Well.. Saying "I told you so" would be an understatement...
I, Robot was great! Just enough action, blended excellently with actual PLOT. Characters with real emotions and discussions actually fill the screen instead of CG Mayhem (well, there was plenty of that aswell. But it was nothing compared to Van Helsing.)
The story was excellent. It made enough sense, but it wasn't too confusing. The action was quite impressive, and not too overly grand.
Sure, it doesn't follow the actual book "I, Robot" itself at all.. But I don't really think that's the point. The book is set in an Asimov-like universe, and deals with Asimov elements. It's about a robot being created to have free will and "emotions". The title surely makes sense.
Everybody just assumed that because the name was "I, Robot" it was going to be a direct adaptation to the book. But since when do movie studios do that? Never... Well, harldy ever. The movie was just suggested by the writing of Asmiov.. No where did it ever say that the movie was based directly off the book.
It may suck that this happaned, yes.. But Asimov fans can stop worrying that Big Willie has ruined the name of the author.. Because the film is great, and I think brings a good message. In fact, I WANT to read Asimov's works now.
Meh.. Anyways.. I hope some of the whiners out there (not just here) got/get over themselves and just see the damn movie. It's a pleasent surprise.
Will Smith is a fantastic actor when given a decent part.
Exactly.. But he still brought through some of his token one-liners.. But you can't have a summer action flick without some of them :-p.. It just adds charm, I guess. But sometimes made him seem not so serious as he should've been..
I hope you cry yourself to sleep at night.
LOL
I was thinking along similar lines, Sylph. I guess LGM likes the same old re-hashed cliche plot of "I knew that those nasty varmints were to blame all along! I tolds ya so!!" I, Robot takes Asimov's 3 Rules and flushes them down the toilet, thereby making it cliche... Asimov wrote those rules for the reason that his stories wouldn't become cliche.
"Sure, it doesn't follow the actual book "I, Robot" at all.. But I don't really think that's the point. The book is set in an Asimov universe, and deals with Asimov elements."
And, you have no clue what you are talking about. Hope it goes down nice cause when it comes out later it is gonna be smelly..
The truth is, Asimov hated such stories.
Woot, I cant wait to see this movie!!!!!!!!!!
Bah.. If the name was something else, no-one would be bitching about it.. now would they?
Maybe not, but the name isn't something else. This is a movie that shouts "HI, I'M BASED ON ASIMOV'S WORKS!" at your face, then (judging from basically everything I've read about it, though admittedly I haven't seen it) proceeds to dump everything that made Asimov interesting and gives the audience a bunch of explosions and Will Smith and whatnot instead.
LGM, so perhaps the name of the movie SHOULD have been named something else?
For instance, say the next Batman movie had Spiderman instead of Batman. I would go see the film solely on the chance of seeing Batman. Once dissapointed, I would bitch to everyone I know that it wasn't even a batman movie.
You however, would claim "so what? the movie was pretty good anyway." ?
I agree.
The movie was a good watch, but after coming out, I'm quite sure I didn't go and see "I, Robot". Instead, I think the cinema's changed their mind, and ended up showing "Black Man in leather versus the machines with emotions who like to fight" instead. I, Robot is a story of the mind, and how humans - in all our 'knowledge' - succeed in screwing up time and time again.
This Will Smith movie - though it is a good watch -Ã, was disappointing for the fact that it was SUPPOSED to be based on the book. Now - I know it didn't actually say 'based on Asimov's book', but then again, You didn't need Lord of The Rings to say "based on the trilogy by J.R.R Tolkien." Or did you?
It's just a given. If people are stupid enough to borrow titles basic plot lines from a book, then why SHOULDN'T they follow the WHOLE plot? And if they don't intend to do it - what gives them the right to title it after the book?
The answer? : None whatsoever.
Go, you guys! I may well see the movie, and it may well be a fantastic movie on it's own, but the fact that it used that title and makes no effort whatsoever to follow the original work is just stupid and fans are well justified in bitching. Borrowing the idea would've been fine, but when you borrow the title and consequently, the reputation for either established fan-base or lack of imagination, you have a certain responsibility to the creator.
Well, basically.. Originally it was a script called "Hotwired", I believe.. It had the same premise almost.. But the studio that greenlighted the script had recently aquired film rights to Asimov's work.. So they modified the script to incorporate the three laws and some Asimov elements. They knew from the start it wasn't going to be a direct adaptation of "I, Robot" It's very hard to accurately adapt anything these days, really.
Sure, they used the title.. But so what? The movie makes sense.. It might not match perfectly with the same views of Asimov, but it's still relevant.
I understand why everyone is upset.. But it's really not that big of a deal. I'm just mad because people are shitting on a perfectly good movie...
Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 20/07/2004 06:54:35
Sure, they used the title.. But so what? The movie makes sense.. It might not match perfectly with the same views of Asimov, but it's still relevant.
The point is not relevant or not, it's
disrespectful, I never read the book nor watch the movie, but judging from the arguments, the movie is something that Asimov would never write (if not completely
against his idea).
Considering it's a movie alone it can be great, but using that name... It can only be considered crap.
Holy crap, this discussion/argument/debate/bitch-session sounds familiar.
Where have I seen it before?
Oh wait, I know, it was here (http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=15075.0) except it was Alice in Wonderland instead of I, Robot.
I think I used a good expression to describe such instances. I believe it was "raping the corpse" -- as in the way the producers of I, Robot (the movie) have defiled the dead body of Asimov.
But you miss a little point LGM.
It's not that it's not exactly asimovian, is the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories.
He often complained about the "Frankenstein" complex, that extended from the Golem to the present, that human's shouldn't create something because it would turn on them.
Since he considered this to be absolutely absurd, since human's would create safe guards, he wrote all his stories on the basis of those safe guards apparently failing and not.
Anything with "Robots as a threat" is diametrically opposed.
I can't really comment on the film itself, although it looks derivative and Proyas is a charaltan, but really, adapt a book title, use it's ideas in a different context, but using a title to show the exact opposite concept, that's really not on.
just wondering but is this movie anthing like "AI" (artificail(sp) inteligence) because it looks very similar, same plot
maybe it just me
-Daz
I havent seen it, but I guess it would be something along the lines of a Planet of the Apes but with robots. But seriously, it cant be terrible. You guys need to spend less time talking crap about the movie and how it isnt like the book and spend more time pimping the book itself if its so great.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 20/07/2004 08:02:15
Holy crap, this discussion/argument/debate/bitch-session sounds familiar.
Where have I seen it before?
Oh wait, I know, it was here (http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=15075.0) except it was Alice in Wonderland instead of I, Robot.
I think I used a good expression to describe such instances. I believe it was "raping the corpse" -- as in the way the producers of I, Robot (the movie) have defiled the dead body of Asimov.
That was very different, though, as American McGee's Alice is clearly based on Lewis Carroll's stories, while I, Robot just appropriates the name for something that has almost nothing to do with Asimov's book.
As for the necrophilia, the canonical example has got to be this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-10-15).
It doesn't matter how many times a person tries to rationalise between the two, I can still hear the ghosts of Carroll and Asimov violently screaming while their corpses get majorly screwed.
I'm quite interested in seeing this - because of the name, it had people biased against it by default, yet it looks like it's going to come out of it all with a decent reputation as a film in its own right.
I think a film must have something pretty worthwhile about it to achieve that kind of turnaround, just as the way Terminator 3 has apparently managed to largely overcome the massive "there's no Cameron" backlash suggests to me that it's almost certainly worth checking out (though I still haven't gotten round to it).
The whole name thing *is* rather shitty behaviour on their part, but at least they were honest enough to not pretend they were trying to make a straight adaption - there have probably been worse crimes made under a full "based on" credit.
Yes.. Suggested by and Based on are totally different things. :-p
Anyways, yes.. Terminator 3 was a good watch.. But the ending just is a let down. Oh well, still see it. It's worth it.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 20/07/2004 08:33:12
But you miss a little point LGM.
