I, Robot, the movie

[davepy]

Anyone catch the trailer for the new I, Robot movie yet? If you haven't, be warned, the following trailer is pretty offensive if you know anything about the book.

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

I'm not even a hard core Asimov fan, but I was pretty outraged by this mockery. I, Robot is a collection of nice little cerebral tales of the future with some elements of mystery. You could stretch one or two of the stories and maybe even make a suspence thriller out of them. Instead, they've created what looks like Terminator 4, starring Will freakin' Smith. I guess Bruce Willis was busy.

The trailer I caught was worse than what's on Apple's site above, with more robot action and explosions. I kept waiting for Bruckheimer's or Michael Bay's name to be flashed on the screen, but they seem to be uninvolved. Their legacy lives on in Hollywood though.

[Nowhere Man]

To steal a line, I will not miss this movie -- I will avoid it at all costs!

I still think they should have used Harlan Ellison's screenplay, but that would not have played well with today's movie makers. They think that everything now has to be done Matrix-style, with weird special effects and explosions every 6.35 minutes, and that that is the only thing that people want to see.

Granted, Harlan can be an abrasive little [oops] when he feels his artistic integrity is being compromised. Which is a good thing IMO but something that Hollywood just can't bear.

Fred

[kucharek]

Yup.

Harald

[Maksutov]

To steal a line, I will not miss this movie -- I will avoid it at all costs!

I still think they should have used Harlan Ellison's screenplay, but that would not have played well with today's movie makers. They think that everything now has to be done Matrix-style, with weird special effects and explosions every 6.35 minutes, and that that is the only thing that people want to see.

Granted, Harlan can be an abrasive little [oops] when he feels his artistic integrity is being compromised. Which is a good thing IMO but something that Hollywood just can't bear.

Fred

6.35 minutes? That is so yesterday. The current Hollywood Director's Guide (4/12/04) states clearly that "...there shall be an explosion the equivalent of or greater than 100 kilograms of TNT every 5.35 minutes in every film..." Then there is the section concerning car chases, murders, bloodletting, and leaps of ten or more feet in altitude. Well, you go read it... :roll:

[DataCable]

Oy. The name above the title said it all for me.

[tofu]

Who sold holywood the rights to Asimov's works? Was it his widow or was it a child? You'd think they'd have some bargoning power and wouldn't have to just turn it over to be raped at will.

[Uncle_Ted]

I won't get too worked up over it ... from the trailer it looks like the only relationship between the movie and the books are (1) the title and (2) the Three Laws of Robotics. Otherwise nothing whatsoever.

[johnwitts]

I don't think the books would translate well to movies anyway, fine though they are. But think of it this way; if they make a movie based on an Asimov book that gets bums on seats in cinemas, maybe a few will read the Robot series as well.

[Extravoice]

If I recall correctly, while a book (or movie) title can be copywritten, the title can't.

And to paraphrase one of my favorite movies, Office Space...

"I see you missed I, Robot."
"I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob."

[SeanF]

If I recall correctly, while a book (or movie) title can be copywritten, the title can't.

[SciFi Chick]

If I recall correctly, while a book (or movie) title can be copywritten, the title can't.

I don't know what he meant, but here is what he should have meant: You cannot copyright titles of works.

I was in a copyright dispute once in which a church thought they owned a play I had written. After receiving a friendly little note from my lawyer, the head of the drama department huffed off in a snit announcing that he would write a different play and use the same title. :roll:

Back OT: Asimov hinted at all of the themes that I saw represented in the trailer. However, leave it to Hollywood to remove all subtlety and tell you what to think about the ethical issues rather than laying it out for us to analyze and come to our own conclusions.

It just looks like The Terminator with more robots. I'm surprised Will Smith is doing this role, because his character hates robots, and it's obviously similar to the idea of racism - but then they go on to announce his fear and hatred is not misplaced. What a terrible message to send.

[ToSeek]

If I recall correctly, while a book (or movie) title can be copywritten, the title can't.

You're still liable if it can be shown that you're trying to capitalize on the original.

