Wash in "I, Robot" by Lucretia

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Wash in "I, Robot"

POSTED BY: LUCRETIA
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 05:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10008
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:43 AM

Yes, for you Asimov fans out there you might be groaning over this movie. I was interested in the beginning until I heard Will Smith was in the movie. In any case I figured I'd see it anyway. I can't really figure out how the movie fits into the "I, Robot" short stories. Maybe it's just a conceptual fit. Or maybe it's something from the Complete Robot Stories book or something.

Anyway, good news for Firefly Fans. Alan Tudyk is playing the "bad robot" in "I, Robot" ala Golem from "Lord of the Rings". It will be nice to hear his voice again, even if I do end up cringing throughout the movie from the butchering of the story.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:16 PM

CLEANER

The movie is only inspired by Asimov NOT based on.

The period its based in (about USR and the robot rollout) was never covered in detail by Asimov. He only wrote a few short stories about this time. These short stories don't lend themselves to a movie.

Go see the movie its scifi, support it. Again, inspired by Asimov, not based on Asimov.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:29 PM

QUICKSAND

Since the script by Jeff Vintar (called "Hardwired") was written first, and separate, I'd hazard to say that THIS movie is inspired by Asimov in much the way your favorite soundtrack is "inspired" by so-and-so movie. Somebody, somewhere decided they could make more money if they slapped the "I, Robot" title on it... even though that somebody is, of course, quite wrong.

Anyone familiar with Asimov and his work will of course be horribly annoyed and raise their middle finger to salute the studio.

HOWEVER... as posted by another member here at FFN, "I would have no problem with this movie if it were called Will Smith vs. The Killer Robots of Doom."

Me neither. I've ranted elsewhere against script-doctor Akiva Goldsman (he puts the 'suck' in 'suckage'), but as a Huge Film Geek, here's the thing....

Lucretia writes that she got worried about the movie when she heard Will Smith was in it. Everyone should realize though (most of us forget this) that a movie is not made, or written, or shot by the lead actor. People refer to Tom Cruise movies, or Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, or Julia Roberts movies.... when all these people are, are actors who play their part, evoke an emotion, get paid.

Movies are made by many, many people. But the person with the Final Creative Vision is ultimately (hopefully) the director: folks you've heard of like Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, or people whose names aren't as famous, like Ed Zwick (The Last Samurai), Andrew Davis (Collateral Damage), or hey, Joss Whedon.

"I, Robot" was directed by Alex Proyas, who LEAPT to fame directing "The Crow" in 1994. His next big Hollywood project was "Dark City" a few years later... these are incredible films that both blew me, and hopefully you, out of my/your chair(s). And I wouldn't call "The Crow" a Brandon Lee movie, any more than I'd call "Dark City" a Jennifer Connelly movie, or a Kiefer Sutherland movie. Or a Rufus Sewell movie, if we're keeping the lead actor thing going.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I support everything about this movie except the title. It's a pretty dumb thing to fixate on, but as an Asimov fan first, the last thing I want ANYone to think is that this in any way relates to Asimov. I already avoided "The Stepford Wives" this summer because I DON'T trust director Frank Oz, however much I dig Nicole Kidman or Matthew Broderick or Christopher Walken's hair.

Please, everyone post on this; discussion is good. It's hard to support a movie but not its producers... I love talking about this stuff because I love movies, and I love literature, and I love directors and writers and the Firefly cast in all their glorious... uh, glory. But man, I learned years ago you can't follow a whole team just because of one guy...

... as any fan of Roger Clemens will tell you.

___\_

_/___
--------------- (Qs)

p.s. Alan Tudyk RAWKS, and yes, can still totally take Andy Serkis in a streetfight.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:51 PM

STANDING8

looks good enough to watch. i dont expect to be blown away by it. but im sure its entertaining. what the hells wrong with will smith? hes never done or acted in anything to make me angry at him?

-Soul Rebel-

http://www.livejournal.com/users/standing8

updated: 7/12/04!

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:00 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Quote:
Go see the movie its scifi, support it.

Why should anyone support a movie that encourages the cheap cash-in of a well-known SF title just to make a few more bucks? But, you're right; the movie is "sci-fi." But it's not science fiction.

Harlan Ellison wrote an amazing screenplay for "I, Robot" that Issac Asimov loved. It would, and maybe someday will, make a great film. As it just so happens, Ellison also has something about the difference between SF and "sci-fi". . .

Quote:
The concepts that abound in fantastical literature have the magical capacity to inspire dreams that become enriching reality. Science fiction, like The Whole Earth Catalog, is only an implement, a tool of the mind's imagination. It employs the technique called extrapolation, allowing us to play the game of what-if?. A game of intellect and daring, of special dreaming and determination not to buy into all those boneheaded beliefs that always tell use we're too stupid and too inadequate to prevail. That we need some kind of mythical alien or supernatural babysitter to get us over the rough spots. Science fiction says otherwise. It is an idea-rich literature that is, at core, hopeful and progressive, that always says--with a nod to the reawakening of a competent human spirit--there will be a tomorrow. It may be troubling, and it may require us to get a lot smarter, but there will be a tomorrow for us to work at.

