I just saw 'I, Robot' by JustDavid

TALK STORY

I just saw 'I, Robot'

POSTED BY: JUSTDAVID
UPDATED: Saturday, August 7, 2004 13:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5120
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:56 PM

There was a radio station give away of passes for an advance screening. Before the movie started, they gave out some pointless little freebies to people. The thing I got was credit card sized, with the movie title and artwork, and an lcd display counting down the days hours and minutes until the official release tomorrow. I thought "this is the most worthless thing in the world." Then I saw that I could change the countdown date to April 22, 2005, and put Serenity stuff on it and I thought "this is totally cool!"

I'm glad that I went in knowing it wasn't based on Asimov's work. For me the movie was somewhere between fair and good. Alan Tudyk's voice work was flawless. That man has talent (but I guess you all knew that already). Even though I didn't find the movie very gripping, none of it really sucked either.

I did approve of the part in the closing credits that said "suggested by" Asimov's work. Anything further wouldn't have been accurate.

"Light it."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:14 PM

VENGEANCEGOD

I just saw an interview with Will Smith, and he said that Tudyk also did the motion work for the robots, as well as acting in scene, like Andy Serkis's work as Gollum. I'll definitely have to check this out now that I know it's Alan.

"If something should happen to me, all the world's women would grieve!"
-Edgar Roni Figaro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 12:53 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Yes, Alan did a good job with his voice work, and I would like to support him in his other endeavors. Unfortunately, I have too much respect for Isaac Asimov to recommend this film. If you have never read the book, and you like flashy CGI-filled flicks with lots of action and explosions, then go ahead. I have no doubt it will do good business, so you will have plenty of company.

But if you have read the book, the only things you will recognize are a couple of character names and mention of the Three Laws of Robotics (which they trash).

I hereby establish the Three Laws of SF fans:
1. Don't f*** with the story.
2. Don't f*** with the story.
3. Don't f*** with the story.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 2:00 PM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
But if you have read the book, the only things you will recognize are a couple of character names and mention of the Three Laws of Robotics (which they trash).

I hereby establish the Three Laws of SF fans:
1. Don't f*** with the story.
2. Don't f*** with the story.
3. Don't f*** with the story.

On the one hand, I agree. Don't call it "I, Robot" unless it is "I, Robot".

There's an interview explaining why they did it here: http://www.chud.com/news/july04/july13proyas.php3
It also talks about Alan.

Anyway, even if this was actually made form Asimov's work, it would still have to differ some degree from the original work, even to the point of messing with the plot a little. For one thing, some stuff in a book just doesn't transfer to screen. And when you're dealing with old scifi, adaptation is especially difficult because some of the things the author had to make up as "futuristic" we now have the ability to do in a different way. So every book has to be changed some.

This story just had the wrong title, that's all. Just pretend they called it something else.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 5:31 PM

EVILMIKE

Quote:

I just saw an interview with Will Smith, and he said that Tudyk also did the motion work for the robots, as well as acting in scene, like Andy Serkis's work as Gollum. I'll definitely have to check this out now that I know it's Alan.

At least Alan already has his own action figure.

www.stikfas.com/product_camwhite.html

With apologies to TC, who thought of the joke first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 6:34 PM

ASTRIANA

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
But if you have read the book, the only things you will recognize are a couple of character names and mention of the Three Laws of Robotics (which they trash).

I hereby establish the Three Laws of SF fans:
1. Don't f*** with the story.
2. Don't f*** with the story.
3. Don't f*** with the story.

A couple of things to consider:
First, it's not a book. It's a few short stories that are loosely related to each other (mostly by the presence of Dr. Calvin in all of them, and the Three Laws). Asimov himself didn't write one cohesive story about this universe, why should we expect the movie to do so?

Second, no one associated with the movie ever claimed that they were trying to adapt Asimov's work to the screen, nor did they say that they were trying to transfer his ideas to film. Again, why should we expect that the film will be a transliteration of the short stories when we've been told that it won't be?

Third, as someone noted above, the credits state that the movie was "Suggested By" Asimov's works. Not "based on," which would indicate an adaptation of the original story to the screen. Someone essentially decided they wanted to play in Asimov's universe, so they wrote a story based in it. Much like we do when we write fanfic of any kind - Firefly, Buffy, Star Trek - anything that fanfic can/has been written for where the writer did not invent the universe but borrowed an existing one in which to play.

Fourth, without spoiling the movie for those who may/do want to see it, they do NOT trash the Three Laws. (Unfortunately, if I explain how they don't I'll ruin it for everyone else...)

