Well, I believe it is official with the first trailer, they've pretty much killed the Asimov short stories in I, Robot with the upcoming movie, unless I've completely forgotten one.
Now, the best I can hope for is a decent story set in the Asimov universe. I mean, I was hoping for an intellectual story involving the mind-reading robot, the girl, and Susan Calvin... Was I so wrong to want that? And, just a short rant... From the looks of the trailer does it bother anyone else that Babylon 5 treated the 3 Laws better, not to mention Star Trek's efforts, than a movie sharing the name as the original book? Oh well, I'll watch the trailer again later and allow it to try and redeem itself.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
first wild wild west (and that was just a bad TV show), now this?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So to you all you Sci-Fi fans all across the land Take it from me Hollywood just don't understand
Werd.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Robots. Do. Not. Break. The. Three. Laws. It's hardwired into their brains, fer cryin' out loud!
What happened to the real stories, the ones where the robots are better humans than the humans are?? I would be fine with an Asimov universe movie that is not based on any particular short story. But having robots just breaking the First Law like that...uh uh. Robots are almost always the good guys in Asimov's stories. I will not see a movie that portrays them as dehumanized enemies. Maybe they should have gotten Peter Jackson to adapt this book.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, it already sounds like what Jackson did to Tolkien.
[ March 13, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Despite public outcries to the contrary, I quite enjoyed Robin William's movie. No matter how much you may have hated Bicentennial Man, you have to admit it was better than this crap.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
What is wrong with Hollywood?! This has GOT to be the biggest load of crap I have EVER seen. What's with Susan Calvin weilding a gun?
Asimov is spinning in his grave
What's with the Gun toting Will Smith, fighting off an army of evil robots?
[ March 13, 2004, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The new Star Wars movies showed such blatant disregard for the books I love so much, I had to relegate them to a nearby parallel universe. They couldn't quite cut it as Star Wars, they're merely Star Wars-esque. Maybe we could do the same thing with this movie and still like it?
But then, if I wanted to watch a movie about killer robots, I'd just rent Terminator again. How in the world would the Foundation series tie in now?
Shigosei, didn't one of the human looking robots break the First Law in Caves of Steel? I thought that was what killed him. Or was it just contemplating breaking it that killed him? But I agree. The First Law is too important to ignore. And way too interesting, especially after Daneel invents the Zeroth Law.
If they wanted to make Asimov, why couldn't they just make Asimov?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
AvidReader, the robot broke the First Law accidentally, if I am thinking of the right book. It was unintentionally responsible for the demise of a human being because another human used it to kill. Lemme see--I think its arm was detached (built to be that way) and was used as a club.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That was it. It didn't break the First Law, but an inanimate part of its body it had no control over did. And that was enough to kill it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
That didn't look like a real trailer. It looked like one of those fake commercials you'd see on SNL. Jerry Bruckheimer presents: Asimov. Sometimes Hollywood parodies itself far better than anyone else could.
When Will Smith was in his car and he looked forward and said, "Oh, hell no!" all I could think was, "I hear you, brother."
[ March 13, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Can you imagine if these people had adapted Lord of the Rings? I have visions of Frodo and Sam defeating an orc army in front of Mount Doom in a mighty wire-propelled kung-fu battle, throwing the ring in, and riding motorcycles out as the mountain exploded behind them. YEEEEEHAW!
Then maybe Legolas could have singlehandedly defeated a giant elephant and surfed down its trunk as it crashed to the ground. Wait....
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
How many people who have posted thus far have actually read the anthology (and story) this movie comes from? I mean, I haven't even read the story, but I know every complaint about the plot so far is totally unwarranted (meaning comes from the story).
And really, people, complaining about Smith is really stupid. There are few male actors in Hollywood who can actually act, and Smith is one of them. Just because he's done plenty of comedy and "fun" stuff doesn't take away from his ability to be serious and convincing as an actor. Get over it—this isn't 1991, when all anyone knew of Smith was his corny (but popular in their time) rap songs and a silly sitcom.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I've read it, and we're not just talking about the story, we're talking about the whole concept of Asimovian Robots: The three Laws of Robotics
quote:1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it 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.
That whole trailer just went against all of that.
EDIT: And no one has been complaining about Will Smith. I just said that the whole concept of having Will Smith fighting off an army of evil killer robots is just absurd.
[ March 13, 2004, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I've read the anthology, as well as all of Asimov's other major robot books, most of them many times. I think I can safely say that the Alan Parsons Project album was a better adaptation of Asimov than this movie looks to be.
[ March 13, 2004, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Don't forget the best part. Daneel eventually invents the Zeroth Law, "Robots may not, through action or inaction, allow harm to come to humanity." The First Law can be broken to follow the Zeroth Law, though not in I, Robot, since it hasn't been invented yet.
If the movie is about robots who break the First Law to conform to the Zeroth Law, it would be keeping with Asimov's books and I'd be ok with it. Does it look the robots are out to protect humanity at large?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: when all anyone knew of Smith was his corny (but popular in their time) rap songs and a silly sitcom.
