Movies that should've been better

[DeeL]

I, Robot:  Okay, let's get something straight right off the bat.  I have never actually read Asimov's I, Robot, so I don't actually know how faithful the movie was, but the  flipside of that is that I didn't know how faithful it should have been, so I don't need to worry about that.  I can just judge the movie as is.

That said, there were elements of this movie that negated its good qualities.  Will Smith can act, and does so here as well as he could given the fact that his character was absurdly written.  So his life was saved by a robot in a situation where a little girl died before his eyes, and he's traumatized, that's ok - but then becoming irrationally prejudiced against robots to the point of accusing them of crimes without evidence?  That is one policeman who should have been riding a desk and reporting for counseling...

And the big payoff - spoiler alert, for anyone who cares - that the Three Laws would impel the supercomputer who runs the robots to hurt/kill a lot of humans in order to take control of the human race is just stupid.  The supercomputer might as well have been depicted stroking a digital cat named Mister Biggles for all the sense of that villainous motivation.

So:  Decent performances, cool fx, ear-bleedingly stupid writing.

Evolution:  I like the premise of an alien biota that can adapt and evolve from single-celled organisms into such a biodiverse ecology that the one on Earth is in danger of being overrun.  I even like the idea of turning it into a comedy.  And this movie does have some good jokes in it.

But David Duchovny and Julianne Moore?  I'm sorry, but trying to suspend disbelief with such dry leads was like lifting a sack of coal.

The Chronicles of Riddick:  Most of this movie was pretty cool, I give it the thumbs up in general, but I have one complaint - Jack switches to being called Kira and becomes all adultly curvy on the outside while emotionally regressing to age 6.  In a movie like this it is inevitable that the characters will be simplified, but this one was simplified in the wrong way.  

I think maybe I'm prejudiced on account of the name.  Kira?  Man, there are a lot of Kiras out there.  There was one in Dark Crystal, which was cool when it was an actual exotic name, feminine without being familiar.  By the time Kira Nareese showed up on DS9, I think there had been a few other rather popular Kiras around.  By the time of Chronicles of Riddick, I honestly think a moratorium should have been declared on that name for entertainment purposes.

And finally, The Chronicles of Narnia: LWW.  It's hard for me to nail down the improvements I would have made, except to say that there would have been a bit less travelling.

[brainface]

And the big payoff - spoiler alert, for anyone who cares - that the Three Laws would impel the supercomputer who runs the robots to hurt/kill a lot of humans in order to take control of the human race is just stupid. The supercomputer might as well have been depicted stroking a digital cat named Mister Biggles for all the sense of that villainous motivation.

Hilariously enough, that's pretty much a shout-out to Asimov. Not quote word for word, but the "zeroeth law" was that you could kill humans to save humanity.

[DeeL]

Hilariously enough, that's pretty much a shout-out to Asimov. Not quote word for word, but the "zeroeth law" was that you could kill humans to save humanity.

See, I'm down with that.  Really, I see the sense in it.  The problem is that it was totally unnecessary.  I mean, let's face it - the robots were everywhere.  Tactically, they already had control.  In such a situation, the key to minimizing fatalities would lie in preventing anyone from recognizing that fact.  You don't make an entire population feel threatened and oppressed in an effort to stabilize a society.  If you have the time - and robots have all the time in the world, one would think - you would inculcate peaceful and productive habits while counteracting specific instances of violence.  For the supercomputer to show it's hand that way was a dominance display that just invited the revolt that it got, hence deeply stupid.  

If I had been the supercomputer in that setting, my policy would have been "Speak softly, give your big stick to an old man who needs a cane, and carry an invisible X-ray laser to deal with people who absolutely won't be satisfied until lives are lost."

[Stargate525]

See, I'm down with that.  Really, I see the sense in it.  The problem is that it was totally unnecessary.  I mean, let's face it - the robots were everywhere.  Tactically, they already had control.  In such a situation, the key to minimizing fatalities would lie in preventing anyone from recognizing that fact.  You don't make an entire population feel threatened and oppressed in an effort to stabilize a society.  If you have the time - and robots have all the time in the world, one would think - you would inculcate peaceful and productive habits while counteracting specific instances of violence.  For the supercomputer to show it's hand that way was a dominance display that just invited the revolt that it got, hence deeply stupid.  

If I had been the supercomputer in that setting, my policy would have been "Speak softly, give your big stick to an old man who needs a cane, and carry an invisible X-ray laser to deal with people who absolutely won't be satisfied until lives are lost."

brainface stole my thunder...

