I, Robot trailer

[Dragon Lord]

Just saw the trailer, and that definitely did not remind me of the Asimov book of the same title. I guess, part of the problem is that the majority of the people who have not read the book, will see this movie and think, that is all the book is about, which will be totally unfair.

I don't know. Can't really say it's going to be a bad movie without watching it first, even though my gut feeling is that I won't enjoy it too much knowing what to expect, content wise from the book.

Joe P.

[Dragon Lord]

I didn't think Bicentennial Man was all that bad though, as a movie. Much better than A.I. which was just boring. But that's just my onion, I mean opinion.

Joe P.

[ewilen]

I'll admit that it's a fun movie. But it's pretty stupid compared to the book (ewilen- I'll still have to respectfully disagree. the movie only pays lip-service to the concepts raised in the book, and in no way truly embraces the lesson).

Heh. It's been a looong time since I read the book. Been meaning to watch the Japanese anime version.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing I, Robot as a mini-series on sci-fi. Each episode comprising one of the short stories.

But you won't, because TV sci-fi is all about RPG-inspired ensemble soap opera with a good dose of titillation thrown in.

(Please prove me wrong.)

I think I'll go start a thread on film adaptations of SF literature.

[SupremeKaioshin]

This movie should be bought/watched with Animatrix. The two are akin.

[Effect]

Just watched the trailer. I've never read any of the Asimov novels but I've been meaning to. The movie lookings interesting. Anything with robots and themes like this movie seems to be dealing with I usually find interesting. Which is why I enjoyed Metropolis, Armitage III , parts of Animatrix(Renisance(sp) parts 1 and 2). and several others. I'll be checking it out once its out in theaters for sure.

Edited March 20, 2004 by Effect

[Blaine23]

No Schwarzenegger = Not a good movie

Will Smith in the movie = I will hate it

All he can do is play one character, the smart ass urbanite punk. Every role he has been in (except for Six Degrees of Separation, which he totally bricked) he plays a wise-ass trash talking jerk who somehow saves the day...

Seen it, taped it, erased it.

But he's so fun and sassy! And I just can't get enough of hearing about him and his wife and their kids...

:vomit:

Agreed in full. This looks like another piece of Will Smith dreck.

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say he's raping my childhood... I wasn't goob enough to read Asimov until college.

Edited June 15, 2004 by Blaine23

[J A Dare]

for every single movie that is an adaptation of anything, ppl always say the original is better

That's debatable, e.g. 2001, Blade Runner, Nausicaä, The Hunt for Red October, just to name a few. Not necessarily better or worst, but each (the original and adaption) have their own merits.

as for this movie, it looks... entertaing. but will smiths character is way to generic smith, hes acting the exact same as he did in MIB, MIB2, independence day, bad boys, bad boys 2, etc.

Yeah, he's a one-dimensional actor. But acotors can grow...sometimes....we shall see.

[bsu legato]

New trailer....

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/video_small.html

...looks just as bad.

[Sundown]

*Hurls.*

The first half of the trailer looked plausible enough. That scene where the one robot jumps forth from the thousands lined up was even reminiscent of one of the short stories, where they attempted to trap a deviant robot into exposing himself from the others through the use of logic puzzles.

Then corny robot carnage ensued. Nothing at all like the brainy and philosophical surmise of the original novels. Yaargh.

-Al

[Mr March]

I like Will Smith and really enjoy some of his films (Men in Black in particular), but this "adaptation" of I, Robot (if it could be called such) is really poor. Unless the trailers are intentionally deceptive and are hoping to cash in on the Will Smith image, the film may feel far different.

As it is however, this film's atmosphere and characterization have less than nothing in common with the short stories written in Asimov's I, Robot (which I have read along with several other Asimov books). The trailers don't even stress the fact that Asimov's writing of robots mostly focused upon the three laws of robotics. Nor does the story seem to focus on such themes. It looks like a robots-taking-over-the-world plot with Will Smith casted for summer box office draw. Nothing wrong with a good Will Smith flick, but this certainly doesn't appear to be an Asimov adaptation.

Edited April 14, 2004 by Mr March

[Sundown]

They only bother to ever mention the first law in the trailers... which indicates that the plot doesn't weave itself very tightly into his three laws. I'm wondering how they're going to manage to write themselves out of the fact that robots *are* killing and running about amuck in spite of the laws-- or if they'll even try. They could pull a fast one and whip out the sooper seekrat Zeroth law at the movie's end. But that'd be altogether too clever.

-Al

[Californium]

I am fearful.

I wonder if they'll have a Sue Calvin character?

[Oihan]

I saw the trailer for the first time...was actually "stoked" (so to say) at first during the first half of it. Then the second half came and ruined it all. They pretty much told the entire story in that trailer. No point in going to see the movie now.

Never again am I going to watch another trailer.

Edit:I've never read the novel's so I had no idea what it was about. And even with that being the case, the second part of the trailer just made it seem like it was sorta gonna be horrible.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Oihan

[Amped]

ICK. Yeaahgads... after seeing that slop of a trailer, methinks that Asimov is spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken...

