Angry at "I, Robot"

[Underseer]

If you haven't already seen them, you can download them here (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/IJKLM/I-Robot/trailer-page.html).

I know that Hollywood feels the need to mangle any story they make into a movie. I even accept it to a certain degree. But this time they've managed to grossly violate one of the most important premises of Asimov's robot stories. Violent robots? Asimov is rolling in his grave...

[Ruth Harris]

Agree 1000% with you! My son and I saw a preview trailer on television the other night - and we were appalled. That is when we decided that our hard earned money was NOT going to be wasted on seeing this movie. It was obvious from just a few seconds of watching that the only thing this movie shares with the book is the title. We have been spreading the word to all our friends about this too - I don't want anyone to be fooled into thinking that this is what the story was actually like, nor do I want Asimov fans to feel cheated after paying to see this.

Ruth

[August Spies]

wait... this movie plot is totally cahnged from the story? I was not aware...

[Autonemesis]

wait... this movie plot is totally cahnged from the story? I was not aware...

Basically, at nearly the last minute, after most of the movie was already written and filmed, the producers obtained the rights to Asimov's work, and pasted his title onto their totally unrelated, already-made robot movie, and appropriated the Three Laws as a marketing slogan.

So no, the novel's story was not changed. It just wasn't used at all.

[August Spies]

wow, I had no idea

[elwoodblues]

Buggeration. I didn't know that. I thought Proyas directing was a good sign, but apparently not nearly enough.

[Silent Acorns]

wow, I had no idea
I'm with you August. One would think that such a travesty would lead to a new thread every other day on the M&PC forum.

[quartodeciman]

Consider the targetted ticketbuyers:

kids
...like robots
...like plentiful special FX
...like plentiful whizzing action
...like hero dudes to set things right
...like plentiful danger

readers of Asimov stories and novels
(who cares about them?)

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not totally mangled from Asimov's original.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Asimov was specific about the fact that all robots are supposed to glow red when they turn evil. :)

[Dargo]

I don't understand why the film producers even wasted money getting the rights to I, Robot. Do they think attaching Asimov's name to the project is going to make his fans want to see it? I'd have actually seen it if it was calles something else like Robot Massacre or whatever.

[Cynical-Chick]

Didn't we have another thread some time ago about how it's not really I, Robot (thankfully) but a book which Asimov copied?

[lpetrich]

So it's another movie that totally butchers its ostensible subject matter? First Troy, and then I, Robot? But perhaps one should not expect too much from Hollywood.

I don't expect to be seeing this movie, though I will make a final judgment only after it comes out.

I am fairly familiar with the plotlines and characters of several of Isaac Asimov's robot stories, so it should be fairly easy for me to judge how good/poor a fit the movie is to them.

Reminds me of how I haven't read much of IA's writings in a heck of a long time, though I had spent many happy hours reading his science essays long ago.

[quartodeciman]

I don't understand why the film producers even wasted money getting the rights to I, Robot.

I wondered about that.

maybe:

"I, robot: pretty snappy title-- says it all in a short line-- a robot that's a person"
"Buy the property and we'll see what we can do with it."
"The author has some good stuff, but we can make it absolutely terrific."

[Wyz_sub10]

I'm just curious why Will Smith feels the need to focus his career on popcorn sci-fi flicks.

He was pretty good in 'Ali', as I understand. And he was quite good in 'Six Degrees of Separation'.

So what's with all the Men in Black/Independence Day/Wild Wild West stuff?

[Pain Paien]

I'm just curious why Will Smith feels the need to focus his career on popcorn sci-fi flicks.

He was pretty good in 'Ali', as I understand. And he was quite good in 'Six Degrees of Separation'.

So what's with all the Men in Black/Independence Day/Wild Wild West stuff?

I believe an archaic concept, sometimes known as cur-ren-cy, may be at play. Now, this "currency," whatever it is, appears to be some sort of motivating factor in the lives of actors.

