paustin

Lets boycott the Star Wars sequels because they suck and dont stand true to the originals........who's with me???.................... :-)

DRG

I actually think the worst thing about this is the title. It fits the original story, but it just seems dumb here. I picture something like A.I. or Bicentennial Man (also based on an Asimov story) when I hear the title, not a big action fest. If they wanted to incorporate the Asimov stuff in, something like The Three Laws or The Laws of Robotics would be cooler, but I suppose it doesn't look as appealing on a lobby standee that's supposed to entice kids and teenagers.

Ginwen

I'm not "boycotting it" but I probably won't be in a hurry to see it.

Partly because it doesn't look good, partly because it DOES annoy me when something takes its title from something I enjoyed, then appears to have almost nothing to do with the source material.

dave-o

Based on what I have read and seen from the trailer, not only does this have almost nothing to do with the source material, but it is completely antithetical to what Asimov produced with I, Robot. I would hardly call this just a "loose" intepretation, it actually is exactly the thing that Asimov was responding to when he wrote the Robot series in the first place...wow!

Jackskeleton

OMG!!!111 they deviant from the original source material! Who would have ever thunk that Hollywood would do such a thing.



Return to Oz was nothing like the book yet I still enjoyed it.

dave-o

A deviation I can live with, but a complete and total opposite theme from what was intended by the original? Picture your favorite book and think about the core theme or idea that made you love that book so much and then imagine a movie that is made that not only changes the story but changes the main theme to the exact opposite from what is really intended. Inexcusable...but ultimately not petitionable (ooooh I invented a new word). I just won't be throwing my hard earned rupees at that film.

As an aside, I would like to start an online petition boycotting all online petitions, but I would guess it has already been done, so in actuality I will do nothing and let apathy take me away...ahhh sweet, sweet, apathy......

Jackskeleton

Nothing beats apathy.

I can understand why some are mad about the change, but really, it shouldn't be all that shocking considering how many times it has been done in the past in films.

Michael Corvin

Like Shawshank Redemption.

talemyn

I wasn't overly impressed with the teaser, but I really liked the look of the trailer, so I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing it.

It hink that they other thing that people need to take into account is that I don't think that this has ever been played up as being a movie version of the book. I think that people are putting that on themselves. Infact, I'd be surprised if they didn't very purposefully kept quite about saying that it was based on the book to create a little controversy as to the movies relationship to it.

calhoun07

This is one thing I will NEVER understand. On one hand, you have people going, "There is no originality in movies, recycling ideas, blah blah blah blah blah." Then somebody who makes movies decides to try something ORIGINAL and maybe takes the source material from a book or a series of comics. In most cases, the book will be 500 pages or more (I am speaking generally here) or will draw on a comic book character with 30+ years of history. Then people get all pissy about the "changes" they made and what they had to "leave out." Either you want movies to try new things or you just don't care if they keep on rehasing the same ideas over and over again.

It's been stated before: A book is a book
A comic book is a comic book
A movie is a movie.

If I read a comic book adaptation of a movie, I don't get pissy if they have to leave things out of the comic to make the 3 hour movie fit into 48 pages or whatever. Likewise with movies, I don't understand people who get pissy because something may not be particularly like an issue of a comic book they remember, or they left out material from a 700 page novel to fit it into a 2 hour movie.

People just need to relax and enjoy each genre for what it is. I sometimes will see comic book movies with a friend and he's still going on about how Hellboy left out this and that and I said, "If you wanted to see the story from the comics, you should have just stayed home and read the comics." Like wise with movies. If you want to know everything Asimov wanted in I Robot, read the FREAKING BOOK and let the movie stand alone.

icruise

What part of this concept don't you people understand? Assuming that people's predictions about the movie are correct, it's not a question "adapting" a movie by combining a few characters or deleting some scenes; it's a question of making a movie that goes against *everything* that the original novel stood for. It's like making The Lord of the Rings and letting Sauron win in the end.

HOWEVER I don't actually think that they are right. Despite the trailers, my hunch is that the movie will turn out not to have violated Asimov's original vision in the way that people think it has. I think Alex Proyas is smart enough to realize that such a move wouldn't go over well. So I'm going to wait until the movie actually comes out to criticize it.