Silly sitcom?! I'll have you know, I love that sitcom! It's one of the funniest sitcoms ever!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So silly ain't funny?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Avid - you are aware that the screenplays and movies of the Star Wars series came first? I.e., the first movie was followed by an official "adapted from the screenplay" book - and at some point different authors were allowed to explore the possibilities in the storyline, but "the" story comes from "the" headcheese as it were -
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Babylon 5? I am a fan of the series, but how in the world did Bab5 deal with the 3 laws of robotics? There weren't any robots/androids in the series, so who used those laws? Are you referring to the rules the telepaths had to follow?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Shan, I actually meant the novels starting with Timothy Zahn that continued the story. They were written after the original movies but before the new movies.
(Must resist urge to rant...) Let's just say I'm not thrilled with the new movies and leave it at that.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, I've read all the Robots - Empire - Foundation books. I don't know about you people, but I remember some stories from 'I, Robot' where the robots broke the first law, either due to "small" modifications in one of the laws, or due to ambiguous circumstances. And as I recall, most of the stories were exactly about this kind of cases, where one law would be broken, and it was a detective-story-like search to find the problem. So if there's something like this going on in the movie I'll be happy to forgive them for not completely following the book...
Then again, it might be just another full-time special effects movie - now THAT would suck, wouldn't it ?! (from the man who, after seeing Phantom Menace decided that Star Wars was dead and Attack of the Clone is not even worth trying to see)
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If they had stopped at that one robot Smith was investigating, that might have been okay. It's the armies of robots killing or at least harming everyone in their path I have a problem with. The only excuse for that is the zeroth law (Save humanity from extinction), and I don't see how that could possibly apply here.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Oh well, I guess we'll have to see it to understand, now, won't we ? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lucas' original StarWars (now known as EpisodeIV: A New Hope) book was reviewed for scifi mags -- verdict: silly science but it'll be a majorly movie if it ever gets financed -- by the time Lucas began shooting the movie.
[ March 13, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I've read all of the Robot books, and almost every work of fiction by Asimov (believe it or not). And yes, there were one or two stories where robots had been designed without the three laws wired into them. In my opinion, they were weaker stories, but they did exist. I could hold out hope that maybe there's a plot twist, that maybe they're not really our enemies in this movie, but it doesn't look good. Up until that one scene late in the trailer, I was thinking maybe Smith's investigation eventually uncovers such a twist, but that scene with the army of robots fighting with humans--unless I simply saw it wrong.
I dunno. It doesn't look too good.
Will I see it anyway? I dunno. Right now, my kneejerk response is no, but I know myself, and I suspect I will, if only to see how they have ruined the stories.
I'll admit, I was excited but concerned when I first heard they were doing an I, Robot movie, since I, Robot is not really a novel, but I didn't really think they'd go as far off the deep end as it looks like they might have. It does kinda look like Terminator 0.
Oh, and, for what it's worth, I actually did like most of Bicentennial Man. There were two or three scenes that were cringingly unwatchable, but in general I think they did a decent job.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Hollywood should no longer be allowed to adapt books. That's it. They're cut off. Flagged.
Ugh.
Asimov wasn't about flash. He was about story. He had a simple style that didn't concern itself overmuch with Character, but with Idea.
It's the Idea of the Robot series that is so good... the Idea that there are hundreds of stories that use the three laws of robotics to point up flaws in humanity or other philosophical ideals.
There's no call for a marauding army of robots attacking humans and being shot in the street like some FPS on X-Box.
I wonder how they got the rights? I think I remember in Asimov's autobiography that after the atrocity that was Nightfall he swore never to let Hollywood touch anything of his again. I would have thought he'd have had that in writing somewhere after he died.
(granted, that doesn't account for Bicentennial Man)
[ March 13, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
There was a Nightfall movie??
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Apparently, this was an existing script, onto which they slapped the Asimov name, and changed the names of a couple of characters.
<--- skeptical
[ March 13, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
If you guys are waiting for movies that are faithful to Asimov, I think you'll have to wait an awful long time. The fact is that in most of Asimov's books (especially the better ones), nothing happens. Mostly, it's people talking about what happened. That makes for awesome books, but aside from "Caves of Steel" (maybe), there's not a heck of alot there that Hollywood can use.
I can't wait to see what they'll do with a Foundation movie. Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Trailer: The psychohistorian who stood up to a galactic empire. Arnold Schwarzenegger IS Hari Seldon.
*Shots of Arnie killing off a bunch of imperial soldiers*
"I see the future!"
"I'll be back."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
**groan**
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Posted by Arnold as Hari Seldon (Member # 6323) on :
St. Yogi, how dare you ?!
And you know, that "I'll be back !" line isn't really mine, it's waaay older !! Take a look at the original !
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
My question: Is the army of fighting robots "real"? Or is it, perhaps, part of a dream/nightmare sequence within the movie itself?
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
That's possible, but knowing Hollywood, I doubt it.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Also, I'm disturbed by the portrayal of Susan Calvin, who is NOT supposed to be hot. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What's interesting is that I haven't read any of the stories.
From that perspective, the movie looks pretty interesting.
*ducks*
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
*Throws chair at Mack*
Go away!
OK maybe you're right. If this din't have the name "I, Robot" smeared all over it I probably would have been really interested.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, there you go.
