*** Official I, ROBOT Discussion Thread - Page 3

Because firstly, "I, Robot" is a short story collection. Secondly, the film was "suggested" by this. It's not an adaptation of any of the stories from the book. Why is that so hard to grasp. When I go to watch any film that's based on any literature (to any degree), I always make sure to watch the film for what it is, and not compare it to the source, if I read it. Lord of the Rings was substantially changed, yet nobody seems to mind. The Lawnmower Man has nothing in common with the Stephen King short story, other than the title, but it's a very enjoyable film. Go and see this one, if for nothing else but the craft of Alex Proyas. The man has talent!

I liked the movie but didn't think it was one of Will Smith's better performances. I didn't buy the 2035 date, some stuff looked too futuristic for 30 years from now and some stuff looked like it shouldn't have survived another 30 years.

All in all, worth the price of a matinee ticket but not a "wow" movie.

It isn't hard to grasp (I'm not stupid, despite what you might think) what they did, and if you believe the "suggested" bit, well, more power to you. What does "I, Robot" being a short story collection have to do with anything? Have you read any Asimov? If so, you'd know that the only way this film was "suggested" by Asimov was that it has robots, and after the script was already written they changed the names of some of the characters to ones from "I, Robot". There is a HUGE difference between interpreting or adapting a work of fiction into a film, and taking the title and making a completely different movie. I'm not talking about changing events, I'm talking about changing the entire philosophy of the piece. "I, Robot" the movie is technophobic, something Asimov never was.
But then, if you think it was alright to call "The Lawnmower Man" what they did just to sucker some people into the movie theater who might have read the Stephen King short story, that explains alot about your reasoning.
And I will admit that Alex Proyas is a good, maybe even great director, but this film was a tremendous misstep for him, and something I would have expected out of Michael Bay or McG.

It would have been much worse. I think Proyas is the reason we got what we did to the point where we did. Could it have been more thought provoking? Sure. Could It have been MUCH WORSE? Yes easily.

Regardless I enjoyed it.

I have to admit that you are right. At least the movie was straight to the point, no false attempt at characterization outside of the lead, no obligatory kiss/love story, no cutesy thing (kid, pet, whatever) expressely designed to make the audience go "aaawwww!...", heck, even Will Smith whom I like contrarly many of you significantly toned down his schtick for this one (it just doesn't fit with the mood of this film).

It has the feel of a good SF story (they certainly got the looks and environement right, althougth methinks they shamelessly stole from Minority Report), I just wish as you said, it was more thought provoking.

--
H

USR = unrealistic

C'mon, big corps and their auditors are now being heavily regulated (more so than the SEC Act of 1933,34) with the Sarbanes-Oxley Bill! The old man would have stepped down as CEO years ago! geez!

It was…thought provoking…for me…(doesn’t take much to provoke my musing )
it reminded me of how much enjoyment I had years ago reading sci-fi. Which for some reason I strayed away from. This film has rekindled a desire to find the old greats and research the new, which might currently intrigue in the genre.

I can’t recall the details of a single Asimov story (of which I believe I read most at one time - retention is my downfall) but I-ROBOT reminded me of the ‘feel’ and flavor of many I read. (was not the locked in the room sole suspect incapable of committing a crime; written as a detective like twist into some other famous Sci-fi storyline? It seemed very familiar) When I left the theater I was thinking what a great untapped resource these stories could be many ideally suited in length for adaptation by a screen writer. Only recently are the advances in CGI hitting the cusp of capability to create the worlds these stories describe. When the great pockets that be, - like the numbers a film like I ROBOT might pull it can create little flurry trends towards more Sci-Fi novellas adapted to screenplay. Always optimistically hoping for either enjoyable attempts or the occasional future classic being produced.

Spoiler follow if you have not seen the film (discussion no spoilers? Right?)

I did not perceive the films thrust to be technophobic yet rather heavy-handedly the reverse. The entire conflict for the lead character is Will Smith’s seemingly lone prejudice against powerful machines, which have cognitive ability but no emotion.

A calculator let a little girl die, when any moral human under the same circumstance would have made the opposite choice under a value system the machines in this story should be incapable of factoring. It came across to me rather clearly the lead’s dread of the abundance of these ‘toasters’ mobile, powerful with humans becoming increasingly dependent upon greater numbers produced and sold. He fears what he perceives as anti-human and alien cold processes combined with the possibility of malfunction.

His grudging acceptance of and final cooperation with Sonny is gained when “the ghost in the machine” creates a robot capable of exhibiting behavior based in part on emotional response. Sonny can “save the girl” although he is built to factor the reduction of positive probability if all resources are not brought to bear on a priority goal. A paradox theme predominates which is often evoked in many sci-fi stories and worked for me in this film.

An earlier mention was made that the only nod in the film to Asimov was the title and the 3 laws. I think the flavor of the movie imparted more of what Asmonif was about then it contradicted.