[Nectaris]

Didn't we have another thread some time ago about how it's not really I, Robot (thankfully) but a book which Asimov copied?

Yeah, here's the thread:

Earlier I, Robot Thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89189&highlight=asimov)

Dave

[Walross]

Basically, at nearly the last minute, after most of the movie was already written and filmed, the producers obtained the rights to Asimov's work, and pasted his title onto their totally unrelated, already-made robot movie, and appropriated the Three Laws as a marketing slogan.

If this is the case then why is Susan Calvin one of the main characters? I suspect that they had the rights for it all along and just decided to write their own story using already existing characters and elements (such as US Robotics). I'm not saying that excuses it or will make it any better - just that I doubt it was an already existing, unrelated movie.

[August Spies]

well from This site (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/05/26/boycott-the-opening-week-of-i-robot/):

Well, you see, this movie was not based on the book at all. It was written to be a swash buckling, action packed, robots-gone-mad flick called “Hardwired". Fox and the Director (Alex Proyas) just decided to call it “I, Robot� and throw in some Asimov references to capitalize on the name. Proyas claims to be familiar with the original book, but as others have pointed out, his description is “exactly opposite what the I, Robot stories were about“.

from anotehr site:

The reason I, Robot bears no resemblance to the Asimov book of the same name is because it's not based on Asimov's works at all. It's actually based on a spec script from 1995 written by Jeff Vintar, originally titled Hardwired. This was your fairly standard, run-of-the-mill Hollywood sci-fi shtick which began with a human cop (Smith) investigating a murder mystery in which the prime suspect is a robot and ended with robots running amok and mayhem ensuing...

As far as robot rampages went, Hardwired was apparently a good one, and Bryan Singer hooked up with the project when Disney gained the rights. When that deal ultimately fell through, Fox grabbed the rights and signed Proyas, who almost immediately began referring to the film as I, Robot. Why? Who knows? Maybe he just thought the Asimov title sounded cooler. Or that name-association would boost the box-office potential. Or maybe he'd heard of Walter Jon Williams' legal battles with Wired magazine when they interfered with licensing deals stemming from his novel Hardwired. In any event, preproduction was well under way before Fox actually acquired the rights to Asimov's book in December of 2002.

Coincidentally, that same timeframe saw Academy Award-winning writer Akiva Goldsman brought onto the project for a script rewrite. Cynics among us might suggest that the sum total of Goldsman's job was to sprinkle the Hardwired script with Asimov-speak window-dressing, since Fox now actually had legal access to goodies like the Three Laws and Dr. Susan Calvin.

[vixstile]

Man, I am soooooo not seeing this movie. :rolleyes:

[Underseer]

The sad thing is, if they hadn't invoked Asimov's name, I probably would have been interested in this movie. Without that it looks like a reasonable (if mindless) Will Smith summer action movie. With that I can barely watch any of those ads without losing my lunch.

[quartodeciman]

...why is Susan Calvin one of the main characters? She is closet robosexual? What fun they can have with that.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

oh, that clears things up. I saw the trailer and was thinking "Jesus, I read that book...I don't remember ANY of this! WTF?" Guess it was crazy to think a movie version of a book would actually be, well, a movie version of the book.

-B

[Rhaedas]

Thanks the IPU that Jackson didn't do an "I, Robot" to LOTR, even from the point of view of the worst critics. :)

It's sad they didn't base it off the books...I find the whole AI/life/self-awareness stuff fascinating. But it does look like this is a typical shoot 'em up summer movie, and not one geared towards those who would understand a movie that had deeper meaning to it.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Well that blows. Thankfully, it isn't real, and therefore can be ignored.

[Beren]

Susan Calvin isn't in the movie, is she?

And actually, slapping "I, Robot" on it probably will make it so more people will see it.

[Azathoth]

Susan Calvin isn't in the movie, is she?

And actually, slapping "I, Robot" on it probably will make it so more people will see it.

