# I, Robot (2004)



## dwndrgn (Sep 12, 2003)

Anyone familiar with this Asimov classic?  It is currently being made into film by Hollywood.  Should be interesting, at the least.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 12, 2003)

Haud me back and help ma boab!  - as we say in Scotland. I love Asimov (particularly his short stories). I Robot is indeed a classic.  I must look out for this one. Hopefully they do a better job with this than they did with the Bicentennial man. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 13, 2003)

Uh-oh - it's _that_ word - Hollywood!

Believe it or not, I've never actually read the robot short stories by Asimov. 

I'm a Heathen!


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 15, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> I'm a Heathen!


Well, we knew that already! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Hollywood can be really good or it can be really awful.  And sometimes, they just don't learn from their mistakes!  That's why I always just wait and see movie adaptations - I never listen to the hype.  I've got a long list of movies-from-books that were so far off the mark I wonder why they even used the book to begin with.  Sometimes they make sensible changes (or at least you can understand why they made the change, e.g. the switching of the sexes of the two kids in Jurassic Park) but most of the time it seems odd for them to re-create the characters, change the major plot points and the endings.
Here's a shortlist of movies that ruined the story:
The Bourne Identity (there were THREE of these and none matched the book well at all - they all had different endings!)
Clan of the Cave Bear (this one was a joke...)
Battlefield Earth (it was almost like they hadn't read the book at all - none of the important points were even mentioned)
Sigh, makes me want to start writing screenplay/adaptations myself!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 15, 2003)

Heh, a great example of a film having nothing to do with the book was "the Fog". Spot the similarity:

The Book - was about the gaseous release of a chemical weapons experiement from Porton Down in the UK, which resulted in anyone affected by the gas to become violently psychotic.

The Film - the avenging ghosts of long-dead pirates return to murder the inhabitants of a small American coastal town.


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 15, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> Heh, a great example of a film having nothing to do with the book was "the Fog". Spot the similarity:
> 
> The Book - was about the gaseous release of a chemical weapons experiement from Porton Down in the UK, which resulted in anyone affected by the gas to become violently psychotic.
> 
> The Film - the avenging ghosts of long-dead pirates return to murder the inhabitants of a small American coastal town.


That is a bad one - was it actually supposed to be based on the book?  Seems they missed the mark just a little 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




They want to use the public's familiarity with a title to create advance interest in the films but they don't actually care whether or not they end up true to the original story or not.  Clan of The Cave Bear (Jean M. Auel) was a fantastic novel and all they got out of it was Darryl Hannah grunting in a loincloth!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 14, 2004)

*More on the I, Robot Movie*

Yes it's all true. Filmjerk.com has a rather positive review of the script: http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article771.html

The plot really doesn't remind of a specific story though? Perhaps I need to re-read the book.

I understand the movie is being directed by the same person who did Dark City and The Crow, both excellent, moody films, which is of course a good thing.

Still, I don't think the film concept as outlined in that script review does justice to I, Robot. Perhaps a mini-series would have been more in keeping. Now there's going to be this pastiche floating around called 'I, Robot' and if it does well, there will be scores of people buying the book and then complaining how 'slow' it is or worse yet, buying a novelisation of the story in the movie which will call itself 'I, Robot', forever obscuring the identity of this classic book and what's more, they'll probably get Kevin J Anderson to write it.  

Or am I being too negative? Opinions?


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 14, 2004)

*Re: More on the I, Robot Movie*

I agree that it is not the story I remember as outlined in the article. It seems that they have just taken the name and very little else. I was stupified by the article author's statement that 'It's hard to find good science fiction stories these days'.

Where has he been living? On the moon? There are thousands of stories from all manner of sources - from many decades of writing just waiting to be adapted.  

I agree with the sentiments on novelisations - it might make a few extra bucks - but it does nothing for the original work.

Are you being too cynical? Unfortunately no.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 18, 2004)

*I, Robot*

I know this topic came up elsewhere - but I cannae seem to find it.

Anyway, here's the I, Robot trailer:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/


----------



## The Master™ (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

Just as an asside, thought you might find this funny:


----------



## The Master™ (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

Just watched the trailer... Hmmm, seems a little too much like Blade Runner... And AI... And that film with Tom Selleck with the robots (can't for the life of me remember the name)... Wonder if they are going to do a re-make of Blade Runner and make it more like the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)???

Think I preferred The Outer Limits version of "I, Robot"...

Think I'll give this movie a miss... Just like all the other Sci-Fi crap that has been made recently!!!