[Effect]

I'm honestly not going to be quick to praise or dump on it. I like Will Smith as an actor and true he's not right for every role but the trailers have interested me. I haven't read any of Asimov's books yet but the theme and idea is really interesting. Even if it doesn't turn out true to the novel works it still looks like it will be a decent to good action movie.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Effect

[Agent ONE]

I can't wait for this movie... Finally a Will Smith movie that isn't summarized by this:

http://maddox.xmission.com/cop_movie.html

[JELEINEN]

My reaction to the trailer was "oh no, not another Hollywood luddite flick."

[Jolly Rogers]

From the trailer it looks like they ripped more from Animatrix than anything else... except instead of a war between men and machine we get Fresh Cop of Bel Air battling hordes of robots and saving the day single-handedly.

[rehnvall]

blaspheme!! Asimov is spining in his grave if he now about the movie.

First asimov wrote the books of robots to make people less scared for robots and AI. The movie companys change the robot laws is it to mock asimov? Way not call the movie terminator 3,5.

[Doktor Gonzo]

Worth noting that this movie, with the same story concept, was under development by Proyas long before the "Asimov license" entered into the picture. So everybody saying this flick has "less than nothing" in common with the short stories is absolutely right - this is a 100% unrelated robots-run-amok piece with the Three Laws shoehorned in and a scientist character hastily rewritten as "Susan Calvin", both at a very late stage of development when the I, ROBOT title was lent to the production. Blergh.

[Californium]

Blergh indeed.

[bsu legato]

NEW JAPANESE TRAILER. It's interesting how it focuses more on *gasp* selling the story, not just the action sequences and Will Smith's attitude.

[mikeszekely]

Yeah guys, okay, whatever.

First, to address the Will Smith issue... yeah, he does usually play the wise-ass urban yadda yadda yadda... but he's still a fairly good actor. Even if most of his roles are similar, he's never struck me as anything less than convincing, which puts him a step ahead of a lot of the other flavor-of-the-month actors out there (Colin Farrel, Vin Diesl, Orlando Bloom, the entire cast of the Matrix save Hugo Weaving, etc). Also, for all the bad-mouthing he's getting, I don't think I've seen him in a movie I haven't liked. Granted, I don't consider any of his movies to be masterpieces of literature... but 99.99% of movies aren't, and aren't supposed to be.

Which brings me to my second point. While movies sometimes have thoughtful points are clever writing, most movies are intended to be simply an hour and half of fun. I enjoy a good car chase or explosions that make me glad for my 5.1 surround setup when the DVD comes out. If every movie was a "Memento" or a "Fight Club" I'd probably stop going to the theater, even though I loved Fight Club. And just because a movie is loosely based on the book, I don't expect it to be the book. Books are longer and allow for more detail. Besides, if a movie and the book are identical, and I've consumed one, what's the point of checking out the other?

That said, taking the movie for what it is, I, Robot looks like a vapid action movie. And vapid action movies are usually good times, so I'm planning to check it out.

[bsu legato]

Yeah guys, okay, whatever. *snip*

You, my friend, are the target audience for this movie. However, one or two of us actually prefer a film to have a bit of substance now and then.

[GobotFool]

Yeah guys, okay, whatever. *snip*

You, my friend, are the target audience for this movie. However, one or two of us actually prefer a film to have a bit of substance now and then.

*gasp* A movie goer who prefers substance over flash? A rare specimen indeed!

[Blaine23]

Yeah guys, okay, whatever. *snip*

You, my friend, are the target audience for this movie. However, one or two of us actually prefer a film to have a bit of substance now and then.

I don't even really expect too much substance from summer films, if it's a fun idea or humorous... or possibly even interesting in any way...

But this is basically taking a science fiction classic, full of heavy thought, ideas, and concepts - then turning it into an "action star vehicle."

The problem isn't really Will Smith (lo, though I do hate him and 99% of his movies), the problem is that they are repeating what we've seen a million times before. Will (the rogue cop who always manages to save the day) and his angry Lieutenant VS. robots who are evolving to take over the world because they think they should.

Then they tried to legitimize it by calling it I, Robot.

I simply don't want to see another movie like this. I don't want to see Will Smith say "Oh no you di-int!" and shoot robots while leaping. I don't want to see any of it.

[mikeszekely]

Yeah guys, okay, whatever. *snip*

You, my friend, are the target audience for this movie. However, one or two of us actually prefer a film to have a bit of substance now and then.

Hey, I'm not claiming that I never like a movie with substance. I'm just saying that only movies with substance are worth watching, and that sometimes a cheesy action flick can be fun.

[Mr March]

Worth noting that this movie, with the same story concept, was under development by Proyas long before the "Asimov license" entered into the picture. So everybody saying this flick has "less than nothing" in common with the short stories is absolutely right - this is a 100% unrelated robots-run-amok piece with the Three Laws shoehorned in and a scientist character hastily rewritten as "Susan Calvin", both at a very late stage of development when the I, ROBOT title was lent to the production. Blergh.

