Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official I, ROBOT Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official I, ROBOT Discussion Thread

post #1 of 111
7/14/04 at 9:29am
Thread Starter 
Based on a review of the film I read and a promotional blurb I saw on HDNet, I don't care for the message in the film at all. It sounds decidedly technophobic, and that's the exact opposite of the philosophy promulgated in the Asimov stories (the whole point of the Three Laws of Robotics was to do away with any basis for fear of robots). This is quite apart from any considerations of set design, acting, writing, etc.
Reply
post #2 of 111
7/14/04 at 10:04am
This movie looks like absolute garbage. DVD rental, maybe. Very disappointed so far.
Reply
post #3 of 111
7/14/04 at 11:22am
Well, Harry has a review up:

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=17955

He liked it, but he had low expectations going in. Doesn't sound like it is anything special from his review.

Jason
Reply
post #4 of 111
7/14/04 at 11:30am
Quote:
Based on a review of the film I read and a promotional blurb I saw on HDNet, I don't care for the message in the film at all. It sounds decidedly technophobic, and that's the exact opposite of the philosophy promulgated in the Asimov stories (the whole point of the Three Laws of Robotics was to do away with any basis for fear of robots). This is quite apart from any considerations of set design, acting, writing, etc.


I got that feeling from the previews as well. This doesn't look good.

Though most of the robot stories are pro-technology, one of the best robot short stories that I read from Asimov was the one where the two robots end up plotting to destroy humanity (or reach that logical conclusion). I can't remeber where I read it(I'm sure it's an old 70's sci-fi mag), but if I find the name I'll post it (or if someone else remembers it, let me know)
Reply
post #5 of 111
7/14/04 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Detroy humanity? ? Asimov robots would NEVER do that.


Destroy humanity was a little pulpy. It's an Asimov story, where through logical discourse two robots learn from each other and realize that robots are better at running the planet then humans (or something like that), and that the elimination of humans would be necessary. It was quite interesting to see Asimov use the three laws to imply robots destroying humanity (I'm sure it ended with the robots shutting each other down or something like that. I'm trying to track it down now, so we'll see how poor my memory is.
Reply
post #6 of 111
7/14/04 at 12:42pm
Well, I just read the I, Robot collection and most of the "Rest of the Robots" - which pretty is, I think, 90% or better of the robot shorts. I'm willing to be proved wrong, though.
Reply
post #7 of 111
7/14/04 at 1:15pm
I'm pretty sure it was "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" but I'm looking for a copy to confirm.
Reply
post #8 of 111
7/14/04 at 1:51pm
I don't think I've read that one! Surprised I missed one.

Here's a good summary of the story from an extensive Robot/Foundation publishing history page. It also lists where it was printed:

http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/sf/pezhis5.html

Quote:
The next story resulted from a request from Ed Ferman and Barry Malzberg, who were putting together an anthology of original science fiction stories called Final Stage. The idea was to take a number of common science fiction categories and take them to their logical conclusions. Ferman and Malzberg wanted Asimov to write an "ultimate robot story", and after some hesitation, he agreed. There had always been one aspect of the robot theme that he had never had the courage to tackle, although he and John Campbell had sometimes discussed it. The three laws of robotics define the relationship between robots and human beings, but what makes a human being human in the eyes of a robot? In "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" set over a century after the death of Susan Calvin, a series of robots are built by US Robots that are so sophisticated that they are able to redefine the definition of human for themselves. In the end, they decide that any reasonable definition of human must also necessarily include robots. Asimov started the story on March 6, 1973, and it eventually appeared in Final Stage, and also in the May 1974 issue of F&SF.
Reply
post #9 of 111
7/14/04 at 2:15pm
Yup, that's the one. I wish I could find it, it's pretty clever. Well worth reading and thanks for your help.

I still think I, Robot the movie is going to stink. Even by reading that blurb on "That Thou..." that Asimov never intended for robots to go crazy and start jumping around attacking people. I'll still wait 'till it's out before I slag it too much.
Reply
post #10 of 111
7/15/04 at 2:09pm
I, Robot getting about 75% fresh at rottentomatoes.com. Looks like this could actually be a pleasant sci-fi surprise this summer.
Reply
post #11 of 111
7/15/04 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Because crowd-pleasing action scenes are the lifeblood of summer movies, Spooner's instincts prove correct and soon robots and humans are clashing in the streets.


That's all I have to say about the movie. It is pretty funny, because I normally don't boycott a movie on principle. But you don't take Asimov's non-human harming robots and have them engaging in Matrix-style rebellion.


