quote:
Falaanla Marr stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
I don't go to the movies to watch a movie and think deeply about it -- there isn't really enough time to do that in such a short span. If I want to think about what I entertain myself with, I'd rather read. I can read a chapter, digest it, and go back and re read it if I didn't understand something. If I don't catch something with a movie, I can't do jack shit about it in a theater. I go to a theater to watch movies that are entertaining and don't require much thought. So yes, in a way you are right.That, and there would be no money in it. Many people go to the movies to be entertained. Motion pictures are a whole different form of entertainment. You spend from 80-160 minutes watching a movie with no rewind button. With a book, as I said...you can go back and read it again and again without having to pay any more for it. So, while YOU may want to think while watching a movie, you're in the minority. Sorry, but when it comes ot an industry where money is the key, you're left out. Learn to live with it. But, if you seem to know what the movie going public wants, try to make an hour and a half long movie that uses the themes you've discussed. As much as you may like the idea of it, you'll have a hard time filling two hours, and even if you can...you won't make money off the movie.
Nowhere in the movie did it claim to be a translation of the book to motion picture. Hell, nowhere did it claim to even be BASED off the book. It included the Three Laws of Robotics. It used the title of the book. That's it.
And it was a damn good movie, in my opinion.
1, So you are implying that it is impossible to make a thoughtful movie that someone of moderate intelligence can follow and find entertaining? I disagree, take The Godfather for instance, it's an interesting movie with good characters and good acting, it's entertaining while still not stooping to whoring itself out to the lowest common denominator or becoming so complicated that it becomes a chore to follow the plot. Making a movie as complicated and metaphysical as you can to make it appear deeper than it really is while filling it with vague bullshit symbolism is the other extreme that isn't really any better than making it utterly brainless.
2, Marketability does not equal quality. Reality TV sells well. Gossip magazines sell well. Books about pagan magic sell well. Hell Deer Hunter sold well while Fallout 2 barely broke even. All manner of stupid shit sells outstandingly well because there is a ton of stupid people and children out there buying things, they probably gained millions of 15 year old girls paying to see this 20x for Will Smith's ass, that does not mean it's a good movie. Before someone starts, I'm not saying everything that is popular is by default worthless, only that it's easy for worthless things to become popular with a significant amount of people.
3, It should have just called itself something else and not eliminated the possibility of a real I, Robot movie in the future, they still could have used the three laws and everyone would have been content. Imagine if someone had taken the Aragorn / Arwen romance from LotR in 1996 and made it into a shovelware Meg Ryan romance movie with swords, that movie today would have been forgotten but we wouldn't have had the LotR movies which even quite a few people who are not fans of the book seemed to like. Surprisingly they even made money with those.
2) And if you can show me where I said marketability equals quality, I'll give you a dollar. If the public demanded to watch movies with bears raping ducks, and paid good money to see it, we'd have alot of movies featuring huge bears raping ducks. It is how it works. Quality or not, it is what you see. Fallout 2 was an ok game, yes. But it didn't appeal to the masses. You seem to be assuming that anything that is marketable is automatically crap, which is wrong. Sometimes something is marketable because it is pretty damn good to a VERY wide audience.
3) Yeah, movies have never come out and used the same title before. Not once. I mean, there never was an Animated version of Lord of the Rings before the current one came out in the theaters. And they definitely did not share the same title.
I am not particularly fond of having my intelligence insulted just because I enjoyed a simplistic movie 
If you did not enjoy the movie, stop posting. Your incessant ranting is most definitely NOT going to change our opinions and make us suddenly despise the movie just because YOU believe anyone who enjoyed it is a troglodyte.
