I, Robot

[GuyYouMetOnline]

Has anyone seen the trailer for this movie yet? I discovered it while surfing the Net earlier today. From what I knew about the I, Robot book, I wasn't interested in reading it. Of course, I didn't know much. I watched the trailer just so that I could find out what the book is about.

My first shock came when the site advertised Will Smith as the leading role. He's not an actor I would have associated with my image of the book. So I watched the trailer, and I must say that the movie looks awesome. How can it be bad when it has Smith's character running down a hallway while something (probably a robot) is ripping the floor out from under him? And there's also an awesome line Smith's character says (see my sig).

Well, that's what I think about the movie. What does everyone else think?

Oh, a link to the trailer is on this page: [url]www.apple.com/trailers[/url]

[BlueGender]

[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=1]The movie does indeed look good. I also stumbled on it by accident.The story was the thing that first stuck me. I showed my family and we are already planning on seeing it on opening day. I think it has alot of promise, the robots look a bit odd and ever look a bit scary. [spoiler] In the trailer when the robots begin attacking is was just insane [/spoiler] and for some reason brought a grin to my face. I just hope that it is a good movie and doesnt disappoint me like Wild Wild West [/SIZE] did.[/COLOR]

[NorykoAngelcry]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=darkred]This movie does indeed look good. . I know Will Smith has been in the occasional 'just ok' movies (in my opinion), but this movie seems like it will be really good. . I like the dark feel that this movie has. . not the particular 'fake dark-feeling' that other movies try to put up there on the big screen =) If that makes any sense. .

I am really hoping that they show some good fighting scenes, and hopefully they won't just end the movie with something lame like - "Hurray, I've cut the main power! Just now, as it seemed like everyone was seconds away from getting killed, I saved everyone."

I hope there are some intense fighting scenes, and it doesn't come down to Smith's character having to do something like. . fist fight the robot -_- . . Oh well, my deepest concerns will probably be true, so who knows *shrug* [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I was interested at first, when I thought it might be a murder mystery with a robot in the middle of it. But no. It has to be a generic robots-vs-humans sci-fi movie. Can't get enough of those...

Arnold is the governor now so I guess the only sensible thing to do is have Will Smith take over where he left off.

[Brasil]

[font=Tahoma][QUOTE][font=Tahoma]I was interested at first, when I thought it might be a murder mystery with a robot in the middle of it. But no. It has to be a generic robots-vs-humans sci-fi movie. Can't get enough of those...

Arnold is the governor now so I guess the only sensible thing to do is have Will Smith take over where he left off.[/font][/QUOTE] [/font]

[font=Tahoma][url="http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm"]http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm[/url][/font]

[QUOTE]I, Robot was one of the most important books in Asimov?s life. It is one of his books which built his reputation in the form of its original publication as a series of stories in the Golden Age Astounding (and, for that matter, one of the books that made the Golden Age golden). The book consists of relatively short stories, robot anthologies, that show to us relations between human beings and robots from the [b]time when first elementary robots were created until the time when computers basically took over the control of economy, progress, and future of a man kind[/b]. In his book robots and characters (including the immortal Susan Calvin) are taking the stage all by themselves. [b]It?s a collection of nine stories[/b]. Stories are logically connected. Throughout his book he describes life of "robopsychologist" Dr. Susan Calvin. The book is based on the stories about robots what she tells to the author or stories where she is one of the characters. She is an expert in robots. [b]At the very end of the book she says:" I saw it from the beginning, when the poor robot couldn?t speak, to the end , when they stand between mankind and destruction."[/b] On my opinion, the idea of necessity of a robopsychologist in robot manufacturing is great, and it shows that Asimov, writing his stories in 1940s, clearly saw how important could be relation between machines and people. In the book Susan Calvin is trying to analyze behavior and thoughts of robots that designed and created by men, but, at the same time, outperforming their creators in almost every task and role. Very important part of her analyses are The Three Laws of Robotics:

1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey orders given to him 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.[/QUOTE]That's a basic summary of the I, Robot book. I've bolded some very interesting ideas and phrases. From what I've read about the film, they seem to be adhering to the majority of what Asimov was doing in the novel. Obviously, some creative liberties will be taken, but that is to be expected with any cinema today, of any genre.

