I, Robot.. Big Willie style

[Haddas]

That'd be totally awesome!






...WHAT?!?

[LGM]

They could've at least shown Liv Tyler in a see-thru gown or something

[Sylpher]

Yeah, I saw the trailer a couple weeks back and, although LGM is right it is hard to say anything without seeing the movie. What I have seen is horrible.

So considering all we have to go off of is the trailer then the movie at this point is.. poo. A part of me knew it was gonna happen but the rest of me didn't want it too.. Oh well, another classic bites the dust..

[LGM]

Well.. Having not read the book.. I don't really care if it's an actual adaptation or not. If it's a good movie, it's a good movie. If it's poo, it's poo. LOTR wasn't necessarily good because of how well it followed the book (or didn't) It was good, because PJ made it that way.

Ergo, If the screenwriter of "I, Robot" can make an interesting story, and the director can make it look good.. Then it will be a good movie. Fuck the book. If you want to be a close minded cynic, just stick with the book and read it while curled in a ball rocking back and forth giggling to yourself and drooling whilst cursing the movie industry.

So basically.. Shut up and watch the movie.

Sorry to be so irritable, but I see these reactions far too many times.. And as an aspiring movie director, I don't want this to happen to me if I decide to make my AGS experiences into a movie and turn CJ into a hot, sexy blonde bikini babe.

[Sylpher]

Well Mr. huffy pants. There is a little thing called respect and fucking admiration. Proyas, from what we have seen, has taken all the psychological and ethical ideas Asimov brought out in his books and taken a nice big fat turd on them. I don't care how good the movie is. Don't call it 'Based on an Isaac Asimov book' If you are going to go against everything the book is talking about and ideas it is trying to get across.

It is like someone making an adaptation of the bible and making Jesus a little more bad ass and possibly wearing a leather jacket saying "aaaaeeeiiii" all the time and rather then teaching with love and understanding he uses his trusty sword-chucks. If it works fine... But don't call it the bible.. Because last time I read it, that isn't how it happened.

There is no reason for this movie to be called I, Robot.. No reason for it to be affiliated with Asimov. No reason for it to even be respected on any sort of level as Asimov has gained because Proyas is bullshitting his way through the movie. This is 100% evident through the trailer.

So keep swallowing your watered down mind numbing simplistic bullshit adoptions. Maybe one day you will gain a comprehension that a story goes much deeper then plot.

[Las Naranjas]

There is an argument, which many of these people would use, that should you choose to make a film, using another's trademark [as it were] for something of a different nature [if it involves robots as a threat it's the antithesis of the underlying basis of all Asimov robot stories].

If it's a good film, it needn't use a title of a more or less unrelated product to sell itself, perhaps misleadingly.

I won't cast judgement not having seen the trailer, but I will mention that Proyas is a charlatan.

In short, I don't think anyone here would mind the title I, Robot being applied to a film where robots are governed by the three laws, and is thus thematically similar.

But if it's a film with a golem or Frankenstein complex [that life/intelligence created by humanity will inevitably work against it], well, it'd be like fighting a bloody battle in Gandhi's name. It doesn't quite work.

But hey, branding is the name of the game.

[LGM]

meh.. I just think back to the trailer for Supernova.. The trailer for Supernova made it look actioned packed, funny, and great.Ã,  But then it turned out to be a bit boring and crappier than it led the audience to believe.

Maybe this is what the trailer is doing.. Making the movie seem like one thing, but actually is another.. It could be to draw people that wouldn't normally see a movie of that nature..

I don't know if I'm making sense.. But if you are correct about Asimov not writing about Robots being a menace.. Then truly the movie is messed up.. Because if I'm not mistaken.. The robot kills a human, no?

And I wasn't being huffy.. I'm just sick of people bitching about a movie that hasn't even come out yet. If I, Robot turns out to be another Planet of the Apes, THEN your bitching will be justified..

I'm just saying.. Trailers sometimes are misleading.

[Las Naranjas]

Well, provided the murder is done by a twisting of the 3 laws, it's alright, but otherwise...

[Sylpher]

Couple of Asimovs basic ideas..

Robots are not dangerous using logic (Edit: Well las brought it up. But still robots are not dangerous using logic.. Doesn't mean humans are angels)
Robots replacing manual labor creates new jobs for humans not take them away
Robots don't leap out of buildings and do gravity defying leaps off of cars and crush tables
Robots are not gonna take over the world in some crazy mad scientist evil plot for world domination

[Las Naranjas]

To put it more specific.

Before Asimov there existed the Golem complex. Asimov decided that, as we put seatbelts in cars, parachutes in planes and fuses in electrical boxes, it would be completely irrational that humans would make robots without safety mechanisms. These he surmised int eh form of the three laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_Of_Robotics which forms the basis of the brains of all robots in his stories [on a side note, the Oxford English Dictionary cites Asimov as the creator of the word Robotics, much to his surprise].

He then wrote many many stories describing various ways in which the laws could be twisted, fail, be misused etc.

[Barcik]

Well, provided the murder is done by a twisting of the 3 laws, it's alright, but otherwise...

As it seems, it begins pretty much like the Caves of Steel, with a robot being the main suspect of a murder. But from there onwards, it seems to freak out, with robots going crazy etc.

[on a side note, the Oxford English Dictionary cites Asimov as the creator of the word Robotics, much to his surprise].

About what he later wrote:

"As time went by, I made other discoveries that delighted me. I found for instance, that when I used the word 'robotics' to describe the study of robots, I was not using a word that already existed but had invented a word that had never been used before.
The word has now come into general use. There are journals and books with the word in the title and it is generally known in the field that I invented the term. Don't think I'm not proud of that. There are not many people who have coined a useful scientific term, and although I did it unknowingly, I have no intention of letting anyone in the world forget it."

He's a funny guy when writing about himself.

[Czar]

Ind. Day has 4 sequels???