You have got to read the messege forum on the internet movie data base.under the topic over wellming i'm i not. these punks are disrespecting William Tuttle's make up and design.kids today have no respect.

BOX hardly ever seems to get the respect that he deserves. I recall that a certain author once refered to the movie version of Box as a 'rolling vanity mirror'. BOX's movie appearance is no where close to how he was described in the book (half-man-half machine - a fusion of the two). IMO, the 'rolling vanity mirror' comment is not totally unfounded.

At the time (mid 70s), BOX was super cool! Now, looking back - he has not aged well. One can only hope that the remake will usher in a more improved and advanced BOX look, one that will rival and dwarf the other so-called classic TV/movie robots -- the Metropolis robot, Robby the Robot, R2D2 and C3PO. Get ready for BOX v2.0!

Box was - and still is - a great classic Movie robot! The best robots in film, IMO are the bad ones!

In any case - I agree with Steve. I can not wait to see what Bryan Singer does with Box in the new movie! I sincerely hope that Box is more of a fusion between man and machine - more along the lines of how they did Arnold in "Terminator 2". Where you can see flesh, blood and metal!! Trouble with doing it that way today would be that people would think you're ripping off "The Terminator", but you really aren't. That is the way Box is described in the original Logan's Run book by Nolan and Johnson!!

Long live Box!!!

I always liked the way Box looked, I thought it was a wonderful design, and while it is true that he did look a bit like a 'rolling vanity mirror'. It is far, far, far better than the fake looking CGI crap they are using in todays films. IMHO The only one to use CGI properly so far is Peter Jackson in Lord of the Rings. I've never been a big fan of this technology, I think most directors are using it as a cruch rather than a tool... Besides that I also believe the fully functional intellengent robot/cyborg of the future is more likley to look like box, and less likley to look like the Terminator... So from a practicle point of veiw I think its a much more realistic interpretation of were robot technologhy might be in 100 years... And remember when I say robot technology Im not talking about the newest nifftiest gadget/man servant you might have in your home of the future, I'm taking about an industrial robot capable of working in harsh conditions over long periods of time, with little or no maintenace. It would be big ,it would be bulky, it would be made of solid state alloys and above all it would be built to last. It would not look like C3PO and it would not look like the Termintor. It would look like Box...Run Runner !!! :rolleyes:

All the kind words about Box (MGM version) do my heart good. He looked cool in '76, & to me, he looks -- & sounds -- cool still.

That said. . .is it just me, or does he remind you a little bit of the Burl Ives "singin' snowman" in the old Rankin-Bass RUDOLPH, THE RED-NOSED REINDEER claymated TV special? ("Fish and plankton" instead of "silver and gold.")

As for a proper MATE for Box, I'm thinkin'. . .Mrs. Butterworth? :rotf:

Paul, that is too funny. :rotf:

Check out this early sketch. Box looks damn menacing.

Very well put.

I've had that argument with people more times than I can count. A lot of people criticize the portrayal of Box because of his lack of style or coolness factor. From a strictly realist point of view, he wouldn't have style. He wasn't a C3PO type machine - a protocol droid designed to interact with humans. Box would be designed to work continuously and dependably in sub-zero temperatures. He would spend decades processing, moving, and storing food.
He certainly wouldn't need legs - that's just a lot more unnecessary moving parts that could be a point of failure or source of potential maintenance.

I'm with RM on this one. They did a perfect job of portraying a purpose-built machine. Which is all he was.