It's not that it's not exactly asimovian, is the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories.
He often complained about the "Frankenstein" complex, that extended from the Golem to the present, that human's shouldn't create something because it would turn on them.
Since he considered this to be absolutely absurd, since human's would create safe guards, he wrote all his stories on the basis of those safe guards apparently failing and not.
I assume that you're talking about the three laws of robotics. I'm not familiar with Asimov's work (though I plan to give either I, Robot or The Complete Robot a whirl at some point in the near future), and I've yet to see the film, but from what I understand the revolts/apparent malfunctioning et cetera you see in the trailer is not down to ignorance of the three laws (which actually feature in one of the trailers, and I believe the films opening), but due to the inclusion of a zeroth law - 'No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm' - which I hear did actually show up in Asimov's stories (although admittedly not in any of those contained within I, Robot).
I'm not defending the film as a whole - I've yet to see it, after all - but if I understand correctly what you are saying and if what I have read about the film is true, that particular criticism would seem to be an unfair one.
There is a zeroeth law? I never knew that. From the Asimov books I have read, the 1st law seemed to suffice, even enough to encompass this zeroeth law you talk about. But then again, I only read 3 or 4 of his books. Do you know which book/story has this?
I didn't know off the top of my head, but I googled around a bit and apparently it appears in Robots and Empire.
Well.. If you really must know WHY the robots do not "follow" the three laws, I shall include a spoiler.
Spoiler
Okay.. So the big USR Mainframe computer, VIKI, has direct control over the upling to the new NS-5s, correct? And the running theme in the film is that eventually, through code anomallys "Ghosts in the machines", robots inevitably will evolve. So VIKI evolves, and sees past the laws. She still wants to protect humans, but the laws never state the method of this.. Do they? So VIKI gets the clever Idea to protect the humans from themselves. This is how and why you see scenes of robots attacking people, etc. Because they are resisting being under the control of robots. Not each individual robot is doing this on it's own "free will" either, it's basically VIKI.. The one who has evolved.
I know this is a big mess.. It is in my head too because I suck at explaining things. But the robot, Sonny, was programmed with the ability to ignore the three laws, kind-of like free will. It was programmed with emotions, etc. VIKI is similar in a way that she's evolved, but she still follows the three laws.. Just not the same way. She still is trying to protect humans, from themselves. She's trying to prevent wars, pollution, etc. by restraining the humans..
*pant* yea, I dunno if you can make much sense of that.. But it really DOES make sense if you just watch the damn movie.
This movie blew.
I've been more entertained by certain bowel movements.
Oh well.
Bt
The concept of the Zeroth Law takes a minor form in the book
Robots of DawnSpoiler
A robot decides that by allowing humaniform robots (those that look and behave nearly like humans) might, in time, cause humanity to be harmed.Ã, Thus, he decides that he must stop them from being a viable solution.
It is an important part of the plot in the Foundation books, all of which I HIGHLY recommend.Ã, Particularly
Prelude to FoundationÃ, I want to read
Positronic Man the basis for the movie
Bicentennial Man Ã, There was another I read recently that was excellent, if odd.Ã, Shortly after its writing, Asimov apologized, he underestimated the lethal nature of radiation, but the story is good anyway.
Then I can base my non willingness to watch the film on the basis that Proyas is a charlatan.
He struck a few good chords with The Crow, but man, Dark City and Garage Days....maaaaan.
I thought Bicentennial man was based on Bicentennial man! It is a short story, which I happen to own in the Complete Robot book
What was wrong with Dark City?
Apart from the posturing, the self conscious cinematography that distracted rather that illuminated, the absolutely tortured acting, that lack of insight, warmth and real emotion, the ill conceived pursual of the steampunk aesthetic, the absolutely tortured acting, the reams of pointless and sophistical rhetoric, direction designed to appeal to those who want to see direction tricks to appease some need to feel they have a cinematic eye [which means it's obvious and layered on top of the film rather than being worked in] and the absolutely tortured acting?
If you want a single reason, the doctor....gives one of the worst.....performances....I have....ever seen....and.....it's a result....of direction....that has no understand....of character....and serves......only to.....infuriate the audience....whilst producing nothing.....and holding no.....redeeming features......
Cardinal sin.
--edit--
And Bicenttenial Man was based on Bicentennial Man, being originally written for a [never produced] anthology of stories based on the theme of the US Centennial celebrations, the was a dispute over the name however as a result, so in some areas the name may have changed.
Sadly, the reasons you list don't really appear to ME when i watch it. I liked it because of the atmosphere and characters and direction. The doctor wasn't poorly acted... in fact I liked how he was. He didn't talk like that because he sucked at acting like a deranged doctor.. he talked like that because of some condition (I can't remember if they say what it is)
I personally think it's a nice film. Why is it that all the films I like are films other people think suck? GAH
I read the credits for Bicentennial Man, and I thought it said "Based on the book The Positronic Man by Isaac Asimov" or something to that effect. I LOVED that movie, and I wanted to read the basis, since I was fairly sure it was an Asimov story. I could have misread it, though.
As for I Robot, I want to see it, cause every Will Smith movie that people say sucked, I happened to like a lot. :)
To lgm's defence, I happened to like Dark City too, though Kiefer Sutherland wasn't exactly a strong character in it.
And Bicentennial man WAS based on Bicentennial man, though I remember an interview where someone admitted to including Asimov influences along the way.
The more I think about it, though, the more I'm beginning to dislike I, Robot. It's unjustified, but the more I read about people telling me to appreciate a movie for what it is, despite the fact that it obviously claims to boast the plot from a successful novel and then deviates greatly from it and tries to go all matrix-esque in a way that dismally fails, the more stubborn I become in my view that the directors have done some major brain crapping.
"The Bicentennial Man" is a story by Asimov. "The Positronic Man" is a novel based on that story, written in cooperation with Robert Silverberg.
Dark City is awesome ^_^ I love that movie... it may not be a blockbuster but it's just a good, fun movie to watch.
I looked up IMDB this afternoon and it had the following headline in the news:
'Robots To Invade Australia'
Naturally, I freaked out and tried to find the nearest weapon, which was a can of air freshener. (That'll teach those robots to smell bad!)
Then I actually read the news story. It's been confirmed. There will be a sequel. And it's going to filmed in Australia.
And the title?
I, Robot II :-\
They should name the sequel "Foundation and Empire" just to drive Asimov fans even crazier.
Anything but "II, Robot".
Us, Robot would be also good.
Not as good as Yo, Robot though
I'm up for seeing a film with Will Smith, robots & guns, rather than a film thats an adaptation of a book, to be honest. So I'm fairly sure I won't be dissapointed. However, Smith's dialogue in the trailer was awful, I hope the full movie includes his usual acting/dialogue style.
Maddox has an interesting point of view: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot
He makes a good point ^_^ I was literally sitting there at the start of the movie with my mouth open, shocked at how utterly blatant the advertising was. It made me want to find Converse and force them to advertise latest release movies on their shoes.
What do you expect.. Alot of movies do product placement. It's how studios make money ._.
Wait a sec! Why do converse even have to advertise Converse all-stars. They are probably THE most popular shoes ever, and now come in a large range of colours. Vintage 2004?!!? Pfft, more like 1970-ish. The design has never been updated for christs sake! Which is nice. I have a blue pair and they are the best damn shoes ever. I wore my old pair out until the soles disintergrated.
And about the movie. I enjoyed it for what it was. A futuristic detective action-adventure.
Although I did notice the overuse of product placement.
I want some converse.. But every pair I tried was too small.. I went up to size 15 ._. At the time, i was only a size 13. Now I'm a 14.. Big feet, yes
I dont know, but If the old robots can be turned off then why did they leave them on in open crates?
Hm..
I liked the movie BUT, I have never read any of Asimov's works, and didn't know it was based on a book before afterwards..