It might be a bad adaptation according to many, but as for a bad movie, it remains to be seen.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Exactly, St. Yogi. It's not that it looks bad, it just doesn't look like Asimov. Maybe we should rename it for ourselves so it ceases to offend?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Two letters: AI
*runs away*
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Don't forget the best part. Daneel eventually invents the Zeroth Law, "Robots may not, through action or inaction, allow harm to come to humanity." The First Law can be broken to follow the Zeroth Law, though not in I, Robot, since it hasn't been invented yet.
Just a point here - Daneel, as I recall didn't invent the Zeroth Law, but adopted it. The Zeroth Law was given to him by Elijah Bailey, who I believe was on his deathbed at the time. Not sure which book that was in.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Oooh... I can't wait to see what Hatrack will say when they eventually release an Ender's Game trailer...
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
sndrake: Doh! I borrowed Dad's copy so I don't have any way to check. I think Naked Sun might have been the third one. Now I'm gonna have to ask Dad to mail me his copy so I can check.
And Xap, I doubt OSC will destroy the nature of EG. Even if it's not exactly the same, I think most of us will be happy if it keeps the same feel. And if it isn't dumbed down beyond recognition.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Tres, I think that the day they release the movie is going to be THE Hatrack day ! I think I'll just sit and enjoy all the discussions:
A: It's like in the book ! B: No, it's not ! A: Yes, it is, I tell you, I've read it 20 times ! B: Beat you ! I've read it 22 times, ha ! And the last time was today, just before seeing the trailer !
A hides away in shame...
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Mr. Porteiro Head - I was actually reffering to just one line in an episode, where Bester is explaining to Garribaldi exactly what's stopping him (left intentionally vague incase someone is just starting the series. Granted it was the weakest of the seasons (5th). Asimov gets mentioned by name, and the first law is pretty much quoted. I was just saying that even that 15 seconds is going to do more to honor Asimov's stories than this movie will (although the movie of course will make his estate a few hundred million, such is the only magic left in Hollywood).
The ONLY story I could possibly think of a tie-in from is the one related to the robots on the space station, who make a religion based on the fact that human beings in fact don't exist (nor does Earth, etc.) But I don't see how that story could be applied to a wide population of non-humaniform robots.
Oh, and the arm murder bit happened on Solaria in "The Naked Sun," not in Caves of Steel.
And lastly, upon watching the trailer again today, I'm still terrified for the fate of this movie.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
OK, here goes. I loved AI. I loved Bicentennial Man. I read all of Asimov's robot books and loved all of them, and I think I Robot will probably be a great movie with the wrong title, and I'm going to see it. So there.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Actually, I take that back about the no story even close to matching.
I've come to think that they are basing the movie on the story involving the Hyperdrive story in I, Robot. There are a few scenes in the trailer that, in a pinch, could be similar. If that's the story they chose, there might be hope for this movie to surpass the low-light that was AI. If not, it's just SOL.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:Maybe we should rename it for ourselves so it ceases to offend?
Um, sure. How about Hard Wired, the original title of this movie?
Geez. Does anybody read what I post? Does anybody follow my links? This movie is not remotely based on anything ever written by Asimov. This movie was already written, and when Fox acquired the rights to the title they thought this movie could be reengineered into a prequel by renaming their hot female sidekick Susan Calvin.
As to the question of whether or not the robot army scene was a dream sequence . . . well, it's a good thought. This synopsis from www.irobotmovie.com is not too promising, though:
quote: Will Smith stars in this action thriller suggested by the classic short story collection by Isaac Asimov, and brought to the big screen by dynamic and visionary director Alex Proyas ("Dark City," "The Crow"). In the year 2035, robots are an everyday household item, and everyone trusts them, except one, slightly paranoid detective (Smith) investigating what he alone believes is a crime perpetrated by a robot. The case leads him to discover a far more frightening threat to the human race. "I, ROBOT" uses a spectacular, state-of-the-art visual effects technique to bring a world of robots to life.
-o-
And, once again, I, Robot does contain one or two stories about robots that were constructed out in space without the First Law, so there is precedence for that . . .
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
The Naked Sun was in fact the second book. It was preceded by The Caves of Steel. Asimov started writing a third book which was never finished and which, in his opinion, was quite bad. It was subsequently totally rewritten as The Robots of Dawn, which had only the basic concept of the planet of Aurora from the original third book.
In The Caves of Steel, a robot is accused of murder at one point, but it eventually turns out that a human is to blame.
Also, it is the robot Giskard who invents the Zeroth Law, although Baley is a sort of inspiration for it. He is unable to convince himself that it is an ironclad proper interpretation of the First Law and dies trying to follow it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm really annoyed that nobody laughed at my joke. You guys are humorless automatons.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*perks up*
I loved Dark City and Ebert's commentary in that DVD. Maybe this will be a great movie.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
*Spoilers for some Asimov story or other*
There's a story by Asimov that I recall in which Susan Calvin interviews a robot that's been dreaming. Seems there was a problem with the posotronic brain it had. They consider this really weird, and try to figure out what else it might imply--imagination, etc.
She asks what the robot dreamed about, and the robot says it was dreaming that a human was trying to stir the robots up. Make them work together, shake off their shakles and rise up and be free.