I took a look at the director's filmography. Alex Proyas. Directed Dark City, The Crow, both of which are very well-handled dark films with sci-fi and/or mythic qualities. Really, that is what I, Robot is: a science fiction work dealing with very particular themes regarding the psyche and emotional make-up of individuals, robot or human.

The screenwriter leaves a bit to be desired, Akiva Goldsman (of Batman and Robin and Batman Forever infamy), so I'm a bit leery of that. However, Proyas has had a hand in screenwriting. He is responsible for the story and screenplay to Dark City, so there is a chance he may have input into I, Robot.

I don't think we should expect an entire "generic robots-vs-humans sci-fi movie." That's not what Proyas is known for, and judging from the trailer, it's not all action. Also, the CG looks to be very well-done, and I'm very interested in what I, Robot will turn out to be. It looks to be a film with the sci-fi shell, but as we all are aware, the outer shell of a film is often only a shell, and the nut is what we're looking for.

I'm looking forward to I, Robot. The novel is very interesting, the ideas, philosophies, and ideologies are thought-provoking, and it looks to be a very entertaining film. The best kind of cinema is cinema that...what was it that my professor said...the purpose of writing is to entertain, entrance, and to teach, in that order. Many people are turned off by the entertainment aspect of a film, and thus are not willing to give the entrancement an opportunity, and thus the messages of the film (the teaching) are lost.

First impressions are everything in certain situations, not film. You can replay film, you can't replay life.

EDIT: Also, one cannot help but notice I, Robot's influence on The Matrix Trilogy and Animatrix.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Oh, that's why it sounded familiar! Yeah I've never read the book, but I've seen it around now that I think about it. Well I guess I can't say the film's unoriginal then. But the Batman 3 and 4 screenwriter? Ouch. That's not a good sign at all, and the director of Dark City/Crow? Well he can definitely create atmosphere, but there's a few plot problems with even something so simple as The Crow, so I'm a bit unsure about how the director will be able to pull off I, Robot too well.

I'm still going to go in expecting little more than a "fun sci-fi" movie at this point. The original material they had to work with is really the only thing that makes the movie seem even remotely promising, at least in my eyes. But we'll see.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Oh, that's why it sounded familiar! Yeah I've never read the book, but I've seen it around now that I think about it. Well I guess I can't say the film's unoriginal then. [b]But the Batman 3 and 4 screenwriter? Ouch.[/b] That's not a good sign at all, and [b]the director of Dark City/Crow? Well he can definitely create atmosphere, but there's a few plot problems with even something so simple as The Crow, so I'm a bit unsure about how the director will be able to pull off I, Robot too well[/b].

[b]I'm still going to go in expecting little more than a "fun sci-fi" movie at this point[/b]. The original material they had to work with is really the only thing that makes the movie seem even remotely promising, at least in my eyes. But we'll see.[/QUOTE]
1) I recall the dialogue in 3 and 4 to be pretty bad. "Chill!" Gah. Almost as bad as Storm's "toad struck by lightning" line. But at least the "lightning" line was...funny. It was corny and so horribly written that it actually brings a smile to my face when I hear it or think of it. Just such a [i]bad[/i] line. Arnold's dialogue in 4, though, was meant to be campy and while Arnold has a comedic timing (Kindergarten Cop is hilarious), he had nothing to work with in 4. I'm not totally discounting the screenwriter here, I still have faith that because this writer is coupled with Proyas, there won't be any of the mind-numbingly bad dialogue from the recent Batman movies.

2) Proyas is more than capable of creating a dark and edgy film, and The Crow, broken down to its simplest elements, is a mythic revenge tale. It plays upon the notion of returning from the Underworld to serve oneself and nothing more. It's a fantastic concept.

Eric Draven is something out of a nightmare, really, and his character is drawn far better than the "invincible killer" horror cliche. Draven is the symbol of death, but his Death is just and fair, concerned with righting a wrong, not creating havoc needlessly. All of his destruction has a motive, it has a purpose. This is why Draven is one of the more sympathetic anti-heroes, I think. There is a method to his madness, his revenge is understood. He is not going out and blindly killing, and he still holds onto his humanity, even while functioning like an automaton. "It can't rain all the time."

