We Can All Relate To Spielberg's Robot Apocalypse Film
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You ever notice how much of the popular "science fiction" is all about how dangerous, bad, or outright EVIL science is?
I'm hoping that's not the final title of the movie.
It seems like something that a cartoon like the Simpsons would use to mock the movie.
OT: I... couldn't care less about rehashing old themes. Quentin Tarantino said himself that not one of his own movie ideas was original. It's Sci Fi, it's robots, it's Spielberg (Which, admittedly, doesn't exactly give him a free pass in my book). It's gonna be fine.
It seems like something that a cartoon like the Simpsons would use to mock the movie.
OT: I... couldn't care less about rehashing old themes. Quentin Tarantino said himself that not one of his own movie ideas was original. It's Sci Fi, it's robots, it's Spielberg (Which, admittedly, doesn't exactly give him a free pass in my book). It's gonna be fine.
"It's not the newest theme, it's been done throughout science fiction, but it's a theme that becomes more overused every year."
Fixed that for you Mr Spielberg, what are you going to do next? A zombie film?
Fixed that for you Mr Spielberg, what are you going to do next? A zombie film?
Oh God, Spielberg returns to sci-fi and he decides to make this. I hate to be a cynic, but this really doesn't sound all that great, or at least what one would expect from him.
While I'm a sucker for robots, this all seems a little overdone. Couldn't he make a film of War of Worlds that's actually good instead?
If he wanted to drum up interest, here's a revised quip for him to use:thaluikhain said:
"I'm Speilberg. I'm making a robot apocalypse movie."
And then a few lines denying it's a sequel to A.I. Artificial Intelligence.
Relevant my ass, if the first successful text in the western world was a robot being a altruistic superhero. It would ruin the running gag in the western world of the perception of the development of robots leading to the robot-apocalypse.
Almost everything these days is rehashed stuff so I don't know why we're complaining now? Unless this is the bandwagon that's noticed from the start.
Almost everything these days is rehashed stuff so I don't know why we're complaining now? Unless this is the bandwagon that's noticed from the start.
I cannot blame any AI that turns on the TV and watches our daily programme/ George Lucas / Steven Spielberg / Micheal Bay movies for coming to the logical conclusion that we must be destroyed immediately.
On the other hand IF it´s intelligent and turns on TV, there is a pretty good chance that it´s turned in to a brainless zombie, like we are already, before things get out of hand.
On the other hand IF it´s intelligent and turns on TV, there is a pretty good chance that it´s turned in to a brainless zombie, like we are already, before things get out of hand.
Guys, Robopocalypse is not some fear-mongering nonsense. The novel is written by a real scientist who works in robotics. Rather then being Terminator-lite, the novel deals with what he sees as the future of numerous robotics projects going on today. Instead of some 'science is evil' or 'humans treat robots as slaves and they rebel' story it has to do with an almost virus-like AI that overwrites the programming of many automated systems worldwide because its trying to prevent its own destruction. Despite its silly title the novel is actually an interesting look into a more serious version of the 'robot rebellion' trope. Please actually do some research before pulling out your 'oh it's all about how science is evil' comments.
How angry are apocalyphiles going to be when we create robots smarter than us and they end up being SUPER NICE.
Like their advanced knowledge shows them just how pathetic we are and we end up generating an army of 1 million robo-Jesuses (basically).
We'll have fools trying to spark wars and the robots are just going to give them the ole Silverman expression and then explain how insignificant any individual truly is, how the greater future should be our goal and our interests.
Or something like that, I'm not a robot Jesus so I don't know what they'll say.
But I'll be damned if I think something smarter than us would fight with us, we would be SO boring to something smarter than us.
Like their advanced knowledge shows them just how pathetic we are and we end up generating an army of 1 million robo-Jesuses (basically).
We'll have fools trying to spark wars and the robots are just going to give them the ole Silverman expression and then explain how insignificant any individual truly is, how the greater future should be our goal and our interests.
Or something like that, I'm not a robot Jesus so I don't know what they'll say.
But I'll be damned if I think something smarter than us would fight with us, we would be SO boring to something smarter than us.
Our (or at least my) opinion on the matter has less to do with the story itself as it does Spielberg's pitch. Robot uprisings are even less believable today than they were thirty years ago, because we've got a better understanding of the science behind it.Blind Sight said:
The perspective of a robotics scientist will be different, but out here in the rest of the world, humanity isn't becoming more dependent on robotics and AI hasn't made a single stride forward since the concept was dreamed up.
How much of the actual book besides the premise do you think is actually going to make it into the final film? The book will probably be hollywoodized to death before it even starts filming so it might not be as great as the book is.Blind Sight said:
I always love it when someone links this as opposed to that atrocious movie "adaptation".Hal10k said:
I like Daniel Wilson, but the book still suffers from the typical problems that underline this type of story. First and foremost is the fact that a supposedly rational AI decides that if a small group of people mention the possibility of its destruction, it has to kill everyone else first. That's sort of like saying "My boss threatened to lay me off. I should bomb the building!" It isn't helping the matter, and more importantly, it's just plain ineffecient.Blind Sight said: