Roland Emmerich to Direct an Asimov Adaptation? Ouch.

Peter Berg? Are you smoking crack?

Reply

If the news was Ridley Scott to direct Foundation, I would have peed my pants. Then I think of the massive amount of stuff that will be cut from the story in order to fit a movie and then I think Will Smith learning to pilot an alien ship with a Nintendo control and I am just bombed out. No way this will be remotely true to the master of science fiction's tale.

Reply

I'm sure it will be totally watchable. What more do you really want out of these things? And yeah- Peter Berg- f off...

Reply

How do you go from Sir Scott to Peter Berg? I agree with Stan on Peter Berg.

I'm mad at Warner, that cash they are giving Fox could have secured it for Proyas.

This is too epic in scope for someone as limited as Emmerich. Oh well, after I'Robot I'm not completely sold on this Asimov guy.

At least Avatar is still happening, that way Emmerich has something to 'borrow' from.

Reply

Um, please don't tell me all you know about Asimov is from the "I,Robot" movie.

That movie hat almost nothing to do with what Aimov wrote, and thought.

Try picking up a book by him (how about "The Foundation"?) and judge him based on that...not lower quality re-imaginings.

Reply

Geez, Scott. Peter Berg? You scan your memory banks for a good director that would do a Foundation movie(s) justice and you mention Peter Berg? In the same breath as Ridley Scott?? Berg has done NOTHING good, so I can't see the reasoning/logic behind that choice AT ALL.

Roland Emmerich is indeed a HORRIBLE choice. Actually, Alex Proyas would also have been a horrible choice considering how NOT FAITHFUL I Robot was to Asimov's writings. While an exciting movie, I Robot was only that - exciting. It wasn't thought provoking or, again, at all faithful to the source material.

So who would I recommend as director? Chris Columbus. His movie BICENTENNIAL MAN actually was faithful to Asimov's writings. The movie, while not a financial success or even a critical success (38% on Rotten Tomatoes) actually was a valiant attempt at the material. Columbus has obviously further honed his directing abilities since then (don't count Rent), and would be an IDEAL choice to helm any Foundation movie(s).

Jim

Reply

Stargate isn't stupid film. It is one of the best sci-fi movies in the past 20 years and a foundation of sucessfull Stahrage franchise.

Reply

Well, possibly I'm wrong, but Mr. Emmerich is the worst choice (Uwe Boll excluded, of course) to adapt Asimov's work!

If I my memory serves me, Mr. Emmerich accepted and directed the scene where Jeff Goldblum, portraying a scientist, develops and attacks an alien system using an Mac Book and funny lines, right?

How a studio suit can pick him to direct an adaptation of a really complex book that is, in some moments, too cerebral and that come from a guy who accepted the task of write a sequel to Fantastic Voyage if, only if, he can correct the scientific mistakes of the previous book?

When I recall the scientists of Mr. Emmerich's movies it's scares to death! :-(

Let's hope that they pick a great screenwriter to adapt Foundation...

Reply

i think mentioning peter berg was to say how much he doesn't want emmerich to direct, not a serious suggestion. just a thought...

Reply

No not emmerich, Foundation was my favorite sci-fi series

Reply

And there are different opinions on how faithful Bicentennial Man was to Asimov's writings, Strangelove9. As well all know, not EVERY aspect of a story will make into a movie. Here's a positive review of the film from Slashdot.org, one of many positive reviews I quickly found:

Robin William's "Bicentennial Man" is a rare Hollywood offering, a mainstream sci-fi romance. Syrupy and a bit circular, it's true to the Isaac Asimov story that inspired it, and is actually thoughtful about some of the issues humans may have to confront if -- as so many futurists predict -- AI machines evolve into some sort of species in the 21st Century. Like "Toy Story 2," this movie has an absurd plot, but is sometimes graphically dazzling, showing how computer animation is becoming an art form of it's own.

In the last few years, Robin Williams has gone from being one of the funniest movie stars in Hollywood to one of the sappiest, so there is reason to be suspicious of "Bicentennial Man," which was previewed in some theaters across the country this weekend.

The movie is plenty syrupy, but also surprisingly faithful to the Isaac Asimov story that it's based on, and to many of the issues it raised. Like the evolution of artificial-intelligence (AI) machines, questions about whether they can possibly have emotional lives, and their relationship with human beings.

Williams plays a household-appliance robot named Andrew who develops human-like characteristics - friendship, loyalty, humor, creativity, and faces some tough questions as a result? Is he a human or a robot? Are his feelings real, or simply the pre-programmed responses of neural pathways? Is he an appliance or some new form of life? Does he have rights and can he in any way be called human?

Probably the central question, and one Asimov often raised in his wirtings, was how exactly, creations like "The Bicentennial Man" are supposed to live in a culture with enough gee-whiz technology to create them, but that typically hasn't given a though as to how they'll get along in the world.

Andrew is programmed to live forever, at least theoretically, and this puts him in conflict with the life he wants to lead, especially the fact that he feels much more human than robotic, and that everyone he loves grows old, then dies.

Most humans see him as a machine, but spurred by a sympathetic and ethical owner and his daughter, Andrew sets out to hone his evolving skills and - one can see this coming from the first scene - ends up having a lot of heart and wanting a real one (in one hilarious and self-knowing scene, a fellow robot taunts him by singing the "Tin Man" song from the "Wizard of Oz)." Andrew decides that he needs to be free to figure all of this out, and he sets off on a quest to find his place in the world. It's at this point - three-quarters of the way through, that the plot begins to unravel, and stops being even remotely plausible.

The movie is at times gorgeously-shot, and makes innovative use of computer graphics to render cities, hospitals and offices of the future. It also deals sensitively and intelligently with a lot of the issues many suspect are coming, if even only a fraction of the predictions about AI machines come to pass.

Williams can't help but lapsing into the most wide-eyed, saccharine dialogue and character-development.

But this doesn't keep the movie from being surprisingly thoughtful and touching. And prescient, raising issues about technology and the future that hardly anyone in the United States really wants to talk about.

Reply

Asimov not deserves this!

Reply

Emmerich and his pal Devlin specialize in mindless flicks that go "boom" a lot and leave us empty when the credits roll. To put the man who brought you the crapsterpiece like 10,000 BC in charge of adopting the most treasured sci-fi book to film is lunacy. Emmerich will singlehandedly destroy not only this film, but he'll also bury the chances of making any more Asimov-based movies for years to come.

Reply

If you want a faithful adaptation of Asimov's original trilogy listen to the BBC radio version produced back in the '80s.
Then shut up and let the kids be entertained in good Roland Emmerich fashion...maybe it'll inspire them to read the books...stranger things have happened.

I, Robot as a movie was a Will Smith action flick and quite enjoyable as such---I never expected anything else from it---as for Independence Day and Stargate and all the other movies you people are trashing...a word of advice.

ANYONE can criticize...show us some creativity instead...make your own movie.

Reply