Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

I, Robot Trailer Available 1086

Posted by michael from the keep-your-laser-handy dept.
thehomeland writes "A new 'I, Robot' movie is coming out based on the Isaac Asimov book series, starring Will Smith. I saw a teaser at the theatre back at the LOTR:ROTK showing, but it looked so much like a commercial I didn't even realize it was a trailer until I saw a logo that said '3 Laws Safe'. Now there's a regular trailer as well as a nice featurette for better details."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I, Robot Trailer Available More

I, Robot Trailer Available

Comments Filter:

  • War of the worlds, take 2 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:45PM (#8554350) Journal
    When people first heard the WotW broadcast, they thought it was a real Martian invasion. There was widespread panic (mainly I think because everyone trusted what they heard on the radio, thankfully we're all far more cynical now), probably because of stunts like that, but a lot can be put down to marketing spin as well I suppose.

    It's interesting that they've chosen to take the same sort of approach on the website for "I Robot" though - they've really tried to make it look as though a personal robot (NS-5) exists and will be used for the film... Perhaps it ought to drive a car around [slashdot.org] if so...

    I'd really like to know what the search-count is on google for 'NS-5' or 'Android Mechanics' now that this has hit Slashdot :-)) Anyone know of a way to query google for that sort of thing ?

    Simon

  • This brings back memories! (Score:5, Funny)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:48PM (#8554374) Homepage
    I remember playing this game [klov.com] bak in '84. From the trailer it seems that the "Fresh prince of Belaire" will be playing the part of the little guy jumping around in a crudly rendered, polygon filled world, shooting pixels at a massive eye! Fun for all the family!!

  • Soundtrack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:48PM (#8554379) Journal
    by Allen Parsons Project?

  • Wil Weaton (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:48PM (#8554380) Homepage Journal
    Anyone know if Wil Weaton got the part [slashdot.org]?

  • The bastards! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard Jones ( 28382 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:48PM (#8554382) Homepage
    They made a friggin' Will Smith Action Movie.

    Why do they even bother buying the rights to something they couldn't really care less about, artistically?

    • Re:The bastards! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by code_echelon ( 709189 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:47PM (#8555143)
      "Why do they even bother buying the rights to something they couldn't really care less about, artistically?"

      Possibly, the huge amounts of publicity, the fact that it gets people talking about the product and whether it is good or not a large portion of people will go see it based on the name and their connection to the book. Furthermore, the majority of the executives that are making the important decisions like this don't care about the film artistically, they are just their to ensure profits.
    • The scene in the trailer with all of the robots attacking people makes no sense. My guess is that the writers have never read any of Asimov's robot books at all. I'll usually see a movie based on a book I like no matter how bad it looks just to get someone else's interpretation of the story. This looks more like pure fabrication than interpretation.

    • A step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Monster ( 227884 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:43PM (#8559146) Homepage
      Why do they even bother buying the rights to something they couldn't really care less about, artistically?
      Because movie studios exist to make money, not art. This is going to be another Starship Troopers, only it will have even less to do with the book of the same title. The really sad part is that we're going backwards:

      Asimov's Laws effectively ended the 'Frankenstein' phase of robot stories in written SF. Good SF at least takes a shot at taking into account the sociopolitical aspects of technology. It's obvious that we will never be legally allowed to build AI that controls potentially lethal force without some protection against it being used against us. [Exceptions will of course be made for DoD robots, but they will no doubt have their own safeguards.] Once Asimov's Laws were in print, SF authors could never get away with selling books about robots going amok and turning on their human masters. Everyone knew that the government would demand the Three Laws or a close analogue be installed in every robot

      Ah, well. Movies tend not to be as intellectually evolved as books, so we're treated to the Terminator series, and now the greatest spectacle of script syncretism since The Tower and The Glass Inferno movie adaptations were forged into The Towering Inferno. I'll probably contribute to the insanity by paying to watch this bastard, then look forward to seeing it parodied in a future Scary Movie release.