It was mentioned higher in the thread that the ‘laws’ were not even followed or Sonny could not have sworn and carried out his oath. It was made clear in the termination scene that Sonny had been built (for a reason she could not fathom yet by his ‘father’) with two “brains’; the computer installed in the normal cranial location and an unexpected secondary in the torso, which she assumed must override the first.

Vicki’s evolvement into action could be explained by the several references to the anomalies of what were named ‘free radicals’, which would clump in configurations whose effects were as yet unknown combined with the mention that she was his oldest creation logically therefore longer exposed to the effects he called TGITM.

This film was Much, much, better than I expected, tied up in a fairly neat package.

A couple of nitpicks on the overall movie. Did nothing to dampen my enjoyment of it, but I wonder if these were a problem with converting the script to a more obviously Asimov film.

Sonny obviously has the ability to ignore the 3 Laws because he has the second brain embedded in his chest. I suspect that Viki was able to develope her interpretation of the 3 Laws because they were software encoded on her. But all of the rest of the robots, to include the NS5s, were mentioned to have the 3 Laws hardwired into their systems, in a way that even unprogrammed ones would not be able to violate them. How then would robots uplinked to Viki be able to act as they did? If they programmed them to have the uplink override their hardwired 3 Laws coding, it hardly seems to have been something you could call 3 Laws safe. All it would take is a bad uplink and some faulty code and you could have some deaths on your hands.

Spooner is obviously introduced as the anachronistic hero, with his taste of current/vintage clothing and music. How exactly was he able to get gasoline for his motorcycle?

During the voiceover in the landfill area, it was clear that the older generation robots had begun some semblance of self programming, what with their sense of community and heading towards the light. But it was curious that the NS5s would have been so interested in Sonny up on the hill. As best I can tell, their slave programming system wouldn't have been as open to leadership as the old versions of robots who appeared to have more autonomy. Wouldn't it have been a better conclusion to have the older generation robots look up to Sonny for leadership?

Because they made Sonny "alive" through the introduction of a second brain, a hardware solution, doesn't this dilute the concept that a robot would spontaneously evolve? What with their hardware limitations, what are the possibilities for the older versions, or even the NS5s, to evolve consciousness?


Overall, I still think it turned out far better than I had expected. I particularly liked the march of the condemned as Sonny is led to decommissioning flanked by two NS5s and two humans as well as the lecture by the old man as Spooner is wandering the landfill.

(Keeping with my "trying not to be the annoying guy here" attitude, but I thought I could add useful info). Slap me if I get irritating!


Often in Asimov stories the question was asked, why couldn't you just build a robot brain without the three laws. Generally the response was along the lines of "impossible".


The point of the 3 Laws are that they are truly hardwired into the technology. It's like trying to yank out the x86 code out of a x86 computer, on a high level scale. Or pulling the radioactive material out of nuclear technology and making it run on Beer cans and banana peels ala Back to the Future


The laws truly form the basis of the technology. Although it is a little easier to think that you could just insert "different code" now, thanks to our familiarity with modern computers. But that's not how it worked.

It was always stated that it would take a rebuilding of the technology from the ground up, billions of dollars and years of research. And there was no way anyone could maintain that kind of effort in secrecy, since everyone would be (rightfully) afraid of building robots capable of harming people.

But in the movie, you can just ignore that

Then, at least, it has done something good! Too often, modern sci-fi on TV & movies has become a "blow crap up" genre. The roots of it are far from that.

That's why I rarely tune in for a sci-fi show or movie any more. I think the last true sci-fi movie I saw, excluding the Matrix sequels, was Minority Report.

In Asimov's world, the development of the robot's positronic brain had the 3 laws embedded as its underlying fundamental core with regard to decision making. Without the 3 laws, humans would have never accepted robots in their lives to the extent that they do in Asimov's world. Pretty much any attempt to manually circumvent the 3 laws renders the positronic brain/CPU useless, this is why his Robot mystery novels were fun and interesting.

If you allow the ease of re-programming robots via a simple download received by the NS5's as shown in the film, then it's not really the world that Asimov envisioned for his style of robots, and he envisioned these laws so that robots would be accepted fully by humans without fear of a "Robot Gone Wild" scenario becoming a prevalent one. What we got in the film was a robotic nightmare come true, and one that set back robot integration into human society by decades if not centuries. Yawn...

I will flat out say, I really liked it. I enjoyed sitting there and watching it.

Very cool eye candy and futuristic technology, so that was good for what I like

The story line is better than most of the $hit Hollywood puts out. It was well done, and did not drag.

The movie didn't take itself too seriously, so that made it better automatically.

If you just want to enjoy yourself, I'd go see it.

Just a good summer blockbuster.

Viki- Reminded me of the Master Controller in Tron

But the movie contends that the actions the robots where taking were in accordance with the 3 laws, not violating them. The robots concluded that a few must die to save the many, and that this fit within the 3 laws.