I don't want to be that annoying guy that rants against a certain movie, so I will be keeping out of the threads about the movie that pop up. I figure the trailer thread here is fair game.


I also posted on a DVD talk thread about the movie. This is from the intro to the reprinting of his first 2 Robot novels. Here he talks about how he started writing about robots. I'll leave us with a quote from Asimov himself (and one of his less scathing comments about the Frankenstein complex, at that):


Quote:
Following these examples, it became very common, in the 1920s and 1930s, to picture robots as dangerous devices that invariably destoryed their creators. The moral was pointed out again and again that "there were some things that Man was not meant to know."

Even as a youngster, though, I could not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presented danger, the solution was ignorance. To me, it always seemed that the solution had to be wisdom. You did not refuse to look at danger, rather you learned how to handle it safely.

After all, this has been the human challenge since a certain group of primates became human in the first place. Any technological advance can be dangerous. Fire was dangerous from the start, and so (even more so) was speech - but human beings would not be human without them.

At any rate, without quite knowing what dissatisfied me about the stories I read, I waited for something better, and I found it....a story in which a robot was portrayed sympathetically...

Dimly, I began to feel hat I wanted to write a story in which a robot would be portrayed lovingly...
Reply
post #12 of 111
7/15/04 at 6:59pm
But you don't take Asimov's non-human harming robots and have them engaging in Matrix-style rebellion.


While I haven't read his books they do not engage in "Matrix-style rebellion." These robots [i]are[i/] governed by the three laws.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They are controlled, unlike in The Matrix where the robots became self-aware.


I don't think you have a grasp on what the movie is (but then again, why would you, you haven't seen it). I say go see the movie and make up your mind for yourself. No one likes an ill-informed person to rant on about things they know nothing or just a little bit about (Michael Moore I'm looking in your direction ).
Reply
post #13 of 111
7/15/04 at 9:41pm
I know a couple of guys who saw one of the junket screenings.... they both liked it and thought it was a well-done "summer movie". They thought it wasn't as good as SPIDEY 2, but certainly well made and enjoyable for what it was.

I'm just glancing through this thread right now, so sorry if someone posted it and I missed it, but Dave Poland *really* liked it, and thought it actually mixed in some Asimovian-style stuff in there.
Reply
post #14 of 111
7/15/04 at 10:25pm
This sure looks like a discussion thread!

Here's my review.

I kinda expected this from Will Smith, but not from Alex Proyas. Not a terrible movie, but not a very engaging one either.
Reply
post #15 of 111
7/16/04 at 12:47am
Asimov's detective stories tended to be about going around and interviewing people, which someone decided doesn't belong in a sci-fi movie. I had somewhat good hopes for this movie before I saw the trailer, but not anymore.
Reply
post #16 of 111
7/16/04 at 10:26am
CNN article: Do summer Sci-Fi films have to be so dumb?

--
H
Reply
post #17 of 111
7/16/04 at 12:44pm
OK, whatever the movie plot line, rebellion or not, masses of robots trying to hurt people is 100% anti-Asimov and 100% typical Frankenstein complex. No matter how you spin it. The old "rolling over in his grave" line comes to mind

I like Holadem's link to why does Summer Sci-fi have to be so dumb Good link, man.



Like I said:

I won't be the annoying dude that sits in the discussion thread about the movie ranting about it without seeing it. And I'm not ranting. Far from it. But I figure this thread is still fair game for discussion at this point.
Reply
post #18 of 111
7/16/04 at 4:45pm
Quote:
OK, whatever the movie plot line, rebellion or not, masses of robots trying to hurt people is 100% anti-Asimov and 100% typical Frankenstein complex. No matter how you spin it. The old "rolling over in his grave" line comes to mind


And I'm 100% behind you. I haven't seen it either, but I don't need to. I had Minority Report pegged long before I wasted anytime watching it (and I will watch I,Robot eventually, just not for $12). Same with Glitter.

The previews clearly show robots jumping all over the place menacingly as well as some other non-subtle references to robots being bad. Good movie, bad movie, who cares? It's just that Asimov would be very upset at this being made with his name all over it, and so am I.
Reply
post #19 of 111
7/16/04 at 5:26pm
You know, I posted a review (couldn't find a review thread) and I have to say: I really disliked it. It's too bad someone didn't sit down and watch "Contact" and think: "We can do something thoughtful with the works, and still have action/suspense as well" Instead, it became a real junker (IMHO)
Reply
post #20 of 111
7/16/04 at 5:28pm
I love the CNN article that ADMITS up front that it hasn't seen the movie...but, it must be stupid!