Anyway, enough sermonizing on my part. I just came from seeing it, and it was pretty good. Alan did a great job with all his voice/acting/motion work, and gets a lovely, large letter credit!

~Astriana~
~Long-Winded Goddess of Inter-Board Communication and Diplomacy~

and

El Jefe Magnifico's Mistress... of Communications and Harems...

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 7:33 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Quote:
Fourth, without spoiling the movie for those who may/do want to see it, they do NOT trash the Three Laws.

Sorry, Astriana, but I can't agree with that statement.

As I said originally, in and of itself the film is not totally bad, in fact I kinda liked it for about the first thirty minutes. But I could never come close to saying it is good. Just my opinion, and I respect your opinion too, just have to agree to disagree. If they had kept the original title of "Hardwired" and used names other than had been used in Asimov stories I wouldn't have much problem with it.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 8:49 PM

SINGULARITY

If they had kept the original title of "Hardwired" and used names other than had been used in Asimov stories I wouldn't have much problem with it.

ECGORDON:

Ok...I respect your opinion..I might even understand your point of view...but your last sentence makes you sound elitest and a little unhinged. By that I mean...no work by any writer has ever...ever been 100% truthfull to the idea, concept, and power of the written word. I do not ever see something and say to myself that this will be just like what I love. I know in my heart that things will be similar yet slightly different. Nothing I think transfers as well as it could to please everyone. Most of the time it doesnt please anyone. Some movies are fluff, some are good, some will cause me anger. But I try to look at things as they are, not as I want them to be....if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.
I am not trying to flame or alter your view. Just try and keep in mind that movies, tv, books, and/or life are seldom what we hope they would be.....just take them for what they are and get something positive from the experience and dwell less on what is negative.

Oh....and lighten up....it had our BDH in it. Its shiny just for that

Nothing can escape the event horizon. Light, matter, and especially Twinkies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 9:31 PM

THEREALME

Hi.

I have not yet seen this movie, but I probably will.

But from what I've seen in previews and the like, it has zillions of robots going amok in such a way that human beings are in danger.

Never could I imagine Asimov approving of that. In fact, most of his robot stories were of the form: "We KNOW that the Three Laws hold, so how do we explain this particular robot's behavior?"

From what Asimov presented, a robot's brain would melt down before it violated one of the Laws.

In my mind if the Laws are really violated (and okay, maybe there IS an explanation, but I can't see what it could be), then it is wrong to entitle the tale "I Robot". They are just writing a new story of their own and tacking on Asimov's name to take advantage of name recognition.

If someone wants to make up their own robot story, great. Then let it live or die by its own merits. Don't drag the name of a science fiction master into it unless you will respect his vision.

I have a handful of apologies ready just in case they do something VERY clever.

The Real Me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 9:49 PM

SLOWSMURF

Ok, I'm going to be forward and say I have NOT read the stories, I might've read something by the author my dad gave me, I'm not sure. But I definetly haven't read his stories.

Anyway, first off I do not feel they were attempting to "cash in" on his name recognition, simply because there aren't that many people who would see a summer blockbuster movie who HAVE heard of or read his works(at least this one). I think they honestly wanted to use some things from it(ie the Laws).

I don't get how you people can condemn the movie simply because it didn't follow the exact themes etc in the books. So what? IT IS NOT THE BOOKS. It doesn't tell you DO NOT READ THE BOOKS. They wanted to make an entertaining movie in the universe, at least more or less, of his books. Whats the problem? I suppose you would also condemn the Lord of the Rings movies because they alter things?

I just don't see the point.

Anyway, I thought it was a good movie. Had some action etc, but one of the most plot filled(with very few plot holes etc) sci fi movies I've seen in a while. I'm not really one to write a huge article on it or anything, just saying it exceeded my expectations by a lot.(and I was expecting a decent movie with a few horrible logic flaws)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 10:09 PM

THEREALME

I think that if you are going to use an author's name and the title of one of his most famous works, then you have a obilgation to that author's basic ideas. I'll even allow that this movie could be a better tale than the original short stories. But to me it's the name thing that's important.

Sigh. I'm rarely one to comment on something I haven't seen, and I'll get myself into trouble over this, but...

I know.

Let's take the Lord of the Rings analogy a bit farther.

Let's say they dumped all the hobbits. Short "Wee Folk" people? Too silly, and who wants to see all those hairy feet? And just what kind of relationship did Frodo have with "his gardener", anyway?

And Legolas, get rid of him because he doesn't look "manly" enough. Too many characters in the book anyway.