      • Re:A step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Drakin ( 415182 ) on Sunday March 14, 2004 @12:02AM (#8559218)
        The problem however is that Asimov himself also wrote stories that showed some of the problems with the 3 laws, and of course, introduced the 0th law... which could be the most frightening, as it evolved on it's own within robots... and allowed a robot to use lethal force against humans in limited situations.

      • Re:A step backwards (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NeMon'ess ( 160583 )
        What about in foreign countries? How do you know small firms in Taiwan or Croatia won't make chips that don't obey the three laws? Considering the flaws of current sofware and hardware, I expect supposedly safe robots of the near future will be full of lethal bugs and failures. Expect early-generation robots actually allowed any real degree of lethality and AI to malfunction or be hacked with lethal consequences.

      • Re:A step backwards (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ceejayoz ( 567949 )
        Once Asimov's Laws were in print, SF authors could never get away with selling books about robots going amok and turning on their human masters.

        It's fairly easy to conceive of something going wrong with the Three Laws. Look at software written today, and tell me that the code for an AI is gonna be bug free. I bet you can't do it with a straight face.

        Add in things like nasty dictatorships adding code into, say, housekeeping robots, that makes them flip out on peacekeepers randomly. Or, perhaps, a compu

  • MiB3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MauMan ( 252382 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:49PM (#8554385) Homepage
    Feels more like MiB3 than the book I read. Looks like it could be good but at the moment I wish that they would not call it I Robot...

    • Re:MiB3 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kabrakan ( 13409 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:19PM (#8554777) Homepage
      I think this title is perfectly suited to the plot. To denote one's self as 'I' is implying that one has a consciousness, as the robots in this movie have been developed to have. This is, of course, dependent on your own conception of consciousness.

    • It doesn't feel like I-Robot (Score:5, Informative)

      by MC_Cancer_Pants ( 728724 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:27PM (#8555692)
      That's because it's not I-Robot. They chose to use a script called "hardwired" instead of the script written by Harlan Ellison. The decision to name it 'I, Robot' was made by some fox execs after the fact.

      There is no doubt that this is nothing more than Men In Black and Independence Day. Will smith is not a sci-fi actor and he shouldn't be. He turned sci-fi into a black commedy children's movie. I'm just glad that he declined the role of Neo in The Matrix, as he was originally casted to do.
      • That's because it's not I-Robot. They chose to use a script called "hardwired" instead of the script written by Harlan Ellison. The decision to name it 'I, Robot' was made by some fox execs after the fact.

        The movie seems to revolve around the 3 robotic laws that Asimov came up with. So, the title seems appropiate in at least acknowledging that. The 3 laws have been used many times in non Asimov stories.

      • Will as Neo (Score:4, Interesting)

        by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Sunday March 14, 2004 @01:04AM (#8559474) Homepage Journal
        It would have been intresting to see what Will Smith would have done with Neo's character. The W. Bros did a good job of directing around Keanu's wooden acting "style", I'm sure they could have done a good job with Will Smith as well.

        One of the intresting things is that Warner Bros retained casting control over the film. The W. Bros had no control over who played the leads...

  • No mention of Isaac Asimov (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elvesRgay ( 685389 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:49PM (#8554390)
    I just watched the featurette, the trailed and looked through the web site. While the 3 laws of robotics are mentioned plenty of times and of course the movie is named after an Asimov story nowhere do they give credit to Isaac Asimov. The man may be dead but I'm dissappointed for him.
    • IMDB shows him on the writing credits [imdb.com]. But this is an original work & not a direct adaption of any of Asimov's stories. It is just a shame that they got the rights to use the title in the first place.
      • I'm surprised that no one's cheering about the choice of director -- Alex Proyas, the same guy that made Dark City and The Crow. Surely he's got enough sci-fi cred to pull this off.