She asks the robot if it knows who the human was.
"Yes," the robot says. "It was me."
She promptly takes a gun and blows its head off.
That's the story I was thinking of when I saw the masses of swarming robots.
Although Icarus's explination seems to make the most sense.
I can't wait to see what other movies they do that with. "Hey! That Troy movie you were working on? We just got the rights to the Song of Ice and Fire series. See if you can rework the plot around that."
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
If they simply wanted to adopt a name for marketing purposes, why didn't they just make it a prequel to Matrix?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
(Click on the smilie)
[EDIT: The link was volitale so I re-adressed it to the permanent archives]
Hobbes
[ April 13, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
I think this fellow on another board had a good take on it:
quote:As usual I will merit the film based on others of its medium and not compare it to the book as that path leads to madness or at least plenty of headache pills.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So who exactly from the books is Will Smith supposed to be?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Duh, the zany cop.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
It starts out the same but it's different.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Man. Looks so COOL!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ooooh, boy. Total blasphemy. Could they do any better job ruining some of my favorite stories?
It looks like an utterly formulaic action movie. I wish they'd done it more along the lines of Gattaca, with more intelligence and less CGI action. I wouldn't mind if the robots were just humans wearing barrels, as long as they made an intelligent movie. Bleh.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
It looks like they combined some of the irritating aspects of minority report with some of the irritating aspects of the matrix, with the good special effects of both movies, and stamped a well known sci-fi title on it.
But i like will smith and i like sci-fi so im gonna be there opening night.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Protect Trantor!
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
It's absolutely terrible.
I like this intelligent question: "What if it was ordered to kill someone?"
How can he ask that if he knows The Three Laws?
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, when they list the three laws, they don't mention the "...except where such orders would conflict with the First Law" bit. Maybe the makers of the movie and/or Smith's character aren't aware that the Laws are hierarchical?
The sad thing about this movie is that the robots were almost always the good guys in Asimov's stories. Susan Calvin (I think) even commented once that she loved being a robot psychologist because the robots were the best human beings she knew. Unless they come up with an extremely good reason for the behavior of the robots (zeroth law, but that shouldn't be in effect yet) this movie really has nothing to do with I, Robot. It may be good, but slapping the name of the book on it will probably spoil it for me.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While I agree the movie certainly goes against Asimov's intentions I think the whole point is, "What if the laws are broken?" The main characters are police after all, their job to seek law breakers.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Hm, when I hear the director talk about it I start to think that I might have been wrong about some of my earlier assumptions.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I think maybe they're marketing the movie to make it seem like the robots are the bad guys so that the inevitable twist at the end will surprise the people who aren't familiar with the concept.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
What if the guy that was killed wasn't really dead?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
But how does that explain the army of robots going on a rampage?
There has to be some reasonable explanation for it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Um, by failing to go ape-sh** on Will Smith they may cause harm to the human race?
By failing to screw up USR's marketing plan they may cause harm to the human race?
By killing half a billion Americans, they free up resources for 3 billion 3rd world citizens to live?
Just a few ideas. And I got the same trailer twice from the first link and that link.
Edit to add a hyphen. The asterisks were already there.
[ April 17, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This thread is making me crazy. Five or six years ago I was Asimov crazy. I read I, Robot, The Foundation series, and several others. But now I can barely remember any of it.
*Runs off to read summaries and try and remember*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm pretty sure I read the first of the "I, Robot" stories when I was trying to comprehend my mother's obsession with sci-fi. But I couldn't have been more than 12. But I did see a Twilight Zone episode based on it.
I didn't like Bicentennial Man and I didn't even watch the end of A.I.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
AI wasn't based on Asimov, it was based on Brian Aldiss.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
which ending of AI?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
The sucky one. Oh, I'm sorry, the suckier one.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
AI was pretty darn good, actually. I think Spielberg did a fine job of blending his own style with that of Kubrick's. The touches are here and there, and the multiple endings I think worked pretty well. A little unconventional maybe.
fallow
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Beren, seriously, all five of the endings sucked. You don't even have to describe the one you walked out on. It'll just bring back bad memories.
fallow: I love you anyway. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Five?! I counted only 3. How could you possibly see so much suckage in five endings? I mean, that nearly accounts for the possible resolutions of the major dramatic conflicts doesn't it?
to get them ALL wrong. that would be hard to lever against the box office receipts.
I dug the hyperfuture cityscape, myself.
fallow
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
sarcasticmuppet
that's cool.
fallow
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
*peaks in Fallow's profile*
Do you work for the Rand Corporation? Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Just read this review about "I, Robot". It sounds pretty much how I expected it... Now I have to decide if I really want to go contribute money and support Fox for doing this...
quote: "I, Robot" is a pretty good little science fiction adventure. It features 'lots of exciting action sequences, a charismatic hero to follow, a few chuckles here and there and some top-drawer special effects work. The only thing it lacks is Isaac Asimov, which is a rather glaring omission for a film named after one of the famous author's most seminal works.
