now THAT’S appalling
I’m just amazed at the number of people who have obviously seen the movie and are able to make factual statements about the cast, script, plot, etc. even though it won’t be released until July. Huh.
Maybe…just maybe…the trailer was designed to put butts in the seats? Maybe there will be more to the movie than the trailer lets on? Not saying that it will be, I’ve been disappointed before, but how bout we wait a bit beforee condemning the movie based on 60 seconds worth of footage.
Well, Max, I did proviso my statements with “from all appearances” and “the trailer may be misleading” …
I found a site called “filmjerk.com” that purports to have found a script. From the sketchy review there it is possible that this movie may not have the “Frankenstein” plot that the trailers imply … that that is, in fact, a “red herring”. With any luck, that may yet prove to be the case.
And there’s still some four months until the release date in July, so we may as well just sit tight and hope for the best!
Quoth LtningBug:
To be fair, there are a few more examples than “That Thou Should be Mindful of Him”. Nestor in Little Lost Robot went quite psychopathic, but that was due to a weakened version of the First Law. The Solarian robots in Robots and Empire were dangerous by virtue of a restricted definition of “human”, and Ma from “First Law” (of questionable continuity) still obeyed the First Law when possible, but had higher priorities. Arguably, Daneel Olivaw could be considered “dangerous” in the later novels in which he appears, but only because he places humanity above individual humans. And finally, outside of the main robot continuity, we have “Sally”, where the robot cars murder in revenge for maltreatment, and “Let’s Get Together”, where several robot imposters have built into them the parts for a bomb.
But I suppose this depends on your definition of “on its own”. Except for George, Daneel, and possibly Ma, all of these robots were performing exactly as they were designed. You absolutely didn’t have armies of household robots all spontaneously deciding to slaughter humans.
Max, of course we haven’t seen the movie yet. To do so would mean rewarding whatever company made this for slaughtering a classic piece of literature. If the trailer is designed to put butts in the theater seats, then how is it inappropriate if it also suffices to keep some butts out of the seats?
I hate this movie! its the worst movie I have ever seen! asimov would explode if he saw it!!! I am vastly superior to mindless drones that go to movies! my brain is so advanced beyond these drooling idiots that I am in every way better than that I can judge a movie by a 30 second trailer.
mm I belive Solaris was advertised as a romance in space, and then when it turend out to be an actuall science fiction movie, word got out it wasn’t as advertised an nobody went to see it. So in that case it back fired, but trailers often imply a film is something vastley different to that which it actually is.
As said before then WHY spend the royalty fees to purchase the story from Asimov’s estate? They can easily write a screenplay of robots going crazy without the Asimov story. The only reason to purchase it is to try to get the science fiction fans out to see the flick.
I saw the trailer this weekend and made a comment to my date that it had nothing to do with the book except the title. That might make an interesting thread… “movies that are the least like the books on which they are supposedly based.”
I should add that the movie seems to be not only a completely different story than any of those Asimov wrote, but it has a value system opposed to his own – it is, like many Sci Fi thrillers (Jurassic Park, The Terminator), basically anti-technology and anti-science, treating technology as inevitably evil and scientists as foolishly dabbling where they ought not to dabble.
Hmmm, it seems like the plot might be a synthesis of some of the short stories (Little Lost Robot, the one where a robot had a weakened first law and he started corrupting the other robots) and some of the stuff from the Elijah Bailey novels (the detective angle and the accused robot murderer). They might be able to pull that off.
Or it’ll just suck. 
I might see it, if I have a free weekend and can get a good matinee, but if I do, it’ll be with low expectations.
The eternal optimist in me figures that, maybe this movie is deeper than what the trailer looks like, and is simply going to toss in action-adventure elements onto a complex story that’s spiritually tied to Asimov’s original stuff. I have no problems with a movie that isn’t a direct adaptation of one of Asimov’s stories – if someone has a new idea that’s thematically similar but has the flash-bang-boom modern moviegoers want to see, more power to 'em. It’s entirely possible, after all.
Of course, possible and probable are two different things, and I don’t think I’ll be raising my hopes for this one. If I were to bet money on the thing, methinks Isaac’s corpse will pop out of his grave from the torque when the movie opens.
Two points: I don’t know anything about this project, but legally it wouldn’t be necessary to obtain rights or permission from Asimov’s estate to make a film called I, Robot. Titles can’t be copyrighted. Of course, if your story too closely resembled one or more of Dr. A’s, his beautiful, blonde, blue-eyed daughter Robyn might think about calling her lawyers.
My second point is that I avoided seeing The Bicentennial Man for several years entirely because of the misleading trailers that made it look like a wacky futuristic Robin Williams romp. Imagine my surprise when, years later, I happened to watch it on cable, not expecting much, and found it’s a very well done version of an Asimov story I had read (but forgotten the title connection). Thoughtful, well-acted, and quite in the spirit of Asimov’s story.
A classic case of where a trailer lied about the nature of the film, thus bringing in people who wanted a comedy, and probably disappointing most of them, and keeping away the people who would have enjoyed the film. Idiot marketing people.