Slashdot Mirror
I, Robot Trailer Available
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."
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.
:-)) Anyone know of a way to query google for that sort of thing ?
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 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
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I remember playing this game 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!!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
by Allen Parsons Project?
What?
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?
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...
------- Code to try when you're bored: qsort( 0, UINT_MAX, sizeof( int* ), IntCompare );
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.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/
irobot_m480.mov.torrent
I, Robot Trailer Was Available
It is too bad that this is neither a remake of the old Outer Limits episode, nor Harlan Ellison's screenplay.
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!
It's Isaac Asimov, spinning in his grave.
"I, Robot" reminds me of a Chris Cunningham video clip that he did for Bjork.
It's a common Hollywood practice to cut trailers to "hot" tracks from any source, including other movies. I've heard parts of the score from Backdraft in trailers for all sorts of films, and I wouldn't be surprised if they lifted a section directly from the score from Matrix Revolutions. Yes, when they air it, it's licensed. However, when the editors are looking for music, anything is game (I imagine that the old Napster was a great tool for them, while it lasted.)
Personally, I think cutting in recognizable sequences from other movies is an extremely risky thing to do, as anyone who can recognize the music cannot help but make a connection (either good or bad) between the film that the music was originally scored from, and the new film...
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.
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.
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.
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 and The Crow. Both were very good films, and I think we should give this film a chance to turn out just as well.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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]
The ______ Agenda
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.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...