I,Robot - No one seems to be touching this one yet.

[Doodler]

Any predictions about the quality of the outcome?

[daver]

Any predictions about the quality of the outcome?

There was a thread about this earlier. My recollection is that the consensus was doom and gloom, although this might be colored by my disaste for the previews.

[weatherc]

My top ten predictions for I, Robot:

10. It will be written for 8-14 year-olds.

9. Will Smith will be playing um... Will Smith and make lots of smart-aleck comments.

8. There will be some sort of Burger King/McDonalds/Taco Bell promotion where there will be little I, Robot action figures in kid's meals, complete with "glowing red angry lights."

7. Will Smith will fall in love with the hot robot scientist chick.

6. Everyone will talk about how the movie has great special effects.

5. It will make a ton of money.

4. No one will remember it in five years.

3. Everyone will talk about how the movie has great special effects.

2. Lots of stuff will get destroyed/blown up, and it will be "kewl."

1. It will suck. But it won't matter, because Hollywood will make their money off of it and invest the profits in more junk just like it.

[Lycus]

Okay, I got a prediction:

The "I did not murder him!" robot from the previews will ultimately be the only robot who does not go psycho (for whatever reason). He will end up becoming Will Smith's unlikely sidekick in "Saving the World".

[Kesh]

Okay, I got a prediction:

The "I did not murder him!" robot from the previews will ultimately be the only robot who does not go psycho (for whatever reason). He will end up becoming Will Smith's unlikely sidekick in "Saving the World".

Pretty much a given. In one trailer, Wil Smith shouts "Save the girl!" or something like that, and we see one of the robots leaping into the air to catch science-lady as she plummets towards the ground. ](*,)

[Gullible Jones]

"No one seems to have touched this yet..."

Man, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. It looks awful, and I'm sure that Asimov would be seriously ticked off if he were still alive.

[Lycus]

Okay, I got a prediction:

The "I did not murder him!" robot from the previews will ultimately be the only robot who does not go psycho (for whatever reason). He will end up becoming Will Smith's unlikely sidekick in "Saving the World".

Pretty much a given. In one trailer, Wil Smith shouts "Save the girl!" or something like that, and we see one of the robots leaping into the air to catch science-lady as she plummets towards the ground. ](*,)

An added prediction:

During the climax, the good robot will end up heroically sacrificing himself to "Save the World", teaching us all a valuable lesson about what it truly means to be human. :P

[Hutch]

I predict this will resemble Asimov's stories about as well as "Starship Troopers" resembled RA Heinlein's book (which is to say, they keep some of the names and a few bit parts and throw out the rest)

[John Dlugosz]

Okay, I got a prediction:

The "I did not murder him!" robot from the previews will ultimately be the only robot who does not go psycho (for whatever reason). He will end up becoming Will Smith's unlikely sidekick in "Saving the World".

Pretty much a given. In one trailer, Wil Smith shouts "Save the girl!" or something like that, and we see one of the robots leaping into the air to catch science-lady as she plummets towards the ground. ](*,)

In a true Asimov style, it would be all the robots jumping to save the girl and they would get in each other's way and abandon other important tasks; any robot who witnessed but could not help would have a siezure.

[John Dlugosz]

Any predictions about the quality of the outcome?

I did not like the apparance of the robot face and motion in the trailer I saw. Perhaps the face is accurate, based on current ideas on making machines more social. But I think Robin William's costume looked right, true to the stories. The motion seemed unrealistic, to C-G. But at the same time more fluid than we expect from machines.

[mike alexander]

I don't know from the details yet, but my willing suspension of disbelief will probably choke if Susan Calvin falls in love with a human.

[The Bear]

It's typical Hollywood. Take a popular novel and/or series, and then CHANGE it! The true mystery of Asimov robot novels and short stories was that the robots could NOT harm anyone...so how in the world was the human harmed, and by whom? This requires a certain cleverness in plotting, which Dr. Asimov excelled at. In this movie, it looks like the robots become sentient, plot a revolution against humans and DO harm us. Yuck.