        Asimov wrote multiple books and stories based on the Three Laws. Hell, he even worked them into the Foundation series. But the fact that there's a Dr. Susan Calvin character implies that the movie follows Asimov's stories at least a little.
    • I forget which book it was that asimov said the three laws of robotics were to be released into public domain, or rather anyone can use so long as a credit is sited. I know I'm probally one of the few people who actually has read any of his introductions. But near as I'm aware this is the only restriction he's placed on quoting his rules of robotics.

      • Re:No mention of Isaac Asimov (Score:4, Informative)

        by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:43PM (#8555113) Homepage
        In his older books, Asimov said that the three laws of robotics could be implied or used as a plot point in other people's books, but never delineated. Many books did in fact use the laws of robotics without explaining them or citing Asimov. I don't know if he changed that stance later on in his life... I'm only about 1/2 way through reading all 500 of his books.

    • Re:No mention of Isaac Asimov (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anagama ( 611277 ) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:33PM (#8554986) Homepage

      It's been a while since I read Asimov, but after watching the preview, it seems obvious that this will be typical Hollywood "sci-fear" rather than "sci-fi". At the end of the trailer, there is a comment by the actor that essentially says the point of the movie is uncovering the "deep dark secret truth" or something like that at US Robotics (what might that be, people don't like modems?). My Guess, this will be yet another Hollywood flick about how scary technology can be. The irony is of course, that in Asimov's world, on Earth robots were rejected as a frightening technology (safety/economic fears). I expect this movie will be a dissapointing abuse of Asimov's legacy.

    • Re:No mention of Isaac Asimov (Score:5, Informative)

      by venicebeach ( 702856 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:40PM (#8555078) Homepage Journal
      Sure there is. The following is from "synopsis" at www.irobotmovie.com:

      Will Smith stars in this action thriller suggested by the classic short story collection by Isaac Asimov, and brought to the big screen by dynamic and visionary director Alex Proyas ("Dark City," "The Crow"). In the year 2035, robots are an everyday household item, and everyone trusts them, except one, slightly paranoid detective (Smith) investigating what he alone believes is a crime perpetrated by a robot. The case leads him to discover a far more frightening threat to the human race. "I, ROBOT" uses a spectacular, state-of-the-art visual effects technique to bring a world of robots to life.

    • Re:No mention of Isaac Asimov (Score:5, Informative)

      by Watts Martin ( 3616 ) <layotl&gmail,com> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:24PM (#8557931) Homepage

      The movie really doesn't have anything to do with "I, Robot," as far as I know -- the original script for it was called, IIRC, "Hardwired." To be fair, it was supposed to be a pretty damn good script, but when it was bought by the studio that also had done some development work with "I, Robot" and owned the film rights to the name, they decided to merge the two concepts, because to someone with a Hollywood marketing executive's deep insight they're close enough (detective trying to solve murders committed by a robot). Really, though, it's still "Hardwired," with some of the names from the Asimov stories.

      I'll be curious to see if it's still a good movie, but I don't expect it to be a good adaptation of anything related to Asimov's works. The fact that it's pretending to be is unfortunate marketing spin.

      • In the mind of a marketing executive (Score:5, Funny)

        by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:06PM (#8558783) Homepage
        Marketing Executive: "Oh come on, Terminator 3 was a great movie. I, Robot was a great book. If we merge the two, we will have something twice as great!"

        Public: "That's what you said about merging Aliens and Beverly Hills Cop. Did Pluto Nash even have a script?"

        Marketing Executive: "Everyone loves the Coz!"

        Public: "You're thinking about Leonard Part 6."

        Marketing Executive: "Exactly. How did it get to Part 6 if it wasn't great?"