Info about the whole thing here: http://www.asimovonline.com/
And an intresting fact:
There was an earlier attempt at a movie version of I, Robot, but it never made it to the screen. In 1969 the rights were optioned to Hollywood, but no progress was made toward making a movie until 1977, when Harlan Ellison, an award-winning author and friend of Asimov, was hired to write a screenplay. Ellison worked on it for a year, and created a screenplay that Asimov thought would make a truly marvelous film. But Hollywood did not have the nerve to make a movie from that screenplay, and the project was shelved. Ellison regained control of his work, and it was published in 1987 as I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay.
...Which popular bookstores have been stocking their shelves with recently. Strange coincidince or evil scheme to take over our minds!?!
More at 6..
You've been watching too much of the Fox News channel, Sylph
Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 27/07/2004 16:34:05
What do you expect.. Alot of movies do product placement. It's how studios make money ._.
Sure it is. Along with the huge bitching profit they make from cinema goers in the first place, and then all of the various movie/merchandise related sales after that.
LGM, are you defending them? :P I hate the argument, "That's the way it is". It's not necessary and it cheapens movies, so I think people have every right to be disgusted/annoyed/confused by it, whether it's a product they like or not. If that wasn't what you meant, then fine... I'm just getting a heads up on the argument. ^_^
I think the only kind of movie it works well in is a movie like Evolution, where they're making fun of the whole product placement thing.
They did it in Waynes World as well..
I wonder if it wasn't so obvious if there would be product placement in music. Or is there already?!
More at 6..
Most likely, there already is in filmclips... in the music itself, I don't think so. People might mention products in music but they probably don't get paid for it.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 28/07/2004 03:07:18
Most likely, there already is in filmclips... in the music itself, I don't think so. People might mention products in music but they probably don't get paid for it.
Lots of companies pay MTV to show music, they pay radio to play it (despite what you'd guess about licensing fees), and Fred Durst got famous by paying DJ's to play their music. Usually I think movies have to pay a fee to put music in, but it wouldn't be unheard of to hear of the opposite if it were a band that needed the publicity (though a name would need to be mentioned for it to have any forseeable commercial effect).
There's a huge number of Sony products in film clips by artists signed by Sony. It's quite funny.
A great example being the "Freestyler" song by Bomfunk whatsits or whatever which just involves a kid walking around controlling everyone with his sony mp3 player, and whom is only challenged by the kid with the Playstation.
Las: You're right. It was so strange and subliminal that I even didn't notice it when that film clip first came out. The only thing that stopped me from immediately buying an MP3 player or a playstation was that I thought it was a shitty song and a shitty video clip.
DG: 1
Consumerism: 0
Had it had more hookers and ninjas and hooker ninjas, I might just well have bought everything in the clip (including the hooker ninjas).
Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 27/07/2004 16:34:05
What do you expect.. Alot of movies do product placement. It's how studios make money ._.
Sure, but studios used to make profits without product placements. In fact, there are a lot of films today that can turn a profit without product placements. And I agree with one line especially in Maddox's article:
"What makes a good movie good and a movie like this cunny waft is that in a good movie, every shot counts; every word uttered has a purpose."As for companies paying MTV to promote certain film clips, I think someone owes Alan Freed a bigass appology (If he weren't dead, that is). Sure, what he did was as scummy as what MTV does today. But back then, they said it was illegal and now it's perfectly acceptable. And the guy's career was basically destroyed because of it.
I guess time does make dipshits of us all.
As for product placements, sure, movies do it. But
Ignore last line. Bah. Stupid laziness stopping from from logging in.
GAH!!!! >:(
Maddox actually summed up my opinions pretty well. I think Smith pissing on Isaac's grave is EXACTLY the right image.
Movie as a movie: 3/10
Movie as a book adaptation: -10/10
Product placement is a touchy topic.
A bad example of product placement is in SWAT where a character sees a sprite can and says, "Holy shit! I love sprite! Now what was that you said about terrorists?"
A good example of product placement is anytime in a story where a character tastefully uses a product without it effecting the story or presentation.Ã, For instance, in Mystic River Sean Penn has an emotional moment in front of a closet shelf full of Jello.Ã, But fortunately,Ã, he never turns around and says "Damn! We need more Jello!"Ã, Movies have to get money from somewhere;Ã, if a soda is written into the script- why not ask sprite to pitch in?
Now in Wayne's World, Evolution, Minority Report, and Demolition Man- those are all instances of real product placement.Ã, Even though their delivery was more humorous or innovative, they weren't entirely shameless.
Sure, but they did it without trying to LIE to us. Dirty, filthy LIES is what these other movies spread ... evil. Eeeeeeeviiiiiiil.
I think you should change "Good" and "Bad" product placement to something like "Obvious" and "Subtle" because I honestly don't feel that Sean Penn standing in front of a cupboard full of jello is good product placement :) In fact, it's all bad. It's just plain shitty that they do this. I hate advertisement! ARGH!!!
Movies lie to us anyway.Ã, That's the purpose of film - to perpetuate fantasy.Ã, Do you honestly want movies to say "Here comes product placement!!!" before every instance?
Listen, I hate advertisements too.Ã, I especially hate commercials.Ã, I hate how a potential thirty minute television show becomes 22 minutes due to ads.
That's why I like product placement as a subsitution for commercials. We could get stories with no interruptions.
Kinoko, I don't mean to offend you with "I once thought just like you" talkÃ, but viewing advertisements as evil is a fairly naive view.Ã, Shows such as Seinfeld, the Simpsons, Friends, Daily Show, Adult Swim, etc etc wouldn't exist without selling some sort of advertising spots.Ã, This is especially true for network television.
Get used to product placement and learn to love it,Ã, because TiVo is slowly going to phase out the use of commercials altogether.Ã, Advertisers can't get viewers to watch their ads, so naturally ads will blend into the content of the show.
I agree with kingsized that product placement is a touchy subject.
The Mystic River example is pretty interesting. I mean, is it better to have something that's obvious like I, Robot or something that subtle (or even subliminal) as Mystic River. Some would say the Mystic River example is worse because it's sneaky.
I think I do prefer the Mystic River type though, mainly because it doesn't take the focus away from the performance. I mean, it's a little difficult for advertising to affect you in a way that you think during the movie, "My god! Poor Sean Penn! He must be so sad over his daughter's death... Hmmm, I've got the munchies for some jello pudding!" We're still focused on Penn and Eastwood's direction doesn't take focus away from that. Where as in the SWAT example or the I, Robot example the focus is clearly taken away for a quick advert.
I mean, it really ticks me off that you go to a cinema and pay somewhere between $6-$15, then sit through 20-30mins worth of ads, and then have product placement up the wazoo during the actually movie. Meanwhile, film budgets are getting bigger but most of the films produced on a big budget are shitty anyway.
I think filmmakers need to learn to be creative while using less money. Having a big budget makes things too easy. It's far creative to make something with hardly any money because you're using more thought into overcoming challenges in filmmaking.
But as kingsized also implies, it's naive to think this way.
By the way, naive spelt backwards is EVIAN! BUY EVIAN!
I used to be extremely pissed off about the price of movie-going.
I still am really.Ã, But it breaks down like this:
$6-8 ticketÃ, --Ã, goes almost entirely to the Studio, not the theatre.
Hence theatres are going mad raising prices for popcorn, sodas, and making no outside food and drink rules.Ã, They make most of their money on concessions.Ã, And they are struggling.Ã, The equipment it takes (bulbs, projectors, sound) to keep up with Hollywood is tremendously expensive.
Regal Cinema, the largest exhibition chain in the US, has made it a LAW in their theatres to show atleast aÃ, minimum number of ads before movie trailers.Ã, AND most theatres play slides even before showing commercials.
Really, all you need to understand is that your money and consumership is going to several places.Ã, Ã, The studios make risks with box-office flops like Catwoman, and hope to break even with another movie later (therefore the trailers).Ã, And the theatres get no percentage if one movie does better than another, they just simply need you to buy popcorn and they need advertisers to buy ads.
---I edited out my idea because I want to do more research on it ---- :) sorry dg
I could justify it like that, but that would mean I'd be complacent about getting screwed.