*Stuffs a sweaty sock in Mod's mouth* 
quote:
Falaanla Marr impressed everyone with:
1) But you can also watch The Godfather and not have to think, you can just be entertained if you so desire, same with I, Robot. There IS stuff there to think about...if you haven't seen the movie, how the hell can you complain about it?2) And if you can show me where I said marketability equals quality, I'll give you a dollar. If the public demanded to watch movies with bears raping ducks, and paid good money to see it, we'd have alot of movies featuring huge bears raping ducks. It is how it works. Quality or not, it is what you see. Fallout 2 was an ok game, yes. But it didn't appeal to the masses. You seem to be assuming that anything that is marketable is automatically crap, which is wrong. Sometimes something is marketable because it is pretty damn good to a VERY wide audience.
3) Yeah, movies have never come out and used the same title before. Not once. I mean, there never was an Animated version of Lord of the Rings before the current one came out in the theaters. And they definitely did not share the same title.
1) I read a summary of it, had it retold to me by people that have seen it, seen the trailers and some clips, I can generally piece the tone of the movie together, I'd go see it just for the sake of completeness if the thought of giving those people money wasn't repulsive. Sure there is stuff in there to think about the same way there is in "The Day after Tomorrow", tacking a message onto a movie is not hard, it does not make the movie better more than tacking PS: World Peace! on slash fanfiction makes it deep.
2) You're the one that brought marketability into an argument about quality, if we agree that the two aren't related then this point is no longer relevant to discussion.
3) That was almost 40 years ago, an animated movie, not made for cinema, I concede that perhaps 'eliminated' was too definitive a world, but be honest, how do you see the chances, barring bankrupcy, of a movie studio surrendering the rights to a movie that became decently popular and is less than 10 years old?
quote:
Led painfully thought these words up:
Jesus tapdancing christ, who the hell cares?I am not particularly fond of having my intelligence insulted just because I enjoyed a simplistic movie
If you did not enjoy the movie, stop posting. Your incessant ranting is most definitely NOT going to change our opinions and make us suddenly despise the movie just because YOU believe anyone who enjoyed it is a troglodyte.
*Stuffs a sweaty sock in Mod's mouth*
You might as well stop posting because you won't change my opinion either.
quote:
Mod was listening to Cher while typing:
3, It should have just called itself something else and not eliminated the possibility of a real I, Robot movie in the future, they still could have used the three laws and everyone would have been content. Imagine if someone had taken the Aragorn / Arwen romance from LotR in 1996 and made it into a shovelware Meg Ryan romance movie with swords, that movie today would have been forgotten but we wouldn't have had the LotR movies which even quite a few people who are not fans of the book seemed to like. Surprisingly they even made money with those.
Because God knows Hollywood never remakes movies or calls movies by the same title as older movies!
You've been reaching this entire thread. That was the worst example of digging and scratching to try to make a point I've ever seen.
Nobody cares that you don't like Will Smith. You are not some great and grand savant because you don't like Will Smith. In fact, there was no reason for you to post in this thread. It was a classic example of trolling. You posted for no reason other than to insult those who enjoyed something you did not.
quote:
Mod wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
You might as well stop posting because you won't change my opinion either.
The point of my post was to get you to go away, and leave the thread to the people that actually enjoyed the movie
quote:
How.... Mod.... uughhhhhh:
3) That was almost 40 years ago
Less than 30.
quote:
Snoota had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Because God knows Hollywood never remakes movies or calls movies by the same title as older movies!You've been reaching this entire thread. That was the worst example of digging and scratching to try to make a point I've ever seen.
Nobody cares that you don't like Will Smith. You are not some great and grand savant because you don't like Will Smith. In fact, there was no reason for you to post in this thread. It was a classic example of trolling. You posted for no reason other than to insult those who enjoyed something you did not.
Not before the original movie ceases making money in any form at all which takes years.
Discussing the lead actor of a movie in a thread about said movie sure as hell is trolling.
quote:
Mod had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Discussing the lead actor of a movie in a thread about said movie sure as hell is trolling.
No, but you're not just discussing the lead actor of a movie. What you're doing is talking about how horrible an actor he is, which is fine. But then when people present evidence that he continously makes movies that people like, you go on and on and on and on about how just because stupid people like something stupid doesn't mean it's not stupid. Which is calling the people who like his movies stupid and, ergo, falls under the popular definition of trolling.