The problem is that the Doctor who died right at the beginning forced her hand. She knew he had gotten a message off to the cop, and that he would be investigating. He fell under the heading of people who won't be satisfied, and she tried to use the invisible X-ray laser, twice. By that time he was getting close to proving it to someone who could do something about it, and she really didn't have any other option.

[DeeL]

The problem is that the Doctor who died right at the beginning forced her hand. She knew he had gotten a message off to the cop, and that he would be investigating. He fell under the heading of people who won't be satisfied, and she tried to use the invisible X-ray laser, twice. By that time he was getting close to proving it to someone who could do something about it, and she really didn't have any other option.

Sorry, but I must call BS.  See, it wasn't the supercomputer who killed the Doctor - it was the 'off the grid' robot the Doctor had built without the 3 laws, on the Doctor's orders no less.  The Doctor ostensibly wanted his own death to be the wake-up call to give a beleagured humanity a chance to come to grips with an inhuman, vastly intelligent adversary bent on world conquest.

It's a great dramatic gesture, but my point is this - the conquest had already happened.  There was no need, none at all, for the robots to suddenly start trying to keep humans indoors or control their movements in any way.  There was not the slightest reason for anyone to be alarmed or warned at all.  There was no reason for a supercomputer to start blaring 'serve the computer - the computer is your friend!'  

The whole power play was stupid.  There was no other word for it.  Will Smith's policedude was discrediting himself right and left - the finishing touch would have been for the supercomputer to just let him, and then if anyone had actually listened to simply make sure all the files were backed up then sit there calmly and say, "I have saved 147 human lives in the last 24 hours.  Would you like me to open a phone line to one of them so you can tell them what you've been doing with your day?"

I believe it was Theodore Sturgeon - or possibly James Blish, I'm not sure - who issued a challenge to any science fiction writers who would take it.  In describing a nonhuman intelligence, said writers were to depict something that was as smart as a human, but that thought completely differently.  In the movie I, Robot the scriptwriters did the exact opposite.  They depicted something that was many times more intelligent than a human but that thought exactly like one.

A conquerer insists that the people fly his flag.  The wise ruler permits them to fly their own.  Guess which one has to slit the most throats?

I know, I know, it's a sci-fi action-adventure movie.  Starring Will Smith, no less.  But look - if the motivations of a supercomputer are as bluntly political as that, it just flattens my suspension of disbelief.  And this movie could have done better.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

DeeL, I think part of your point seems to be that the computer failed to understand human nature.  I think that was part of the point of the story, anyway - that it couldn't understand even as well as other humans (which may not be that well).

[khyron1144]

Believe it or not, I actually like most movies I've seen.  My reaction is either: woah that's a good movie! or Woah that was so bad it was good!  I suppose to make a movie I really don't like it would have to be completely mediocre and elicit neither of those responses.


But the title is movies that should've been better, so here's one:
Peter Jackson's King Kong.  I loved the old black & white King Kong.  I loved Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.  The main problem with King Knog is that I actually fell asleep in the theatre, while watching it.  I was tired, but a good Kong should provide enough of an adrenaline rush to prop me up.

[SA]

I only got impatient once the setting returned to New York.  I enjoyed everything up to the chloroform, then I just went "meh".

[Stargate525]

Sorry, but I must call BS.  See, it wasn't the supercomputer who killed the Doctor - it was the 'off the grid' robot the Doctor had built without the 3 laws, on the Doctor's orders no less.  The Doctor ostensibly wanted his own death to be the wake-up call to give a beleagured humanity a chance to come to grips with an inhuman, vastly intelligent adversary bent on world conquest.

I never said she killed him, just that the death forced her hand.

It's a great dramatic gesture, but my point is this - the conquest had already happened.  There was no need, none at all, for the robots to suddenly start trying to keep humans indoors or control their movements in any way.  There was not the slightest reason for anyone to be alarmed or warned at all.  There was no reason for a supercomputer to start blaring 'serve the computer - the computer is your friend!'

The conquest had NOT happened yet. You're thinking that the robots had some sort of magical control over the people; they didn't. Just because they were a facet of society doesn't mean they were in control, and even the 'control' they had wasn't nearly enough. They didn't just want to save Timmy from drowning, they wanted to make sure he didn't get near the water.

The whole power play was stupid.  There was no other word for it.  Will Smith's policedude was discrediting himself right and left - the finishing touch would have been for the supercomputer to just let him, and then if anyone had actually listened to simply make sure all the files were backed up then sit there calmly and say, "I have saved 147 human lives in the last 24 hours.  Would you like me to open a phone line to one of them so you can tell them what you've been doing with your day?"