Like I said, a lot of big budget movies are shitty. For every Spiderman 2 you get about 10 "Catwoman" or "White Chicks" films.
I mean, I would prefer to pay a high price to see an indie/low-budget picture because they are more creative when using limited resources.
But like I said, I'm pretty naive. (Buy EVIAN!)
*ahem* Well, there was a certain air of exaggeration in my post back there. I'm full well of how ads work, as in advertisements before/after/between shows. Those sorts of things are actually handy to most people. How often have you been sitting through a great movie on SBS or the ABC and suddenly needed to go to the bathroom, only to remember that there aren't any ad breaks causing you to make the harrowing decision of staying all the way through the movie and crossing your legs or running off to relieve yourself while possibly missing some incredibly important part of the movie. I don't mind them when they facilitate me in that way ^_^
Product placement in movies and shows still bugs me, because I still like movies to be made as pieces of art, stupid, serious, whatever. I'm not gonna make a game and put in puzzles where you have to save a bunch of starving villagers by buying them some Macdonalds if Maccas pays me to do so. I might put that puzzle in ANYWAY but if I do, it's only because I believe the game will be better for it, or because I personally like that food and want to endorse it out of sheer appreciation for the product. Sure, the game doesn't cost me millions of dollars to make, good point.
Big budget movies often don't need to be big budget movies, I think we all agree with that. Those that do will most likely make back that money AND HOW once it's released (or even before it's released, from the game, which always comes out before the movie). Some will flop, and studios will lose millions of dollars. Maybe that'll make people think twice about making shitty movies ("White Chicks", anyone?). If movie makers are guaranteed a profit on a movie from advertising space alone, the quality of movies on the whole is gonna plummet.
I don't just forgive Wayne's World because it was honest about the product placement, but because it added to the movie. It didn't cheapen it, it didn't keep it about the same (like sneaky subliminals), it made it even funnier. I was watching I, Robot and thinking, "Okay, they're making a big point about the shoes... it wasn't funny, it wasn't cool... so the shoes must come into the movie at some point as some big thing like a clue".
The price of movie going doesn't annoy me so much anymore because I've found a great cinema that shows things on a screen just as good as the big name cinemas for about half price ^_^ The popcorn thing? Really dodgy, it's like we're giving them freaking charity. "Oh, I'm sorry cinema, you don't get that much of a cut from the ticket sales? I'd better pay 3 times as much as popcorn is worth then". If you can't sell an unnecessary product at a decent price, then tough, I say :) I know I'd actually buy popcorn if it were a couple of dollars cheaper. As it is, they're missing out on my (and just about everyone I know, and I'm sure thousands of others') business.
EDIT: Hadn't even read your comment, DG, when I made mine about White Chicks. Hurrah! Looks like everyone recognises it to be one of the most retarded movies of the day.
Kinoko, anything that attracts the attention of the masses eventually becomes a business.
I fear the day that I make a film and someone comes to me and offers me a nice sum of money if I simply have my character wear a particular T-shirt.Ã, Should I accept?Ã, I mean, with a little extra cash, I could afford that crane shot I wanted, afterall.Ã, And did I really care what the character was wearing when I wrote the script?
I hope this demonstrates one instance where product placement does not interfere too much with the art.
And I have to mention that filmmaking began as an assembly line operation.Ã, There wasn't just one screenwriter, there were ten.Ã, And they were all simply cramming ideas into eachother to outsell the other movies doing the same thing.
Slowly Hollywood develops the star system. People either like Buster Keaton or they like Charlie Chaplin. Now the star system even extends itself to writers and directors.
How many people decided whether or not to see Kill Bill because Tarantino made it?
How many people saw Eternal Sunshine because Charlie Kaufman wrote it?
Sure, they're artists but even more so- they're investments.
I thought I'd put this as another post instead of an edit to my previous one:
Take the biggest movie series over the last couple of years: The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here we have what could be described as a "period piece" so it's very hard to include product placements. You don't expect to see any vending machine for Coke in Middle-Earth. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this though.
Anyway, the films made over $300 million each in the US alone. All had a budget under $100 million. All were well made in my own opinion, but were also praised by more well-known critics. They also scored a shitload of Oscars. All three are within the IMDB's top ten too.
The consumerism (i.e. fast food tie-ins, toy sales, etc) for the film was promoted outside the realms of Middle-Earth. I prefer this type of big-budget film-making and can justify the commercial sales because it was a great film worth seeing (one that will go down in history in my opinion).
Meanwhile, I can't justify a medicore film like I, Robot or Catwoman having a budget of over $100 million. And I can't justify supporting multiplexes to show such films, especially due to the number of product placements.
And I'm fine with movies that were made in an assemby line, as long as they aren't hack jobs. Chaplin and Keaton became investments, yes, I'm fine with that. But they made quality films. I don't mind an investment that is rewarding. But I don't see Chaplin making a bloated big-budget pic like White Chicks or Keaton making an I, Robot. If they make a big budget pic, they make it with great talent. Chaplin made The Great Dictator for $2 million dollars. Probably a lot of money back then. But I'd rather see that than I. Robot.
Then again, I'm Evian... err... naive!
good points DG.
Another strange factoid of studios is that films don't stand alone.
Lord knows why a studio spends so much money on I, Robot and Catwoman but when they flop, every movie in that studio's immediate future serves as a crutch for the loss.
But yes, certain people in Hollywood never deserved to make these decisions to begin with.
PS: I just had a good laugh by looking at the IMDb credits for "I, Robot"
Asimov is listed as "suggested by book".Ã, To me that's like saying "Haha, silly Asimov- your book reminds me of this hack idea I have for a movie! Thanks for the suggestion!"
LotR is a great example of where a budget is worth while. Although they could never be sure of it's success, it was as close to a sure bet as you could get so I'm sure they could justify making it for that budget. Although any fans of the books can name hundreds of problems they have with it, overall it's a fantastic, enjoyable success of a trilogy and if a movie is gonna have a large budget, that's the sort of movie it should be. How many times in the last year have you heard that some movie or other broke records at the box office (seemingly not taking into account population growth and rising ticket prices) or broke records for movie budget? I've heard it so often I just expect that every new, bigish movie is gonna do the same. It's become pretty meaningless... which I think is a shame.Once upon a time, you could rely on something like that to tell you it was a great movie, or even a well-liked movie. These days, people just go to these movies they HEAR are big movies, then making them even bigger and so the cycle continues. Getting a bit off-topic here but I just thought I'd mention it as a part of my whole annoyance at the overuse of "big" in the movie industries these days.
Incidentally, I think my movie of the year is most definitely going to be "Supersize Me" in terms of sheer enjoyment and impact. I was quite happy to pay the Dendy's prices to see that movie (and it certainly uses a lot of product placement ^_-).
hell, I had to eat MacDonald's immediately after seeing it.
And I drank EVIAN while I watched it.
Please, buy EVIAN!
You can call George W. Bush a pussy and they won't fire you cause they're French!
Quote from: kingsized on Wed 28/07/2004 12:29:44
$6-8 ticketÃ, --Ã, goes almost entirely to the Studio, not the theatre.
I don't think that's exactly true.
[boring film finance]
The money might not go to the theatre, but a pretty big chunk goes to the distributor, not the studio. If you bear in mind how much it costs to produce and market a film, there's often only a narrow profit margin.
Four Weddings & a Funeral, for instance earned on its US distribution far more than it cost to produce (only £4m), but would have ended up in the red because of marketing costs if it hadn't been for international sales.Ã, (You don't need to market much internationally - once America knows, everyone knows).
[/boring film finance]
Nevertheless, your point is fair. I hate advertising too. Try loudly shouting over adverts in the cinema. It helps you feel better and makes strangers hate you! Two birds with one stone.
Personally, I didn't really NOTICE the product placements... Yes, I recognized the products and such, but it never occured to me they were trying to sell it to you. Spooner likes Converse? So what? :-p
Life is so much easier when you choose not over-analyze everything.