PopcornTreeCt

I don't like the old Hollywood cliche of having the hip young black man take down the rich white capitalist and oh yeah the hot heroine of the movie is white also. Not something I care for in movies.

fumanstan

Wow! This movie is racist! Boycott! And the robots are white colored too!

Kumar J

Why is there no Catwomen Boycott! I demand a recount!
Anyway I don't care what the other people think, what I want to watch is my money money and my business!

silentbob007

The whole book was structured around "problems" with the 3 laws (which is probably why more laws were added later), but the problems were only confined to singular incidents and there was never actual harm done to a human ... just a possibility. While that premise is cinematically boring and the structure of the book virtually requires adaptation, I simply hope it isn't dumbed into the action movie portrayed in the trailers.

Its funny ... my dad's a big Asimov fan, and he spent the whole trailer shaking his head in disgust. His belief was that this type of movie helps to promote an anti-robot agenda on the general public ... maybe a little extreme for me .

jaeufraser

I'm just going to wait and see this. Alex Proyas is directing, the three laws are NOT broken in the film, and I'm I've got faith proyas will deliver something entertaining but not mind numbing stupid.

With regards to boycotting the film...why anyone in their right mind feels the need to gather other people along with them to not see a movie is beyond me. If you don't want to see it don't go. These petitions are silly. I think I saw one for Catwoman like this also (though their reasoning was for pure suckiness).

Why don't we put a class action lawsuit against the movie for defaming robots too? Any robots here in on that?

GreenMonkey

Robots attacking humans is the kind of thing that Asimov hated. He didn't like the Frankenstein complex. He felt that technology would overcome the problem. Asimov believed in technology and the good it would bring to humanity.

His short story robot novels really involved loopholes than anything, and it was normally the result of some sort of tinkering with the robot's normal programming. And still, there was never a robot actually attacking a person. It was impossible.

I saw this trailer and made my wife turn it off. I was too disgusted to watch it. This movie is 100% the opposite of what Asimov's robots were about. Asimov robots would never be revolting, attacking humans, etc. NEVER.

Giantrobo

I agree.

wmansir

I'm reading "i, robot" right now actually. Indirectly because of the movie. I was at the library when I saw a books on tape box for "i, robot" with will smith on the cover. I've read 7 of the 9 stories and so far none of them could be made into an action movie, or even a main stream movie. Perhaps something philisophical and moody like Solaris, but not main stream.

@jaeufraser: How do you know the three laws are not broken?

mike45

I read the book over 20 years ago. I will not be going to see the movie. Not because it's not faithful to Asimov. But, because it just doesn't look very good. I'll wait to Netflix it, when it hits DVD.

Jackskeleton

sounds like you are looking to deep into it all.

Giantrobo

Wanna boycott something? Boycott CONCERT TICKET PRICES, THEATER TICKET PRICES, and $45 TUBS OF POPCORN.

jaeufraser

Go to www.mysteryclock.com under the forum section. They have a board called "ask alex" where you like...ask alex proyas questions and he responds. It's pages of stuff, but he mentions that in there somewhere. I know I've read a review that mentioned that also.

DonnachaOne

I've started making a movie! I call it The Bible. It's an action movie starring Will Smith squaring off against Satan in a barbershop battle of the bands, before Satan has the chance to corrupt the canaanites into breaking the ten commandments. Since I include the character of "Satan" from the book "The Bible" as well as the ten commandments, it is perfectly reasonable that I can ignore the original material wholesale, not to mention the millions who have read the original book, and no-one has any reason to be offended or doubt my use of the title "The Bible" for my movie.




I, Robot looks interesting, but I still don't like the misleading appropriation of the book's title and some story elements. It feels like a con.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off making my new movie, The Godfather. It's an action movie starring Will Smith as...


So you've said...

Quote:

Return to Oz was nothing like the book yet I still enjoyed it.

Which Oz book?

mike45

Anybody remember Will Smith in The Wild Wild West? They butchered that concept.