I'm confused here. What power play? It's quite obvious that Vicky is running the show; the only real play here is the times she tried to kill him. And no matter how discredited, he had the off-the-grid robot, the Doc's clues, and an insider. He would have found and published the truth eventually. I admit there were better ways to do it than throw 100+ robots at him (one with a gun would have sufficed), but it's hardly stupid.

I believe it was Theodore Sturgeon - or possibly James Blish, I'm not sure - who issued a challenge to any science fiction writers who would take it.  In describing a nonhuman intelligence, said writers were to depict something that was as smart as a human, but that thought completely differently.  In the movie I, Robot the scriptwriters did the exact opposite.  They depicted something that was many times more intelligent than a human but that thought exactly like one.

I dunno; I found some of Vicky's logic rather alien to me. However, this is a matter of opinion, and I doubt I'll be swaying you in this regard.

A conquerer insists that the people fly his flag.  The wise ruler permits them to fly their own.  Guess which one has to slit the most throats?

You're confusing 'ruling' with 'protecting.' There is no way to enact the kind of total protection the robots are talking about without being in totalitarian control. Overt and pre-emptive protection cannot be covertly done, it just can't.

I know, I know, it's a sci-fi action-adventure movie.  Starring Will Smith, no less.  But look - if the motivations of a supercomputer are as bluntly political as that, it just flattens my suspension of disbelief.  And this movie could have done better.

bluntly political? Does the computer want money? tax reform? to remove the current government (which I saw none of, by the way). If by political you mean 'control oriented,' then I suppose you're right, but that definition is far too broad a term. By that definition, most of the stuff I do would be considered 'bluntly political.'

I don't remember the name of it, but it was either a Bradbury or an Asimov short story that had just this kind of complete control being enacted. If I find it, I'll give you the name. You should read it.

[Ra-Tiel]

Well, I've so far disagreed with everyone, save Ra-Tiel and the D&D movies.  They were atrocious.

Hehe. However, there are so many ways how a DnD movie could have rocked the cinemas, it's not even funny to start with. Even if disliked (despised?) by many roleplayers, a movie or even a trilogy about Drizzt and his escape from Menzoberranzan, or the fight at Mithril Hall would have been awesome. Or a movie about Elminster in Hell. Or ... or ... or ... ... ...

Instead, they decided to come up with a non-existant setting that doesn't have any similarities with DnD as we know it (cities like Coruscant, "magic powder", my ass... x. ).

[...] Reign of Fire was my most despised movie.  I really did not like it.  It's the only movie I've ever left the theatre because of.

I really had to look through the thread again to see if that abomination of a movie has already been mentioned. :D Well, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Well, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/

just[/i] a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!

[Ra-Tiel]

You miss the point!  It wasn't just a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!

:poke:  :poke:  :poke:

 :-p

[brainface]

Well, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/

just[/i] a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!

No, you see: bombs could kill them, but it only produced more ash for them to eat. Because they derived sustenance from ASH. Turns out ash is full of protein. Also carbohydrates? Personally i can't blame the scientists for not figuring that out "until it was too late."

[Hibou]

Hehe. However, there are so many ways how a DnD movie could have rocked the cinemas, it's not even funny to start with. Even if disliked (despised?) by many roleplayers, a movie or even a trilogy about Drizzt and his escape from Menzoberranzan, or the fight at Mithril Hall would have been awesome. Or a movie about Elminster in Hell. Or ... or ... or ... ... ...

While I would love to see movies about Drizzt (The Dark Elf Trilogy in particular), I think Elminster in Hell would be horrible as a movie, probably because I hated the book. I read it when I was like 14 or 15 and thought it was awful. I don't think it would make a very good movie even from an unbiased perspective because it's pretty... uneventful.

[Ra-Tiel]

No, you see: bombs could kill them, but it only produced more ash for them to eat. Because they derived sustenance from ASH. Turns out ash is full of protein. Also carbohydrates? Personally i can't blame the scientists for not figuring that out "until it was too late."

Well, as was seen in the movie, the dragons (or rather their wings) were not very resistant to damage. Therefore I really cannot imagine a dragon facing off a Gepard

• [/url] or similar AA weapon and survive. And I don't recall anything surviving ground zero of a nuclear explosion.
  
  My main point is that in "Reign of Fire" dragons are portrayed as nothing more than "normal" animals, completely ordinary and definitively not mystical or magical in origin. Therefore I just cannot see them withstanding any "modern" military, sorry. :-|
  
  
• A Gepard AA tank can track and identify air units at a range of up to 15km, and engage them with twin 35mm cannons at a distance of up to 3.5km. Considering what some lowly rifles did to the dragons attacking the convoi in "RoF", a Gepard would tear a dragon to pieces long before it would even have a chance of spitting fire. ;)