----------



## SDNess (Apr 10, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

I didn't find it that engaging. Quite unfortunate.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 10, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

The comic strip makes good comment.


----------



## erickad71 (Apr 14, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

How often do books that get made into movies turn out like the book?

Still, it looks like a good night of escapist fun.


----------



## dwndrgn (Apr 14, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*



			
				erickad71 said:
			
		

> How often do books that get made into movies turn out like the book?
> 
> Still, it looks like a good night of escapist fun.


Very rarely.  Mostly this is because everyone reads the same thing and gives it their own vision - part of the fun of reading.  But the other reasons are that 1) they have to fit it into a specific timeframe or people will get bored, and 2) they like to change things around so that they seem (at least to the producers and directors) more appealing to a mass audience.

Both the Harry Potter movies and the LOTR movies did a pretty good job of following the actual story.  I could name tons that haven't (and there's a thread here somewhere that discusses it) but there is no reason for them to stop.  Maybe if they keep trying they'll get better at it .


----------



## The Master™ (Apr 17, 2004)

*Re: I, Robot*

Okay, I accept that when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy, the studios are a little unwilling to do an entire cover to cover version... Although LOTR came pretty close (with a few glaring changes)...

But Blade Runner (both versions) was good - but you couldn't mistake it for "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Took me ages to get an original version, and understood the title...

And Starship Troopers, bloody good movie, but wasn't even in the ball park of the book!!! Other than they kept most of the names!!! Even if Diz went from being a man, to being a woman!!! HAHAHA!!!  

Wonder if they'll ever try The Forever War or some of the other fantasy titles... Can't see how they would be able to make the issue of gay relationships in The Forever War shocking to the audience as it would for the lead character...


----------



## Dave (Apr 28, 2004)

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/

Directed by Alex Proyas

Writing credits Isaac Asimov (book)
Akiva Goldsman (screenplay)

Tagline: What will you do with yours? 



> _from Dark Horizons_
> 
> Will Smith stars in this action thriller inspired 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.



I'm not sure about Will Smith in this. I would have cast someone else.


----------



## ray gower (Apr 29, 2004)

Wil Smith is becoming somewhat typecast as the cynical wise-cracking cop. I would tend to agree his glib one-liner comments would be out of place if the film tries to be faithful to the book.


----------



## Brit Chick (May 10, 2004)

I saw a trailer for this on a movie trailer site yesterday - looks very good, the robots are more smooth looking androids (like the aliens in AI- but normal size!) and as for Will Smith - didn't seem to be in wisecracking mode, but then it was only a trailer - he seemed to be playing it pretty straight and if the whole film is like that then it will be fine.



its on the www.apple.com/trailers  site - have a look


----------



## Highlander II (May 10, 2004)

re: Will Smith - I'd say the same - he does look to be 'playing it straight' - he didn't seem to be like his character in MIB - but, again, it was only a trailer.

Not sure if I'm gonna rush out to see it - not big on robot flicks and SW:AotC bugged me - so, might not latch onto this one...


----------



## Dave (May 19, 2004)

I got an email today from Fox with the website: I, Robot


----------



## zorka (Jun 19, 2004)

*I Robot*

I've been away for a while, but haven't noticed any discussion of the upcoming film based upon Isaac Asimov's I ROBOT starring Will Smith. You can check out the details and see trailers at 

http://www.irobotmovie.com

 In the featurette the director admits taking liberties with the original tales, but it still looks like a good film if not a good adaptation.


----------



## Ivo (Jun 19, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Asimov is one of my favorite authors and I was really looking forward to this movie. Based on the trailers I've seen though, it seems they have just taken the main elements of the book and turned it into a popcorn flick. It looks a little weird to me, the jury is still out.

They are currently making movies out of the first two Foundation novels . They have a really good director attached and they appear to want it to be the LOTR of Sci-Fi. It certainly has the potential if they do it right.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 19, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Good to see you around, Zorka! There were a couple of discussions of this movie earlier, actually, and my position then (and now) was one of zero expectation and some outrage as well. Others are less prejudiced.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 19, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Good to see you back as well, zorka.


----------



## Dave (Jul 25, 2004)

So, has anyone seen this yet?

The reviews sound good, so I'll have to try and see it, but there are a lot of other films out at the moment too.

We've been discussing in this thread:

http://www.ascifi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20422

whether Issac Asimov would have approved or not. The film is not based on any one of his stories but uses some elements and characters. Originally it was to be called "Hardwired". It's depiction of robots as killers seems to be opposite to his stories' general themes. Harlan Ellison, his friend, and author of an unused script based on 'I, Robot' thinks he would disapprove; his daughter gives it a thumbs up, and says although he disliked Hollywood, he understood how Hollywood worked and why it must change things.

