I Robot movie (Isaac Asimov)

I enjoyed the film as a mostly mindless action story. I loved Asimov's books. I don't really see one as connected with other, except by name, and the idea of self-aware robots.
 

 I agree with Joel007. I thought it was an entertaining futuristic action flick, but I didn’t see much Asimov in it. They should have given it a different name.



 
Snowdog said:
I watched this the other day as well, for the first time. Unlike Brian though, I had read the robot stories. If I hadn't, I might have enjoyed it more.

I did like what they did with the robots, except when they had them bouncing around on the sides of buildings. Must've been anti-gravity robots :p

But the mangling of Asimov's stories was pretty dreadful, killer robots controlled by a TRON-like artificial consciousness about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and as far away from the clever stories as you could get.

And Will Smith... I like Will Smith and he can't be blamed for this script. Enough said.

4/10
Click to expand...

The problem with the Asimov tag is that it has created responses like this.

The original title of the film was Hardwired and the script idea was essentially the same. For some reason the makers felt that the story needed some concrete grounding in SF so they managed to get rights to use Asimovs stuff. They really only changed names.

I've never come across a convincing explanation on why they felt the need for that as the movie was strong in of itself. There are a few problems with this movie but I felt that it handled the overall ideas quite well. it clearly drew on contemporary ideas for visual styling (Viki looks remarkably like Shodan and even behaves like her), the robot styling harks to other films... And it also appeared to draw on contemporary.

I was sceptical of even bothering to see this film at first but I am glad that I did. If I could get them to change the editing then the one thing I would get them to do is to remove that idiot kid character. He doesn't serve a purpose in the film and the film would have felt immensely better wihout him.
 
I thought the film was decent if you didnt know what it took its name from.


I have never read the Robots books so i couldnt compare. It would prolly suck if i knew how the original story was. I mean i have read several Assimov books and know his stuff is more complex than what they did with this movie.


Speaking about Assimov stories becoming movies wasnt that Robot movie with Robin Williams also Assimov?
 
In sci fi films and there's a culprit it's always the deranged AI. It's rather like old manor house mysteries "The butler did it", in sci fi if in doubt "the AI did it"
 
andrew.v.spencer said:
In sci fi films and there's a culprit it's always the deranged AI. It's rather like old manor house mysteries "The butler did it", in sci fi if in doubt "the AI did it"
Click to expand...

I'd say that this is what keeps me from being interested in seeing the film. I'm slightly -- but only verrry slightly -- less against it after what I've read about it here at Chrons... as a film. But there was no reason whatsoever to use Asimov's name or any connection to his book, and that they did so ticks me off in at least two ways: 1) because they bought the rights, now no film actually based upon the book can be made until the rights either expire or they are willing to sell them; 2)what AVS says above is exactly the problem -- while the robots themselves may not turn out to be Frankensteinian individually... there is still that same tired old storyline that has been around in sf films since the 1920s (or possibly earlier) and in literature for an even longer period... and it is, frankly, tiresome. The number of films done on this theme are far too numerous to name; let's get something a little more original -- or at least a little less hackneyed -- going here. It's not like we don't have enough stories to choose from, now is it?

And Connavar: Yes, "The Bicentennial Man"; there was also a novel version of this story, cowritten with Robert Silverberg, The Positronic Man. While I prefer the short story because -- as with the short version of "Flowers for Algernon", on a rereading I found that The Positronic Man deserves to be considered a somewhat separate entity, as the scope is broader and it tackles more issues and delves more deeply into those covered by the story.

*sigh* I just wish to blazes that someone had actually done Ellison's screenplay as a film, and stayed faithful to it... it really would have been a film to blow the vast majority of sf films right out of the solar system....
 
I have seen Bicentennial Man and think Robin Williams was fine in the role. It was reasonably kind to the book. I did not enjoy I Robot and would agreee with Archon's comments that it played out more like Elijah Bailey and R. Daneel characters from Caves of Steel and Naked Sun (two of my fav Assimov novels)
Mmmmm maybe they're next on the Hollywood makeover list.
 
Lets hope they arent.....


I hope they would make an Assimov story a tv show like in HBO, they are all about quality.
 
Actually, I thought that the film "I, Robot" was quite Asimovian in some ways. Whilst it wasn't based on any of his actual stories, it took a lot of the concepts he explored. It wasn't a derranged AI, it was following the law's of Robotics to it's logical conclusion...or at least one possible interpretation. And let's face it, that's what Asimov was about, wasn't he? Finding ways in which the seemingly failsafe laws of robotics could be interpreted in ways which diverged from the intention of their author.

The desire of the master AI to take control of humanity to protect it against it's own follies is somewhat akin to the zeroth law that was explored in "Robots and Empire" (and elsewhere); i.e. that individual human beings can be harmed if it is in the interests of humanity as a whole.
 
Since that point was taken from some of Asimov's writings and thoughts, I considered it just a way of fleshing out the theory behind the film. He did speculate about what would happen if the robots took a more long term view and tried to protect humanity from itself, rather than one human from another.
 
My wife enjoyed this film for what it was - an action thriller. But then again she's not a fan of Asimov and subsequently read any of his books.

I, on the other hand, hated the film even though I was desperate to be objective in my viewing. But Hollywood has yet again took some major "poetic licence" with his book to produce this trashy effort.