        Public: [sigh]

  • You should also be able to see it here... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:50PM (#8554400)
    http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/ [apple.com]

  • some torrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:51PM (#8554410)
    irobot_m480.mov.torrent [filerush.com]
    • The link/site above appears to be down. BitTorrent is quite remarkable, but it does require that the .torrent itself be hosted somewhere that stays up ;-)

  • Shame on them (Score:2, Informative)

    by wift ( 164108 )
    It's MIB, Independence Day and Buck Rodgers all rolled up and smoked about half way down so you get a burnt taste in your mouth watching.

    I'll wait for it on HBO.

  • Correction (Score:5, Funny)

    by slugo3 ( 31204 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:53PM (#8554433)
    I, Robot Trailer Was Available

    • Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trillian_1138 ( 221423 )
      Having viewed the trailer (got through eventually from one of the links someone posted), I don't know why anyone would want to see it...taking it off the web by /.ing and - ideally - taking the film out of production entirely would be the best gift the producers could offer.

      I picked up "Robot Visions," a collection of Asimov robot stories and essays, last week because it had a couple stories I had never read and a number I just hadn't read in a while. Asimov's writing, which discuss the posibilities of hum

  • Outer Limits Episode, Ellison (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:55PM (#8554450) Homepage
    It is too bad that this is neither a remake of the old Outer Limits episode [amazon.com], nor Harlan Ellison's screenplay [islets.net].

  • Sci-Fi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <deliverance@level4 . o rg> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:55PM (#8554463) Journal
    Sigh this sucks, they are making all these sci fi movies too late. The concepts in them aren't really fantastic anymore they are just not here yet.

    I hope they make some of the really great ones while there is still time such as Ender's Game and Ringworld

    • Ender's Game (Score:2, Interesting)

      by NMSpaz ( 34277 )
      While there has been a movie "in the works" for about 10 years now, it may finally be happening [frescopictures.com]. Looks like Card finally relinquished control of the script writing to get it to happen (at least that's what I'm reading between the lines).

      Sadly, it may already be too late. Now that the Ender's Shadow books are out, Card seems to be insisting that any Ender's Game movie shoehorn elements from that book in as well. So the Ender's Game that we all know and love will probably never happen. :(

    • Re:Sci-Fi (Score:4, Funny)

      by Witchblade ( 9771 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:07PM (#8554613) Homepage
      I hope they make some of the really great ones while there is still time such as Ender's Game ...

      A story about nerds who get picked on, are really good at videogames, and have a messiah complex? I think I read that daily on slashdot.

  • horrible (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mmm_Coco ( 718592 )
    Great book, but I can already see that it will be a horrible movie. From the looks of it, the robots just go crazy and kill people. In the book, there were actually excuses for the strange behaviors of the robots; conflicts between the 3 laws. However, I doubt that the movie will be any deeper than a kiddie pool.
    • but I can already see that it will be a horrible movie.

      I don't think so. I found Westworld [imdb.com] pretty entertaining when I first saw it.

      True, it may not have philosophical depth, but it's all about selling popcorn.
  • Will Smith sees a robot who may have committed murder

    I see another 20 minutes for my 100k download... I haven't had a USR since 300 baud

  • Matrix (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Malicious ( 567158 )
    If anyone here watched the AniMatrix, it's remarkably similar to the 'Rennisance' storyline.

    Man makes machine, machine works for man. Machine commits murder, man trys to shut machines down. Machines go to war.

    I guess it sounds like 50% of sci-fi storys out there...

  • Title (Score:3, Funny)

    by PacoTaco ( 577292 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @06:58PM (#8554498)
    How about:
    I, Robot vs. I, Rapper

  • They've killed Asimov (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anphilip ( 737117 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:00PM (#8554519)
    The most distressing thing I see from this trailer is the fact that they have in one of their text snippets "Rules are made to be broken" or some equally stupid garbage. One of the things Asimov made perfectly clear in all his writings was the fact that whatever else the roboticists did they NEVER EVER EVER broke the 3 laws. It really pisses me off that there marketing automatons have the nerve to include the phrase "as suggested by the writings of Issac Asimov". He suggested no such thing!