"Sci-fi," that hunchbacked, gimlet-eyed, slobbering village idiot of a bastardized genre, says only that logic is beyond us, understanding must be crushed underfoot, that the woods are full of monsters and aliens and conspiracies and dread and childish fear of the dark. The former is a literature that can open the sky to all the possibilities of change and chance; the latter is hysterical and as overripe as rotten fruit, that can turn all rational conjecture into a nightmare from which one escapes only by phenobarb-laced applesauce or a slug of grape Kool-aid straight up with cyanide. The former says responsibility for your life is the key; the latter assures you that you ain't got the chance of a hairball in a cyclotron.

Now, maybe that's just arguing semantics. But I think there is a clear distinction between Issac Asimov - and science fiction - and what this movie is giving us. Now, I haven't seen it, and I'm certainly not going to pay to, so you might say it's unfair to judge. Wrong. As soon as they decided it was alright to rape Asimov's corpse and capitalize on his name and legacy for some quick cash, it lost it's credibility.

In other words, do not support studios cheap marketing tactics just because you feel some loyalty to a genre.

(I will, however, support Alan Tudyk by going to see Dodgeball. As far as I know, they are not trying to capitalize on Issac Asimov's awesome tale of the future "Dodgeball: 2051 - In Soviet Russia, Ball Dodges You!")

"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:01 PM

SERGEANTX

I can't say much for Will Smith's choices in leading roles, but anyone who thinks he can't act needs to see "Six Degrees of Separation".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:05 PM

QUICKSAND

Will Smith never made me angry, but I think we can all agree that the following movies never happened: "Wild, Wild West," "Enemy of the State" and "Men in Black II."

Other than that, he's in the clear.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:13 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

this is a netflix one.

Change the name, maybe I'd see it. But the thing is, it's I,Robot. Make a movie called I,Robot actaully adapted from I,Robot and I would see it. Make a movie called Attack of the killer Robots and I might see it too. But this, just hurts.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:49 PM

MER

I'm expecting it to be a bad movie so I don't get Let Down if I thought it was supposed to be good beforehand.
I'm all for the evil robots and Alan. :)

So far any movies Will Smith has been in (that I know of) has yet to annoy or disappoint me as well. *shrugs* He's a perfectionist. I hope he does good in this movie. Otherwise, it'll give him something else to dwell on so the next project will be gold.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:22 AM

SIKKUKUT

Quicksand, you do me a great honor by quoting me. I think I might have said "Will Smith Vs. The Killer Death Robots from Hell," but I don't remember.

Alan Tudyk's post in that other thread about this movie was pretty sobering.

And actually, I saw a hint of what he's talking about in the 3rd trailer ( www.apple.com/trailers), which features some actual interaction between Sonny and Spooner. That was the first thing that really made me want to see the film.

Sonny: You still seem suspicious of me, detective.
Spooner: Well, you know what they say about old dogs.
Sonny: Not really.

I expect to be bored to death during the big action scenes, honestly. They just look awful, and the car chase clip on apple.com is not inspiring at all. However, the other clip is actually really cool, it's awesome that it's such a big role for Alan, and I support the general trend toward actor-driven CG characters. If the plot's half as layered as Alan says, I'll appreciate it, especially if it really is a detective story. A detective story about a robot acting crazy would be true to Asimov's stories... would BE an Asimov story, really. It's the army of robots part that worries me.

If I weren't broke, I'd go see it. As it is, I have to see Spider-Man 2 as soon as I have enough money for a movie ticket.

Does anybody else find it completely impossible to recognize Alan's voice, even knowing that it's him?

EDIT: Right, the Harlan Ellison thing. It was a brilliant script... according to whom, Harlan Ellison? That man has an inflated sense of self-importance.
____________________________
"You're mean. Firefly's making me reconsider my lifelong devotion to Star Trek." --My mother

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 AM

CLEANER

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:

Why should anyone support a movie that encourages the cheap cash-in of a well-known SF title just to make a few more bucks?

I'd rather see someones interpretation than a rehash of something I already know. Its far more interesting that way. But this is covering a period that was never covered in depth by Asimov so how can it go against what he wrote? I have to admit the title makes me cring a bit but I'm not going to jump online complaining about it.

Also I would love for someone to make a movie on another aspect Asimov hinted on but never went into detail. Humanity never found other intellegent life in the verse. The robots were moving out ahead of humans clearing the way due to the law (abreviated, please don't complain) "cannot cause harm by inaction" so they destroy anything that could possible pose a threat to humanity.