The London 'Evening Standard' newspaper says that we (in Europe) get to see more of Will Smith in the film than US audiences. Apparently, parts of the shower scene were pixelated out for US audiences. Will Smith says that it has become the most expensive scene in the film due to the computer generated image manipulation involved.


----------



## Dave (Aug 13, 2004)

I saw this today, and it is actually fairly good; you ought to go out and see it soon. I could have done without the usual Will Smith-type character though. At the beginning of the film he actually appeared to be going to play a much darker character with a mysterious past, but that very quickly reverted to the wisecracking character that he always plays.

I heard that the film had much more similarities to the Asimov novel â€˜The Caves of Steelâ€™ (rather than his short story collection 'I, Robot') and by sheer coincidence  Iâ€™ve just read that too. Both have a Robot Creator who is murdered and a robot suspected of the crime, both make reference to â€˜Frankensteinâ€™ in describing how a robot turned on itâ€™s creator and in turn is destroyed by the villagers, both have a detective who dislikes robots, but there the similarity stopsâ€¦

In â€˜The Caves of Steelâ€™, the detective Elijah Baley is not a â€˜Medievalistâ€™ â€“ the kind of techno-phobic Luddite who wants humans to go back to the soil, to have windows in their offices, and uses spectacles rather than contact lenses â€“ but his wife and boss are sympathisers of this cause. In this film, the detective Del Spooner is a â€˜Medievalistâ€™ -- he likes wearing 2004 Basketball shoes, eating homemade pies, driving his car on manual, and has an old-fashioned non-voice-activated CD player. On the other hand, he does seem to like his gadgets and vehicles. 

Despite this seeming inconsistency in his character, there is a good and valid explanation for his dislike of robots that comes about Â¾ of the way into the film. A robot once had the choice to save his life, or the life of a child. After comparing the probabilities it chose him as having the best chance of survival. However, he still required a completely cybernetic arm afterwards. It isnâ€™t the purely â€˜racistâ€™ reason expected of his father being put out of work by a robot, but one based upon the real differences in logic between man and robot, and it canâ€™t be faulted. Asimov never gives the race of his detective or the detectiveâ€™s boss, but I think it is fair to say the film tries to use this to strengthen the Robot = Slave idea up until that point in the film.

Whereas Asimovâ€™s robots canâ€™t dream, the robotâ€™s dream is crucial to the film plot. Del Spooner like Baley has a wife, but they are separated. 

Whereas, I think that â€˜The Caves of Steelâ€™ is set way too far in the future, I think this film is set much too near at 2035. Being so close, they cannot have the â€˜Spacer problemâ€™ of Earthâ€™s colonies that is the subject of the book, and Humans still eat proper food, not the diet of farmed yeast â€“ all this leads the general population at large to dislike robots rather than having only one single man in this film.

On the thorny subject of breaking the â€˜Three Laws of Roboticsâ€™, Asimov said himself that this was not impossible. Only that in Asenion Positronic robots the three laws were built in and could not be removed, and that any designed with some other mathematical theory would take many years to create.

As the film credits say, the film punch line is actually â€œSuggested by Isaac Asimovâ€. Even with the â€˜Three Lawsâ€™ in place, a robot could still kill someone if it were necessary to save the lives of many others. I believe that is the basis of the Zeroth Law (that the protection of Humanity is greater than all the other three Laws) but the Zeroth Law is not actually mentioned in this film. Unfortunately, V.I.K.I. the AI, who worked all this out on her own by pure logic goes on to say "you are so like children" which is not a very logical conclusion, more one of motherly protection, and I would think, inconsistent with her killing vast numbers of her â€˜offspringâ€™.

It is around this time in the film that they throw away the Asimov books and it becomes derivative of any number of trashy SciFi films. The robots turn out to be benign and almost cuddly, and instead, as usual, it is the evil wicked AI that locked up the Inventor in her towering castle in the sky and turned the robots against the citizens and creatures of the forest. At a certain level, the analogy to Hansel and Gretel wears rather thin. â€œDidnâ€™t you read Hansel and Gretel?â€ Spooner asks the super-intelligent Dr. Susan Calvin. He could have asked, â€œYou mean you still havenâ€™t worked out the plot yet?â€

I did have some other plot hole problems too thoughâ€¦

Firstly, Spooner comes over as a complete paranoid about robots. â€œHave robots ever stolen a handbag?â€ asks his boss. Well why couldnâ€™t they? Nothing in the â€˜Three Lawsâ€™ prevents them committing crimes, and I assume Human owners are still dishonest in 2035; otherwise what do the police have to do.