It is because of this characterization that I have faith in Proyas' directing of I, Robot. The themes are eerily similar, when you think about it. The idea of a struggle for control of one's destiny and self, one's motivations for action that may be driven out of self-defense or a desire for improvement.

This touches directly, I think, upon Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

[QUOTE]1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey orders given to him 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.[/QUOTE]
Draven must not injure a human being, through action or inaction, and this is why he rescues Sarah in the street. He has an obligation to help those in need.

I'd go into more detail if I had time.

[Retribution]

I saw a trailer and it looked absolutely TERRIBLE!

If anyone's read the book I, Robot, they will know it rocked. All the movie keeps intact that correlates with the story line is the three laws of robots. Other than that, Will is just a crime busting, shoot'em up, no plot kind of guy. This movie does NO justice to the book what so ever.

Go read it, not watch it. What was the last good movie that will smith was in? Independence Day? Maybe later.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Altron]I saw a trailer and it looked absolutely TERRIBLE!

If anyone's read the book I, Robot, they will know it rocked. All the movie keeps intact that correlates with the story line is the three laws of robots. Other than that, Will is just a crime busting, shoot'em up, no plot kind of guy. This movie does NO justice to the book what so ever.

Go read it, not watch it. What was the last good movie that will smith was in? Independence Day? Maybe later.[/QUOTE]
Dude, don't you think you're jumping the gun a bit here? All you saw was a trailer, a teaser. Granted, trailers today give more or less the entire film, but c'mon, man, lol. You're judging a movie based on less than 5 minutes of footage, probably around 2 minutes of actual film. Oddly enough, this ties into a discussion I was having earlier this morning, on my way to school.

When one goes into a film wanting to hate it, they'll hate it. When one begins reading Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis under the notion that it's boring, they will find it boring. This holds true in high school, as well. It's a cliche, yes, but it's true: "You only get out what you put in." Cinema, literature, school, [i]life[/i] is what you make it. Your reaction to an event is shaped by your predisposition to said event.

When I heard of Tim Burton's POTA remake, I was leery. The original is breathtaking, albeit some bizarre (over)acting. I went into Burton's POTA with a skeptical eye, and I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have, had I kept an open mind.

This holds true with EA's announcement of GoldenEye 2. Same thing.

You go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie, you're going to get a bad movie. You go into Bad Boys II expecting high art, you're going to be disappointed. It all comes down to how you're limiting your appreciation for entertainment, Altron. Something to think about.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Petey]When one goes into a film wanting to hate it, they'll hate it. When one begins reading Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis under the notion that it's boring, they will find it boring. This holds true in high school, as well. It's a cliche, yes, but it's true: "You only get out what you put in." Cinema, literature, school, [i]life[/i] is what you make it. Your reaction to an event is shaped by your predisposition to said event.

This holds true with EA's announcement of GoldenEye 2. Same thing.

You go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie, you're going to get a bad movie. You go into Bad Boys II expecting high art, you're going to be disappointed.[/QUOTE]

I actually rarely find this to be true with anything besides food, at least in my case. If I go in expecting a bad film (i.e. not expecting much from the film), I'll most likely be delightfully surprised when the film has anything redeeming about it. Now, it's true that when I go in expecting a good film then often I am disappointed because the film falls short of my expectations (but I'm never more disappointed than I ought to be). What I'm basically saying is my predisposition towards a film will not skew my impression of it. And I suppose even if it does, it only does so for a short time. After reflecting on a film, I usually develop a fair stance toward it.

Hmm that was rambling. I guess I usually have "realistic" expectations of most films, and so far I haven't fooled myself into thinking a movie is worse or better than I would have had I gone in knowing absolutely nothing about it to begin with.

As far as Goldeneye 2 goes, I'd say that it's fair to expect less than the original Goldeneye until EA proves us wrong. There's no reason to think it'll be just as good as its "predecessor" and plenty of reasons to think it will be worse. But, again, in my case that will not have an effect on my impression of a game once I actually play it. With Ninja Gaiden, I expected killer graphics and literally nothing else. But instead it turned out to be one of the best games I've played on current-generation consoles. I didn't dwell on any minor problems it might have.