I love how people trash something before they've even seen it. I'm sure you will find something to complain about.

I look at tv/movies another way. I always try to find something I like about it even if its something that I normally wouldn't watch. If shows were only made a appease a minority there wouldn't be much out there. I want more not less, and I want FF back gordamn it!

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:55 AM

CLEANER

oh and I really look forward to the interaction and dialoge between Allen and Will. I expect this to be the highlight of the movie for me and if thats all I take away from the movie it will be enough.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:46 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Quote:
Originally posted by Sikkukut:

EDIT: Right, the Harlan Ellison thing. It was a brilliant script... according to whom, Harlan Ellison? That man has an inflated sense of self-importance.

Uh, according to Issac Asimov himself (like I said). And, not that my opinion matters, but I enjoyed the screenplay very much, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cleaner:

I'd rather see someones interpretation than a rehash of something I already know. Its far more interesting that way.

I would not mind this movie at all if it was simply inspired by Asimov. If they had kept the original title ("Hardwired"), I would have no complaints. However, they didn't, and the only reason I can see for them doing so is a marketing ploy. Name recognition.

And that's why it pisses me off.

Now, maybe the trailers are completely misleading, maybe I'm way off base. . .but I doubt it. And I'm not going to pay to find out.

"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:36 AM

MER

Does anybody else find it completely impossible to recognize Alan's voice, even knowing that it's him?

Yes. I hear his voice, but I don't see how it come out of the robots. It doesn't look like Alan at all.

I would not mind this movie at all if it was simply inspired by Asimov. If they had kept the original title ("Hardwired"), I would have no complaints. However, they didn't, and the only reason I can see for them doing so is a marketing ploy. Name recognition.

Maybe they would get in trouble for using "Hardwired", or people would critisize that while it's that title series, it has Will Smith as a lead instead of whoever.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:41 AM

DEBBIEBUK1

Well I'll go and see it and enjoy it I expect, even if it's not true to Asimov's vision. And I write as one who spent a lot of time pondering the moral issues of the Three laws when I first discovered Asimov (I was that sort of age once). Anything with Alan in is worth watching, even Knight's tale and 28 days have their moments.

Mind you, I really enjoyed "Enemy of the State" and "Minority Report" so I've obviously got no taste anyway! But I have to agree Men in Black 11 was probably a waste of time.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:46 PM

FRED

> Since the script by Jeff Vintar (called "Hardwired") was written first

Um, "I, Robot" was first published in 1950.

> I'd hazard to say that THIS movie is inspired by Asimov in much the way your favorite soundtrack is "inspired" by so-and-so movie.

Have you seen the movie? I have. Without giving anything away, let me just say that you may be wrong.

If it helps, Asimov is my favorite author, and has been since I am was a child.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:12 PM

CLEANER

Thats priceless. Allen came along and gave the nay sayers a smack on the bot bot.

Just shows what a wonderfull unique community FF is to have the actors showing up to give thier input.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:53 PM

QUICKSAND

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred:
> Since the script by Jeff Vintar (called "Hardwired") was written first

Um, "I, Robot" was first published in 1950.

I didn't mean to imply that "Hardwired" was written before Asmiov, but rather, "Hardwired" was written and completed first, and THEN somebody came in and decided to Asimov-it-up. Which I think is silly, is all I'm saying.

If the movie works as a movie, great. But I read Asimov too, and if it works as an Asimov-reference I will be shocked I tell you, SHOCKED.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:56 PM

FRED

Are you planning on seeing it? I'd be interested in your opinion of it if you do.

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:11 AM

SINGULARITY

All i have to say on this is that having a firm stance on a thing...anything....especially a movie without actually seeing it is a bit unnerving. Its like believing the old lady next door is a witch, or the wierd guy down the street with the big beard and the lisp is sending bombs in the mail....ok bad example. So much of what we see and hear in the press, on TV, and by way of a movie trailer is so much fluff. I personally think that nothing done in under 3 minutes will ever show me something....the ladies will back me up on this....so why rap your venom around the idea that this movie is anything more than just a film, made for eating popcorn and keeping our attention for a few hours. I've read the stories, and I will go to hear Alan's voice. I will go see any pitcure with our BDH's cause I think they are good actors who pick the right roles and do a great job. You are open to your opinion but I ask you...plead with you...try and keep an open mind. For to much of human history speaks of the wrongs that are done because of a closed mind. And by the way.

Speak softly or the snow will come down and kill us

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

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:27 AM

HEB

Quote:
Originally posted by debbiebuk1:
Anything with Alan in is worth watching, even Knight's tale and 28 days have their moments.

