I, Robot

[shbaz]

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. 

[LGM]

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...

[Kinoko]

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".

[LGM]

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.

[DGMacphee]

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, 

Don't get sanctimonious on me, Blender-boy!

[kingsizzed]

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.

[kingsizzed]

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.

[LGM]

Sorry, I was just thinking material wise :-p

[Ali]

"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.

[Las Naranjas]

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.

[shbaz]

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.

[Esseb]

Surely he uses the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol, which makes it okay.

[Blackthorne]

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

[LGM]

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.

[Barcik]

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.

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.

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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".

[PaulSC]

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?

[Eggie]

"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.

[Sylpher]

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.

[PaulSC]

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!!!

[Sylpher]

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.