Dune was spectacular. What is it with the scifi channel? Either their movies are the most horrible, campy garbage ever made of they're gold.

It was okay, but not spectacular.

It was not loyal to the original story, so I owe someone here a cookie.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...lravel/IAM.jpg

Oh, a surprise though. Go see it. The Dark Knight 5 minute trailer before the movie. I'd have paid $15 for that.

woohoo, i like chocolate chip :)

I would like to know when Will Smith is going to play an actual character instead of playing himself in every movie. Is he type casted?

MonomAnny, go rent (or buy) Ali. It was a tour de force. Smith is magnificent in that movie.

read the book
saw the trailers
liked Omega Man
will see this. eventually.
i've sen enough book adaptations to know it wont be too close and it wont be high art but so what.

He was also pretty un "Will Smithy" in "The Pursuit of Happyness".

Wow... so I just got back from the theatre... I think the only similarities between the book and the movie was the character name. The creatures were also highly disappointing also in my eyes...

HOW could they have called this "I am legend"? If they had changed the character name and name of the movie, I would have never guessed...

I'll agree with "I am disappointed".

I actually liked the movie. having not seen or read any of the backstory of this made it more enjoyable for me I guess. But i'm sick of watching movies with girls around!!

"oh no, the poor dog is dead. boo hooo."

really? 5billion people are dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the rest are dying or turned into night creatures that attack everything!

The first two thirds of the movie I thought were really spectacular. I was creeped out, I felt claustrophobic stuck on this one man who has taken to talking to manequins to keep himself company with the good scare coming every once in a while. Smith did a great job of running the show and bringing us inside the character's rampant alternating fear and hope and paranoia. The opening shots of New York deserted were phenomenal.

And then it all fell apart. Act 3 was just...terrible. The zombie/vampire special effects were embarassing for a movie made in 2007. That was the best they could do? Really? Have they seen NONE of the vampire or zombie movies of the past 5 years? The scenes where the zombies were actually out in the open were made much less enjoyable because of those effects. I just don't know what they were thinking when they settled for that, because it was a huge fail. The "everyone's happy" ending did not fit with the brooding, paranoid tone of the rest of the movie and the "god is telling us what to do" was just bad writing, which says nothing for how seriously they perverted the irony of the title. It all really paled in comparison to how taut and compelling the movie was until Sam died, which is too bad.

Ah well, I'm glad I saw it, though I doubt I'll be purchasing it. In a nutshell, take two parts "The Stand", two parts "Castaway" and one part "28 Days Later'. Layer into a cold glass and chug. It's probably worth seeing for the opening two sections, even if the end doesn't do the rest justice.