Secondly, I still donâ€™t see why the Police had to hand over Sonny the robot back to US Robotics. They established that he could not be tried for Homicide since only a man could commit murder, but they also established that it was likely that he had carried out the deed. So, they said it was an industrial accident and an internal company investigation. That just doesnâ€™t wash! 

If he did the deed, then he could have been commanded to do it by a Human. Therefore, he is material evidence and should have been kept and examined, just as the Police would do to a tape recorder or a computer hard-drive or even a knife. 

I know they spoke to the Mayor, but that would still be the Law, and surely the Mayor canâ€™t flout the Law?

Thirdly, why did they need all the complicated business with Nanites to shut down the robot and V.I.K.I.? Asimov, himself, had a simpler idea, irradiation with alpha particles. (Incidentally, that would put a final end to the interminable â€˜Terminatorâ€™ films too!)

It seems that as far as SciFi today goes, Nanites are the NEW Radiation!

Better still, I assume that the upload to the NS4 robots from US Robotics used a radio signal of some kind. A simple jamming signal using some ancient radio technology would have broken off the link and saved Chicago from all that unnecessary but stunning destruction and special effects.

And I almost forgot to mention the 'Product Placement' (Converse shoes and Audi cars being the most obvious) which was the most blatent I've seen yet, even including the Bond movies.


----------



## ray gower (Aug 18, 2004)

I will agree with Dave, this is an entertaining film.

Can't remember Caves of Steel well enough to wave a finger at it and say this was the book they based it on, or if they did a genuine pick and mix from all of Asimovs short robot stories, or just went away and did their own thing. The later would undoubtedly result in similarities simply because Asimov was big on robots and looked at them in every direction imaginable.

Wil Smith was obviously Wil Smith and for me, was the biggest detraction of the show. Can't honestly see any real play on racism theme. Everybody seems to like their robot and there would be more people suffering from it than just Spooner.

As for Dave's plot holes. most can be explained, though not perhaps after only 30 years of human progress.

1/ If nobody has heard of a robot commiting a crime, then people will tend towards disbelief if they hear that they have. Would you really suspect a vicar of a murder?

2/ This is America. The law is largely a politically controlled thing. There has been no murder (robots can not commit murder), therefore the governor/mayor can do pretty much as they please to service their election fund.
Would have thought that somebody might have wondered more about the glass though?

3/ Perhaps they use nanites because people think they are safer than radiation? 
Let's face it people get jittery when the word radiation is used, (but not with microwaves and mobile phones which is odd).
But what a palaver to insert them!

But have one of my own holes:-

Spooner's scaring from the cybernetic work only appeared in the second half of the film.

As for product placements, You missed JVC and the biggest of all- US Robotics. Though perhaps it is not as bad as the T'birds film, which has been discribed as a 90 minute Ford commercial


----------



## rune (Sep 1, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Has anyone got to see this movie then  


I went yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.  The Robot characters seem so alive.  I think special affects are seemless now that you dont notice them anymore and the creations have a life of their own  

I was surprised at the amount of humour in the story, of course you expect that from Wil Smith, he delivers one liners very well  

Anyhow I really enjoyed the movie, well worth viewing.


----------



## Sirathiel (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Since I haven't read the book and went into the film with the worst expectations (Bad Boys as scifi...), I was positively surprised. I quite enjoyed the film and wouldn't call it a popcorn flick. But this view might not concur with someone's who has read the book. That is always the dangers when a good book is turned into a film. But that has been discussed already a million times, I daresay...


----------



## mzarynn (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

I haven't read the book but I also enjoyed the movie. My dad has read the book. As far as I understand it, Isaac Asimov wrote the rules on robots and that is nearly the only similarity between the book and the movie.  Robots rebel in the book but not in the same fashion.  I really should read the book instead of just trying to sound like I know what I am talking about.


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

This is why I plan on reading the book after I see the movie.  I'm sure that the book is great but the movie on it's own is probably good as well so I'd like to enjoy them as separate entities.  Luckily, since I haven't read it yet, I can do this easily.  Of course I probably won't be able to see it until it comes to tv or my roommate decides to buy the dvd.  So I may have to hold off on reading the book for a while.  No matter, tons of other books out there calling my name...