Of course she is. I think she's a receptionist at the robot company. :)

She looks at one of the robots, says "Liar!", then is nearly killed, and saved by Smith. Just like the story in the book. ;)

I don't understand why they didn't just go with the original name. The movie has nothing to do with Asimov's stories, except for the robot motif. And looking at the trailers, it should have sold well enough, just based on the action scenes. I can't see why they chose this title, as it will only serve to piss off the numerous Asimov fans out there.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Asimov was specific about the fact that all robots are supposed to glow red when they turn evil. :)

Just wait till they do the sequel. Caves of Dawn. Daneel Olivaw glows bright yellow while he's powering up. Expect a lot of talking, and several big, hugely unsatisfying, fight scenes.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Maybe they're going for the publicity? You know, all the Asimov fans bitch and moan, and they get free controversy? Very odd, but controversy does sell...

[Beren]

I'm not sure geek controversy sells. =P

And the fact I got every part of the Susan Calvin joke makes me both happy and sad. Happy, because I know Asimov so well. Sad... because I know asimov so well :rolleyes:

[Shadowy Man]

I can't see why they chose this title, as it will only serve to piss off the numerous Asimov fans out there.

And they care about Asimov fans because...?

Methinks you are expecting way too much out of them...

[Underseer]

And they care about Asimov fans because...?

Methinks you are expecting way too much out of them...
Well, they are trying to use the Asimov "brand" to sell their movie, so they have to care somewhat on some level.

[Shadowy Man]

Well, they are trying to use the Asimov "brand" to sell their movie, so they have to care somewhat on some level.

Yes, they care if it makes them money.

[Wounded King]

I look forward to the film of 'Foundation'. Apparently its going to star Tom Cruise as an ex-soldier turned historian who is recruited to a mysterious project by someone called Hari Seldon, played by Dennis Hopper. It turns out that 'The Foundation' is actually a vast conspiracy of left-wing intellectuals trying to control the fate of the empire, so naturally Tom has to kill them all.

TTFN,

WK

[quartodeciman]

Very odd, but controversy does sell...

Indeed! Ask CocaCola execs about the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy testimony (1991).

[Dargo]

I hear the Caves of Steel film staring Vin Diesel will be even better. Bailey will discover an evil plot by the Spacers to take over the Earth by replacing the leaders with android duplicates. He'll kick all their butts and teach them not to mess with the Earth.

[Mediancat]

Further for those who are familiar with the book.

This (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005256/) is the actress they have playing Susan Calvin.

I distinctly remember Susan Calvin being described, repeatedly, as a woman who was brilliant, but was NOT good-looking, not in the least. It was an integral part of her personality, in fact.

Rob aka Mediancat

[Jesse]

In this post from rec.arts.sf.movies (http://tinyurl.com/24ey2), there's a quote from Proyas (the director) on his own justification for using the Asimov title:

I have on several occasions described the movie as a "tenth story" - an offshoot from the nine in the I, ROBOT collection. The movie is "inspired" by Asimov's stories and is not a direct translation. I believe we have however stayed true to his ideas and most importantly the 3 Laws. Contrary to what some people might be conjecturing on the web at the moment, people who know nothing about the film short of what they've seen in a couple of trailers, the laws are never actually broken in the film. The laws are certainly open to interpretation, thus Asimov's own decision to eventually incorporate a 4th law. For those who are interested, the additional law will perhaps give you an insight into the plot of the movie. I will say no more for now.

[Azathoth]

Yes, they care if it makes them money.
The problem is that the only people who possibly could have been interested in a movie called I,Robot, above another title, such as the original one they had, are Asimov fans.

Now, they've got a group of people who likely won't go to their movie, and may, indeed, actively discourage others from seeing it.

I feel that, what could have been a decent, but not spectacular, robot rampage movie is going to suffer because of the title they chose.

They might actually make less money with this film's title, than if they had have gone with the other one, and told people that it was 'strongly influenced' by Asimov's stories, which wouldn't have provoked a negative backlash.