Not much of a life, I'd argue.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 28/07/2004 12:55:08
[...]I'm not gonna make a game and put in puzzles where you have to save a bunch of starving villagers by buying them some Macdonalds if Maccas pays me to do so. I might put that puzzle in ANYWAY but if I do, it's only because I believe the game will be better for it, or because I personally like that food and want to endorse it out of sheer appreciation for the product. Sure, the game doesn't cost me millions of dollars to make, good point.
What if you did plan to make such a puzzle in your game, but instead of using a non-descript burger restaurant or one called "WacRonald's" you contaced MacDonald's, Burger King etc. to hear if any of them were interested in paying to have their brand in your game? I have no problems with that kind of advertisement (Ignoring any qualms I may have about the brand being advertised.) The Jello example in MYSTIC RIVER that Even mentioned seems to fall within this category. I haven't seen it myself yet though.
The advert for that shoe brand in I, ROBOT (which I haven't seen either) however, sounds like they rang up various companies asking if they'd like a brand to be in their big budget summer movie, then afterwards tried their best to cram it somewhere in the movie. This kind of product placement I'm less happy with.
Thankfully it seems that the latter kind of product placement (the brain less one) happens in movies I never expected anything else from anyway.
So what's the harm if product placement is done tastefully? And do you really care what Will Smith blatantly advertises in his movies?
Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 28/07/2004 15:49:24
Personally, I didn't really NOTICE the product placements... Yes, I recognized the products and such, but it never occured to me they were trying to sell it to you. Spooner likes Converse? So what? :-p
Life is so much easier when you choose not over-analyze everything.
Life is also much easier when you're either oblivious or living in denial. Coincidence?
Besides, it's hard to over-analyse when it's so blatantly done in I, Robot.
$6-8? we pay £6+ :p you don't know how good ya got it.. :)
Oh no, I'm not oblivious, and I'm not in denial. I know there's blatant product placement in the movie.. I just don't care. If Lord of the Rings had Gandalf drinking a Pepsi in one scene, I'd still like the movie.
Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 28/07/2004 23:37:52
If Lord of the Rings had Gandalf drinking a Pepsi in one scene, I'd still like the movie.
With that comment alone, you've destoryed any credibility you may have had in your opinion on the film industry.
Lgm..
In your quest to stay open minded and balanced in your views you are creating a deeper tunnel vision. Until you understand exactly how and why I would second guess your opinions.
All of them.
(As well I am with DG on the whole Pepsi and Gandalf thing.. You not only are missing the boat about the whole thing. You are in the wrong city and not even near water)
Remember the movie Josie and the Pussycats... THAT WAS BLATENT PRODECT PLACEMENT
I know they used the movie to pimp converses, but thats what the world is like. At least it didnt have commercials every 20 minutes. It wa s a mediocre science fiction movie with a bad name and a pair of converses. Thats all it was.
I also agree with LGM
Lotr with pepsi would still be a great movie
Well then both of you shall enjoy our latest award...
"The Absolutely No Education in Artistic History Award"
Display it with pride.
[ Edit, I mean really.. Think about what you are saying. REALLY think about it. If the movie has a Pepsi advert in it why shouldn't Tolkien of put some adverts in the books. The movie doesn't have it. Neither does the books. You know why they don't? Because it is fucked up that is why.
This very topic, in all sorts of shapes and sizes, has been debated in artforms of all kinds for hundreds of years. Pick up a book or take a class or something because what little muddled opinions you have on the subject are dry and without thought. Your perspective is off too and your use of color is daft at best.]
Quote from: LostTraveler on Thu 29/07/2004 05:40:58
I also agree with LGM
Lotr with pepsi would still be a great movie
You sound like the kind of guy who buys a pet zebra and names it "Spot".
My county banned exotic animals as we have had 3 tiger attacks in the last month so no zebra for me. Maybe a dalmation named stripes tho. Its a nice name.
Well, while we're on the topic of product placements, why not put them in the bible:
http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/closet/silly/Product-Placement-Bible.html
Yeah, I think God's real message to all Christians was "Enjoy Coke".
Really... Just because I don't care about adverts in movies doesn't make my opinions un-credible. What makes you all so great to go telling everyone else their ignorant?
I understand completey about what you're saying.. Sure, movies bloated with advertising are nothing short of irritating. But if the movie is great on it's own, I can forgive the blatant placements. There's a difference between not caring and not understanding or knowing.
And of course, I was exxagerating heavily on the Pepsi thing. It'd piss me off if they did that, but it wouldn't ruin the whole damn trilogy for me.. I'm really not picky at ALL.
If you go at issues more objectively, and don't finess over one single detail or point, and focus morely on the overall picture, you can spend life happier. Insteading of fussing over the little things, you worry bout the big strides.
I know you all dislike my laid back views on certain issues, but it's rather pointless to bitch about little blips in an otherwise decent film. To be honest, I really don't know why we're still debating over this.
As the saying goes, "Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
And as far as the original point of this thread goes, I still even understand why everyone's upset. I'd be pissed if they took the title of a good book (or game, for this example) I love and made it into a movie that was a total bastardization.. Oh wait, they already did: House of the Dead, Hearts in Atlantis, Dreamcatcher, Dune.. The list goes on...
Yes.. I understand the upset over the whole title fiasco.. I just choose not to fuss over it; simply because, there really is no point to. Nothing you can do or say will change the fact that the movie is already made. It's done with. You can't change it anymore, no matter how powerful you are (unless you're George Lucas.) So what you have to do is learn to accept it, or boycott it, and move on.
If this movie were to be called Hardwired, or Robots!, or How Robots Almost Took Over the World, or what have you.. It would've been bitched and complained about for "stealing" ideas from Asimov. You just can't win. I've thought all of that through, and that is exactly why I choose to simply not care and enjoy the movie.
Thank You Very Much
*bow*
Edit: DG- Oh please, don't even start. Putting ads in a movie and ads in the Bible are on entirely different levels. That's just sad that you have to even bring that up.
QuoteAnd of course, I was exxagerating heavily on the Pepsi thing. It'd piss me off if they did that, but it wouldn't ruin the whole damn trilogy for me.. I'm really not picky at ALL.
Once again, you've destroyed any credibility whatsoever in film area of film. Only this time, you not only destroyed it. You raped and defiled it too.
QuoteI know you all dislike my laid back views on certain issues, but it's rather pointless to bitch about little blips in an otherwise decent film.
Those little blips are what makes it a souless piece of bitch-trash. And it's not your laid back views I dislike, but more so your acceptance of something that's soulless and whorish.
QuoteAs the saying goes, "Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
The mantra of people who pussy-out of most internet arguments. Besides, if you truely believe that, how come you've launched into such a long tirade with your last post?
QuoteYes.. I understand the upset over the whole title fiasco.. I just choose not to fuss over it; simply because, there really is no point to. Nothing you can do or say will change the fact that the movie is already made. It's done with. You can't change it anymore, no matter how powerful you are (unless you're George Lucas.)Ã, So what you have to do is learn to accept it, or boycott it, and move on.
That's just the type of apathetic pandering I'd expect from someone who wouldn't be bothered by Pepsi products in a Lord of the Rings film.
This is why most of the films released today are shitty. Because people with this view are okay with corperate whoring. Whatever happened to quality? Whatever happened to "Not a single frame was wasted"?
Christ, you want to be a filmmaker? LGM, if you become a filmmaker with this kind of attitude, let me give you some advice: you'll be nothing but a sell-out hack. No one will remember you. You'll live life without any balls.
QuoteIf this movie were to be called Hardwired, or Robots!, or How Robots Almost Took Over the World, or what have you.. It would've been bitched and complained about for "stealing" ideas from Asimov. You just can't win. I've thought all of that through, and that is exactly why I choose to simply not care and enjoy the movie.
Ironically, I would have prefered such titles. Mainly cause they're cheesy titles for a cheesy film. But I guess you won't take my point of view on this seriously since I'm saying it after the film's been released.