I'll never understand it. Hollywood takes a loved book and then changes the characters and plot line and even the fundamental beliefs expressed in the writing. Then they plaster the author's name on the movie that no longer resembles their book! Hollywood thinks it will draw in people who have "heard" about the book (through the title), but then don't seem to care it will seriously **** off those people who have actually READ the book! Yuck, again.

So why do "I, Robot" in the first place? Change the name of the female scientist to something other than Susan Calvin (all the other characters seem made up just for this movie), pay a little homage to Dr. Asimov by saying these robots have "Asimov Laws" imprinted in their positronic brains, then give the movie a new title. There! Now you may draw SF fans and Asimov fans won't be so pissed off because you used completely different characters, plots, situations, ideals, etc.

Oh, well. As usual, leave it to Hollywood to screw up a good thing. My horror increases as I learn the guy who wrote this is also working on a movie version of..."Foundation" by Isaac Asimov!! ("Hey, I know, Mr. Producer! The Mule is actually a hot babe who can kickbox!")

Yuck!

[weatherc]

My horror increases as I learn the guy who wrote this is also working on a movie version of..."Foundation" by Isaac Asimov!! ("Hey, I know, Mr. Producer! The Mule is actually a hot babe who can kickbox!")

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. I would've done a massive spit-take on my monitor...

[mike alexander]

...and she fights Vin Diesel playing Preem Palver...

[nomuse]

I thought I caught a moment in one preview where a giant mob of robots runs at another giant mob of robots, hinting that the problem may be with a less than total population. But I might have imagined seeing that. I was in process of rewinding the Tom Baker 4-episode story "Robot," which seems likely to have a more complex moral view than anything this latest movie will offer.

[kanon14]

i like the concept Audi car in the trailer tho

[Paul Beardsley]

I think The Bear's summing up is pretty accurate.

Hollywood has been a travesty-monster for some time now, and is showing no sign of letting up from its warped nature. What with the 2002 abomination of The Time Machine, it is hard to imagine things getting any worse.

But here's an attempt.

Gospel: Jesus is finally brought low by Pontius Pilate. He's humiliated and crucified. But just when we thinks he's really lost, his righteousness allows him to rip himself free of the cross and he tosses the nails aside. He has a martial arts battle with Pilate. Pilate appears to be winning but just as he's floored Jesus, Jesus grits his teeth, copes with Pilate's taunts, and reaches out for one of the discarded nails and uses it to stab Pilate in the heart. Pilate dies angrily. Jesus makes a smartalec quip about the meek inheriting the Earth. Film ends with him in a clinch with Mary Magdalene. Loads of people - Christians and athiests alike - condemn the film for missing the point and completely misrepresenting the source material. Film is dubbed "controversial" and thus gains respect. Cycle continues.

[nomuse]

Back a long time ago the Harvard Lampoon captured this attitude perfectly in their "Book of Sequels."

Movie poster:

Gandhi II : This Time He's Mad!

[Ilya]

Back a long time ago the Harvard Lampoon captured this attitude perfectly in their "Book of Sequels."

Movie poster:

Gandhi II : This Time He's Mad!

Since he'd have to come back from the dead, why not?

[Ilya]

Gospel: Jesus is finally brought low by Pontius Pilate. He's humiliated and crucified. But just when we thinks he's really lost, his righteousness allows him to rip himself free of the cross and he tosses the nails aside. He has a martial arts battle with Pilate. Pilate appears to be winning but just as he's floored Jesus, Jesus grits his teeth, copes with Pilate's taunts, and reaches out for one of the discarded nails and uses it to stab Pilate in the heart. Pilate dies angrily. Jesus makes a smartalec quip about the meek inheriting the Earth. Film ends with him in a clinch with Mary Magdalene. Loads of people - Christians and athiests alike - condemn the film for missing the point and completely misrepresenting the source material. Film is dubbed "controversial" and thus gains respect. Cycle continues.

Have you considered applying for a job as a screenwriter?

