Wow, the only thing i liked about that was Bridget Moynahan. ;)

So, after sleeping on this, I'm wondering if the triler isn't just a bit of a marketing ploy. I mean, think about it . . .

1) The original I, Robot is fantastic, but isn't exactly targeted towards a wide audience. In order to get people to come, they might have to pull a "head fake" during the trailer to give it more of an "action/comedy" spin. This wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

2) I don't know about you, but I would be really surprised to see Alex Proyas sell out on this film.

3) I had another point, but I can't remember what it was . . . http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/i...lies/Sorry.gif

Your idea only works if everything in the trailer was not in the movie and I seriously doubt that.

Actually, it would be the first time a studio blatantly used footage that wasn't in the film to mismarket it to a wider audience. I've never seen an example where that has been done. There have been films with trailers that have been mismarketed, the Hulk for example. But I've never heard of unused footage edited into a trailer to entice a bigger audience.

The problem is harosa is right. Everything in that trailer is all but guaranteed to be in the film. You can all but bet on that. This will be nothing more than another starring vehicle for Will Smith so he can ham it up and piss on this material.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I doubt it.

No, I'm sorry, but I just think you're completely wrong.

As talemyn was saying, trailers can be deceiving when they want to be. The Butterfly Effect is a recent example. Almost all the footage in the trailer was included in the film, and yet everyone was shocked at what they had gotten themselves into.

That being said, I think it's a bit early to call Proyas a sell out. What, exactly, did he sell out to? We haven't seen the film, and just because there are action scenes and Will Smith attempting funnies doesn't mean the movie is going to be lacking intelligence altogether.

Just my take.

Oh, I wasn't implying that they would put in footage that wasn't in the movie (that is reserved for the screen shots on the back of the DVD case ;) ). What I meant was that there are instances recently, in which trailers have mis-represented the actual tone of the films that they are advertising in, what I can only assume is, an attempt to capture a larger audience. They do this, not by showing footage that doesn't show up in the film, but by showing a certain type of footage (e.g., ation shots, humor shots, etc.) at a level disproportionate to how much is actually in the film.

The example that comes to mind for me the most readily is A.I. At the time, I didn't know much about the movie and the trailers gave me a feel that it was going to be a "humans vs. robots" type action flick, when it was much more along the lines of an intellectual drama. The "action" shots were definitely in there, but that was such a minor part of the film.

Does that make more sense?



Edit: Well, Corvin beat me to it on the explaination of my point . . . and he did it with far fewer words. :D

yay! will smith... not looking forward to this one at all

What's all this love for Proyas?

Apparently, many of you didn't see the rancid GARAGE DAYS...

My arguement wasnt about whether the movie turns out to be more intellectual than the trailer implies, Im merely stating that the scenes in the trailer are turds and they will be in the movie no matter what the final product turns out to be.

No, I've seen it. And yeah, not that good. But Dark City and The Crow are both great movies. Two out of three ain't bad.

OK, I can dig that.

But I've seen talent be crucified for less in this forum.

Hey, I'll see it. It looks cool. I don't need much more reason than that.

It was an experimental piece that had it's ups and downs.

But Dark City is still one of the best science-fiction films of all time and The Crow was a great little action flick.

Ahem, Highlander Endgame. If you saw that movie and its trailers you'll realize that what talemyn is suggesting is not far fetched at all.

I think you're confusing "experimental" with low budget.

Outside of an occasional visual idea, the rest of the film was pretty much classic (and lazy) Hollywood formula - even with its Aussie roots. A huge disappointment.

I – PERSONALLY – do not get the hype about this guy just yet.

Count me in as disappointed too.

If Proyas cashed a check for doing this piece, here's hoping it was a large one that will allow him to do better things in the future.

I give a slim margin of hope that the trailer is deceptive and the movie is substantive and intelligent.

That sinking sound was all of my enthusiasm for this movie plummeting to earth. Very, very bad trailer.

looks like another action movie full of cgi. nothing special. may go see it, but will probably wait for the dvd.

It's been a long time since I read the book, but seems like I, Robot was 5-8 short stories. The only common thread throughout any of them was the character of Susan Calvin, and I don't think she was in all of them. How did they make one coherrent story out of all of them? Or perhaps they didn't...

My guess is that the closest we'll get to" substantive and intelligent" in this film is when Will Smith punches out a robot and quips "Welcome to Earth!"

It doesn't help that Will Smith's "sugar" joke was lifted almost directly from the musical "Mame". Granted, they talk about honey and not sugar, but there's even a line about "being too rich." Ugh.

We'll see how this one turns out. I'm actually going to go see it just for Alan Tudyk, who does the voice and was the model for the robot. He's absolutely fantastic.

From what I've read and heard, the film is more of a prequel to "I, Robot" than an adaptation of the actual book of short stories in the book.

After watching the trailer, I would have to file it in the "underwhelming" category for the time being. They really should have used the Susan Calvin character as a thread for whatever stories they wanted to tell in order to advance the neatness of robotic existence in terms of how it connects in some aspects to A.I., a la "I Robot, therefore, I am (and I matter)".

I don't see why you have such a hate for Garage Days. It was a fun fluff piece. I came out of it beaming. It made me feel happy. It wasn't trying to shake the foundations of your very being. It wasn't trying to be wildly original, just a little bit of fun. And on that account, it worked.

What's so rancid about it? And what's wrong with a formula? Sometimes, formulas work. I think this was one of those cases.

In all fairness to Will Smith, while he may be wrong for the movie, i think he's good at what he does... action/comedy, and shown signs of great dramatic work. Blame the script, not the actor :(

It looks like just another Will Smith action/comedy .. but I wanna see it anyway if anything just for the effects, since my cousin did some of em :)