But when I go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie (which will be the case), I will only get a bad movie if it really does suck (as far as my standards go). ... I guess the thing is I'm allowing for the possibility that it will be better than it seems. It's silly to do otherwise.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I actually rarely find this to be true with anything besides food, at least in my case. If I go in expecting a bad film (i.e. not expecting much from the film), I'll most likely be delightfully surprised when the film has anything redeeming about it. Now, it's true that when I go in expecting a good film then often I am disappointed because the film falls short of my expectations (but I'm never more disappointed than I ought to be). [b]What I'm basically saying is my predisposition towards a film will not skew my impression of it.[/b] And I suppose even if it does, it only does so for a short time. [b]After reflecting on a film, I usually develop a fair stance toward it[/b'].[/quote]
*cough*Spiderman, [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38562&page=2&pp=15]Kill Bill[/url], Matrix, [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38934&page=1&pp=15]this entire thread[/url], [url=http://www.sciros.net/moviereviews.htm]here[/url], [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=572231#post572231]here[/url], [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=571620#post571620]this[/url]*cough*

[QUOTE]Hmm that was rambling. [b]I guess I usually have "realistic" expectations of most films[/b], and so far I haven't fooled myself into thinking a movie is worse or better than I would have had I gone in knowing absolutely nothing about it to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that? Just a question that popped into my head here. See below for further comments.

[QUOTE]As far as Goldeneye 2 goes, I'd say that it's fair to expect less than the original Goldeneye until EA proves us wrong. There's no reason to think it'll be just as good as its "predecessor" and plenty of reasons to think it will be worse. But, again, in my case that will not have an effect on my impression of a game once I actually play it. With Ninja Gaiden, I expected killer graphics and literally nothing else. But instead it turned out to be one of the best games I've played on current-generation consoles. I didn't dwell on any minor problems it might have.[/QUOTE]
Though, we shouldn't overlook what EoN is. This shouldn't be a major discussion point, but our expectations of GE2 are mostly related to EA's lackluster performances, meaning, strength of the developer. This "strength of the developer" can be applied to the director of I, Robot, who is a very strong and talented filmmaker.

[quote]But when I go into I, Robot expecting a bad movie (which will be the case), [b]I will only get a bad movie if it really does suck (as far as my standards go).[/b] ... I guess the thing is I'm allowing for the possibility that it will be better than it seems. It's silly to do otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Sciros, surely you don't think that your standards are set at any reasonable level that gives any film a chance? In the time I've observed you, I've noticed that you set any standard of yours insanely high, so that you feel "right" or validated when tearing something to shreds. Something tells me that your standards aren't so "realistic."

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Petey, let's not bring those movies into this. I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 1 expecting a far better film than what it turned out to be (in my opinion; I don't give 2 craps about whether YOU like the film or not). And honestly, same goes for Kill Bill Vol. 2. It turned out to be far worse than I expected. Same goes for Spiderman. And the Paper Mario 2 thread? Did you even read my posts there? They have nothing to do with this discussion.

[quote name='Petey']Though, we shouldn't overlook what EoN is. This shouldn't be a major discussion point, but our expectations of GE2 are mostly related to EA's lackluster performances, meaning, strength of the developer. This "strength of the developer" can be applied to the director of I, Robot, who is a very strong and talented filmmaker.[/quote]

My expectations of Goldeneye 2 are relatively high, actually. But no, of course I'm not expecting a true "sequel to Goldeneye." Really, that title is already held by Perfect Dark. Anyway... whether the director of I, Robot is a "strong and talented" filmmaker doesn't exactly go without question. I didn't particularly like the way The Crow was put together. We'll see how he does; I have no opinion of him one way or the other right now, really.

[quote name='Petey']Sciros, surely you don't think that your standards are set at any reasonable level that gives any film a chance? In the time I've observed you, I've noticed that you set any standard of yours insanely high, so that you feel "right" or validated when tearing something to shreds. Something tells me that your standards aren't so "realistic."[/quote]

Haha, of course I feel right when tearing something to shreds. Who would feel "wrong?" Anyway I disagree about setting my standards too high. I don't think that expecting a cohesive storyline with no holes, decent dialogue, respectable acting, interesting characters, and fluid scene transitions is expecting too much. The films we've discussed haven't delivered in all those categories, so I don't know why I should still consider them "good" films. And it's not like I have some brainless criteria here; I will ENJOY films that have a good story, good characters, etc. And I enjoy a good number of films, in fact. Just because I think that the Matrix trilogy and Kill Bill are utter crap doesn't mean that I hate all movies.