----------



## Bladerunner (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

This is my 1st post here so don't mind me but the film is brill and the story line whilst not running near to the book was logical for the screen, great action and special effects. I think if you ignore the book, treat it as just another view of a story line it works. Similiar to Lord of the Rings which was Jacksons view of what Tolkien was trying to put across, we all read diff things when reading the same book!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Hi Bladerunner, and welcome to the chronicles network.


----------



## Bladerunner (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: I Robot*

Thanks I,Brian I hope I don't tread on to many toes while i learn the ropes, teaching old dogs new tricks an all. But i have to add that this years crop of flics has been brill and having just seen this one i'm trying to get anyone to go to c Riddick.


----------



## gr8scott (Sep 6, 2004)

Kind of late to post a reply to this thread, but here's my op.

I agree with Dave's critique (and RG's). Only two things:

Elijah Baley was originally terrified of being "outside" the domed cities, as were almost all earth humans (unlike their Spacer counterparts). It was the covert robot influence on Elijah Baley that encouraged his change of attitude/perspective. He, on many occasions, had to force himself to go outside (remember the robot series where he had a panic attack after deciding to ride in a convertible between the spaceport and the house on Solaris I believe). Anyhow, Baley was never a "Medievalist"... instead, he WAS trying to prepare humans, his son in particular, to become the next wave of expansionists. So he was counter-culture in many ways but this was after the revelations made to him by the robot named R. Giskard in "The Naked Sun". He was not nostalgic about the past, he became a futurist if anything.

Also, I enjoyed "I, Robot" and thought it really represented Asimov's intentions well. Since I, Robot is a _collection_ of short stories, dealing with many varied topics; it gave the screenwriters much latitude. The only thing that I considered a complete failure was the depiction of one of Asimov's main recurring characters: Susan Calvin. She was central to many of the I, Robot stories but was always depicted as a stoic, cold, logical sort of personality... with almost a chip on her shoulder since she couldn't relate to others, especially males (or rather, they couldn't relate to her). She had a cold logical quality to her that made her seem like a Vulcan, BUT, in the movie, she was somewhat sexy, feminine, emotional, irrational at times, and just seemed there to support Wil Smith's character. What a waste of a truly spectacular character.

However, I did enjoy the film and I didn't walk away thinking that Asimov's robot universe was somehow slandered. It was a good representation!

P.S. I highly recommend "The Complete Robot". A good read and you can probably get it at your local library. Only took me a few nights to read. It's almost identical to "I, Robot".


----------



## ray gower (Dec 6, 2004)

Think I have finally tracked down my reservations about Wil Smith in this film.

It is not just because he appears in too many films. Which is irritating enough. But the character he is trying to play is trying to be Columbo- a smart in the head tramp who is less than convinced by technology.

Unfortunately for Smith it looks more like a smart arsed drop out with a stigma.


----------



## Princess Ivy (May 22, 2005)

*Re: I Robot*

again, i've not read the book. but have enjoyed the film rented it last night. i was a bit schmultzy towards the end, but its hollywood, so thats to be expected. i'd watch it again


----------



## DanielFullard (Jun 6, 2005)

*Re: I Robot*

I saw it at the cinema when it came out but havent bothered with the DVd. I enjoyed it a lot but I dont see much point in watching it again


----------



## Highlander II (Aug 23, 2006)

Merged 4 "I, Robot" threads together - should still seem coherent.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 17, 2011)

*I, Robot*

It's more than four decades since I read Asimov's robot stories and I have forgotten everything about them (except for the three laws of robotics, of course). So I approached this film with an open mind and no expectations; probably just as well, since I noted the comment afterwards that *I, Robot* was "inspired by" Asimov's stories, rather than directly based on them. 

The film is set in Chicago in 2035, with large numbers of humanoid robots being used throughout society. They are all produced by U.S. Robotics (USR) which also maintains a supercomputer (VIKI: Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence) which is able to communicate with, and change the programming of, the latest and most sophisticated generation of robots, designated NS-5. There is no public concern over the robots as their behaviour is governed by the three laws of robotics: that robots must not harm a human being; that robots must obey humans unless this conflicts with the first law; and that robots must preserve themselves unless this conflicts with the first two laws.

Del Spooner (Will Smith) is a detective with a deep mistrust of robots due to an accident which almost cost him his life. He is called to the apparent suicide of Alfred Lanning, the chief scientist of USR and the man who had restored Spooner using prosthetics. Lanning had left behind a trail of clues concerning his death in the form of appearances via a holographic projector. Spooner investigates his death with the reluctant assistance of Dr Susan Calvin, a "robopsychologist" working for USR (Bridget Moynahan), and he soon suspects one of the new NS-5 robots found at the scene. This robot, which calls itself Sonny, exhibits unexpectedly human characteristics, including emotions, and Calvin discovers that it has an additional brain making it possible for the robot to override the three laws.

