I, Robot: Classics Butchery Vol. 284.
The trailer is out, and I couldn't be more disappointed. Even the website sucks. When will I stop expecting Hollywood to do the right thing?
The most remarkable aspect of 'I, Robot' is the establishment of the immutable Three Laws of Robotics:
(1) A robot should have a good action scene where he is shooting up a crowd from a motorcycle in slow motion.
(2) A robot should get involved in a good sex scene to show his human side. Think Matrix II.
(3) A robot must plug a product or use product placement as long as such protection does not conflict with the First and Second Laws.
scartol unit, your probability matrices need recalibration. Report at once to depot ZZ plural Z-alpha for artificial brain inspection, wax and polish.
It's similar to Minority Report. They take one basic idea from the book/story, then write their own story here. In 'I, Robot', they keep the idea of robots and the the 3 laws, but just got rid of everything else. I, too, am disappointed.
ZZ plural Z-alpha.. hmm.. I once went to a really good party in that sector..
Since the initial trailer, I wasn't expecting anything from this except a fun action film. Would it help if they just called it something different, like "Robots Gone Wild"? I don't think they even planned to link it to Asimov's stories until late in the game. It probably would have been easier for them to sell if they hadn't tried to link it, but whether I see the film or not will have no bearing on the fact that it shares a title with an Asimov book.
holy pissing on asimov's grave, scartol. i mean, i've heard of taking creative liberty with the storyline to adapt it to the big screen, but just making shit up to have an action movie? i was worried when i saw it starred will smith (didn't seem like he'd be a good choice to play a female robopsychologist, right?) but now i see that (a) he's a cop, not a robopsychologist, (b) there's nothing there about the history of robotics as asimov wrote it, and (c) none of the more interesting storylines from the book appear to have even been considered.
i realize that the discontinuous, short-story format of the book would make it hard to adapt as a whole, but there were some very good bits there that could be fleshed out - the "is he a man, is he a robot" story? that would have been cool to see, for example. but a collection of short intrigue bits wouldn't be appealing to the mainstream, just to the asimov fans, so instead of being faithful to the original intents the writers just took a good premise for a movie, and turned it into another forgettable shoot-em-up thriller, taking the standard "machines are bad and they will eventually kill us all if we don't stop them" line straight from the terminator movies. oh, how original. i half wonder if this isn't the result of an existing robot-based storyline gathering dust, and some director stumbling across it and thinking "hey if we put asimov's name on it people will flock to the theater!"
i also can't help but cynically wonder if the producers decided asimov's decidedly strong female lead character needed to be replaced by a strong macho male in order to collect the big bucks at the box office. yep, chicks can only bring in dough as eye candy or skin shows, not by being intellectal and strong-willed. that makes them bitchy, and nobody likes a bitch (but the same qualities in a guy? oh yeah, that makes him cool like will smith). i bet the robopsychologist is in the movie, but reduced to a flimsy one-sided "damsel in need of rescuing/love interest" character rather than the driving force behind the story. frickin' hollywood wankers.
the only thing that might save this (and i doubt it would be enough, even still) would be if this were actually a takeoff of the one story in the book dealing with a robot with incomplete laws - except that took place on a space station, not on earth. we will just have to see.
also, yet another movie telling us to fear technology, produced using the finest piles of silicon-chip filled, superpowerful graphics computers in hollywood. strike anyone else as a little ironic?
yep, frogs is an asimov geek. guess that's out of the bag now, hey?
yep, chicks can only bring in dough as eye candy or skin shows, not by being intellectal and strong-willed.
Oh, wait for the upcoming Foundation movie. Seldon's colony may be all female, bisexual, and constantly naked, but they're smart.
I can't wait for the porno version of this:
I, disrobe-a-lot.
MonkeyFilter: female, bisexual, and constantly... oh, you get the idea.
Seldon's colony may be all female, bisexual, and constantly naked, but they're smart.
You're thinking Heinlein.
Tonight on FOX: When Robots Attack!