I hear the Caves of Steel film staring Vin Diesel will be even better. Bailey will discover an evil plot by the Spacers to take over the Earth by replacing the leaders with android duplicates. He'll kick all their butts and teach them not to mess with the Earth.
Caves of Dawn. Its an amalgamation of Caves of Steel and Robots of Dawn.The director felt source material from two books was:

"...too long, and it had too many words. He could have done everything in one book. This script will finally do those stories the way they should have been done in the first place.".


Wait until you see Bailey's wisecracking robot sidekick, Daneel, in action. The wirework is said to be truely awesome.

Who knows, Proyas might be wanting to try his hand at the Foundation series as well. He could get Eddie Murphy for the voice of the Mule, who may, or may not, be named Duncan in it.

Cast Jim Carrey as Hari Seldon, and they'll have a buddy movie for the whole family to watch. :)

[jig]

I'm not a fan of Proyas. Somebody recommened that I watch Dark City but I came away from that film thinking the story was horrible and not seeing what people were raving about. To say I'm expecting the worst with what he'll do with the Asimov universe will be an understatement.

[apocalypsecow]

The problem is that the only people who possibly could have been interested in a movie called I,Robot, above another title, such as the original one they had, are Asimov fans.

Now, they've got a group of people who likely won't go to their movie, and may, indeed, actively discourage others from seeing it.


Now, see, that's not necessarily true. I'm not an Asimov fan (haven't read his stuff), but I'm familiar with the title I, Robot, and the Three Laws; and I was planning on going to see the movie (still am, really).

There are several reasons why acquiring the rights might be a good idea.

1. They get a cool title, and they get the "three laws" as a marketing slogan. This might trigger something in the minds of moviegoers. It's certainly a trade-off, for the Asimov readers are probably all indignant about this, but I imagine that people that know OF Asimov probably outnumber the people that actually *read* Asimov.

2. The rules themselves are a cool concept.

3. Depending on the price, it might be a total steal. Since they used none of the original storyline, they can now use the rights for ONE book, in TWO movies, and schlock like I, Robot is BEGGING for a sequel. (perhaps even three--and remember, ALL movies made from the same rights, they only have to pay once)

And I'm sure I've got another point, but that third point is, I think, probably the most accurate one of the lot.

[Dargo]

In this post from rec.arts.sf.movies (http://tinyurl.com/24ey2), there's a quote from Proyas (the director) on his own justification for using the Asimov title: The laws are certainly open to interpretation, thus Asimov's own decision to eventually incorporate a 4th law.

The 4th law which was described by Asimov in his later novels, was technically called the Zeroth law. A robot shall not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm. Despite this, Daneel and his robot helpers still found it uncomfortable to harm individual humans for the greater good and preferred to work subtly to achieve their goals. If humanity became aware that robots were trying to alter their future even with the best of intentions, it would cause them psychological harm, and make the robots efforts much more difficult. Daneel developed the ability to manipulate human minds in later novels and even cause selective amnesia. Asimov would certainly never have written a story with a violent robot takeover even if the robots did believe it was for humanity's good.

[quartodeciman]

Asimov would certainly never have written a story with a violent robot takeover even if the robots did believe it was for humanity's good.Something there is reminiscent of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" plot. The space alliance had turned itself over to control by robot policemen to enforce peace in the galaxy by guaranteeing immediate and decisive response to any peace disruptions in outer space.

[fried beef sandwich]

It's not totally mangled from Asimov's original.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Asimov was specific about the fact that all robots are supposed to glow red when they turn evil. :)
"Now, all our robots are 100% good... but just in case, let's install some red LEDs into their eye sockets, and whip up a few subroutines from scratch... just in case."

[Azathoth]

and I was planning on going to see the movie (still am, really).
Yeah, that is true. I shouldn't have said that everybody who wasn't an Asimov fan would be uninterested in a movie called I,Robot. There are always exceptions.

Still, I don't think that the draw will be very great among the general moviegoing population for a movie that has this title above any other.

If the movie is a good one, it'll probably overcome any negativity from fans or critics.