But you are right about me having higher standards than most people. The only people I know that have higher standards are my parents; they're really freaking hard to please. But when they explain why they dislike a film, I usually can't disagree. It comes down to a matter of taste (either that or they convince me that the movie I thought was good does, in fact, suck).

[Brasil]

[center]"If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this."[/center]
[center] [/center]
[center]~The Wolf[/center]
[center]Pulp Fiction[/center]


[quote name='ScirosDarkblade][b]Petey, let's not bring those movies into this[/b']. I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 1 expecting a far better film than what it turned out to be (in my opinion; I don't give 2 craps about whether YOU like the film or not). And honestly, same goes for Kill Bill Vol. 2. It turned out to be far worse than I expected. Same goes for Spiderman. And the Paper Mario 2 thread? Did you even read my posts there? They have nothing to do with this discussion.[/quote]
Sciros, we need to bring other movies into this. They're important points here. You go into movies expecting trash and you thus see trash because of it. Paper Mario 2 [i]does[/i] have something to do with what I'm talking about, with what you're refusing to acknowledge. You have these lofty expectations so you have grounds to rip the subject apart. Also, you [i]never[/i] expected much going into Vol. 2, Sciros. Don't deny that or I'll call you on it. I linked to the thread, man. I've read your posts. Try to rationalize it all you want, boy, but you've got nothing.

[QUOTE][b]My expectations of Goldeneye 2 are relatively high[/b], actually. But no, of course I'm not expecting a true "sequel to Goldeneye." Really, that title is already held by Perfect Dark. Anyway... whether the director of I, Robot is a "strong and talented" filmmaker doesn't exactly go without question. [b]I didn't particularly like the way The Crow was put together. We'll see how he does; I have no opinion of him one way or the other right now, really[/b].[/QUOTE]
1) Are your expectations of GoldenEye 2 high?

[QUOTE]As far as Goldeneye 2 goes, I'd say that it's fair to expect less than the original Goldeneye until EA proves us wrong. There's no reason to think it'll be just as good as its "predecessor" and plenty of reasons to think it will be worse.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you have some relatively high expectations of GE2, lol.

2) Am I to understand that you're now distancing yourself from "The movie is going to be crap!!11!"?

[QUOTE]Haha, of course I feel right when tearing something to shreds. Who would feel "wrong?" Anyway I disagree about setting my standards too high. [b]I don't think that expecting a cohesive storyline with no holes, decent dialogue, respectable acting, interesting characters, and fluid scene transitions is expecting too much[/b]. The films we've discussed haven't delivered in all those categories, so I don't know why I should still consider them "good" films. [b]And it's not like I have some brainless criteria here; I will ENJOY films that have a good story, good characters, etc[/b]. And I enjoy a good number of films, in fact. Just because I think that the Matrix trilogy and Kill Bill are utter crap doesn't mean that I hate all movies.[/QUOTE]

1) Do you even know what a plot hole is? It's a hiccup in a film, a problem with the plot that [i]cannot[/i] be explained by the plot/film itself. I'd be very interested to see if those plot holes you hate are actually plot holes and not just your own cynicism and ignorance shining through?

Speaking of cohesive storyline, you have ranted and raved how particular films suck, but their plots are extremely coherent and focused. I'm going to make a very bold statement here, to which you will surely overreact: There is no bad dialogue in Tarantino movies. Similarly, there are rarely uninteresting characters in Tarantino movies. And scene transitions in Tarantino films are some of the best I've seen, and some of the best others here have seen.

2) Sciros, while you may not have "brainless criteria," you are brainless in your evaluation with set criteria. Flame me all you want, dude, it's the truth. You have absolutely no regard for anything and seek to only bash and nothing more, based upon your radicalist stance on cinema, a stance that is unheard of in film critique.

[quote][b]But you are right about me having higher standards than most people[/b]. The only people I know that have higher standards are [b]my parents[/b]; they're really freaking hard to please. But when they explain why they dislike a film, I usually can't disagree. It comes down to a matter of taste (either that or they convince me that the movie I thought was good does, in fact, suck).[/QUOTE]
1) I'm right about far more than that, but you are still blinded by your own cynicism and ignorance to acknowledge that.