Meanwhile, Spooner finds himself under threat from various types of USR robots, being attacked several times. His suspicions focus on the CEO of USR, who tries to thwart his investigations for fear that they would interfere with the planned major roll-out of NS-5 robots. The pace ramps up as Spooner and Calvin try to stop impending disaster.

This is principally an action movie but it also raises what will become genuine issues concerning the relationships between humanity and artificial intelligences as computers increase in sophistication. As such, it is more realistic than most SF films as the basic premise that such sophisticated AIs might exist by 2035 seems not impossible, given current progress. It isn't one of the great SF films (the plot is too routine for that) but is better than most, despite a rather puzzling and apparently inconsistent ending. Overall, a good thriller with Smith and Moynahan putting in effective performances.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## biodroid (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

I really enjoyed it, I liked the look of Sonny the robot as he wasn't portrayed as a clunky tubes and hydraulics robot but a imitation of life robot. The detective story was very good IMO and Will Smith is always a likeable guy. I also thought the mash up of the shiny new world and the old 21st century look really grounded the movie in reality. One thing that did annoy me was in the end fight scene 
*SPOILERS FOLLOW* Del Spooner loses his weapon and it goes tumbling down the shaft which suddenly gets picked up later for use again while it's harness was wrapped around a cable/pipe thing which is impossible, because there is no where for it to hook or slide on. I would say that was a plot device/continuity error because the director did not know what to do in that scene. Let me know if you spotted that as well. It's just before he has to inject the Nanobytes into the robots brain.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

I  didn't spot that, but then I don't take Hollywood fight scenes seriously anyway.

What did puzzle me at the end was that the robots ignored the human instructions to return to their containers and stood looking at Sonny instead. Did this mean that they were no longer under human control? If so, how did that happen once the controlling VIKI had been destroyed?


----------



## Metryq (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

Biodroid, the dropped rifle had a shoulder strap that clipped on at only one point at the back of the weapon. When the rifle fell, the loop of the strap went over one side of the guy-wire and the rifle went over the other. The long loop snagged on the magazine and kept the rifle from falling farther. So while the scenario is physically possible, it is _extremely_ unlikely.

The kind of "impossible" loop you are thinking of happened in the third Indiana Jones movie (_Last Crusade_). During the fight on the back of the tank, Indy is knocked over the side. The satchel slung diagonally from one shoulder "somehow" got looped over the short-barreled cannon on the side of the tank. The driver then tried to smear Indy against some rocks, and Indy was trapped by his own satchel strap.

***​
The movie _I, Robot_ bears no resemblance to Asimov's anthology, except for the scene where Sonny is hiding in the robot factory. ("Little Lost Robot") However, the movie appears to be based on Roger MacBride Allen's _Caliban_, a novel set in Asimov's "robots" universe. That story begins with robot Caliban booting up in a research lab to find a "dead" human lying at his feet in a pool of her own blood. He escapes the lab into a world he does not understand.

As the story unfolds, we learn that the planet Inferno is suffering a terraforming collapse. The only way to stabilize the situation is to use experimental New Law robots. The New Laws are modified versions of the famous Three Laws, only robots become partners in mankind's efforts, rather than slaves. This is necessary because the original Three Laws are too binding. There is no provision for risk even when a successful outcome will greatly benefit mankind. And that is why Inferno's environment—and human society itself—are collapsing. The robots know that the Three Laws are creating a positive feedback loop that will ultimately bring harm to all humans on the planet, but the Laws also do not allow them to do anything about it.

Because the populace is so inured to Three Law robots, anything less would be unthinkable. So the massive rollout of New Law robots is purely for the terraforming effort, and those robots will not mix with normal society.

Caliban is an experimental and top secret No Law robot. He was never meant to leave the laboratory, and the point of his creation was to see if a robot would work up its own laws (its own morality) if left to its own devices. And that is where the movie _I, Robot_ slipped off the rails. Dr. Calvin explained that Sonny has two brains—one with the Three Laws and one without. Thus, Sonny could "choose" to follow the Three Laws, or not. 

That strikes me as totally absurd, as one or the other brain would have to be dominant, and the dominant brain would determine compliance. Given that, I'm surprised the moviemakers missed a great opportunity. Sonny was scheduled for termination, which Dr. Calvin avoided by "retiring" a similar model robot. I doubt that would work. Every robot would have its own "MAC address" or some equivalent serial number. And the mainframe system would know that the scheduled robot had not been terminated. However, if Sonny had a "backup" brain in his chest...