Acting the innocent is just another step down the slippery slope.
quote:
This one time, at Snoota camp:
Less than 30.
Almost 30.
quote:
Mod had this to say about pies:
Almost 30.
Why don't we stop being ambiguous and just be exact and say 24?
quote:
Snoota spewed forth this undeniable truth:
No, but you're not just discussing the lead actor of a movie. What you're doing is talking about how horrible an actor he is, which is fine. But then when people present evidence that he continously makes movies that people like, you go on and on and on and on about how just because stupid people like something stupid doesn't mean it's not stupid. Which is calling the people who like his movies stupid and, ergo, falls under the popular definition of trolling.Acting the innocent is just another step down the slippery slope.
Sorry, no matter how many people become offended popularity has absolutely nothing to do with any quality besides marketability. I'm not going to concede that everything a bunch of people like is a marvel of humanity just because someone might get their panties in a wad over that fact that Paris Hilton is not a shakespearean actress.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Snoota said:
Why don't we stop being ambiguous and just be exact and say 24?
Less than 80.
Ok do be serious. let's say that it delayed the possible making of a somewhat true to the book I, Robot movie for at least 10-15 years, the argument still stands. Mod fucked around with this message on 07-17-2004 at 07:47 PM.
quote:
Mod Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Sorry, no matter how many people become offended popularity has absolutely nothing to do with any quality besides marketability. I'm not going to concede that everything a bunch of people like is a marvel of humanity just because someone might get their panties in a wad over that fact that Paris Hilton is not a shakespearean actress.
It also doesn't change the fact that you were trolling and insulting everyone else who posted in this thread.
Though for the record, I am indifferent towards Will Smith. Fresh Prince was funny for what it was(when they didn't try to be serious and tack some meaning onto the end of an episode), and the two Bad Boys movies were funny.(More for Martin Lawrence, though. The scene where he's high on X at the Captain's house was pure comedy.) But he's not some great actor. I just said he owns because I'm a dirty troll. But at least I admit it and not try to hide behind some wannabe film concierge attitude when I'm really just a simpleton who keeps repeating, 'Will Smith bad, Asimov good!' while patting himself on the back.
quote:
Snoota's account was hax0red to write:
It also doesn't change the fact that you were trolling and insulting everyone else who posted in this thread.Though for the record, I am indifferent towards Will Smith. Fresh Prince was funny for what it was(when they didn't try to be serious and tack some meaning onto the end of an episode), and the two Bad Boys movies were funny.(More for Martin Lawrence, though. The scene where he's high on X at the Captain's house was pure comedy.) But he's not some great actor. I just said he owns because I'm a dirty troll. But at least I admit it and not try to hide behind some wannabe film concierge attitude when I'm really just a simpleton who keeps repeating, 'Will Smith bad, Asimov good!' while patting himself on the back.
I had the third post, and the second was only about the marketing of the movie, the thread could have gone either way, after that I was replying to people who replied to me and so on..... you know, a conversation? If I wanted to troll I'd wait before there was actually a thread going on I could disrupt. What do you expect me to do, back out of the argument just because I turned out to be in the minority?
Will Smith, in my opinion, is bad in what I've seen him in (a few episodes of Fresh Prince, MiB, WWW, ID4), maybe in some of his other movies he's good , some of Asimovs books are good, some of the later ones I really hated, I'll be talking about those things because that's what the damn thread is about. I happen to generally speaking find Will Smith bad and Asimov good, I'm sorry for not drawing up an elaborate argument involving the principles of Greek drama to meet your standards of sophistication but I feel that it is not needed for the purpose of discussing this movie and besides I really don't know anything about Greek drama.
I never pretended to only like great works of cinema, I enjoyed a bunch of action movies I just don't like the one character Will Smith ever plays messing them up.