It's unforgivable to make a film out of a science fiction classic that really has very little to do with the original novel. The disrespect shown to Asimov makes me truly angry. I almost feel compelled to vent my rage in my critique of this film-- except that the film is actually pretty good. "I, Robot" works as both a summer blockbuster and as a special effects spectacle. It's the type of film that sci fi geeks like myself generally love.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
K, They changed it just to make a movie. I know, I know, they killed the book. Unfortunatly, none of the stories are good for an action movie, and these guys don't care anyway. They just want money. I read the I, Robot book, not the seiries, the book. I think they are the desendants of those robots that were in space and didn't think Earth was real. Or that one where the huge computer developed a humor to deal with the intersteller travel problem, and it sent these 2 guys off. They died, but came back to life. The rival company's computer blew up because they didn't deemphise the first rule, but with the other computer, they did. (K, i know I rambled, don't tell me I did.)
[ July 15, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Digging Holes was right to point out that the real I, Robot movie was Bicentennial Man. That movie, starring Robin Williams, was reasonably close to the real spirit of Asimov's story about the first robot with a positronic brain to attain true self-awareness and become an actual person.
There has been talk about making movies of the Foundation series. I have no idea what the new I, Robot movie is about, but if they screw with Asimov's robots universe too much, they will never be able to bring the robots universe together with the Foundation universe, the way Asimov did.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ASIMOV'S ROBOT DREAMS.
quote: There's a story by Asimov that I recall in which Susan Calvin interviews a robot that's been dreaming. Seems there was a problem with the posotronic brain it had. They consider this really weird, and try to figure out what else it might imply--imagination, etc.
This is the second story in Robot Dreams and the inspiration for the title of the book. The first story deals with a group of 'bots imprinted with a modified first law. One of these modified robots is then "ordered" to "Get Lost". Susan must then interview a group of sixty some 'bots to try to find the missing one.
In the second story, the 'bot has been modified using fractal mathematics in his brain. He does get fried by Susan in the end.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but the worst may be still to come, according to this tidbit from a review on MSNBC:
quote:Although it’s called “I, Robot,” the movie began as an original screenplay, “Hardwired,” by Jeff Vintar, who co-wrote the computer-generated cartoon, “Final Fantasy,” and is now working on an adaptation of Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy. Akiva Goldman (“A Beautiful Mind”) worked with Vintar on the final script.
Got that? Foundation is next! Be afraid, be very afraid. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
OH, LORD! NOT FOUNDATION!
Is there no justice in the universe?!
I'm actually going to the 12:01am showing tonight...I crave sci-fi movies, and it's either this, or go see Riddick and the teacup scene again...and I'd rather see that with a friend. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"it's either this, or go see Riddick and the teacup scene again"
Of course, it being midnight and all, you could also sleep.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
The movie will be good...
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Funny how they always say "Akiva Goldsman, A Beautiful Mind" instead of "Akiva Goldsman, Batman and Robin"
Of course, it's not like I want to be "Geoffrey Card, Samurai Jack: The Shadow of Aku" forever, either ...
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
"Of course, it's not like I want to be "Geoffrey Card, Samurai Jack: The Shadow of Aku" forever, either ... "
Are you refering to yourself as Geoffrey Card in this sentence? Excuse me for asking...
[ July 16, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Yeah, I can't believe you are claiming to be Geoff Card. What do you take us for, saps?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Why, Somalian? Feel like insulting Card AND his entire family? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Geoff, that was a ratty thing to say.... Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Tom: Pff. Sleep is for wimps.
Which is why I fell asleep at 8pm and missed the movie.
Dangit.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I heard the NPR review of this movie at lunch.
It wasn't much of a review. They played a scene where Smith was interrogating a feeling robot. Then they cut to a 20 year old interview with the late Profesor Asimov.
He brought up a good point. His first robot story included the 3 laws as a way to differienciate it from all the other robot stories out there.
All the other stories were simply rererere-telling of the Frankenstien myth. Man creates creature. Creature destroys man.
After his Robot stories became popular, that myth was put on the back burner.
What the movie seems to be doing is yet another retelling of that myth.
The same myth that is at the heart of the Terminator movies, and the Matrix movies, and so many more.
We are again embracing the myth--Fear Science. Fear Technology when what Asimov was saying, and what I believe, is to Embrace Science and Technology.
Under this myth of Science Kills, is it surprising that we have an administration that opposes hard Science for morality reasons?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"Fear of?"
Or perhaps "cautionary tale of?"
Science fiction writers do wonders for inspiring imagination and for showing us just how badly things can go wrong.
And if a science fiction writer can imagine it, odds are another human somewhere will think it's a good idea.
No advancement in either science or technology has been unable to be turned to a weapon, whether intentionally or accidentally.
With that in mind, perhaps we should take heed of these "worst case" scenarios - and consider the rammifications acordingly.
-Trevor
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Maybe Asimov was trying to create a new robot myth that was the opposite of the Frankenstein myth, but the way it worked out when the robot universe and the Foundation universes came together in his latter novels, especially as fleshed out by other writers who have taken the same plot elements and run with them, was something just as dark, if not more so.
MAJOR SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE LATTER FOUNDATION/ROBOT STORIES!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!