What do you mean 'even'? A Knight's tale probably makes my top five movies ever. If you take it for what it is - a fantastic feel-good movie - then it is just so much fun and does it's job really well. They kept showing it on Sky Movies when I got in from college and (despite the fact I have it on DVD)I must have seen it at least 20 times when I was revising for my A-levels after college (it made my physics revision a whole lot more interesting). It's one of those films that never gets old and cheers you up every time you see it. The characters of Wat and Chaucer are perfect and their interaction is one of the best things about this movie.

Sorry. I just think this movie is very underrated. If you haven't seen it already check it out - if it doesn't make you smile I'll be very surprised.

"It's called a lance. Hello?"

heb

Ps. sorry for the off-topicness

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:00 AM

LUCRETIA

For those that say I can't make a judgement call before seeing a film, of course I can. I'm not going to see every movie that comes out, nor do I want to. Maybe this movie will be good, maybe not. But I know enough of my preferences to get a feeling from the trailer of whether or not I'm going to be disappointed in it. I don't like to throw away $8.50.

As for Will Smith. I'm not slamming on his acting skills. What I'm saying is that I don't feel he's right for the movie. It's personal preference. Not that he couldn't do the movie. But it didn't look to me like he was doing the "drama acting Will", but more the "action star Will". And action stars don't do it for me very often.

As for the Asimov thing, yes it's disconcerting. What if someone in 20 years picked up Firefly and made a movie that you felt was nowhere near Joss's original story. Would it bother you? Of course! Perhaps the movie will pull it off, but it just doesn't look like it.

Despite all of that I am excited about the movie because of Alan's role. And also because I have a little hope that it might be good, mostly based in nostalgia.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:24 AM

NRKANGEL

Hey... can you imagine how GOOD this would have been with Denzel Washington? (whoa!)

Anyway, I'm going to see it because I'm into sci-fi. The part of me that loves the I, Robot book is going to hate it. The part of me that likes sci-fi eye candy is going to enjoy it. The part of me that is spending $10.00 to see a movie is going to be as patient as possible and allow the movie to prove itself or not.

Sigh...the part I hate is that they give you the title of a well known book and change the story so much that it has nothing to do with the original books. (Yes, I know it's based on "hardwired". I don't care if they want to call it that, 'cause I'd probably see it anyway, but to "steal" the title to the Asimov book is disingenuous at least and downright deceitful at best. Enough rant. I'll wait until I see the movie to say more.

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

Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:55 AM

DOUBLESHINY

I've seen quite a few interviews and previews but they're always centred around Will Smith, so have to take chance and watch the movie without a judgement call.

The reviews of Alan's performance have been so complimentary I can't help think it'll be a great watch despite the Will Smith element.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

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

Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:43 PM

ECGORDON

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

I've already posted about this on another thread, and at other sites. I had not intended to see the film out of respect for the memory of Asimov. But I changed my mind a few days ago when Alan posted here, imploring us not to pre-judge it. Alan's voice work was very good, and I could recognize him, however it is hard to judge about the motion-capture work since he has said they did CGI work on the robot a lot too, so I don't know exactly how much of the movements were his.

As for the film itself, I would give it at most 2 stars out of 5, or 1½ out of 4, whichever system you usually use. Perhaps I would rate it a bit higher if they had not tagged Asimov's title and character names to it, but since they did I have to judge it more harshly. Will Smith was all wrong for the movie, and even though there have been a couple of people who have said they disagree with me on this point, they totally screwed with the Three Laws, and however they tried to justify it was totally illogical.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:05 PM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I would give it at most 2 stars out of 5, or 1½ out of 4

Well, I went expecting nothing more than a summer 'beach film' and it came through...
silly light-weight entertainment!

I didn't see anything wrong w/Will Smith's performance, few people can deliver bad jokes with so much panach (and he can't be held responsible for how bad they were).

But I wasn't bored, like I was in Tom Cruises' pretensious recent films, or Geo Lucas' last two Star Wars failures...

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

Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:40 PM

SHINY

I just got back from seeing it. Disclaimer: I read all the books in the Robot and Foundation series in my youth, but I don't consider myself a 'purist' and went to see the film with an open mind. Overall, I'd say it was a B or B+. The dialog was hit-or-miss, with a good section often ruined by some Arnold Schwarzenneger(sp?)-like quip from Smith. Overall the story and plot and themes were clearly inspired by Asimov's stories but not terribly faithful to Asimov's vision -- Asimov's stories were always more nuanced and the mysterious three laws 'violations' were always more subtle and intellectual (of course, if you get too subtle and nuanced you lose too much of the audience -- and face it, you can't make a film just for hard-core Asimov purists, you'd never recoup your expenses/costs).