    • Re:They've killed Asimov (Score:3, Informative)

      by miu ( 626917 )
      They might be referring to the zeroeth law that was added to let Daneel be shoehorned into the later Foundation books.

      The problem is that "protecting humanity" will be used as way to trump the 3 laws and turn the robot into RoboCop, with the 3 laws conflict depicted as a variation of standard drama/action cop angst.

      It might suck, it might not, but I'm 95% certain that it will have very little to do with anything Asimov ever wrote.

    • Re:They've killed Asimov (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:28PM (#8554917)
      I also liked (and by "liked," I mean "disliked") how they rewrote the rules to be more accessible. "Rule #3: They can defend themselves." What the hell is this crap?

    • Re:They've killed Asimov (Score:4, Informative)

      by maswan ( 106561 ) <slashdot2&maswan,mw,mw> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:07PM (#8555363) Homepage
      Oh, but they did break the three laws of robotics in the most obvious way in one of his stories, a number of robots were manufactured without the first law (never harm a human being...).

      The plot of the story was that one of these robots made it into a large population of robots with all three laws and Susan Calvin had to sort it out (while of course saying that these lesser roboticists were morons for creating robots without the first law).

      Unfortunately I do not remember the title of the short story, nor the collection in which it appeared, it was over 10 years I read it. Perhaps someone else can help me with that? This would probably be a fairly early collection of short stories by Asimov.

      To help the memory, the reason they were created was to serve as help on a science station (in space, I think), where humans were submitted to low levels of radiation which killed the positronic brains instantly.

      The scientists accepted the low risk of harm for the sake of observing whatever it was, but the the three laws of robotics didn't allow the robots to idly stand by and let even that low level of harm happen. And when they rushed in, they were instantly killed by radiation.

      • Re:They've killed Asimov (Score:5, Informative)

        by CaptainCaveman_2002 ( 585652 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:35PM (#8555828) Homepage
        The story is "Little Lost Robot." A portion of the NS-2 (or "Nestor") line of robots were made with a *PARTIAL* first law -- "No robot may harm a human being." It left out "or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." That was so the robots weren't compelled to rush into the radiation chamber ina futile attempt to save the human in it. The other 2 laws were left intact.
        • Thank you!

          Yes, I got that detail on removal/modification wrong. And the rest of the info fits with my memory. Now I know what to look for when I try to find it for reading it again. :)
        • This movie does not deal with true asmovian robots.

          The three laws were to be so deeply ingrained in the positronic brain of the robot that to disobey any of them would cause "roblock", the robot would freeze up.

          As mentioned above, there were a group of robots working in a radiation laboratory. The robots would rush in to save
          the humans, only to destroy themselves (the radiation frys positronic brains and is relatively harmless to humans)
          so a new batch of robots was purchased with part of the first law "or
  • It's Isaac Asimov, spinning in his grave.
  • .. until I read that Will Smith was cast in it. Ugh.

    This might sound trollish (and it isn't), but Will Smith isn't exactly a prestigious actor and not exactly a name that you attribute *GOOD* movies with.

    Then again, Keanu Reeves was in the same boat (still is) and look at how good the Matrix was, so who knows. It could be a good casting move, but I'm certainly not counting on it.

    • Re:I did think it was gonna be good.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @09:34PM (#8556830) Homepage Journal
      Actually he was very good in Six Degrees of Separation [imdb.com].

      There's a lot of talent there, but he's mostly using it to make cheap^H^H^H^H^Hexpensive action movies and some not-very-good dramas (Ali, Bagger Vance).

      He's got a lot of on-screen charisma, which is actually one of the most important skills an actor can have. People respond well to him, and that's a hard thing to teach. (I'm a director, and I've tried.) He's got some range, though he's at his best when it's light-hearted (his rap career, his sitcom, Men in Black).

      But I keep looking for him to follow up his very good (not brilliant, but very very good) performance in Six Degrees. I haven't seen that yet.