But, if it comes out as an average action flick, with very little to offer, that negativity could sink it. I'm sure it may get some positive results from using the name, but I'm betting that the negatives will outweigh the positives.

If they had have gone with the original name, it would have stood, or fell, on it's own merits. Now, at least some will judge it according to how well it represents the book.

and remember, ALL movies made from the same rights, they only have to pay once)
Of course, but it's only good if the first one happens to be a success. That's the thing.

It's too bad. I like some of his other work, but I think Proyas has made a mistake here. I suppose only the box office results will say for sure, one way or another, though.

[apocalypsecow]

It's too bad. I like some of his other work, but I think Proyas has made a mistake here. I suppose only the box office results will say for sure, one way or another, though.

I'm afraid I'll have to concur. I didn't think that a schlocky sci-fi actioner would be Proyas's next step after Dark City (still one of my favorite movies of all time).

[Scifigeek]

Sure Asimov wrote a story similar to the plot in "I, Robot" but wasn't it in like "The Bicentennial Man and other stories"? Even though most book-based movies go away from the plot, I'm still looking forward to it. I'm sure Asimov would be angry if he saw his story being mutilated like that or as some people think it is, but I'm sure if he were still alive, he'd never let them turn it into action.

[Scifigeek]

I realize and wonder why Hollywood is killing so many Asimov greats. Foundation with Tom Cruise? Caves of Steel with Vin Diesel? Why Hollywood, Why? What's this I here about an additional law? From the information on the posts, It's easy to see that the fourth law is equivalent to the first. In 'Evidence' in "I, Robot", Susan Calvin even says how a robot could fulfill the first law by saving a group of human by protecting them from a murderer, it goes on. So what does this fourth law mean, the robots have to save the convicts to? I mean I see the point, emphasis on the first law for those not familiar with Asimov, but still?

I'm still looking forward to the movie. Hope it's the next big blockbuster with Will Smith. Like "MIB" or "Independence Day". I don't like his wife though. He was MIT material and went for Jada?

[wonkothesane]

Consider the targetted ticketbuyers:

kids
...like robots
...like plentiful special FX
...like plentiful whizzing action
...like hero dudes to set things right
...like plentiful danger


Well, I think that it's working. My son, who just goes ga-ga for *anything* with robots in it (or dinosaurs or Spiderman) really *really* wants to see this movie and is begging me to take him...

So, of course, I will...

You know, my son also really liked A.I. when it came out a few years back ("the robot boy movie", he calls it) and he was like only 4 years old at the time. He didn't really dig Bicentenial Man that much, however...

Hey, wasn't there an Outer Limits episoe called "I, Robot"? Nimoy was in t, and they remade it for the new Outer Limits several years ago, again with Nimoy in it (but in a different role, I think...)

- wonko

[Nectaris]

Hey, wasn't there an Outer Limits episoe called "I, Robot"? Nimoy was in t, and they remade it for the new Outer Limits several years ago, again with Nimoy in it (but in a different role, I think...)

- wonko

You are correct sir,

for the 1963 series:


I, Robot-Outer Limits (http://www.tvtome.com/OuterLimits_1963/season2.html#ep41)

for the 1995 series:



I Robot-Outer Limits 1995 (http://www.tvtome.com/OuterLimits/season1.html#ep19)

Dave

[penumbra]

Personally, I am really bummed about this. I've been a big Asimov fan ever since I first started reading science fiction in the early 60's, and I was really looking forward to the movie because it opens on MY 55TH BIRTHDAY!!! It was supposed to Hollywood's birthday present to me!! Now the party is ruined.

Shit, next they'll try to cast some weenie like David Schwimmer as the gunslinger in Stephen King's Dark Tower series.

:mad:

[Vorkosigan]

Thanks the IPU that Jackson didn't do an "I, Robot" to LOTR, even from the point of view of the worst critics.

Yes, he did. A cheap cowardly betrayal, that was.