My recommendation: if the trailer offends your sensibilities as an Asimov fan, DEFINITELY skip this movie. If you like the trailer or can watch it with only mild discomfort, then watch it -- it doesn't get any worse than the clips they show in the trailers and the bulk of the movie is a good deal better. It is uneven at times, and the dialog is as mentioned hit-or-miss, but the pacing is good, the guest stars (including Alan as Sonny the robot!) turn in solid performances, and there are even a few surprises thrown in for good measure. The casual Asimov fan will notice a number of shout-outs to the robot series and while the action scenes can be hollywood/matrix-esque, there is more depth to the film and the plot than I had anticipated. At one point (everyone who's seen the film knows what I'm talking about), I really believed there would be a B-movie depth-less charictature(sp?) of a villain, but I guess I was lulled into a false sense of stupidity by Will Smith and the action scenes, because I actually was surprised by the revelation late in the film about the villain.

"I left my heart in Seren-ity Val-ley..." <-- the farthest I've ever gotten in writing filk. ;)

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

Monday, July 19, 2004 6:32 AM

JAKE7

Saw the movie Saturday night and I really liked it!

Never read the "I, Robot" series so I was able to come in with no preconceived ideas on how the movie "should be."

I wanted to see this movie when I saw the first trailer on TV and didn't know what it was -- it just looked like fun. Once I realized on of our BDH was in it, I then made sure to go see it!

It was great entertainment and I thought Will Smith and Alan did a great job.

--------------
MAL: Everybody's makin' a fuss.

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

Monday, July 19, 2004 8:54 AM

JADEHAND

I saw "I, Robot" this weekend also and have not read the books. I enjoyed the film, and maybe that's because I had no expectations other than a summer action flick. But Alan was great! this was more than just a summer action flick, I thought it was really good. Maybe not a top ten, but I've seen a lot of movies, and there's only 10 slots. Really I woould recommend this film to anyone. Think of it as a new story in the series, or if the title is all that bothers you, think of it as

Select to view spoiler:

"A.R.C.H.I.E."...

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live

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

Monday, July 19, 2004 9:09 AM

ZOID

Hello 'coats (and especially 'Fred', if it is in fact Alan T., as elsewhere implied):

My son, his friend and I attended a matinee of "I, Robot" in celebration of my son's 11th birthday (and my 46th, which fell on the next day). I was initially leery of the movie's concept; however, I was favorably swayed by the obviously top-notch production values I saw in the theatrical trailer and HBO First Look feature. When my son asked to see the film for one of his b'day gifts, I was able to agree with less reservations, at least.

We saw the film in the central premiere theater at an upscale cineplex. Cost was $5 per ticket x3, and including sodas and popcorn the total ran $32US. It was the best money I've spent on a movie in a long while.

It was not a 'Will Smith Movie', although there may have been some intention toward that end. The female sub-lead was a little frazzled and overemotive without sufficient justification (maybe it was on the cutting room floor?). The other human roles were a bit comicky, but not too distractingly so.

This movie is about Sonny, and the nature of consciousness and conscience. Of course I'm enough of a geek to have considered "2001: A Space Odyssey" to be a movie about HAL. Sonny is the enigma and the ingenue of the movie. By comparison, the human characters are as consequential as the chorus of a Greek drama. This movie is about plot and story more than one particular role or portrayal, a characteristic that Firefly shared, and one of the main aspects -- in addition to sparkling dialogue -- that drew me to the series when it originally aired.

On the whole, I was very pleased with the movie, the storytelling. While I could generally care less about individual performances and special effects except where these advance (or hinder) the story being told, I felt the special effects were spectacular and flowed with the story, and the acting and dialogue were not a distraction, and gave the occasional chuckle.

On that subject, a caveat to Firefly fans: I had to remind myself that it was Alan's voice and body representing Sonny. From the criterion that a perfect acting performance makes one forget that one is seeing an actor, rather than a 'real' person on the stage, Alan's performance was perfect; Sonny became real for me. Bravo. The only better performance by this standard that I have ever seen was Ray Liotta's in "Something Wild", and that was based on total unfamiliarity with Mr. Liotta prior to that film. I truly believed the creator of that film had sprung a homocidal psychopath from death row to play the part (turns out that's just Ray being himself). To reiterate, if you're thinking about seeing the movie because of Mr. Tudyk's fine past performances in comedic roles, you may be disappointed: Alan is invisible, and I can think of no higher compliment to pay an actor as an artist, especially in so nuanced a main protagonist. If you do go to this movie, please honor his work by losing yourself in his portrayal as much as he obviously did.

In closing, I highly recommend the film to discerning fans of the genre. It exceeds any sci-fi I've seen since the original "Matrix", and since the director's cut of "Bladerunner" before that. To those who are easily distracted from plot, story and subtext by action sequences, special effects and star performances: you might not enjoy the movie as much as I did; the candy may spoil your appetite. To the latter, I recommend "Spiderman 2" instead, which I felt was as good or better than the initial installment, although a SpideyFan friend of mine said he was disappointed they revealed his secret identity so thoroughly. S2 is more of a romp, and is less of a 'think about it' entertainment than I,R.