[Paul Beardsley]

Have you considered applying for a job as a screenwriter?

I'll stick with prose fiction for the time being.

But you've got me thinking...

Paul

[Gullible Jones]

Ugghh. Popular Science magazine just had a little mini-article on it, which seeed to consider it a good movie. And didn't even mention how different it was from the collection of Asimov stories - or, for that matter, mention Asimov at all.

[Sever]

Considering that I recently decided to read I,Robot(It kept me up all night, and I'm possibly the only 14 year old in my province that would bother to read it).

It looks like it is related in name only.

(Like Starship Troopers. Now someone needs to do that one right!).

[SAMU]

I guess no one has read the Asimov "Robot" stories. This one looks, from the trailers, like the one where one robot has particular advances over the rest of the robots but is identical to them in every other way. A human killed the guy but the robot witnessed the killing and has to protect the killer because of the first law. The detective has to figure out which of the robots is the advanced one and sets up the girl falling to see which robot will or will not save her.

There are twists with force fields and fake force fields to trick the robot and that is how the robot is caught.

[Krel]

The bookstores now have editions of "I Robot" with Will Smith on the cover.

BASTAGES! (To quote "Johnny Dangerously)

The movie isn't even based on "I Robot", it's based on "Caves of Steel". Very loosely, extrememly loosely, "Time Machine" remake loosely. Someone heard some names, and terms from the book loosely.

The only up side I can see to this is that it may trick some people into buying a good book expecting a novelization of that travesty.

David.

[Lycus]

It looks like it is related in name only.

I noticed that on the IMDB page, Asimov is only credited with "suggested by book", while they credit Jeff Vintar with the "screen story" (in addition to the "screenplay").

[Ut]

Even ignoring the horribly misleading name, the movie looks awful. The trailers look to make it out as an action/thriller with some sort of warning against being lazy and letting automated devices do all your work for you, but they fail. It just looks stupid. The robots don't look robotic, the action looks unnatural, and the story reeks of the "same ol' same ol'"

[Paul Beardsley]

I guess no one has read the Asimov "Robot" stories. This one looks, from the trailers, like the one where one robot has particular advances over the rest of the robots but is identical to them in every other way. A human killed the guy but the robot witnessed the killing and has to protect the killer because of the first law. The detective has to figure out which of the robots is the advanced one and sets up the girl falling to see which robot will or will not save her.

There are twists with force fields and fake force fields to trick the robot and that is how the robot is caught.

Sounds more like a story from The Rest Of The Robots.

But frankly, I just don't have the faith in film-makers any more. I went to see the atrocious pretend-you-never-saw-it 2002 version of The Time Machine, the movie equivalent of a war crime called A.I., and the thirteen-people-walked-out-of-the-cinema remake of Solaris. So if someone adapts a classic Asimov, they should be proactively announcing, "Yes, the original text spoke to us and we are doing our best to capture the spirit of it." If they do not make such a proactive announcement, I honestly think we can reasonably assume that they are travesty-merchants.

In short, I'm not suggesting that people boycott the film. I am merely suggesting that people make the choice not to go and see it. I doubt it'll make much difference, but you never know...

[Sever]

Actully the story with the force fields is from I Robot. (I read it a few days ago, and loved it).

[Lycus]

Here's a bit of the screenplay's history from IMDB:

The movie originally started as a screenplay entitled "Hardwired", a classical-style murder mystery that read like a stage play, and was very much in the spirit of Asimov's "three laws" mysteries. When the original "Hardwired" script eventually reached Fox, after being developed at Disney with director Bryan Singer, new director Alex Proyas and writer Jeff Vintar opened up the story to fit a big budget studio film. When Fox acquired the rights to Isaac Asimov's story collection, Vintar spent two years adapting "Hardwired" to serve as a tenth story in the Asimov canon, complete with Susan Calvin and the Three Laws of Robotics. Writer Akiva Goldsman came on late in the process to tailor the script to Will Smith.

And here's some commentary on the subject.