_PLACE LONG RANT ABOUT HOLLYWOOD'S INABILITY TO MAKE SF HERE_

Why, why, why???

Vorkosigan

[Bookman]

Yes, he did. A cheap cowardly betrayal, that was.

Vork, maybe this is another thread (or maybe you've dealt with it before and can point me to the thread), but can you explain your intense dislike for the Jackson LOTR to me? I've been reading you here for almost four years, and you're one of my favorite posters but we're 180 degrees apart on this and as I'm as big a fan of the LOTR novels as anyone I know, I'm interested in your perspective.

Regards,
B

[SteveF]

So to sum all this up, we've basically got yet another movie full of large confusing computer animated battle scenes with an obscene number of participants, only this time the participants aren't orks, or ghosts, or a sea full of fake looking ships, this time the participants are robots.

Count me out.

[atheist]

I would watch this movie one two conditions:

1) They change the title to Kill Will;

2) Will Smith's character (named Will - is this a 3rd condition?) DIES!

[dracon427]

Personally, I am really bummed about this. I've been a big Asimov fan ever since I first started reading science fiction in the early 60's, and I was really looking forward to the movie because it opens on MY 55TH BIRTHDAY!!! It was supposed to Hollywood's birthday present to me!! Now the party is ruined.

Shit, next they'll try to cast some weenie like David Schwimmer as the gunslinger in Stephen King's Dark Tower series.

:mad:

If they make a DT movie, I'll go and cry for a while and die.

[penumbra]

If they make a DT movie, I'll go and cry for a while and die.

I wouldn't mind a DT movie series at all, providing they did it right, which would be pretty difficult, but not impossible. Of course, in my mind, each book would have to be either a 6 hour long movie, or broken into two 3 hour ones. The key for me would be who plays Roland. Hmmmm.... think I'll start a thread on that.

[nermal]

This (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005256/) is the actress they have playing Susan Calvin.



Rob aka Mediancat

Holy Crap!! Ashley Judd changed her name to Bridget Moynahan! (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/2517/Events/2517/BridgetMoy_Cohen_3038942_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Moynahan,%20Bridget)


Ed

[ex-xian]

And the fact I got every part of the Susan Calvin joke makes me both happy and sad. Happy, because I know Asimov so well. Sad... because I know asimov so well :rolleyes:
Good...I thought it was just me. The part that really pisses me off is that Asimov was very specific about Calvin not being a beauty queen, but Hollywood of course has a beautiful actress playing her.

[ex-xian]

I realize and wonder why Hollywood is killing so many Asimov greats. Foundation with Tom Cruise? Caves of Steel with Vin Diesel? Why Hollywood, Why?
I'm not 100% absolutely positive, but I'm pretty sure these were jokes.

What's this I here about an additional law? From the information on the posts, It's easy to see that the fourth law is equivalent to the first. In 'Evidence' in "I, Robot", Susan Calvin even says how a robot could fulfill the first law by saving a group of human by protecting them from a murderer, it goes on. So what does this fourth law mean, the robots have to save the convicts to? I mean I see the point, emphasis on the first law for those not familiar with Asimov, but still?
Have you read any of Asimov's later books? The 0th Law was his creation was the cleverest bit of retcon ever.

[Cynical-Chick]

Yeah, ex-ian, but Foundation movies are coming in '06.

Sorry to break it to you, man. :(

[Vorkosigan]

Vork, maybe this is another thread (or maybe you've dealt with it before and can point me to the thread), but can you explain your intense dislike for the Jackson LOTR to me? I've been reading you here for almost four years, and you're one of my favorite posters but we're 180 degrees apart on this and as I'm as big a fan of the LOTR novels as anyone I know, I'm interested in your perspective.

Regards,
B

Ok.....coming tomorrow, when I am home. I have longed to write it all down anyway.

Vorkosigan

[ex-xian]

Yeah, ex-ian, but Foundation movies are coming in '06.

Sorry to break it to you, man. :(
Really? I couldn't find anything about it at imdb.com. Know where any details can be found?