If I wrote a book called Jaws that was about a giant fish terrorizing a coastal town, I'd probably be in trouble.

If I wrote a book called Jaws that was about dental surgery, I'd probably be okay.

Seems to me that this movie is definitely the former case.

[gethen]

To steal a line, I will not miss this movie -- I will avoid it at all costs!

I still think they should have used Harlan Ellison's screenplay, but that would not have played well with today's movie makers.
Fred

A Boy and His Dog. Now that was a screenplay.

[Nowhere Man]

Except that Harlan didn't write the screenplay for A Boy and His Dog, and if I recall correctly, did not really appreciate the ending gag. IMDB lists Psycho Boy and His Killer Dog as an alternate title. I wonder where that came came from?

Speaking of titles, I, Robot was originally the title of a collection of stories about Adam Link, robot, by Eando Binder. When Isaac expressed concern about his publisher's pilfering the title, the publisher basically said, "$#*& Eando Binder!" Titles are not protected by copyright, but story themes and wordings are.

Fred

[Ricimer]

It does strip asimov's work of its subtlety's, but I still think I'll see it. My guess is one of the underlying concepts of Asimov is still there, the three laws are absolute, and inviolatable. So how'd the big bag evil guy (The BBEG in RPG cirlces) get around it?

But I won't expect it to be a cerebral activity, just like I don't expect "Day after tommorrow" or whatnot (about that big storm) to be one either.

[davepy]

I dunno, I think this is going to make Starship Troopers look like a very faithful adaptation by comparison. The BBEG in question seems to be US Robotics, i.e. the evil corp (big business always being an easy target). IIRC, The only real BBEG in any of Asimov's stories in I, Robot was the military (the other easy target), and only in one story where they twisted USR's arm to tone down the 1st law so that the robots could do some work in hyperdrive technology, which was essentially harmful to humans.

That's probably the best story to adapt into a movie, with some nice suspence & mystery angles thrown in--searching for the one robot that can semi-violate rule 1, and before it can infect other robots. The way the trailer started, I thought they might be headed in that direction, but all hope was abandoned after the action started. Not that there was much hope to begin with after seeing Will Smith's face to begin the trailer.

[R.A.F.]

My problem with it is...

Giving the movie the name "I Robot" and incorporating Asimov's 3 "laws", gives the "appearance" of Asimov's approval...that, IMO, is dishonest.

[SciFi Chick]

My problem with it is...

Giving the movie the name "I Robot" and incorporating Asimov's 3 "laws", gives the "appearance" of Asimov's approval...that, IMO, is dishonest.

You have to really stretch to come to that conclusion. Asimov is not around to give his approval after all.

[SeanF]

The BBEG in question seems to be US Robotics, i.e. the evil corp (big business always being an easy target).

US Robotics is actually referring to the movie on their website. Do they know they're the "bad guy"?

[R.A.F.]

My problem with it is...

Giving the movie the name "I Robot" and incorporating Asimov's 3 "laws", gives the "appearance" of Asimov's approval...that, IMO, is dishonest.

You have to really stretch to come to that conclusion. Asimov is not around to give his approval after all.

Perhaps "dishonest" is not the right word for what I'm thinking. I just can't imagine Asimov approving of having "I Robot" turned into a "Will Smith" movie.

[Wingnut Ninja]

The BBEG in question seems to be US Robotics, i.e. the evil corp (big business always being an easy target).

US Robotics is actually referring to the movie on their website. Do they know they're the "bad guy"?

Isn't it "US Robots" in the book? That always threw me off because I was thinking of US Robotics.

Anyway, this seems to be taking the point of Asimov's stories and completely reversing it.

Asimov: "Robots aren't actually bad if we don't make them that way."

Movie: "Robots are bad and must be destroyed by Will Smith."

:roll:

It's like making a World War 2 movie where the American troops wear swastikas and shout "Heil Roosevelt".

[SciFi Chick]

You guys are probably all correct, but I've been misled by too many previews to jump on the bandwagon just yet.

Besides, I like Will Smith.

[davepy]

Isn't it "US Robots" in the book? That always threw me off because I was thinking of US Robotics.