It turns out that in order to obey the three laws of robotics in the truest sense, most of the robots organized themselves into a vast horde of marauders, who killed off all sentient non-human life in the galaxy, to ensure that humans would be safe. This is why there were only humans inhabiting the Foundation galaxy. This enormous holocaust, this genocide on a galactic scale, is just about as dark as dark can get. Frankenstein is preferable. He just killed his creator.
You know, the real reason why Asimov's Foundation galaxy has no sentient non-humans in it, is that when Asimov was first trying to sell his stories to Astounding (later named Analog), the editor, John W. Campbell, was strongly prejudiced against non-human sentient beings who were smarter than humans. He refused to believe in the possibility, for some reason, and writers who wanted to sell to him either had aliens who were clearly inferior to humans, or else (as Asimov chose to do) the aliens were omitted all together. So ultimately, we have to blame Campbell for the galactic genocide committed by the robots.
[ July 16, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
I have not read a lot of Asimov- I did read nightfall along time ago- then saw the movie, I just remember telling my husband during the ENTIRE movie "but the book was different, so much better..." of course I end up saying that with almost every movie that is adapted from a book (a major exception was The Green Mile, which I thought was an excellent adaptation)
I am looking forward to the Ender's Game movie...well it's more of a nervous anticipation. Ender's Game is such a wonderful book that I would rather it NEVER be put to film if Hollywood destroys it (i.e. Watchers by Dean Koontz and Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel ) There will be no way to express the utter disgust I will feel if Holleywood gets their paws on Ender's Game and destoys it
But I believe OSC is wrinting the screenplay so there is hope. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If the movie is about robots who break the First Law to conform to the Zeroth Law, it would be keeping with Asimov's books and I'd be ok with it. Does it look the robots are out to protect humanity at large?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It turns out that in order to obey the three laws of robotics in the truest sense, most of the robots organized themselves into a vast horde of marauders, who killed off all sentient non-human life in the galaxy, to ensure that humans would be safe."
You know, I don't recall this at all -- and I thought I was fairly familiar with the books. IIRC, much is made of Earth's "uniqueness" in the later Robot and Foundation novels. In fact, as I understood it, the whole point of the later Foundation novels was that Daneel had decided that humanity needed to achieve a kind of metamind gestalt in order to defend itself from outside threats, should such a threat ever arise. I don't remember a genocide anywhere (although, since it would have been perfectly in keeping for Asimov to mention it in one sentence and never bring it up again, I wouldn't be surprised if I just missed it.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Spoilers
I just finished the Foundation series (first time I'd read it, it was incredible), and what happened was this.
It's explained mythically at one point that some group called 'The Eternals' (robots) mastered science to the point where they could flip through differing dimensions, and that they had paused time and searched through great numbers of realities in order to find a universe in which Earth was the ONLY world to spawn intelligent life (along with millions of other species).
I guess that could count as genocide, even though the other innumerable realities still go on-some of which, presumably, have many intelligent forms of life in Earth's Galaxy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Spoilers
Hmmm. Ron might be right. Although I've finished all the Foundation novels (except the prelude stuff, reading that now), I haven't yet read past I, Robot (in which, it should be mentioned, there IS one single robot which manages to break the truncated First-Law it was given, but doesn't manage it successfully), that could've happened in the Robot stories-Daneel is only in a VERY small portion of the Foundation books, and the rest is legend-telling.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It was one of the later Foundation/Robot novels written by a writer other than Asimov (maybe Greg Bear or someone like that--a prominent sf writer) who went on at length about the robots' galactic genocide, and how one faction of robots tried to stop them and failed, and how at times a few humans tried to hide some sentient aliens to save them from the robots' pogrom. This was also offered as a reason why certain spirit-like super-entities, hate the robots. They are the only survivors. There is nothing about this in any of the novels authored by Asimov himself. Daneel was a prominent character in the novel. I'll see if I can look it up.
[ July 17, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
AFAIK, the alien genocide was not mentioned by Asimov himself in the original foundation stories or the later additions.
In the forward to "Foundation and Chaos" (by Gregory Benford and authorized by the Asmovian estate) he mentions that one of the ideas he wanted to explore in a new Foundation trilogy was why the universe was so empty of alien life(and other things, like what psychohistory actually might look like, etc). As was mentioned, this was an editorial stipulation that Asimov followed- no aliens. But Benford wanted a fairly consistant rationalization within the story.
So he came up with the idea that a wave of robotic "destroyer" machines destroying any alien civilizations they found in order to protect humanity and their way of life. In the following two books, Greg Bear and David Brin flesh this out. At one point, a scientist doing analysis of the soils of many worlds finds statistical inconsistancies that eventually lead him and a couple other people to discover a collection of these destoyer machines, and more about Daneel's role behind this.
The only remnants of these alien civilizations were computer entities that had lived in electromagnetic clouds and, later, Trantor's computer network called the Mesh. They hated all robots and where responsible for the death of many of Daneel's robotic agents, and for the removal of the positronic paths for the 3 laws of one of Daneel's agents.
In these books, too, robots who did not want to go along with Daneel's plan (Gaia and, eventually, Galaxia) because they thought it was arrogant for him to make such far reaching decisions for humanity on the basis of Zeroth's law without any human's say so (which he agreed to, on the surface. Which is why Gail Dornick shows up in Foundation's Edge). They were Calvinians, robots who did not aknowledge Zeroth's law. Or rather, acknowledged weaker forms of it, since it was logically consistant, but still did not want to go along with Daneel.