I thought the title was stolen from the story collection, but part of the story from "Little Lost Robot" and part from Caves of Steel. Is Will Smith suposed to be Elijah Bailey?
And yeah - they just so don't grok Asimov. They could have taken Caves of Steel, and made an interesting murder mystery that meanders through musings on technology, overpopulation, poverty, unemployment, and the future of humanity - but instead they made an evil robot kills people movie. Asimov != action.
Yeah, this is about as close to heresy as you can get, in my sci-fi multiuniverse/multiplex.
I've always hoped and dreaded the adaptation of the Robot novels -- they really could be fantastic movies, if handled intelligently, as jb says, which is obviously NOT happening here.
(And, yeah, I think Willie is supposed to be Elijah.)
I'm going to avoid the movie and pretend it didn't happen; plus continue to be happy that LOTR turned out as well as it did, and wait impatiently for ROTK:EE.
Is there much news/gossip about the Foundation movie? *goes off to google*
I must agree with the MoFi's overall sentiment. "I, robot" is going to be a utter pile of dogshit. Why, Alex Proyas? Why!?
*shakes fist
Curse you, Hollywood!
I remember sitting in a tree one hot summer afternoon when I was 13 reading 'I, Robot' and thinking how utterly fantastic it would be if Asimov's book would be the basis for a movie.
I was young, then, and had many illusions.
You're thinking Heinlein.
*coffee spray*
Really the only reason I would want to get into Hollywood now would be to produce some DECENT FUCKING MOVIES! There are so many great stories out there that would make awesome movies, but I dread what those assholes would do with them.
Hi, first comment here on MoFi.
This is something that has brought back my rage in recent times, what with Asimov being who brought me into reading some of the good sci-fi (and he was a fellow biochemist to boot!). I was going to make a comment here on how a large portion of my non-geek friends are quite fond of Bicentennial Man, but checking the box office results over at IMDB shows that it made $7 million less than its budget so I guess that there is an unfortunate precedent for fubaring Asimov's stories.
Welcome Mr. Logan! We're glad to have you around.
I'd like to know why every robot movie ends up with robots turning on humans. Honestly. Why can't it be more like the Jetsons? A robot with a snappy comeback, instead of a hunger for world domination? Who can I blame for my irrational fear of robots?
My copy of 'I, Robot' is somewhere in the attic at the moment but I may have to dig it out.
The way I remember it, the robopsychologist was only in one (or maybe two, my memory is hazy on that) of the stories...It was called "Liar!"
I'm not sure any character in that book could be called 'main'...she certainly is the most memorable tho. I think her name was Susan, for some reason. and I think he brought her back in later books.
Will Smith, I'm thinkin' would be great in a screen adaptation of Alfred Bester's 'Fondly Farenheit'. Not that I'd watch it. Too fuckin creepy.
I hate going up into the attic. Gonna have to now, tho. Have to bring down Clifford Simak's 'City' too (been thinkin' about that one since the end-of-the-world thread.)
God luck in the attic... I'm sure there's no robot lurking, waiting for you... [evil grin]
I loathe Will Smith. The goofy, tough exterior with a golden-nugget-inside character he always plays irks me. What can i say.
Sci-fi has an abismal record regarding book-to-movie big projects Blade Runner couldbe spared, as it's not very much like teh book, but still a great film.
Thanks, fes. It's been forever since I've managed a good spit-take.
flagpole I was just thinking if Hollywood did the movie, it would be all about the goofy/tough/chewy-nougat-inside cop on the trail of a sadistic, murdering robot and his sociopathic owner.
No luck on the attic foray, tho I did find my James Thurber books.
I hate Asimov's books anyway. Too much exposition. I found him dull.
Anyone who expected anything better than this from Hollywood was foolin' themselves, to be honest.
Nostril, he never got over being paid by the word. For that matter, neither did Heinlein. (HEY! I just found my Berkeley Books Bowlderized version of 'Stranger In a Strange Land!' they TOTALLY cut out the best parts.)
(and look! the Compleat Works of Joanna Russ!)
I'm not opposed to big long books, as long as they aren't boring.