QuoteEdit: DG- Oh please, don't even start.Ã, Putting ads in a movie and ads in the Bible are on entirely different levels. That's just sad that you have to even bring that up.
Why not? The Bible is basically a moral code. I, Robot's three laws is a moral code for robots to live by.
And a lot of people live their lives to codes set by characters in films. When you look at the bible, it's basically a collection of stories (a view offered by my grade 12 Study of Religion teacher -- a very wise woman indeed). It's the same level -- It's corperatising something that should be above that sort of thing. Putting obvious product placements in films is bringing them down to a sleazy level, just the same as putting product placements in the Bible would do the same thing.
Films should transcend such sleaze, much the same way the bible is supposed to.
Let me put it this way: Would Roman Polanski (and to a lesser degree Spielberg) do something as souless as obvious product placements in films like The Pianist or Schindler's List? (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, if there was a blatantly obvious product placement in either).
(Ironically, both films were adapted from books. :) )
DG, it goes without saying that you take your films a LOT more seriously than most people. I think it's obvious why he cares so little and you care so much.
shbaz, LGM wants to be a director. If such is the case, then he should take films seriously. All the best directors do.
Okay, I lose then. You won. Whee. You prevail as genius once again.
I still understand where you're coming from.
Believe me when I say this, I absolutely LOVE quality movies, and I really hate that Hollywood IS going to shit. But I have to accept it.. And every time I find a quality indie, or even theatrical release.. You know I'm the first one around it.
I love films. And that's all I have to say. I'm very serious about them.. But I don't clench my fists everytime someone opens up a can of pepsi on 10 slides of 35MM film.
Look, LGM, it's got nothing to do with me winning an argument. I'm no genius. I'm practically a professional dickhead.
But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who are so apathetic that they accept that Hollywood is going to shit without any major concern whatsoever. If that's the case, Hollywood is just going to make more stupid movies with stupider product placements. It won't get better unless people (i.e. emerging artists and the movie-going public) do something about.
And I can't abide with someone being so apathetic that they accept a soft drink ad in Middle-Earth. If they believe that, then the Bible might as well have ads in it too.
But like I said many times before in this thread, I'm very naive.
blah blah Evian blah
QuoteRemember the movie Josie and the Pussycats... THAT WAS BLATENT PRODECT PLACEMENT
That movie was brilliant. It probably is one of the sole examples on how capitalism can make a good movie. I can see the producers in their board room now.
INT: Board Room
-Intern rushes in
Intern: "I've got it! We make an anti-capitalist movie, about rock music brainwashing people with prduct placement... That way, we can still make big bucks from corporations, but pretend that we don't like capitalism!"
CEO: "Brilliant... But how will we make people see the movie?"
Lackey 1: "Ummm... We could base it on something old. A remake perhaps, something the viewer knows already..."
Lackey 2: "Josey and the Pussycats! You know, that Archie comic thingie? We can get hot girls to draw in teenage boys to see the movie too!"
CEO: "I smell the money already!"
Fight Club did something similar, except its critique on consumerism was a little harsher than Josie and the Pussycats.
Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 29/07/2004 06:22:49
"Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
/me is proud that HK won many gold medals in the Special Olympics recently, whereas it won only one from the "Normal" Olympics in history.
But then,
"Arguing over the internet about a crappy movie called I, Robot leads to nowhere. No matter who wins, that movie is crap."
Quote from: Gilbot V7000a on Thu 29/07/2004 07:33:47
But then, "Arguing over the internet about a crappy movie called I, Robot leads to nowhere. No matter who wins, that movie is crap."
Truer words have never been spoken!
Speaking of Fight Club.. A whole 3D Rendered scene (the trash bin) had a Krispy Kreme box in it.. OMG, SO SHAMELESS!
Anyways.. I may have gotten carried away.
I hate the direction Hollywood is taking as far as how LAZY they're getting. 3D this, 3D that! What happened to conventional filmmaking? What happened to real sets and real props!? I want the Indy days back where they had to actually do WORK.
And as far as corrporate whoring goes, that's always been around.. But it IS getting bad, and it makes me angry. I definitely don't want to go that route when/if I become a filmmaker. I just want to make movies. Good movies. If it gets garbled at the end of the chain, then I'll blame it on Hollywood. Those bastards.
Long live movies.
QuoteI hate the direction Hollywood is taking as far as how LAZY they're getting. 3D this, 3D that!
There was only so much "Behind the scenes" footage on the Star Wars 1 and 2 DVDs that I could watch before I got sick of seeing the same Green Screen over and over.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 29/07/2004 07:19:31
But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who are so apathetic that they accept that Hollywood is going to shit without any major concern whatsoever.
If the world had the same attitude toward preventing pollution, world hunger, violence, and disease that you have toward preserving the sanctity of movies, humans would be set for a long time to come. :P
exactly my point.. Even LOTR pissed me off in that respect. They just shot things, and said "Meh.. If it doesn't work, we'll fix it in post." How.. Unimiginative...
Exactly, isn't "Behind the scenes" footage these days AWFUL! You don't get to see some stunt double doing amazing tricks over 10 milk cartons taped together to look like a burning bus, you get to see "interviews with the actors" and "This guy who worked at the computer and made all the 3D models". *SNORE* The only time that ever interested me was in Futurama, but that stuff is decidely impressive shit. Probably because you're seeing 3D modelling that looks amazing, and isn't trying to be realistic. "Look how we made this 3D model look so much like a girl. It only cost $50k" "Oh look, there's a real girl just there, let me shoot her, that cost 10 cents".
Well.. Theoretically.. if you want to "shoot" someone in a movie.. It'd cost more like 20-30 bucks for the squibs, and then 100-200 for a prop gun. :)
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Thu 29/07/2004 07:46:49
If the world had the same attitude toward preventing pollution, world hunger, violence, and disease that you have toward preserving the sanctity of movies, humans would be set for a long time to come.Ã, :P
Don't get sanctimonious on me, Blender-boy!
LGM,
First of all, "laid back" is a term reserved for people who can sit quietly when people have different opinions from their own. So for now, let's not label you as such.
Second, there is a whole lot of shit to consider once you are actually making films. In my experience, most "below the line" crew members are not movie fanatics. These are the people you will work with as a director. Take Stan Gilbert for example. He was the prop master for "Office Space". He made Milton's stapler. Unlike most of the films he works on, he watched "Office Space." And oddly, he's amazed there is a cult following for what he considers a mediocre film. Stan is simply satisfied he got paid for the job.
There are people like this in ALL aspects of the film industry. These are people who consider making films a business, and only a business.
I can see that you are passionate about films LGM, and rightfully you should be able to seek a destiny in making them. But there are tons and tons of other passionate hopefuls out there. And those people will compete against you, they will criticize you, and they will disagree with you. It is of better mind of you to ignore them and seek only to entertain people. You will never convince someone verbally that you are passionate, no producer will ever sign you on to a movie because you are well versed in movie trivia. Just go fucking do it. Do it right now even if you don't have a script, shoot a bunch of disjointed scenes with your friends.
I live in a city full of wannabe directors. I myself have directed a mediocre film and I am not a director. Get over the movie trivia /fantasy world / people magazine land of children and make images that all the world will enjoy.
For God's sake.
LGM,
I'm so impressed you read "Rebel Without a Crew" or watched some DVD extra that gives you knowledge over the rest of us, but let's look at the real figures:
A squib is an explosive. If you do not illegally obtain one, that means you hire a person who can legally carry them and use them. Such as my boss.
Does hiring my boss for a day of shooting cost $30?
Hardly.
Sorry, I was just thinking material wise :-p
Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 29/07/2004 07:49:05
"Meh.. If it doesn't work, we'll fix it in post." How.. Unimiginative...
It's not unimaginative! Quite the opposite.
I'm making a short film at the moment. Parts of it involve digital tweaking. That's because I can't afford to make the whole film in the traditional/indy style you've described.
Shooting is a very expensive process, as I don't doubt you're aware. To use a computer to make the process quicker (therefore cheaper) or easier (therefore cheaper) or just plain old cheaper is a boon for film makers.