Evidently, Daneel had come up with all kinds of steps in his care of humanity. He was responsible for the creation of the rather stable Empire 12,000 years before, after he and a few robots had developed a very weak and small version of psychohistory- enough to guide their efforts. He had introduced a virus that kind of 'dumbed down' humanity a little so that his control would be greater and the development of true robots would not happen. He knew that if humanity ever developed robots again, then eventually there would be another group of "immortals", and these would both interfere with his plans and might not be under the three laws, if the humans who made them did not think of them. Hari's birth and training was actually manipulated behind the scenes (way behind the scenes) by Daneel in order to get a more accurate and powerful psychohistory that he knew only a human could do. Daneel is the ultimate planner.
It was all very interesting. I know some people were unhappy with the additions (and the sims Voltaire and Joan of Arc- which didn't really do too much for me either). But it really fleshed out the universe and made the story, to me, more realistic. Daneel had opposition. Daneel didn't always do things right. Daneel seemed less god-like and more like a very long-lived and wise planner with strings everywhere. He was an even greater version of Hari, the planner and manipulator who constantly was always ten steps ahead.
Anyway, end tangent.
My opinion about the movie.
If it is nothing like the book, in it's most basic premise of the 3 laws and how good it made the robots, then what's the point of naming it I, Robot?
The only people who will see the movie BECAUSE of the book are those who will be angriest at the movie for violating it's entire spirit, not just specific details. The people who had never read the book wouldn't care what it was named and just see it as the next summer blockbuster.
The title is meant to pull in Asimov's fans- the ones who feel the most anger at the stupidity of contradicting the entire premise of the books.
Ian
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks Ian. Blame it on the "Killer B's"--Benford, Bear, and Brin.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:But I believe OSC is wrinting the screenplay so there is hope.
Actually, he's turned in his draft. The next draft was written by the pair who wrote X2, and word from Those Who Know has been, quite frankly, really damned good.
Posted by EPSoom (Member # 3693) on :
I saw the movie. It is a good action flick -- and you'll want to read the first spoiler below, if you really hate the idea of the movie ignoring the three laws.
SPOILER WARNING (small-ish) | | | | | The robots that are attacking humans are not subject to the three laws -- they were secretly given a separate brain that allows them to choose whether to obey them. There is a point in the movie where they purposefully destroy all the older robots because they know the older ones will protect the humans.
SPOILER WARNING (large) | | | | | ...And even without the separate brain, the writers could have used -- but, for whatever reason, did not use -- the idea of the zeroth law. The "big bad guy" is actually the AI running U.S. Robotics, and it is acting in accordance to the zeroth law (in a Hollywood sort of way), by sending these robots to take control of and protect humanity from itself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How odd -- especially since that IS exactly what happens in the book I, Robot, except that there's quite a lot less killing when that happens.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I don't agree with your small-ish spoiler EPSoom--aren't you partly describing Sunny, and partly describing the rest of the robots, and mixing their behaviors up a bit? They are not the same.
I'm not sure what you're saying about the zeroth law, mostly because it's been too long since I read the books.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
Well I have just seen the movie. Thanks to visiting this forum over the past couple of days I was not expecting a great movie- so I was not disappointed. Just your basic Will Smith action flick- which is fine, I like Will Smith (even Wild Wild West )
It does say in the credits SUGGESTED by Issac Asimov's books- not BASED on. If that means anything to any die hards.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I guess the question is whether or not we'll ever get to see a TRUE film adaptation of the I, Robot stories.
Here's something to ponder for real hardcore S.F. fans. Hollywood may not care because s.f. fans seem to pan EVERY adaptation of any book.
I mean, even fairly good movies like Bicentennial Man get raked over the coals for even minor plot elements.
And if the audience for a movie is mostly made up of people who haven't read the book several times and memorized it (admit it, you're in the small minority here), they can pretty much be assured of spinning a decent yarn if they adapt something was at least well written in the original.
I don't think Asimov would be spinning in his grave over I, Robot. He enjoyed making money off his writing and he probably would be proud that his heirs could get a check or two out of it, maybe.
The real I, Robot? I bet if he'd been hired by Hollywood to make the story, Asimov himself would've changed it. He wrote in the foreword to the 4th book in the Foundation trilogy (the one he wrote after many years off from the Foundation line, that he had a real problem figuring out what to say. "There was no action," in the first three books. I mean none! People talk about stuff and nothing actually happens.
How that series worked was a mystery to the guy who wrote it.
But it does work. And it'll never make it to the screen in a form that's true to the original. No way. It'd be like watching paint dry.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I just came from the movie after my sons begged me to go see it with them today. I wasn't expecting to like it at all.
I was surprised. I liked it.
On par with my level of like of other Will Smith action flicks like Independence Day and Men in Black. It's a good show. He still delivers the one-liners quite well.
I disagree with what EPSoom says above. The new robots aren't given a separate brain that allows them to break the three laws (except for one special robot) -- but they are equipped with an "up-link" to the corporation -- and the uplink can over-ride their other programming. They turn "red" (as you have seen in the trailers) only when being led by this uplink.