      Keanu... well, Keanu tries. I was actually the only one on the world who liked him in Much Ado About Nothing. He was interesting in My Own Private Idaho. He was actually rather good in that awful Something's Gotta Give. He really, really wants to be a Good Actor, but he'll have to settle for being charismatic.
  • Last night we had the Mini-Coop Robot that turned out to be an advertising stunt, now we have this thing pretending to be a real robot!

    Obligatory,
    Frink: No, the robot is programmed to serve humans, following Asimov's 3 Laws of Robots, Asimov, with the so many books, not so many good....
  • Best line from the featurette--"...lots of U.S. Robotics technology starts to malfunction [usr.com] around me..."

    Reminds me of my early days online [usr.com].
  • Weren't they bought out by 3com?
  • ... all I want to know is...

    What will the next pair of "super-cool" sunglasses look like, and what will the requisite rap song sound like?

  • here [apple.com]. 3 Sizes!
  • I have read I, Robot a few times (the most recent was several years ago), and I cannot recall any type of story like this. It seems to me that the screenplay is not based on any Asimov story as much as it uses his 3 Laws of Robotics as a plot device. So if you were thinking it was anything like the stories in I, Robot, this is not it. In the book, robots slowly progress from primitive models to one that is virtually indistinguishable from humans and becomes a powerful politician. That doesn't look to be

  • Pissing on Asimov's grave (Score:4, Insightful)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:24PM (#8554849)
    Fuckers.

    'I, Robot' was the first *adult* (ie, no pictures in it) book I ever read as a kid, at the age of maybe 4 or 5. I still have the exact copy of the book even now. I remember being very disappointed when I found out that robots didn't really exist.

    And now it looks as though Asimov is going to be fucked over by Hollywood. For Christ's sake, they had Akiva fucking Goldsman writing the script! The man who wrote 'Batman & Robin', 'Lost In Space' and a whole pile of other shit. Asimov can still write better than Goldsman, and he's *dead*. This fucktard shouldn't be writing v1agra spam, never mind major motion pictures.

    In Asimov's stories, the whole point of the Three Laws was that they were never actually broken! Human error led to situations where robots were caught in conflict between their explicit orders and the Laws, or they *seemed* to be breaking one Law - but only to obey another. However, in the trailer we see crazed robots chasing and attacking humans left, right and centre. Somehow I don't think we're going to get Powell and Donovan puzzling out what's gone wrong, step by step.

    Even the trailer is selling it as Bad Boys 3: Cybercops, what with Smith doing all his Fresh Prince schtick. I actually *like* Will Smith, but I don't want him doing wacky bullshit in an Isaac Asimov adaptation!

    And we even get an emotional robot right there in the trailer. Again, Asimov's robots may have *seemed* to have emotional responses in the stories, but it was invariably due to orders-vs-Laws conflicts that made them act oddly, or projection on the part of the humans interacting with them. Some of the robots in his stories (especially Daneel Olivaw) may have had personalities, but they were still *machines*, and behaved as such.

    Shit, and I had some hopes for this film - before I saw the trailer - too. It might even make money - "Will Smith vs killer robots? Keeeewl!" - but it's probably going to be even more insulting to Asimov than 'Paycheck' was to PKD.

    • Human error led to situations where robots were caught in conflict between their explicit orders and the Laws, or they *seemed* to be breaking one Law - but only to obey another.

      It sounds like these robots had the same problem as HAL in 2001...

    • Re:Pissing on Asimov's grave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:48PM (#8555149)
      You know as I was waiting for this to download I read your comment, and I was sitting here thinking "Oh come on how bad can it be"? Well, I apologize for thinking that.

      Jesus. Seriously, who owns the rights to Asimov's stuff? Surely a child or newphew or somebody can sue to get this title changed or something?