Oops, my mistake. It's techincally US Robots and Mechanical Men. But supposedly, the name US Robotics was inspired by I, Robot.

http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm

And to be clear, I don't hate Will Smith or anything. I liked him quite a bit in Enemy of the State and MIB 1. It's just that most of his movies seem to cater to the Bruckheimer/James Cameron crowd, not Asimov.

[Bill Dunaway]

The lead female character is called Dr. Susan Calvin in the movie, but the actress playing her looks far too attractive to fit Asimov's description of her. I'm sure they'll have sex scenes to pander to modern audiences.

[tofu]

I haven't seen Ali or Legend of Bagger Vance, but in all of the Will Smith movies I have seen his character has basically been the same. In particular, the "funny" lines he's given are all the same. To be honest, it's getting kind of boring. A movie like Enemy of the State would be a lot better without the comic relief (and yeah it'd be better without the bad computer science and over-dramatic Gene Hackman too). Specifically, I'm talking about lines like "I be back for my blender." I just roll my eyes when I hear that.

In a way, it's racist. Some hollywood guy says "hey, let's get Will Smith for this movie, that way we can use a bunch of stupid one liners that we'd never give a white actor."

I get the feeling I,Robot is going to be the same sort of thing.

[Zamboni]

The lead female character is called Dr. Susan Calvin in the movie, but the actress playing her looks far too attractive to fit Asimov's description of her. I'm sure they'll have sex scenes to pander to modern audiences.

Mmm... Sex scenes... *drools*
You guys are judging this film way too early... Maybe the trailer shows all the explosions and stuff but the film is actually filled with suspense and other stuff inherited from Asimov's novel... Afterall the trailer probably was designed to attract attention of the average killer-robot-with-hot-chick-and-explosion-loving Joe... For all we know the trailer could've shown every action scene in the movie... You know, like uh, Tomb Raider...

[Eye-Zee]

From looking at the trailer, the one thing I have to say is that the appearance of the robots look _designed_ to be sinister. If you're going to make a consumer appliance (albeit an intelligent one) that you will distribute literally in the tens or hundreds of millions, there's no way you want to make it freaky or spooky in appearance. Just looking at the mask-like face of those robots wierded me out, and that was when I thought the flick was going to be Asimovian instead of Bruckheimerian. Talk about idiotic industrial design.

I also like the apparent "Blue light = OK, Red light = Evil" setup from the trailer. I needed that clue, or I would have lost track.

[SciFi Chick]

I also like the apparent "Blue light = OK, Red light = Evil" setup from the trailer. I needed that clue, or I would have lost track.

ROFLMAO. That's the kind of thing that let's us know this is more of a bigger, badder Terminator.

[Zamboni]

"blue light = OK, Red light = Evil"
But... But... That blue bot at the beginning looked evil! He was shifty-eyed... SHIFTY-EYED!!!

It's not uncommon for directors to use colour tones as an exaggeration of heroic / villainous qualities... Look at star wars; they gave Vader a red saber and Obi a blue saber even though we are told from the begging that Vader is bad while Obi is... Old...

As for the design, I suppose they could've gone with the (perky?) designs in Bicentennial Man (another Asimov classic?)...

[Eye-Zee]

"blue light = OK, Red light = Evil"
But... But... That blue bot at the beginning looked evil! He was shifty-eyed... SHIFTY-EYED!!!

They're _all_ shify eyed. That's the problem :-/

It's not uncommon for directors to use colour tones as an exaggeration of heroic / villainous qualities... Look at star wars; they gave Vader a red saber and Obi a blue saber even though we are told from the begging that Vader is bad while Obi is... Old...

Yeah, yeah, Black hat, White hat with lasers and positrons. I suppose I mildly resent being given _no_ credit whatsoever as an audience from something that purports to be Asimov derived.

As for the design, I suppose they could've gone with the (perky?) designs in Bicentennial Man (another Asimov classic?)...

Or something more clearly mechanized. The old, golden age concepts of humanoid robots. Heck, give C-3PO some better articulation and a moving mouth.