posted
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.
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 . . .
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they simply wanted to adopt a name for marketing purposes, why didn't they just make it a prequel to Matrix?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.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)