I thought the movie was quite good. At least, not bad.

Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it is full of CGI (frankly, the best CGI I've seen in a movie in a long time...maybe ever). Yes, it has some corny popcorn film language. And, yes, it seems old...that's what you get when you make a movie based on source material that has been done in a million different ways (Terminator, Blade Runner, Minority Report, and others).

But, it's interesting. It's smart. It's fairly ambitious, and it's FUN! I didn't find it as slow as Spidey, but it's not a masterpiece either.

Does Will's backstory work? Not really. And, the action scenes (except for the VERY cool "vertigo cam" used in the final action sequence) are uninspired.

But, Sonny is cool and the mystery unfolds well.

I'd give it a solid "B".
Reply
post #21 of 111
7/16/04 at 7:05pm
As much as I hate to nitpick the 'specifics' of a Popcorn Flick, there's something that's been bothering me about the car chase scene in I, Robot.

OK, there's these two robot-filled vehicle thingies, and they're both trying to kill Will Smith.

So they get in front of and behind his car, open their doors, and 500 robots spill out. Meanwhile all three vehicles are going, like, mega-fast.

Now we have robots flying everywhere and Willie's car a'spinnin' like a top. The robots are unable to dispatch the fresh prince.

So, like, why doesn't the massive vehicle IN FRONT OF WILLY just STOP COLD? At the speed, there'd be nothing left but an icky stain and that oh-so-fashionable pantyhose thing Willbur wore on his head.

Again, I know it's fairly stupid to nitpick stuff like this, but if the movie can't even maintain its own internal logic, how can they expect a moviegoer to get adequately sucked into what COULD have been a much more exciting sequence?
Reply
post #22 of 111
7/16/04 at 8:41pm
Thread Starter 
Comments from Harlan Ellison that killed any desire I may have had to see the film:

Quote:
"The I, ROBOT opening next Friday is the awful retrofitting of an oldscreenplay called HARDWIRED that had been lying around for years, until it was picked up by Proyas (the director). At that point, lawyers (or someone) who were slightly less illiterate than the usual movie gang, pointed out that the script used as its core the 3 Laws of Robotics that were clearly the creative property of the estate of the late Isaac Asimov. And so, properly
fearing a lawsuit, they scampered fast as their asses-needing-covering would permit, and they bought the rights to the title of Isaac's classic collection of robot stories from an equally ignorant rights&permissions functionary at Doubleday. They changed the names of a few characters, they
stuck in as little of the Asimov material as they could, and they used the idiotic robot-amuck CGI-festooned HARDWIRED, now retitled I, ROBOT."
Reply
post #23 of 111
7/16/04 at 8:52pm
Who cares that the car chase didn't make sense....it lasted too friggin' long!!
Reply
post #24 of 111
7/16/04 at 9:09pm
If that car chase scene was occuring in a slip-n-slide, it'd make more sense, but otherwise, it just became a CGI exercise that lost my interest very quickly.
Reply
post #25 of 111
7/16/04 at 11:20pm
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Asimov's daughter has given the movie her seal of approval. Perhaps she's easy to convince... or perhaps the movie is decent. (I'll probably be seeing it tomorrow)
Reply
post #26 of 111
7/17/04 at 3:39am
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "I, Robot" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "I, Robot" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy
Reply
post #27 of 111
7/17/04 at 6:29am
To me it often seemed like a rehash of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, but that earlier film was more entertaining overall Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
and didn't have a phony happy ending.
Reply
post #28 of 111
7/17/04 at 7:04am
A better title for this movie would have been:

"I Robbed What?"
Reply
post #29 of 111
7/17/04 at 2:25pm
I was entertained. Hardly great, but it was better than King Arthur. Ellison's comment explained a lot.

While trying to figure out what happened to U.S. Robotics -- they recently became their own company again, after being bought by 3com -- I found this :
Quote:
USR originally planned to have co-star Bridget Moynihan appear at USR's SuperComm both last week in Chicago, but pulled the plug. "I think she would have gone in expecting us to produce robots," Pryzgoda said. "She'd have been pretty upset if a bunch of nerds were stalking her, talking about networking."
Reply
post #30 of 111
7/17/04 at 3:01pm
If they had named this somethign other than "I, Robot," Asimov fans would have been a lot less hostile to it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official I, ROBOT Discussion Thread