      I'm with you. That 3 Laws Safe trailer attached to ROTK had enough cool-factor in it that I had high hopes as well. But this is total and utter crap. I'm sure it'll make $60 million, I'm sure the Burger King Kids Meal Toys will be quite wonderful and entertaining, and I'm sure all the old Will Smith "Wild Wild West" action figures still in storage will melt down quite nicely and save Hasbro nearly $5 million in materials cost. But this movie is pissing on Asimov's grave. I seriously wonder if I even want to see this.

  • Chris Cunningham ripoff? (Score:4, Informative)

    by huphtur ( 259961 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:32PM (#8554956)
    "I, Robot" reminds me of a Chris Cunningham video clip [director-file.com] that he did for Bjork.

  • More info on the movie (Score:4, Funny)

    by bgeer ( 543504 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:49PM (#8555156)
    I read an interview with the screenwriter and apparently it's going to incorporate elements from Asimov's I, Robot along with ideas from several bankable mainstream flicks.

    For instance they tweaked Asimov's three laws a bit to make them more accessible and relevant to modern moviegoers, they are now:
    Law 1: A robot must not talk about injuring human beings in Fight Club.
    Law 2: A robot must not talk about injuring Robots in Fight Club.
    Law 3: A robot must protect itself from injury using a minigun and rocket launchers.

  • The 3 laws (Score:5, Informative)

    by qwertyatwork ( 668720 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @07:52PM (#8555183)
    Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

    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.

    3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    • Re:The 3 laws (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Nalgas D. Lemur ( 105785 )
      Looks like no one's mentioned the "Zeroth Law" yet, which I think was added towards the end of the Foundation series (I want to say in Foundation and Earth, for some reason, but it's been most of a decade since I last read the books, so I really have no idea any more, now that all the books are blurred together in my memory...).

      0: A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

      ...or some such similar wording. And, naturally, the other three laws were modified so th
    • UtahJazz's "Three Laws of Film Adaptations"

      1: An film may not injure a book or, through inaction, allow a book to come to harm.

      2: A film must obey orders given it by fans except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

      3: A film must protect its profits as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

      4: Fuck laws 1..3 and make as much profit as possible.

  • Odd balance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sofakingl ( 690140 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:06PM (#8555349)
    On the one hand, this movie has Will Smith in it. That definitely makes the film look unattractive, considering Will less-than-stellar work.

    On the other hand, we've got Alex Proyas as the director, who did both Dark City [imdb.com] and The Crow [imdb.com]. Both were very good films, and I think we should give this film a chance to turn out just as well.

  • Trailer often don't reflect the film . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kaimelar ( 121741 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:08PM (#8555380) Homepage
    Ok, so it seems the consensus so far is that the trailer implies that I, Robot is going to be an action-driven "Will Smith-takes-on-the-killer-robots" kind of movie. I can certainly see that. But remember the alchemy of trailers -- you can make any movie look like anything in sixty seconds. Bad movies can come across as worth seeing, and good movies can appear bland, boring, or uninteresting. Perhaps the trailer isn't geared toward the Asimov crowd -- perhaps it's geared to the action-movie crowd to draw in people who would otherwise say, "Issac who?". Perhaps it will be like the first Matrix movie -- thought-provoking ideas wrapped in an action setting.

    Of course, I knew lots of people who said, "You know the scene where Neo shoots everything? That was the best part!" Apparently the parts of the movie I enjoyed went right by them. Maybe I, Robot will be the same way. Those looking for an action movie will get that, and those of us wanting action and something thought-provoking to talk about afterwards will get our way, too.

    Here's hoping. :-)

    • You know, I hope you're right. But there's something else about the trailer, besides the focus on inane "Will Smith-takes-on-the-killer-robots" action: Will Smith seems to be the focus, cracking innocent jokes and playing the same fool he's been since Fresh Prince.