It was suspenseful enough, and kept me guessing pretty good to the end -- wasn't as predictable as I thought it would be.
Farmgirl
[ July 18, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Cyran0 (Member # 6717) on :
Well, I was one of those who was deeply disappointed that they were merely slapping the name "I, Robot" on a robot shootemup... however, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. Oh, it's got flaws, certainly. The motivation of the main character is very flimsy, in my opinion. However, at it's heart, the movie does remain consistent with, if not entirely true to, the spirit of the book. It is essentially a mystery/puzzle involving the three laws of robotics. I'm not one who typically figures out whodunits, so take this with a grain of salt, but I found myself pretty intrigued by the twists in the film.
SPOILER ALERT
You have been warned...
------------------------ The somewhat Orwellian take on the 0th law is an interesting plot element... as is the inclusion of a robot selectively unrestricted by the three laws (by the way, in case you're confused, only Sonny can override the laws... the other robots who attack humans do so when under the direct control of VIKI, who is applying the naturally evolved 0th law). I don't wholly accept the conclusion that "free will" necessarily follows from being unrestricted by the three laws, nor do I really understand the point of taking the movie there at the end. ------------------------
Ok... now returning to non-SPOILER space
Welcome back....
Overall, I found that the film does a pretty good job of capturing some of what made Asimov's robot stories and novels interesting and fun.
[ July 19, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Cyran0 ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
That's a pretty HUGE spoiler Cyran -- I hope no one reads that one before they go.
I was hoping no one would say who actually ends up being the one "in charge" (the plot twist that really makes the movie) in this thread. If they already know the "who" of whodundit - -that spoils the whole movie.
But I must say I agree with you on how much I liked the movie. I'm still thinking about it today.
Farmgirl
[ July 19, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by thrak (Member # 5499) on :
Has anyone else read OSC's review of this on the main page?
I was planning on boycotting this movie, but now I am having second thoughts. Can anyone confirm that this movie is in the spirit of Asimov's stories?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One side not, Asimov's books are selling in tremendous numbers thanks to the movie.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan_Raven said:
quote:Asimov's books are selling in tremendous numbers thanks to the movie.
In that case, maybe Asimov isn't spinning in his grave after all.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I just saw the movie yesterday evening, and was actually pretty pleased with it.
Various observations:
1. I was pleased with the scenario in which the "bad" robots are fighting not for independence or evil reasons, but "to protect humanity." This removes the conflict from a simple Frankenstein scenario, and transforms it into a parody/criticism of Americans' current obsession with "safety at any cost."
2.
quote:The motivation of the main character is very flimsy, in my opinion
I actually thought the film did an okay job with this. It seemed likely to me that the detective was influenced in his technophobia not only by the incident with the drowning girl, but also by his upbringing (the "digital divide" is still around in the future: rich white kids get to grow up with robots and other technology, but poor black kids don't). Remember that his grandma couldn't afford a robot, which is why she was so excited to win one in the lottery.
3. I was very glad that there was no romantic anything between the detective and Susan Calvin.
4. Alan Tudyk is awesome, as those of us who watch Firefly already know.
5. Also, I'd say that "Sonny" fits the image of robots as highly moral beings. He fulfilled his part in Dr. Lanning's plan, even though it was very likely that he would be killed as a result.
6. I liked the detective's grandma and her pie-making robot. I wish I had a robot to make pie for me.
[ July 24, 2004, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Ew. I absolutely hated the shower scenes.
I was pleased overall with the rest of the movie, and I like Robyn Asimov's comments.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Thrak, I went to see the movie and was pleasantly surprised. One might say it compressed the whole series of robot/foundation stories into a movie's length. Naturally, it isn't the same as the stories, but it follows the same arc.
It was also reminiscent of a short story called "With Folded Hands", by Someone I. Dontremember.
Oh, and Rakeesh--the Eternals are in fact part of another book loosely connected to the Robot/Empire/Foundation series, The End of Eternity . The Eternals are not actually robots, though perhaps Asimov was thinking he needed to revise the story somewhat. (In any case, it would have been all but impossible for the real story to become part of common knowledge, as the Eternals' timeline was erased.)
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
*Straggles in to the movie review thread, late as usual*
I liked it more than I thought I would... things I liked = the special effects and design, the overall plot, and Bridget Moynihan (yay for actually showing women with wrinkles in movies!)
Things I didn't like = the @#$%& product placement ads (always distracting and annoying for me, especially the sneakers in this case) and the awful dialogue. Will Smith's one-liners made me wince...
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I've read the anthology, as well as all of Asimov's other major robot books, most of them many times. I think I can safely say that the Alan Parsons Project album was a better adaptation of Asimov than this movie looks to be.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
movie if it ever gets financed -- by the time Lucas began shooting the movie.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I read the I, Robot book, not the seiries, the book. I think they are the desendants of those robots that were in space and didn't think Earth was real. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Or that one where the huge computer developed a humor to deal with the intersteller travel problem, and it sent these 2 guys off. They died, but came back to life. The rival company's computer blew up because they didn't deemphise the first rule, but with the other computer, they did. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
(K, i know I rambled, don't tell me I did.)![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)