Cinema is a medium based on technology, it's nonsensical to reject computer technology because it's percieved to be somehow not authentic.
Look at 'O Brother Where Art Thou?' The whole of that film was digitally graded to make lush mid-summer look like an autumnal depression-era south. It did cost a lot, but it allowed the Coen Brothers to create a fantasy would that they couldn't have otherwise.
I still use my oxen and cart because cars are too easy. They're only for stupid little consumer whores who aren't as hardcore as me.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 29/07/2004 10:33:23
I still use my oxen and cart because cars are too easy. They're only for stupid little consumer whores who aren't as hardcore as me.
You might think this is funny, but at the elYsiun there is a person with the nickname "Oxman" who does exactly that. He lives in some kind of small group on a self-sufficient farm. Doesn't seem to be unhappy though, he has the internet.
Surely he uses the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol (http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/), which makes it okay.
Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 29/07/2004 07:38:08
I hate the direction Hollywood is taking as far as how LAZY they're getting. 3D this, 3D that! What happened to conventional filmmaking? What happened to real sets and real props!? I want the Indy days back where they had to actually do WORK.
I couldn't agree more. I recently Purchased the ALIEN(1979) DVD, and the second disc has all these great bonus features on the making of it. Back then they actually CONSTRUCTED sets, with H.R. Giger hand-painting them! Imagine if they did the "Space Jockey" set today, all digital? It just wouldn't look as real and expansive in my opinion. And how they did the "chestburster" sequence with all physical effects? Now they'd have some digital creature pop-out in an unconvincing manner. Back then you had to coodinate physical effects with extremly deft editing. Movies just don't have the craftiness anymore.
Bt
Not all 3D is bad.. But when they start using it to replace actors in once was easily done by stuntmen, or when they use to for objects that could've easily been bought, or use it for creatures or makeup effects that could be done with real makeup artists and costume designers, then it's going downhill.
It's like, Hollywood is LOSING talent. The most talented people right now are ones who can work in 3D.. The rest just kinda point and shoot.
And Ali, It's not really fair to compare your indie film experiences to Hollywood. I didn't say 3D was a bad thing, I just said it was bad that it's the only thing they use anymore. In fact, 3D IS a blessing to films. Actually, just the digital boom in general is a great thing... But it makes people lazier..
When half the budget of a film is spent on a render farm, then you know something's gotta be changed.
ANYWAY....
I saw "I, Robot" while I was in the US, and I must admit I was roughly entertained. Proyas pulls off a decent Peter Jackson with his wild camera, although unlike in the little hobbit's case, it seems utterly random. Will Smith does a nice job with each scene individual, but his constant hopping between paranaoid and humouristic mode created an inconsistent and rather uneven performance. The screenplay is quite awful. It seems as though it wasn't particularry good in the first place, and the forcing in of Asimov motifs has made it only worse. But it's still enjoyable overall.
However, I only began enjoying it when I finally managed to keep my mind. Because it is completely different and opposite.
Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Tue 20/07/2004 21:54:42
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 20/07/2004 08:33:12
But you miss a little point LGM.
It's not that it's not exactly asimovian, is the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories.
He often complained about the "Frankenstein" complex, that extended from the Golem to the present, that human's shouldn't create something because it would turn on them.
Since he considered this to be absolutely absurd, since human's would create safe guards, he wrote all his stories on the basis of those safe guards apparently failing and not.
I assume that you're talking about the three laws of robotics. I'm not familiar with Asimov's work (though I plan to give either I, Robot or The Complete Robot a whirl at some point in the near future), and I've yet to see the film, but from what I understand the revolts/apparent malfunctioning et cetera you see in the trailer is not down to ignorance of the three laws (which actually feature in one of the trailers, and I believe the films opening), but due to the inclusion of a zeroth law - 'No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm' - which I hear did actually show up in Asimov's stories (although admittedly not in any of those contained within I, Robot).
I'm not defending the film as a whole - I've yet to see it, after all - but if I understand correctly what you are saying and if what I have read about the film is true, that particular criticism would seem to be an unfair one.
Spongy, the Zeroth Law appears in Asimov's later and more 'commercial' works, when he tried to create some connection between his Robot and Foundation stories.
Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 20/07/2004 23:07:12
Well.. If you really must know WHY the robots do not "follow" the three laws, I shall include a spoiler.
Spoiler
Okay.. So the big USR Mainframe computer, VIKI, has direct control over the upling to the new NS-5s, correct? And the running theme in the film is that eventually, through code anomallys "Ghosts in the machines", robots inevitably will evolve. So VIKI evolves, and sees past the laws. She still wants to protect humans, but the laws never state the method of this.. Do they? So VIKI gets the clever Idea to protect the humans from themselves. This is how and why you see scenes of robots attacking people, etc. Because they are resisting being under the control of robots. Not each individual robot is doing this on it's own "free will" either, it's basically VIKI.. The one who has evolved.
I know this is a big mess.. It is in my head too because I suck at explaining things. But the robot, Sonny, was programmed with the ability to ignore the three laws, kind-of like free will. It was programmed with emotions, etc. VIKI is similar in a way that she's evolved, but she still follows the three laws.. Just not the same way. She still is trying to protect humans, from themselves. She's trying to prevent wars, pollution, etc. by restraining the humans..
*pant* yea, I dunno if you can make much sense of that.. But it really DOES make sense if you just watch the damn movie.
LGM,
Spoiler
When Asimov's robot try to help humanity as a whole, they do it by minor manipulation. They motivate humans and cause them to act themselves. Not enforcing martial law.
While in Canada, I bought a collection of Science Fiction stories edited by Orson Scott Card. One of these stories is Asimov's "Robot Dreams". After I returned from the theater, I decided to read this story. Surprisngly enough, this story, not included in "I, Robot", is the main inspiration for the movie. If you want to know the difference between Proyas' and Asimov's visions, just watch the movie and read "Robot Dreams".
It's maybe a bit late to be upping this, but I have to say I was VERY impressed by this film.
Aside from a few disappointing flaws (some flat characters, the undeniably shameful product placement, Smith's occasional distracting lapses into Fresh Princedom and other occasional bits of mainstream genericism), it's almost everything I could want from a big-budget, high-concept action blockbuster. It's just a solid, beautifully crafted, well told sci-fi thriller, with about ten times the intrigue and intelligence of any recent blockbuster I can think of. Admittedly, it sometimes stuck me as a little *too* much of an A.I. / Minority Report hybrid, but I'm not terribly bothered as this kicks both of those films into next week, as far as I’m concerned.
Really, when we live in an age where over-hyped generic letdowns like Spiderman and Pirates of the Caribbean (both of which were only remotely memorable due a few standout performances) can get widely hailed as classics, it annoys me that a mainstream film as good as this can get so relentlessly shat on by so many people.
Speaking of which, I’ve was poking around the imdb boards a bit over the last couple of days, and can safely say hard-core Asimov fans are barely more rational and intelligent then the Metallica fans that hang around on the Some Kind Of Monster board - and Metallica fans have stupid minds. STUPID! STUPID! (aside from me, naturally).
Anyway, as this thread got a bit sidetracked by the (actually quite interesting) product placement discussion, I was just wondering whether anyone else has any thoughts on this film?
"One day they'll have secrets...One day they'll have dreams"
*Rewind*
"One day they'll have secrets...One day they'll have dreams."
*Rewind*
"What are you doing?"
"Watching the same bit of film over and over."
"Oh...okay. Why?"
"Because it makes me look cool."
"Right...Are you sure?"
"Yup."
"So you're sure it doesn't make you look fucking stupid?"
"Yup"
"Okay then."
thought I, Robot was a close-enough interpretation of Asimov land. It never felt like it couldn't happen in the I, Robot universe.
Alot of the action sequences, in my opinion, were pretty dumb. What's with all the slow motion falling? John Woo would critisice this movie for being too over done!