      To me, Asimov's Robot stories were about exploring the concept of unbreakable laws, and how humans who depend upon the reliability of apparently such infallible laws react and adapt to situations when they fail. They're a wonderful blend of "what

  • Top 10 of the things you thought you'd never see (Score:5, Funny)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:17PM (#8555544)
    Yes, Will Smith starring in a hollywood remake of an Isaac Asimov series.

    Imagine hearing this prediction back in the days of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

    Back then I'd have sooner believed that the LOTR movies would someday made, and made very well by the same guy who made the campy horror comedy Bad Taste.

    Oh wait....

    nevermind.

  • Asimov dated. (Score:3)

    by Captain Rotundo ( 165816 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @08:23PM (#8555652) Homepage
    I have never read I, Robot... maybe I will so it won't be ruined. But I have to say the few Asimov things I have read were terribly dated. It can be a problem in fiction, and especially sci fi, and I think asimov's work has mostly succombed to time.

    • Re:Asimov dated. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vidarh ( 309115 ) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @09:27PM (#8556695) Homepage Journal
      You heretic.... Actually I think Asimovs work is some of the most timeless sci-fi out there due to the way it is written. Very few technical details that aren't an integral part of the plots. Mostly the technology is used as a plot devices for stories that range from detective stories (Naked sun, for instance) to morality stories and exploring human nature (many of the robot short stories), including what it means to be human (Bicentennial man), or large epics (Foundation).

      Very rarely is technology itself the focus of the the story - even in the robot stories where a specific robot often seems to be in focus, as one of the main characters in the story, they tend to be only props used to make some point.

      This is a common thread with most of the sci-fi that survives long term. HG Wells, the Time Machine stands the test of time because the technology of the time machine isn't relevant to the story line. For that matter, the story could more or less have been told without time travel - just like in for instance Gullivers Travels, the whole journey is just an excuse to set the scene the way the authors wants.

      Gibson survives because he's detached enough from technology to write about it in very broad strokes - there are very few details to get hung up about as "dated".

      Philip K. Dick survives because most of his stories are about his characters, not about the technology they surround themselves with.

      And so on...

      The sci-fi that dates badly is the techno-fetishist stuff that is about the technology, as opposed to the consequences of the technology.

  • From modems to killer robots? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @09:54PM (#8557327) Homepage Journal
    I would never have guessed U.S. Robotics would be go from making modems to killer robots.

    Seriously, did they get permision to use this name in the movie?

  • Asimov spinning? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Archibald Buttle ( 536586 ) <steve_sims7@yah o o .co.uk> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:09PM (#8557616)
    There are a number of comments here which suggest that Asimov would be spinning in his grave if he saw this movie...

    Unless these people have worked on the movie and read the screenplay I do not understand how they can make that judgement right now. Sure, there are a few bits in the trailer that show some kind of fight going on involving robots, but that's not entirely inconsistent with the three laws. Many of Asimov's robot stories were concerned with situations where the actions of a robot seemed to break the laws of robotics and sometimes people did get hurt.

    All we really have right now is a trailer and a brief interview-type bit with Will Smith and the director. From that we can see in a few very brief clips that some robots run amok, and we hear from Will Smith that some robots malfunction. From what I remember reading Asimov this is all still fairly consistent.

    What all the naysayers need to bear in mind right now is that all of the footage we've been shown has been put together by marketing people. Most if not all of them will have no idea about the original material and will not have read Asimov. All they have to go on is the footage they've got of the movie. The writer and director rarely have much imput into what goes into this stuff.

    I'm not saying that this movie is going to be consistent with Asimov. What I'm saying is that right now it's too early to tell for sure. We'll see in July.

  • 3 Hollywood Laws (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bodrius ( 191265 ) on Sunday March 14, 2004 @05:03AM (#8560181) Homepage
    Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

    1: A Hollywood Exec may not crate a good adaptation of book to film, or, through inaction, allow such a movie to be made.

    2: A Hollywood Exec must obey orders given it by the Marketing Polls except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3: A Hollywood Exec must protect its own profit margins as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close