Ditch that Gandalf and Saurman pair. The young crowd we're trying to attract won't like old people anyway. But we'll add a couple of kids on the quest to draw in the young crowd. Say, a teen girl, her 10-year old brother, and an adorable six-year-old girl with a magic teddy bear.

But we'll keep that pretty elf queen. She can do all the wizard stuff and keep that nifty crystal ball thingie, too. Maybe she and Aragorn can have a quick, passionate affair, after which she can leave her elf-husband and go on the quest with her new guy.

The One Ring? That's cool. Aragorn can find it, stride up to the Dark Tower, and use it to zap the tower to ashes in a very, very impressive explosion. After which, the young kid with the teddy bear will point out to Aragorn that they're at the wrong address! Sauron lives over THERE!

Yes, that will be a fitting conclusion for this year's best zany new comedy!

The End.

We'll call it: "The Lord of the Rings", inspired by the works of J.R.R Tolkein!

Pardon me. I have to go off to punish myself for this act of desecration.

The Real Me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 10:22 PM

SLOWSMURF

I did realize it wasn't the best analogy shortly after making the post, but didn't really care enough to fix it.

Anyway, I find it kind of hard to believe whatever it is they changed that offends you people so much is anywhere near that level. Please do explain.

I might try to read the stories at some point, but I won't get a chance for at least 2 weeks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 4:51 AM

JESIAHBLACK

I'll make this short and sweet.

I originally had misgivings about seeing the movie for many of the same reasons a lot of people don't, or won't like it. I felt that they would do a disservice to Asimov.

That being said, i genuinely enjoyed the movie. I'd go see it again. Mainly because it wasn't the book.

If i want to enjoy the stories, i'll read them. If i want to see an awesome movie about robots, i'll go see it. I'll just pretend they don't share the same name.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:12 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
I think that if you are going to use an author's name and the title of one of his most famous works, then you have a obilgation to that author's basic ideas. I'll even allow that this movie could be a better tale than the original short stories. But to me it's the name thing that's important.

I don't think "I, Robot" is as bad as you are making it out to be, despite being a rabid purist myself.

The movie does have the three laws and the robots do follow them, absolutely (with the exception of one unique robot). The point where Aasimov would have had a problem with the movie is that he thought the laws were perfect and would have worked, whereas the movie shows the fundamental flaw behind the three laws. The robots don't run amok, so much as follow their programming to its logical conclusion.

I found most of the weaknesses with the movie to be the tendency to step back from anything intellectual in favor of action and witty Will Smith dialogue. I think it could have been a great story, but was shortchanged by the summer blockbuster mentality.

Who saw the AI (VIKI) and said SHODAN?

Select to view spoiler:

POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I think they should have developed more and or at least made it clearer that

1. That the AI was in fact being logical (and not megalomaniacal) in resolving the contradiction posed by the first law.
2. That the robots were slaves.
3. That there were negative effects of robots on the labor market, e.g. the inability of a human worker to compete with a robot worker.

It would also have been nice if they dealt with the fact that a society so dependent upon robots and technology couldn't simply shut them down overnight.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:23 AM

THEREALME

* The Real Me waves around the fistful of apologies that he has already prepared. *

I still have these. I promise to see the movie and give it a fair chance. If I am wrong in what the movie does or doesn't do in regard to Asimov, I am prepared to use them.

I am, in short,prepared to look all manner of stupid. It's not like it'd be the first time.

As I said, the movie could be a much better tale than Asimov's... it just doesn't seem to me to take place in Asimov's universe, and should not bear the title or the author's name.

So, if I saw a LOTR trailer with the Teddy Bear Girl talking to Aragorn, I would be equally dubious about the value of LOTR, even when my friends chide me with "Oh, it's not an EXACT translation of the book."

The Real Me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:25 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

There's too many things to respond to on this thread so I'll probably miss one or more of them, and I'm not going to the trouble of addressing points to the individual posters.

I may be an elitist when it comes to books, but I also realize that literature and film are two entirely different media, and changes have to be made, especially to SF works written more than half a century ago. What I object to is the arrogance of FOX to think that no one would notice how little this film has to do with Asimov's original stories. I would have little or no problem if they had kept the original title of "Hardwired," or come up with some other title, such as "Robot Revolt" or somesuch, and left Asimov's name out of it. As much as I detest Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, its trashing of Heinlein's concepts pales in comparison to Proyas' I, Robot.

It may be true that the majority of filmgoers today are not familiar with Asimov, but it has been reported that sales of the book have jumped significantly in the past few months. When and if those people actually read it, then see the movie, or the other way around, they will also be puzzled by the discrepancies.