In Robots and Empire (ch. 63), the "Zeroth Law" is extrapolated, and the other Three Laws modified accordingly: 0. A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Unlike the Three Laws, however, the Zeroth Law is not a fundamental part of positronic robotic engineering, is not part of all positronic robots, and, in fact, requires a very sophisticated robot to even accept it.

The above was taken from www.asimovonline.org.

R. Daneel (from Asimov's novels) was a very special robot. The NS5 robots were not.

No, what the film shows is that the screenwriters/director didn't understand the groundwork laid by Asimov to construct a future society that accepted robots due to the inherent decision making design of the positronic brain. They felt the instruction set was something like firmware that could be flashed and re-programmed, but that's where the whole plot falls apart under the Asimovian Robot framework, and instead, the screenwriters went the easy route and we get what we get with the movie, "I, Robot".

Perhaps to get over this violation of Asimov's robot principles, you just have to treat this movie as a prequel showing exactly why the positronic brains had to be re-designed from the ground up so that its instruction set and core decision making process could not be over-written by a flashing the firmware, and that the NS5 robot and previous models all needed to be scrapped and new robots that truly operated under the 3 laws were manufactured and integrated into human society and evolved into the rest of the storyline presented by Asimov in his robot stories and novels.

Bah, but of elitest's putting this movie down. Its concept is in line with Asimov.

There's already consideration for a sequel. From IMDB:

Why do you have to "get over it"? Why must the movie's universe be reconciled with Asimov's?

Sure, the movie's title and a few character names are taken from Asimov, but that's just a marketing concern. If the title and those names were changed, would you have enjoyed the film more?

I simply don't understand why so many people seem to have so much trouble enjoying the movie for what it is, without worrying about what the marketing department is up to.

Have you read any of the interviews with Alex Proyas about this movie? Here's one example:
from IGN Filmforce Article.
Sounds to me like more than just the marketing department. Proyas is trying to sell that they were "really faithful to the spirit of Asimov's stories", when in fact the movie is the antithesis of Asimov's work.

Perhaps he had some stored. Perhaps he had some still in the tank. Who know for certain but it's not a big deal really. They really didn't say Gas was outlawed or anything either so who knows.

How do we know that the robots weren't designed with some sort of loophole that Viki figured out? Perhaps Viki modified something in production that we are not privleged to know yet.

You can still buy leaded gas, but your not going to find it everywhere, and never at the pump (in the USA)

At least with a bike, a 55 gallon drum will last you for a while

I know someone with a supercharged Mustang and he needs to use something like 116 octane, and he has it in drums in his garage, and it is something like $6-7/gallon, so $350ish per drum!

Anyway, plot holes make us feel smart

The sequel will probably be called "II, Robot"

Does it make sense, no, not really, but if you're going to mis-appropriate the title from a series of books that provided interesting robot psychology stories solely for marketing purposes, then I guess the sequel's title should be just as non-sensical as wll.

In a word, yes.

More, I would have preferred it if the three laws were replaced with some generic "Robots cannot harm humans" statement. That would have made the whole thing far more believable to me. And I repeat, i have never read the book(s).

Imagine that we are the screen writers, this is how I see the problem statement:

Initital conditions: The 3 laws.

Our goal: We want to have Robots endager humans in spite of three laws. How do we make them be a threat to humanity, how do we go around such simple, perfect, almost mathematical laws?

Solution: Well... "free radicals" and "different interpretations" of the laws... WTF? As far as I am concerned, they might have well have said: "It's magic".

The 3 Laws were stated with such simple, clear and implacable logic that one expect the solution to assume a similar form, much like the solution to a logic problem, a brain teaser. Vague, nebulous concepts like "free radicals" have no business in a the solution of this type of problem.

--
H

I wonder what would have happened had either the LotR or Harry Potter movies had taken this approach. But because Dr. Asimov is not as popular in the pop culture world it seems to OK to simply use the branded term (I,Robot; which does have a nice ring to it) to lure people vagualy familiar of it and the 3 Laws, into the theatres.

I don't know if any attempt at an Asimov movie could work and stay faithful to his world, but maybe that means it's something that shouldn't be tried.

Bicentennial Man wasn't bad (a bit mushy). A Foundation movie and "The Caves of Steel" are being worked on. I am still skeptical of a Foundation movie, but the Caves of Steel and the other Lije Bailey stories would make great movies.

I just can't handle Robin Williams, I just can't, I'm sorry.

Caves of Steel might be good, but I fear an attempt at Foundation. Though I always thought a Forward or Prelude movie could be good, they were a little more linear and actiony (if I remeber correctly, it's probaly been a few years since I've read 'em).

If they do Foundation and start with the novel Foundation I'm sure It'll be disapointing, quite frankly I can see no way for it to work as a movie without making another AI/Minority Report/I,Robot (fluff Sci-Fi that thinks it's heavy).