Different strokes for different folks. Asimov fans -- of which legion I am a member -- will not be disappointed by the robot-centric heart of the story, so long as they don't fall into the trap of thinking of it only as a 'Will Smith Movie', of seeing only the flashy outer layer and losing sight of the underlying story. The story is well-made and told, and its main character -- Sonny -- is impeccably portrayed.

And BTW, Will does a serviceable job as the second fiddle of the movie, too, reminiscent of his work in "Independence Day", although darker, not as ebullient...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 276 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes, and 18 seconds left until The BDM!

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:54 AM

CLICHEMOMMA

I agree, anything with Alan Tudyk in it is worth watching. I, too, can hear Alan's voice and see his facial expressions in 'Sonny's' face. He also has beautiful blue eyes, just like Sonny. I loved Alan's performance and thought every scene w/Sonny (Alan)in it, beit with Will Smith or Bridget Moynahan, gave "I, Robot" more warmth and meaning. Alan gave Sonny soul!

I'm remedial when it comes to computers; but, I think this will take you to a great featurette giving some insight into how they filmed/created Sonny from Alan's performance (in his lime green unitard). Check out www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/sonnyfeaturette/

I would recommend anyone go see the movie before they start bashing it. Some of the trailers didn't do it justice - it's a much better movie than you might think. I've seen it three times and it just gets better every time!

clichemomma

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:37 AM

JAKE7

Quote:
Originally posted by clichemomma:
...Alan gave Sonny soul!

Well said! Alan's performance was fantastic! I had to remind myself that this was the same person who played Wash, which was fun for me, anyway!

Quote:
Check out www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/sonnyfeaturette/

This featurette is excellent! Thanks for posting the link!!

--------------
MAL: Everybody's makin' a fuss.

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:51 AM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
In closing, I highly recommend the film to discerning fans of the genre. It exceeds any sci-fi I've seen since the original "Matrix", and since the director's cut of "Bladerunner" before that. To those who are easily distracted from plot, story and subtext by action sequences, special effects and star performances: you might not enjoy the movie as much as I did; the candy may spoil your appetite. To the latter, I recommend "Spiderman 2" instead, which I felt was as good or better than the initial installment, although a SpideyFan friend of mine said he was disappointed they revealed his secret identity so thoroughly. S2 is more of a romp, and is less of a 'think about it' entertainment than I,R.

Wow, I thought the complete opposite. I mean, I agree that S2 was good, but I found a lot more worth exploring at the end. I came out of that movie with all kinds of ideas on the meaning of everything that happened and the motives behind each character's decisions.

I liked I, Robot as entertainment, but I didn't feel like the subtext was anything new. Anything I would have analyzed in the film I analyzed already in A.I., The Matrix, Terminator 2, and Bicentennial Man. Even Star Trek dealt with robots trying to be more human. I didn't think this film added much in the "think about it" area.

The trust issue was one thing that made this different. But not different enough to consider it really deep.

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

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:36 AM

FOXTROTXRAY

Hmm.. I must be weird.

I liked it a great deal better than Spiderman 2.
(Which I enjoyed a lot)

I've never actually gotten around to reading Asimov, but I'm quite pleased to see so many here who have.

Many people I've spoken to had never even HEARD of Asimov.

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:04 PM

ZOID

maugwai wrote:

Quote:
Wow, I thought the complete opposite. I mean, I agree that S2 was good, but I found a lot more worth exploring at the end. I came out of that movie with all kinds of ideas on the meaning of everything that happened and the motives behind each character's decisions.

I liked I, Robot as entertainment, but I didn't feel like the subtext was anything new. Anything I would have analyzed in the film I analyzed already in A.I., The Matrix, Terminator 2, and Bicentennial Man. Even Star Trek dealt with robots trying to be more human. I didn't think this film added much in the "think about it" area.

The trust issue was one thing that made this different. But not different enough to consider it really deep.

Excellent, thoughtful response. As I said, S2 was a very good film. I thought it was better than the first installment, and certainly not a pale imitation of the original, as so many sequels tend to be these days *cough*Matrix sequels*choke*. However, there were no hidden meanings, no unexplored motivations left to ponder at the end of the movie for me.

Please don't misunderstand. I felt the characters were well-rounded and justified (better than Dr. Susan Calvin was in I,R, as I pointed out previously). Even the villains in S2 are so well-drawn as to be sympathetic. But, we see everything there is to see during the movie; there is no impulse to discuss those characters to the depths we do our BDH's, for instance. What you see is what you get with S2: Peter is conflicted, sure, but it ends there. His dilemma and his personality are 3-dimensional; but real life is infinitely complex, never as simple as a 3-dimensional character's conflicts.