I know there's more I should say here, but I'm gonna close now with a spoiler to reply to one specific statement already made. Please do not highlight this if you don't want any knowledge of the film's plot resolution.

Select to view spoiler:

The Three Laws of Robotics are prominently displayed at the opening of the film, and for those not familiar with them, the first two are:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
The murder of Dr. Alfred Lanning is committed by a robot, which clearly violates both of those laws.

Okay, so I'm not closing yet, one more point. As for going to see the film just because Alan Tudyk is in it, I suppose you will say I must see Sleepover because of Summer's appearance, or have to rent Water's Edge because of Nathan, even though it has gotten poor reviews? Most of you are probably aware that Alan (or someone claiming to be him) posted the other day, requesting we not judge the film without having seen it. I took that to heart, because I had originally not intended to see it. I was hoping from what he said that my apprehensions were wrong. Well, I've seen it, and my apprehensions were not wrong.

There's only one thing that Alan said that I agree with. Bridget Moynahan does look great in futuristic leather pants.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:09 AM

CYBERSNARK

Just a datapoint that everyone will ignore as they ignore all my reasonable comments: they wouldn't have had to have the name I, Robot to invoke Asimov's laws.

Anyone seen Robin Williams' Bicentennial Man? It's a much truer adaptation of Asimov's intent, and it quoted the laws verbatim in the script (which this one didn't --it just had them written out in the opening sequence).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:21 AM

HAPLO721

Bicentennial Man is also based on a book of the same name by Asimov.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:35 AM

PEARLAT32

Went to see a late screening last night. I'd give it 2 & half stars. It wasn't that bad, but it wasn't "Great". Never read Asimov so this is coming from a movie-goer perspective. A few things I would've liked:

1. Less Will-isms, because honestly, Will Smith does not need any help in either the comedic or dramatic department (all crappy films aside). I would have liked it if his humor was drier, but I think half-naked

Select to view spoiler:

and nude

Will makes up for much.

The forced humor makes "Will" more apparent onscreen as opposed to Spooner, his character.

2. More of the creepy, like Proyas's other films.

I smiled so wide when Sonny first spoke. I can't wait to see the DVD. I saw a little footage on Mtv where Alan explained how he was in this yellow suit while Will was walking around in leather. He basically looked like Andy Serkis, except in yellow. I liked the last half of the movie better than the first. I really enjoyed the opening credits, and I stayed afterwards to see if Alan got a big name credit.

Kaching, baby!

-----------
They were little geisha dolls with big heads that WOBBLED!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:01 AM

BADGERSHAT

With all due respect to you, THEREALME, I think that you have to weight a few factors.

1-it's not a single book, it's a collection of stories, leaving it wide open to all sorts of interpretations.

2-name one book-to-film that is totally loyal. LOTR took some liberties, Batman took liberties (ok, not a book, but whatever), Harry Potter took liberties, etc etc etc all the way down the list. And, perhaps biggest of all, movies like "The Ten Commandments" and its ilk have ALWAYS taken huge liberties with the book they're based on ( namely, the Bible).

So, I think liberty can and should be taken. Plus, "I, Robot" the title is taken from "I, Claudius" anyway, so it's not even a direct rip-off to begin with.

That all being said, the movie was fun, colorful, and extremely weak in plot--perfect summer blockbuster stuff.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:56 AM

THEREALME

Okay, BadgersHat.

Sure, I exaggerated the hell out of my example to make a point (and for a little humor value).

But my point was that I did not object to someone making a new story that took place in Asimov's world, but rather to them making a story that COULD NOT take place in Asimov's world, and then sticking Asimov's name on it.

This is a particularly sore point with me, I guess, because I owe a lot to that man. Not so much with his science fiction, but with his science fact articles. For thirty or forty years, this guy wrote interesting, easy to read science articles in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and I got most of those collected works as a kid. He opened my eyes and gave me a sense of wonder of the universe.

But I'll stop bad-mouthing the movie until I actually see it.

Huh. Probably, "I, Robot" book sales will rise to levels unseen in decades.

The Real Me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:19 PM

HEB

I just got back from seeing this movie (it's only just opened in the UK) and I just want to say WOW!

I loved it!

I was genuinely scared, nearly cried at one of the Sonny bits and laughed a lot.

It took me all of 30 seconds to dissociate Alan Tudyk from Wash and I thought he was fantastic as Sonny.

5 stars! (out of 5 of course)

Oh and as a bonus before the movie there was a trailer for Dodgeball. I'm rather excited about that too.

heb

ps. - if I abused exclamation marks in this post I apologise

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE