Just what the fuck IS IT with Hollywood?

[serai]

Back again, with an enraged rant...

My eyes are bleeding!!

John the Baptist with a side of fries!!! HELLO?? Just what the FUCK does any of this have to do with Asimov?? Just when did I, Robot, a wonderful, thought-provoking, interesting book about the differences between humand and artificial consciousness, turn into a goddamn shoot-em-up?

The THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS, Jerry? Remember those? The ones that are COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for any robot to disobey? The concept that's so solid and useful that actual RL robotics experts are beginning to include it in the making of REAL robots? Hello??? Your whole premise is based on a WILLFUL misinterpretation of the word "law", as evidenced by that deeply stupid tagline, "Laws were meant to be broken". Hey asshole, IT AIN'T THAT KIND OF LAW. It's not a "Murder is illegal" kind of law, it's a "Gravity makes things fall" kind of law!! Or did you think nobody would notice??

Whoever it is that's holding the keys to Asimov's estate should be FIRED, and like, right NOW. No, not fired. He/She should be FRIED. In cooking oil. That's been used to cook FISH. What the hell could they have been thinking to sell the rights to that wonderful book to JERRY FUCKING BRUCKHEIMER???

ARGH.

DOUBLE ARGH.


(I'd love to hear what Harlan Ellison has to say about this monstrosity. He wrote an incredibly lovely screenplay based on I, Robot, that was shunted around and turned down for YEARS because of...wait for it...budgetary constraints. Just how much do you think this utter wankfest cost? Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure of exactly what he'd say.)


Well, now. That's THREE hideous fiascoes based on wonderful original stories this year. Why can't these goddamn movie conglomerates just come up with their own friggin' stories and leave the GOOD BOOKS alone? I mean, I don't give much of a shit when they take an original script and rip it a new asshole, or when they put out a deeply stupid sequel to a great original film. (Well, ok, I was pretty pissed off at how badly the Matrix thing went.)

But sweet gods, why do they have to take a perfectly good book and KILL it? If you're going to get this off-the-wall, why not just call it something else? Why piss in such a great pool?

Man, and I'd just started to get over the trauma of Stuart Little. (The trailer, mind. There's no way in hell you'd ever get me to watch even ten minutes of that soul-killing horror.)

Can I kill Jerry Bruckheimer? Please? I promise I won't make a mess. Plllleeeeeease???


ETA: IF I SEE ONE MORE MOVIE FEATURING GRATUITOUS USE OF THAT GODDAMN HONG KONG WIREWORK, I SWEAR SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE.


ETA 2: I just went over to IMDb and looked Bruckheimer up. It's amazing just how many utterly worthless piles of crap this guy has made. About the only worthwhile thing on the list is Pirates of the Caribbean, and I wouldn't give the guy any Gold Stars For High Quality on that score. Raucous fun, yes. Cinematic achievement...eh, not so much.

Comments

Re: Its all good Serai

[serai1.livejournal.com]

I never read A Little Princess, but I obviously sympathize with that kind of disappointment. But things like whether a character is British or not don't necessarily upset me. As far as I know, there were no black people in I, Robot, yet Will Smith's casting would not upset me at all, were he cast in a version that was well-made and true to the book. I know he can handle drama and give a good performance. The casting of Mos Def as Ford Prefect in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy doesn't get me crazy either (at least not yet) - if he can play the right tone in the part, then I'm all for it.

The yardstick I use for things like that is, Does it change the story, and if it does, is it for the better or worse? The nationality and/or race of the lead might not make any difference to the story, and if it doesn't, I'm fine. But fuck up the tale and I get livid, thank you. And this goes far beyond casting someone I might have thought wrong for a part. This is...FEH!!!

Re: Its all good Serai

[isildae.livejournal.com]

True. I could handle say "Wuthering Heights" as a modern American tale. Though if they changed Heathcliff's character in any way, like making him a kind and wealthy stockbroker or some such nonsense, I'd burst a kidney with chagrin.

I do see your point.

Re: Its all good Serai

[strangerian.livejournal.com]

Early Asimov has at least a few careful references to non-WASPy characteristics here and there, as though he wanted to show, without making it the point of a story, that the future didn't make a fuss about skin tones and bone structure. (I say "early" because I stopped reading Asimov regularly after the Foundation trilogy and _The Gods Themselves_, when he seemed mainly to be filling in universe holes that weren't there. I wouldn't be surprised if the colorblind intentions carried through, however.) So the movie *casting* wouldn't be a problem.

How do you make a short-story collection into a single movie story, anyway? I,R certainly has a *theme* (and everything I've seen about the movie -- which doesn't include the movie itself -- does indeed look *un*like the book), but what kind of plotline would convey it?

Re: Its all good Serai

[serai1.livejournal.com]

For a beautiful rendition of the book as a film, see the adapatation done by my man, Harlan Ellison. He wrote it with Asimov, and it's just amazing. It was published as a book in 1994, and you can find it pretty easily.

It's just a matter of determining what is the connecting thread between the stories, and of deciding which of the stories is the most important. Pretty much the same thing a writer has to do to adapt any book to film, but in the case of a book like this, the threads are more disparate.