Interestingly the entry in IMDb quite Asimov as a writer by "suggested by book", which is an interesting turn of phrase, not even an adaption, just a "suggestion" here, "suggestion" there.

Quite frankly unless some serious-minded director such as Pete Jackson was ever offered the idea of brining the Foundation books (say) to the screen (unlikely I know), then Hollywood should stay well away from Asimov.
 
HanaBi said:
My wife enjoyed this film for what it was - an action thriller. But then again she's not a fan of Asimov and subsequently read any of his books.

I, on the other hand, hated the film even though I was desperate to be objective in my viewing. But Hollywood has yet again took some major "poetic licence" with his book to produce this trashy effort.

Interestingly the entry in IMDb quite Asimov as a writer by "suggested by book", which is an interesting turn of phrase, not even an adaption, just a "suggestion" here, "suggestion" there.
Click to expand...

I'll reiterate. The movie was never originally conceived as being from Asimov. They (FOX iirc) bought the rights to use the IP later on.

If it's not based on the book there is no poetic licence...

Oh; and I forgot to mention that I thought it was extremely bad form for them to use the name. What they should've done is called it something else (perhaps taking a quote from a story) or stuck with the original title. I think fanboys would have been accepting if that had been the case.
 
Last edited:
2)what AVS says above is exactly the problem -- while the robots themselves may not turn out to be Frankensteinian individually... there is still that same tired old storyline that has been around in sf films since the 1920s (or possibly earlier) and in literature for an even longer period... and it is, frankly, tiresome. The number of films done on this theme are far too numerous to name; let's get something a little more original -- or at least a little less hackneyed -- going here. It's not like we don't have enough stories to choose from, now is it?
Click to expand...
Have you seen the film yet?

The plot motif is more complex than you seem to think. Yes - there certainly is an element of "frankentstein" in the film and yet there is also a lot of "anti-frankenstein" in there too. The end of the movie is also quite ambiguous (well once you get past the predictable bit).
Perhaps people are too distracted by the hollywood gloss (yep there is bucketloads of it) but I have to say that I think it's one of the better Hollywood SF films. Certainly it's far better than the way it was sold (as a basic SF themed action blockbuster). Interestingly it was directed one Alex Proyas who also happened to direct the excellent Dark City.
When I saw this movie I thought I was going to hate it, in fact I wanted to, but I was genuinely glad I saw it.
 
Gav said:
I'll reiterate. The movie was never originally conceived as being from Asimov. They (FOX iirc) bought the rights to use the IP later on.

If it's not based on the book there is no poetic licence...

Oh; and I forgot to mention that I thought it was extremely bad form for them to use the name. What they should've done is called it something else (perhaps taking a quote from a story) or stuck with the original title. I think fanboys would have been accepting if that had been the case.
Click to expand...

Yes I accept your points, but it still erks me when Hollywood take so many liberties to the point of besmirching Asimov's work. Indeed they should have renamed it if it wasn't going to bare hardly any resemblance to the book.
 
Hilarious Joke said:
From a person neutral to science fiction, I thought this film was enjoyable and stimulating.
Click to expand...

I didnt read SF when i saw the movie and even then i saw it was a stupid movie.

Sure some fun action scenes and some fun scene cause of Will Smith but thats it.
 
that film was no more to do with isac asimov then data in tng is, actually tbg has more to do with him. it was another cheap taci will smith movie good fun to watch but nothing to learn, no intresting questions posed just lots of money made. Ed. the only emotional bits in the film are the bits ware isac had an influence the rest is holiwood ( bolsar wood ) productions which is about as deep complex as a plate.
 
as far as the two hollywood movies that were made using Asimov's name, they both tacked in the three laws of robotics, then treated them like they were supposed to be guidelines of conduct instead of LAWS. the quotes from his daughter are at least some credibility that transferring a story from paper to cellulose are going to have differences, and hollywood lookingto draw in the most people for one overpriced showing....... howver in I, robot, there was a lot of dialog about there being only this one robot that was made without three laws (if I were to use the book it would be the one about the nester that had almost no first law capability don't remember the title) yes, V.I.K.I reached a levle of complexity where she decided to save humanity from itself by forcing them into a minority role with robots becoming parents....

however there were several instances in both bicentennial man and I, robot where a robot ignored the first law. bicentennial man at the end where whatshername ordered Galatea to disconnect her life support so she could die...... and the point where the robot saves one person in a sinking car by tearing him half apart, and leaves another to die, because of the lack of percentage of being able to save the other one..... good hollywood story, but fumbled the ball on following a LAW qithin a computer decision making program. sigh, unfortunately this is how hollywood ends up making movies. the ones that bring in big money and are loved by millions, are nothing like the book they took their name from, the ones that are nearly identical (2001) put people to sleep in their seats, and are on DVD within 6 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Extollager Mushroom-robot partners Science & Nature 0
S J.J. Abrams to produce Victorian steampunk robot movie General Film Discussion 0
Paige Turner Who's your favourite movie robot? General Film Discussion 66
Jayaprakash Satyamurthy Robyn Asimov defends 'I, Robot' movie Isaac Asimov 13
J I, Robot (Reason) story being made into a movie General Film Discussion 0

Similar threads


Back
Top