S2 is a very good, 'relax and enjoy the ride' movie. I and a carload of kids saw it at the drive-in, and we all loved it, for differing reasons. The characterizations and dialog, action sequences and SFX were consistently superb and served the story, rather than vice-versa.

The same can be said of I,R, although to a lesser extent regarding characterization and dialog -- with one crucial exception: Sonny. Sonny is something different from other robots we have seen in film. He is not Artificial Intelligence; there is nothing 'artificial' about his soul. He is not human, or some imitation of human intelligence; he is clearly a machine, yet possessive of self-awareness. He is a Creation (of Dr. Lanning), with his own unique soul and intelligence. He is not the same as us, and not the same as the other mechanical arbiters in his world.

Furthermore, he is not the same as other robotic or artificial intelligences we have seen in movies; but, Sonny does nearly approach Asimov's own self-aware robots (R. Daneel Olivaw being my favorite, while R. Giskard Reventlov may actually be the more deeply soulful of the two) in a way that no other movie 'AI' has achieved. Allow me a brief exposition in response to each of the movies you mentioned...

In "The Matrix", the AI is a menacing, evil hive mind. I have always rejected the notion that computer-based intelligence will come to the conclusion that humans are a parasitic infestation that needs extermination or control. If humans met another Intelligence, would we want to exterminate it? Perhaps. But, if that were the case, it is almost certainly a matter of the circumstances of our physiological evolution. We have 'competition' -- and a lot of other distasteful behaviors -- hardwired into the lower segments of our brains. Just add alcohol to experience these 'animal brains' more directly.

True 'free will' mechanistic intelligence will not suffer from anachronistic animal behaviors like competitive drives, the sense of 'otherness', jealousy or territoriality. "The Matrix", while a top sci-fi movie, does so in spite of its maleficent AI, not because of it. I liked the first Matrix movie for its ingenious "Alice in Wonderland" references, and for its exploration of the nature of Reality and our perception of the same. It was very much like a practical exercise in the Turing Test and the Holographic Principle. Through the looking-glass, indeed...

By contrast, Spielberg's "A.I." was just that: artificial intelligence. A computer imitating a human. Pinocchio wanting to be a real boy (and not even hiding that specific theme). The movie is mistitled -- it should have been "The Doll" -- and makes me doubt that Spielberg has any notion regarding the nature of consciousness. End of analysis.

The "Terminator v.xx" series was mechanistic more than intelligent. Only Schwarzenegger could make a robot look so totally devoid of thought and stiff. Good flicks, yes; but, AI? I think not. More like autonomous weapons following a very limited set of instructions than reasoning intelligences. I've seen robotic cockroaches display similar ingenuity.

Star Trek's "Data" is a fair citation of a reasoning machine and has a 'positronic brain' (certainly a hat's off to Asimov, BTW); but Data still suffers from the buffoonish, stumbling-'n-bumbling depiction Robbie of TV's "Lost in Space" shared. This is arguably no fault of Mr. Spiner's, rather his writers. In the end, Data too is a simply a Pinnochio-figure.

Which brings us to Robin Williams' "Bicentennial Man", another robot-wants-to-be-a-real-boy story, but with enough originality and maturity to overcome its transparent 'slavery is bad' (duh!) soap-box oratory. I loved that movie, and it should be noted that the credits list Isaac Asimov's short story of the same title as the basis for the script. If you felt Williams' 'Andrew Martin' was a good depiction of a robot, there's ample reason for that sentiment. Still, Andrew suffers from the same 'babe in the woods' wide-eyed naivete that other robots in film have suffered from.

Sonny's snarled, "What am I?" gave me a chill, and makes him a real intelligence unlike any mechanistic creation we've seen before. Likewise, his concluding scenes -- which we dare not discuss for fear of letter-bombings -- reveal a genuineness that is neither human, nor like any other computer/AI/robot I've ever seen. Sonny doesn't pine to be human, he strives to discover what he is. One more quote, without context to avoid spoiling: Alan/Sonny's "Will it hurt?" combined with the facial expression and body language. Eerie.

Still, my son liked I,R because of the special effects and action sequences, and so did I. They were spectacular, and no bones about it (I suddenly want an Audi). The human roles -- as I said previously -- were a bit flimsy for my taste; but that's okay, because they were secondary and really only provided emotional counterpoints for Sonny.

The difference between S2 -- which had better permeation in all its dialogue and characterizations -- and I,R is the magnificent, transcendent character of Sonny. Sonny is something unique in movie history, and equal parts of that transcendence are due to the digital artistry that made his facial expressions and subtle body language possible and Alan Tudyk's mastery of his art in providing those movements and vocal inflections. Ever done any kabuki, 'Fred'?