2) So your entire outlook on cinema is influenced by your parents? Are we to then realize that your hatred for particular films is not even based on your own opinion?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey]Sciros, we need to bring other movies into this. They're important points here. You go into movies expecting trash and you thus see trash because of it. Also, you [i]never[/i'] expected much going into Vol. 2, Sciros. Don't deny that or I'll call you on it. I linked to the thread, man. I've read your posts. Try to rationalize it all you want, boy, but you've got nothing.[/quote]

No I don't deny anything. Heh. Yeah it's scary, I didn't expect much from Vol. 2. going into it. But I got even less. But moving on, when I think a movie is trash I don't explain it by saying "well I expected trash, so there you go." I give concrete reasons that have nothing to do with (except coinciding with) what I initially expected.

[QUOTE]I'm sure you have some relatively high expectations of GE2, lol.[/QUOTE]

So you figure that me saying a game is going to be worse than Goldeneye is equivalent to having low expectations of it? Dude, I think Goldeneye is the second-best FPS ever made, with Perfect Dark being the best. I don't expect Halo 2 to outdo Perfect Dark, but that doesn't mean I don't think it'll be a good game. Same goes for Goldeneye 2. Yeah there are tons of reasons for me to expect it to be worse than its predecessor. But worse doesn't mean bad, and I never implied that it did.

[QUOTE]Do you even know what a plot hole is? It's a hiccup in a film, a problem with the plot that [i]cannot[/i] be explained by the plot/film itself. I'd be very interested to see if those plot holes you hate are actually plot holes and not just your own cynicism and ignorance shining through?[/QUOTE]

That's just rudeness there. I'm not gonna go ahead and start throwing random plotholes at you here because it's the I, Robot thread. But I know that you're talking about things like Matrix. Well if you think that the Matrix trilogy had no plot holes, then you're a little screwy in the head.

[QUOTE]There is no bad dialogue in Tarantino movies. Similarly, there are rarely uninteresting characters in Tarantino movies. And scene transitions in Tarantino films are some of the best I've seen, and some of the best others here have seen.[/QUOTE]

There's some bad dialogue in Tarantino movies. The line "silly rabbit, trix are for kids" kills me a little inside every time I remember it. But that's not even the point. Kill Bill's strong point in my opinion was the dialogue; I did enjoy much of it. Except for that bullcrap about Superman that Tarantino decided to throw in at the end of Vol. 2. He doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Superman. It's just a little thing; most people don't care. Scene transitions in Kill Bill... well they weren't exactly fluid. You had the big "Chapter 7" screen suddenly appear. It's not on the same level as Brotherhood of the Wolf's scene transitions, if you've seen that film.

[QUOTE]Sciros, while you may not have "brainless criteria," you are brainless in your evaluation with set criteria. Flame me all you want, dude, it's the truth. You have absolutely no regard for anything and seek to only bash and nothing more, based upon your radicalist stance on cinema, a stance that is unheard of in film critique.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure there was a single meaningful sentence in any of that. I have no idea what you think my "radicalist stance" on cinema is.

[QUOTE]So your entire outlook on cinema is influenced by your parents? Are we to then realize that your hatred for particular films is not even based on your own opinion?[/QUOTE]

I KNEW you'd write something like that, because it's smartass yet stupid. I form my own opinion based on as much input as I feel like getting. Don't privilege stubbornness, Petey; it's not a virtue.

... I forgot this is the I, Robot thread and not something else. Sorry. I really have nothing more to add in regard to the film.

[Xyandar]

Im not really into robot movies myself... But I would see it mostly because Will smith is in it and because he is a really good actor. I never watched any of the Terminator movies but I will see this because it does look a little more interesting than them. This looks like a ripoff of Terminator 3 :Rise of the machines lol. This is just my opinion though... Dont need to care about it.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Bearing in mind that I have'nt seen this preview, just read the book: I'm interested. Granted, I, Robot was an anthology, so i don't think they'll directly adapt it, and Will Smith sci-fi movies tend to have a feel that isn't exactly what I'd picture for a work by Asimov, but it could work, I suppose.

I hope the film is successful enough to warrent the big-screen adaptation of "Foundation". that would be sooo awesome...[/color][/size][/font]