Perhaps Sonny's Three Law brain was dominant, and Dr. Lanning temporarily bypassed it in order to have Sonny kill him. Then when that Three Law brain was terminated later, the No Law Sonny would come out.

But even that is too convoluted and makes no sense. If Sonny had simply been left as a secret, single-brain, No Law robot, as in the book _Caliban_, then the story would have worked out much better.

The movie ended with all the Nestor 5s being put into storage, and what good is that? How about removing their uplinks—which wouldn't matter since VIKI was destroyed. The NS-5s still had Three Law brains, which is what led VIKI to her HAL moment. But then the older robots had Three Laws, too. Seems to me the solution is to destroy all the NS-5 brains and insert New Law or No Law robots, like Sonny.

The logical flaw in _I, Robot_ is the sort of thing that would terminally weaken a movie for me, but I found myself liking the movie more than I "should." Why? I've learned I have a weakness: a good score will help me overlook gross errors in a movie, and _I, Robot_ had excellent music.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Anthony G Williams said:


> What did puzzle me at the end was that the robots ignored the human instructions to return to their containers and stood looking at Sonny instead. Did this mean that they were no longer under human control? If so, how did that happen once the controlling VIKI had been destroyed?



Pure drama, that's all it was. However, VIKI did not control the Nestor 5s all the time, but only when the uplink was active (the red light). That's why during the "revolution" all the NS-5s had red lights.

"Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?!"

I don't recall Dr. Calvin being a smokin' hottie in the book.

Oh, one other continuity error, if you're looking for that sort of thing. Alan Tudyk did more than supply Sonny's voice, he physically acted out the part, too. His presence was digitally erased from the shots, and the CGI Sonny was inserted, "Waldo-ing" Tudyk's performance.

In the closing scene, Sonny is kneeling over the dead body of CEO Robertson. In a closeup we see a _human_ hand on Robertson's chest, but on the wide shot we see that the hand must be Sonny's...


----------



## Metryq (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

Sorry, my mistake. (No edit buttons on these posts?) The human hand in the above screen shot was Robertson's. Sonny had obviously moved the body to a sofa and made it "presentable" until it could be collected. The movement of the hand was Sonny crossing Robertson's hands into a sleep-like pose. So Sonny's hand, gripping Robertson's wrist or forearm, would be out of frame.

I love the man-machine handshake that climaxes the scene—a nod to Asimov's _Robots and Empire_? Artist Michael Whelan selected that scene when he painted a cover for the book.

If you're an animator, Sonny is fascinating to watch. For example, there are these "clutches" on Sonny's shoulder sockets that flex and rotate the upper arm when the axis of force changes.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 17, 2011)

Dave said:


> Nothing in the"Three Laws" prevents them committing crimes



That might depend on which human law you are talking about. Ask a lawyer to define "injury" and then look at the First Law of Robotics.



> If he did the deed, then he could have been commanded to do it by a Human.



Second Law: A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, _except where such orders would conflict with the First Law._ The conditional would thus prevent the order to murder from working.



> Thirdly, why did they need all the complicated business with Nanites to shut down the robot and V.I.K.I.? Asimov, himself, had a simpler idea, irradiation with alpha particles.



I haven't read all of Asimov's robot stories, but I'd have to check a detail like that anyway. Are you sure it's alpha radiation? Alpha is not terribly penetrating. A sheet of paper will stop alpha particles. Since alpha particles are helium nuclei, I suppose hitting a positronic brain might make the robot "light headed." 

The short story "Little Lost Robot" (from _I, Robot_) involved one test with gamma rays that reportedly will drop a robot in its tracks. But it's a little hard to drum up some gamma rays when power has been shut down all over the city.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 17, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Metryq said:


> (No edit buttons on these posts?)


You have about an hour after the creation of a post in which to edit it.

An edit during the first few minutes of this does not give the time and reason for the edit (unless the author wants to say why).


----------



## clovis-man (Apr 18, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

The movie was entertaining in its own right. But not really Asimov. It's enlightening to read Harlan Ellison's Screenplay which never came to light on the big screen. Much more faithful to the intent of the short stories that comprised the original book.