Yes, some of us do know about Jeff Vintar's Hardwired script and the pre-production maelstrom that ensued. However, no one knew for sure what was being done with anything from the original script, Smith's involvement, or the type of film I, Robot would be until the trailer was released. But like I said, the atmosphere and characterization do not point to an adaptation.

That being said, I'm in no way vowing off this film. As a cool-looking action flick with a charming lead actor, it has the promise of some light-hearted enetertainment of a type I'd enjoy. As an adaptation of an pioneering collection sci-fi robot tales by Asimov, it fails miserably. As film, it looks mediocre at best.

[muswp1]

I saw both trailers, both sucked hard. Will Smith is too hit or miss for me to like. When he hits (see Enemy of the State, Bad Boys, Fresh Prince), he is really good. When he misses (Bagger Vance, Bad Boys 2), the results are horrible. From the trailers, this movie is going to fail badly

BTW, on a semi-related note, wasn't there two rather good TV episodes (either Twilight Zone or Outer Limits series) called I, Robot based on one of Asimov's stories. I remember Leonard Nimoy being involved in both and both episodes (one being done in the 1950's and one in the 1990's) being really interesting shows.

[GobotFool]

I saw both trailers, both sucked hard. Will Smith is too hit or miss for me to like. When he hits (see Enemy of the State, Bad Boys, Fresh Prince), he is really good. When he misses (Bagger Vance, Bad Boys 2), the results are horrible. From the trailers, this movie is going to fail badly

BTW, on a semi-related note, wasn't there two rather good TV episodes (either Twilight Zone or Outer Limits series) called I, Robot based on one of Asimov's stories. I remember Leonard Nimoy being involved in both and both episodes (one being done in the 1950's and one in the 1990's) being really interesting shows.

The whole investigation of a robot murder case is very much like the outerlimits one with Leonard Nemoy.

[niomosy]

Haven't really gone through I, Robot yet but I've gone through all the other Robot novels by Asimov as well as some not by Asimov.

The movie seems way off. I can see there being some 3-law problems in one or two robots in the mix but a whole batch?

As for the Robot series itself. It wasn't originally a prelude to the Foundation series. They were independant of each other until some time in the '80's when Asimov decided to join the universes together. The 3rd Robot novel w/ Elijah Baley starts in on the theory of psycohistory and continues in Robots and Empire, explaining why there are no robots in the Foundation era and why Earth is unknown as the origin of humans.

Asimov then does the Foundation preludes, introdocing more of the old series into the mix (mainly in the first prelude book).

[Gui]

The worst thing with this is that Harlan Ellison -a very close friend of the doctor and also a SF writer who proved his quality a while ago- wrote a magnificent scenario to adapt the Robot cycle to the cinema: this is a truely faithfull script. Only one 'problem': he finished and proposed the scenario to Hollywood just a few weeks after the success of Episode4: A New Hope... No need to explain further I guess.

This scenario has been made public into 3 of the issues of Isaac Asimov's Magazine of Science-Fiction at the end of 1987 under the title of I, Robot: if you have the opportunity to take a look at this, it's really worth the reading as a really original interpretation of this classic approved by Asimov himself

On the other hand, I know that Spielberg posseses the rights of exploitation of the Foundation cycle: end or continuity of the nightmare?

[bsu legato]

On the other hand, I know that Spielberg posseses the rights of exploitation of the Foundation cycle: end or continuity of the nightmare?

If I had my choice of production companies to produce the Foundation movies, Dreamworks would be at the top of the list. But Foundation itself....I don't know how well it would translate to film. The entire first book is just a collection of short stories, some of which are about 10 pages long. From the second book on you do get characters and situations that carry on for the duration of the book, but you need to get over that initial hurdle. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it will take some clever writing.

[niomosy]

On the other hand, I know that Spielberg posseses the rights of exploitation of the Foundation cycle: end or continuity of the nightmare?

If I had my choice of production companies to produce the Foundation movies, Dreamworks would be at the top of the list. But Foundation itself....I don't know how well it would translate to film. The entire first book is just a collection of short stories, some of which are about 10 pages long. From the second book on you do get characters and situations that carry on for the duration of the book, but you need to get over that initial hurdle. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it will take some clever writing.

I'd have to second Dreamworks being a great choice. SS having the rights, I'm sure if that's such a good thing these days.

The first book could probably be done pretty well without any huge problems. You wouldn't get to know the characters as well in the first as in the second but it would still make for an interesting movie.

[Mr March]

Personally, I wouldn't want Spielberg anywhere near the Foundation books. I like his stuff, but he really failed to achieve a measure of psuedo-reality in his adaption of Kubrick's AI. I really feel the original Foundation stories have a theme and style which does not match Spielberg's movies-for-the-masses motif. Same goes for Cameron or Scott (though Ridley Scott has more of a talent for strong, subconcious themes than the other two). I would much rather prefer someone like Soderbergh or Nolan to take over a project like Foundation and really play upon the character motivations and political/sociological undercurrents.