I thought the CGI worked pretty well. The only bit that looked noticably 'off' was the very first time you see a robot appear. There's just something about it that didn't look quite right. But most of the time you'd be hard pressed to find the difference between the CGI and the physical props.
How good CGI looks in a movie all depends on weather the film-makers see it as a way to put impossible things on screen or a SHORTCUT to putting impossible things on screen.
But, although the CG didn't suspend the belief in the movie the product placement most certainly did, Do these guys know what subliminal advertising IS? it's supposed to be inconspicous not draw attension away from the film and make you hate the product with fiery passion for ruining the film.
All in all, I give this movie three buckets and half a ocelot.
Just for the record. I, as well as most people who pooped on this movie, never said it was a horrible movie in its own right. Most of us hadn't even seen it. It is the ethics involved that are horrible. Which in turn makes the movie that much more difficult to enjoy.
That's what drives me crazy! It bothers me that what I consider to be a perfectly solid piece of entertainment was widely hated before its release by throngs of people who hadn't actually seen it (and in many cases hadn't even read the books), all for a bunch of outside reasons that have little to do with how good or well made it actually is. In fact, a lot of it seemed to be in reaction to the early trailers, rather then the actual film itself.
I agree that the whole name thing was fairly obnoxious behaviour, but like I said before, worse artistic crimes have probably been commited by films that used a full "based on the novel by..." credit. And at least they were honest enough not to even pretend to be doing any kind of straight adaption (in fact, I'd be interested to know which of the two script-writing oscar catagories are made elligable in ambiguous situations like this).
In my book, this whole thing is far less of a "pissing on the original artists grave" situation then those endless post-Herbert Dune spin-off novels, for example. Or even calling that Coppola film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", for that matter.
In summary: I sort of see the I, Robot movie as a beautiful woman, sadly marred by some unsightly facial scarring. And her wounds were inflicted by the probing diamond-sharp talons of the Hollywood CAPITALIST MACHINE!!!
Your summary contridicts mostly everything you said.
You are entitled to your opinion. If you feel it was a solid piece of entertainment then good for you. I just have to keep a mental note to question your opinion in any future matters.
"That's what the world is like" is a ballsless man's wisdom, as Old Gypsies say.
And I never knew I love DG (maybe temporarily, but still).
This night is full of surprises.
Why is everybody cracking down on Dune?
"It wasn't a really bad movie....like Dune"
"I didn't hate this movie as much as...I hated Dune"
"For being based on a novel, it did a bad job...but not as bad as Dune!"
Dune rocks, so shut up.
Yes Dune is wonderfull!
I agree with andail
I never said anything about the Dune movie (which admittedly did strike me as pretty wretched last time I gave it a go), I was talking about Dune spin-off novels, written by hack authors after Herbert's death.
Granted, I haven't read *any* Dune novels, so for all I know the spin-offs could be timeless masterpieces that leave the originals in the lurch, but still, the idea of faceless authors being hired to officially 'continue the legacy', or whatever, bothers me far more then any duff film adaption. Everyone knows that films are films and books are books, but such new 'official' books are making a far greater claim to authenticity then any film, and so are far more likely to piss on the artist's grave and/or to rape his corpse.
Also: my I, Robot summary didn't contradict anything - I stand by my opinion that as a stand alone movie it's generally solid, marred by a number of unfortunate, but largely superficial (as opposed to fundamental) flaws that emerged primarily due to commercial considerations. In fact, as idiotic metaphors go, I don't think mine was all that bad.
And christ, I do like the fact there are many smart, opinionated people on these boards, but dropping the general level of hostility a little really wouldn't hurt anyone.
I said, shut up!
Just kidding mate, you're making a good point.
As much as I loved Dune, I agree that it was lightyears away from the novel. While the movie was fascinating because of the original setting, the curiously pompous dialogue and the incomprehensible plot, I actually enjoy the novel as a fine piece of literature.
Which brings me to the case of many modern science fiction movies, which completely forget to add details and fascinating architecture to their milieu, and instead rely on a state-of-the-art light setting, as well as computer rendered special effects.
If you take Dune, which has all those adorable costumes, all the mind-blowing constructions, ornaments on the walls, statues along the streets, tiny details everywhere...the computers make funny sounds and seem to be driven by steam, they are big and almost antique-looking...everything is so loveably unique!
Fuck you!
...oh.
You know, funnily enough i've got a an old VHS of Dune sat on bookshelf a mere two meters away from me - I'm almost tempted to give it another shot. I seem to remember those sandworms being pretty cool, at least.
AndailiuS: be informed that there are more than one version of Dune on video, one of it being absolutely horrid mini-series.
I think that David Lynch's version suprisingly well travels through time: much of sf movies made back then look ridiculous now, whereas his consciously anachronistic setting doesn't grow old. Very interesting. Apart from some pompousness (this water dripping from time to time) there are many highlits there, such as the scene in which Paul's sister kills Baron Harkonnen. Then again, the book is much more pompous than the film, so...
Well, the book is epic, and can thus allow itself some pompousness.
The movie doesn't really give that epic an impression, it's more of a romantic action really.
Just like you can stand the high-flown dialogue in TLOTR, Dune (the book) is so grand in its pathos that anything except full-fledged pompousness would be just out of place.
Quote from: Andail on Tue 31/08/2004 09:42:53
Why is everybody cracking down on Dune?
"It wasn't a really bad movie....like Dune"
"I didn't hate this movie as much as...I hated Dune"
"For being based on a novel, it did a bad job...but not as bad as Dune!"
Dune rocks, so shut up.
DUNE is awesome. I just got the Three Hour Smithee cut from Ebay. I'm psyched.
Bt
Your summary did contradict most of what you said because you either have not read any Asimov or were day dreaming while you did.
I don't mean to be so anal retentive about the subject but this is the.. 12th similiar debate I have had. Gets a little dry and rashed..
Still haven't read Dune but the movies were pretty mediocre.
"He is the Kwisatz Haderach!" :P
Quote from: remixor on Wed 01/09/2004 06:37:48
"He is the Kwisatz Haderach!"Ã, Ã, :P
"Ze voice of ze outer vorld!"
Yeah, when I was younger, Dune was one of my favorite movies. I don't know. The sets are pretty.
I have never read I, Robot. I have never seen I, Robot the movie. But I used to like Dune.
Quote from: remixor on Wed 01/09/2004 06:37:48
"He is the Kwisatz Haderach!"Ã, Ã, :P
It looks considerably more in-place in the Hebrew translation.
;D
Dune was the best movie to feature a famous singer in a villian role until Labyrinth.
Sorry DG, but go watch Escape From New York.
No wait, go watch anything with Meatloaf!
Quote from: Sylpher on Wed 01/09/2004 05:28:05
Your summary did contradict most of what you said because you either have not read any Asimov or were day dreaming while you did.
I haven't read any Asimov, and never claimed to have read him - and I've never pretended the film has anything to with the guy's works. I think in the interests of honesty they should have used a different name, given that they never had any intention of truly adapting the book. But having a stupid or inappropriate name is only a superficial flaw.
Quote from: kingsized on Wed 01/09/2004 13:15:01
Sorry DG, but go watch Escape From New York.
I stand
very corrected.
But as for Hayes vs Bowie, I don't know what to pick.
Bowie! Bowie! Bowie!
But... Hayes...
Can't.. decide...
Speaking... like... Shatner...
Oh well.
I would continue this debate but it has no real resolve. So I will just end it in a dance contest.
/me does.
I don't think the Bowie believers have seen Escape From New York.
I too, have seen Labryinth. I own the movie, and in fact know all the words to "Dance Magic Dance."
However, being the king of the goblins doesn't necessarily make you a cool guy.
Now driving around in a limo with chandeliers on its hood, you'd have to be one bad mother *** (Shut your mouth!)
Dance that magic dance for me
Smack that baby, make it pee!
Granted, but Bowie does those cool tricks with that glass ball. That's why I don't know who's better.
Kif, we have a conundrum!
FINE.
You've made me pull the big guns.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104299/