Why can't it be more like the Jetsons? A robot with a snappy comeback, instead of a hunger for world domination?
But then how would the writers reassure the audience that humans are all-powerful, and also prettier, smarter, and better than everything else in the entire universe, which, by the way, revolves around them, and that they always will be the center of the universe and nothing will ever, ever be better than they are at anything at all, even snappy comebacks?
And they make very, very easy cop-out antagonists. Something complicated and powerful that they don't understand? Large swath of the audience is freaked out right there.
And the violence against bots it's easy to justify for a PG-13 rating.
Will anybody think of the bots!!
Nostril, maybe I was fooling myself but this being a Proyas film I expected something more decent. Although, thinking back, Proyas' Dark City was about human individuality against hive mentality. So there was no surprise anyway on how this one will turn out.
And Nostril, I don't know why you have to trash Asimov. But if you are going to pile on long boring exposition I must defend him saying that his expositions were quite short and on the point compared to more maistream technotrillers and the like.
I'm not 'trashing' Asimov. You don't have to defend the old bugger, Zemat. Fiction, like music or humour (or anything else, for that matter) is largely subjective. Just because I found him boring (and it was the Foundation Trilogy that did it for me, I well remember throwing the first book across the room) doesn't mean that he actually *is*. Jut my opinion. Usually, it was his first 4 chapters, IIRC. Mind you, this is coming from a dued who read the entire Lord of the Rings in 1 day, when I was 15. I didn't stop to eat. Many people I know find Tolkien interminably dull. I also like the Star Wars movies, which my wife *hates*. If we all liked the same things..
..I'd invite you over for a beer. As it is.. fuck off.
Just kidding :P
hollywood just doesn't get it, i guess. the time it takes to make one really good, thoughtful, true-to-form, honest movie to please the people who care? yeah, they would rather use that time to churn out three forgettable "blockbusters" that hit the bargain bin a week after they come out on dvd, because the average dolt already watched it five times in the theater just to see the cow explode again.
sadly the peter jacksons out there are the minority. and a lot of the ones who were good in the past now seem hell-bent on screwing over their filmmaking cred for the sake of making a few more bucks. i mean, solo firing FIRST, mr. lucas? you're a colossal ass, you know that? thank you for ruining my fond memories of youth, and kindly go to hell. ps: hire a screenwriter and try building some non-virtual setpieces for the next episode, you pompous buffoon.
A cow explodes????
I am TOTALLY going to go and see this film.
Mind you, this is coming from a dued who read the entire Lord of the Rings in 1 day, when I was 15.
Wow! Let me be the one that invites you the beer.
*sees trailer*
*cries*
*rams head repeatedly against wall to remove the pain*
And I thought Bicentennial Man was bad enough. Boy, was I every wrong wrong wrong.
ever. ever.
Another site summed up this movie perfectly.
Asimov. Rape.
There real tragedy here is that the character of Susan Calvin, as Asimov's recurring character was originally written, was an Oscar caliber role (or insert whatever actor award you consider worthy of respect). It could have been a career and cinema defining part for one of the great mature actresses.
Instead, we get about 5 minutes of Judi Dench in Chronicles of Riddick.
Dued! Where's my Mars?
I, for one, welcome will not be seeing this movie.
Hmm, just read Rendevous with Rama for the first time and it made me think of some of the few and far between nice thoughtful sci-fi films out there. Apparently, they were planning to do a film version of Rama with Morgan Freeman as Commander Norton. Now I can't find a trace of it on IMDb. Probably just as well. The studios probably would just hand it to Joel "Yeah I made Batman and Robin--it was great" Schumacher.
Of course Alex Proyas doing in Asimov is a bit hard to stomach. Say it ain't so, Alex!
Does anyone else here make films? It may be time for the Monkeyfilter coup of Hollywood.
What, like a movie version of the Free State Project or are we talking the more fun, violent type, poo flinging kind of coup?
Easy niccolo, first MeFi, then Hollywood. Next, the world!!!
welcomewill not be seeing this movie.