Templeton Gate 3.0 - Literature - Harlan Ellison's I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Apr 18, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



clovis-man said:


> The movie was entertaining in its own right. But not really Asimov. It's enlightening to read Harlan Ellison's Screenplay which never came to light on the big screen. Much more faithful to the intent of the short stories that comprised the original book.
> 
> Templeton Gate 3.0 - Literature - Harlan Ellison's I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay


 
Thanks for the link Clovis-Man. I enjoyed the article. Even better, I didn't know that there was a collection of all the robot stories in one book - *The Complete Robot*. I just added it to my trolley and look forward to revisiting some old favourites.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 18, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

I have a copy of, and greatly enjoy reading, _The Complete Robot_.


I also liked the film.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 19, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

What is the difference between the book and movie?


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 19, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

The book is simply a collection of most of Asimov's robot stories, whereas the film takes certain Asimovian features (e.g. the three laws) and constructs a single narrative for an action movie from them (the key words being _action movie_).

The book's contents list can be found in The Complete Robot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (There's also a list of the robot stories not included in the book.)


----------



## clovis-man (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Ursa major said:


> The book is simply a collection of most of Asimov's robot stories, whereas the film takes certain Asimovian features (e.g. the three laws) and constructs a single narrative for an action movie from them (the key words being _action movie_).


 
The book is a _little_ more than just a collection of stories in that some interesting dilemmas revolving around the three laws are explored. For example, in "Little Lost Robot", a robot must be persuaded to reveal itself after being told to "get lost" and, true to the laws, obeys explicitly. In the film there is even a scene which hints at this.

Anyone who has seen the movie, but hasn't read *I, Robot*, really should. And I would strongly recommend Ellison's published screenplay as well.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

My use of the word, simply, was meant to suggest a collection of stories with no overarching narrative _added_, which is something the film did do.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Ursa major said:


> no overarching narrative



Yes and no. I always considered the _I, Robot_ anthology (except for the first story, "Robbie") as an exercise in quantifying morality in the form of the Three Laws. Some dilemma is introduced, then trouble-shooters must unravel the often human-like behavior based on the Three Laws.

For the record, I read Ellison's "script" in book form years ago and did not see anything particularly brilliant about it. If I'm remembering correctly, all it did was flesh out the "reporter talking to Dr. Calvin" scenario from the book's Introduction. I actually found the "script" format rather annoying, with notes about which lenses to use on the camera and such. Real movie _scripts_ do not have such notes.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

I wasn't takling about the _I, Robot_ collection; I was referring to the collection,  _The Complete Robot_.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*

Pardon my confusion; the thread and the movie were both titled "I, Robot." You also mentioned Ellison's screenplay. In the case of the movie, the title suggests—to those familiar with Asimov's work—that the film is based on the smaller anthology.

I have an _Outer Limits_ episode (which has been remade more than once over the years) titled "I, Robot." Yet it has no relation to Asimov's work, except perhaps "The Bicentennial Man." The _Outer Limits_ episode is more like Eando Binder's "The Trial of Adam Link" (1939), which was preceded by a story titled "I, Robot." (I'm not sure exactly how the original stories were divided up. I read a collected volume titled _Adam Link, Robot_.)

There is a real-world company (which I'm sure is not news) called USRobotics, yet they make computer peripherals, not "robots." There is also a company called iRobot which produces Roomba, a device somewhat like Hired Girl from Heinlein's _The Door Into Summer_.

So it's easy to mix this stuff up.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Metryq said:


> You also mentioned Ellison's screenplay.


Er, no I didn't.   (And I still haven't, except for quoting the above.)

The poster who did was clovis-man.




Metryq said:


> So it's easy to mix this stuff up.


Obviously.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Ursa major said:


> Er, no I didn't.



Sorry.   I was on page two of this thread when I hit the "reply" button.


----------



## clovis-man (Apr 22, 2011)

*Re: I, Robot*



Metryq said:


> I have an _Outer Limits_ episode (which has been remade more than once over the years) titled "I, Robot." Yet it has no relation to Asimov's work, except perhaps "The Bicentennial Man." The _Outer Limits_ episode is more like Eando Binder's "The Trial of Adam Link" (1939), which was preceded by a story titled "I, Robot." (I'm not sure exactly how the original stories were divided up. I read a collected volume titled _Adam Link, Robot_.)


 
*The Outer Limits* episode, "I, Robot" from 1964 featured the primary character as the creation of a Dr. Link, so the robot's name was Adam Link. No coincidence, I'm sure, especially since it was primarily a courtroom drama (albeit interrupted, predictably, by one "destroy all humans" rampage by the robot). It also featured a young Leonard Nimoy as a journalist.

I guess the later *Outer Limits* series (1995) had the same or a similar story and also had Leonard Nimoy as a character. My "Gee Whiz" fact of the day.


----------