Bring on "Caves of Steel"...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 275 days, 8 hours, 7 minutes, and 41 seconds left until The BDM!

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:38 PM

MAUGWAI

Interesting. Perhaps there's more here than I thought.

What follows is my very spoilery continuation of that thought.

Select to view spoiler:

The only thing about that whole free-will thing with Sonny is, he was designed to be that way. He was programed to be an independent thinker. He even decides that this is his purpose and he must protect humans. So in a way, he is not as original as Vikki, who is the only robot in the story who truly makes a decision for herself. She analyzed everything she learned and came to an unexpected conclusion. So it's interesting to me that they destroy the only robot to exhibit truly human characteristics without it being in her programming. Of course, they had to, but still.

Guess I should have gone to see the movie with Zoid. Analyzing movies is one of my favorite pastimes.

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

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:20 PM

ZOID

maugwai wrote:

Quote:
...Analyzing movies is one of my favorite pastimes.

Mine too. Of course, in order to engage in the pastime, one must have fiction that engenders speculation. In the visual media, this quality is exceedingly rare.

In the original Matrix, one could argue convincingly that Neo's awakening to the 'real world' is in fact nothing more than a psychotic break into a schizophrenic delusion, the likes of which is not uncommonly found in mental hospitals and 'skid rows' around the world. The duality in that first movie, the uncertainty over what is real and what is an illusion is so pervasive that one cannot make definitive statements. The second and third episodes in the Matrix saga were totally devoid of this aspect, and so had none of the magic of the first film, for me. They were good action flicks with innovative SFX and that is all.

To bring this all home, Firefly had that magic in its TV incarnation. With the blessings of the cinematic gods (fickle creatures that they are), so will Serenity. "I, Robot" has the magic too, but I suspect it might take a true sci-fi fan's eye to see it past the whiz-bang and Will Smith's big-star persona. I suspect the movie will do very favorably in DVD sales, and that repeat viewings will eventually reveal the true story under the big production.

That's not meant as a knock on the film, though I know it sounds like one. I can't think of a single cut I'd have made that would have made the 'real' story easier to grasp. Smith's character had to be motivated as it was in order to be a proper foil for Sonny. The rest makes sense too from this viewpoint, but you'll just have to reexamine it for yourself; I can't prove the point without ruining a film that's been out less than a week. Talk to me again after the DVD's been out for a couple months or so...

But I have no doubts we could speculate on Sonny -- convincingly and contrarily -- until the cows come home (or the sequel comes out).

And now, a response to your spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Actually, Sonny wasn't programmed to have independent thought. He was different from the other robots and V.I.K.I. in that he wasn't constrained by the Three Laws. Lanning saw that the Three Laws would eventually lead to the conclusion that humanity must be protected from itself.

This resonates with the type of restrictive thinking found in some fundamentalist religions. Those who are bound in their thought too tightly by a small set of laws may find themselves in the unenviable position of subduing others in the name of doing what's best for them...

Sonny wasn't programmed, he was set free of the moral restrictions that led to V.I.K.I.'s flawed conclusion. It occurred to me that Sonny was Lanning's answer to the Matrix.

Party on...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 275 days, 4 hours, 47 minutes, and 27 seconds left until The BDM!

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:07 PM

CYBERSNARK

To Zoid's list of film AIs, I'd like to add Andromeda from the (early) TV series of the same name.

See, unlike Data (the other Roddenberrian AI), Rommie doesn't want to be human. She's proud, confident, and unapologetic about her nature --her "race." How does she compare to Sonny? Well, she doesn't really, except that she is (psychologically, if not personality-wise) what Sonny could be at the "end" of his evolution.

Also: A while ago, I came across a thread advising folks to link to and I, Robot reviews they came across. Well, I just posted my own informal (and embarassingly uninsightful) mini-review in my alternat ID over on XWA.net, and am too lazy to find the right thread, so:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132240

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

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

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:37 AM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Cybersnark wrote:
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 16:07
To Zoid's list of film AIs

I would like it noted for the record, that was originally my list of AIs. I want my credit!

I wish I understood Andromeda, but I never catch an episode at the beginning. Every time I see it, it's already fifteen minutes in and I am lost. I do know that chick is married to Michale Shanks and had his baby.

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

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

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 5:38 PM

WILDHEAVENFARM

Well, I just wastched it and I must say "well cast", at least as it pertains to AT. The rest of the movie can go bollucks.

Mary
Always a beast, never a burden.

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

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 5:06 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
I wish I understood Andromeda, but I never catch an episode at the beginning.

If you're watching a latter episode (where trance is gold, there's no Rev, and Tyr is either nice or killed-off), then don't bother. Each season gets successively less understandable/meaningful. From what I understand, S5 (which is not airing anywhere in Canada) is downright incoherent.

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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE