I, Robot Movie

Yeah, I may end up seeing it if I have the time.

 

Well, since I haven't read the book, and I admit to being a fan of big action movies, this is starting to look good to me.

Let the verbal pummeling begin.

 

Yeah, I read that in SciFi. Interesting. They're also releasing a new edition of the book, with a new cover.

 

Two consequences, assuming that this film succeeds at the box office:

1. First, as mentioned by Proyas, potential sequels which, this time -- going by his "USR prequel" comment -- could service a more direct adaptation of Asimov's original stories from the collection. Bring in Powell and Donovan and move some of the action offworld, such as on "Hyper Base."



2. Second: perception is everything out in Hollywood, Hell-Ay. A moderate-to-large-grossing Isaac Asimov-derived film can open the floodgates wide open for Shekhar Kapur's long-gestating Foundation feature(s)...but also potentially ::: shudder ::: Simon-kriffing-West's version of The Caves of Steel. Ghu help us all.

The "Three Laws of Robotics" are cited in the latest trailer, but note also that the Three Laws were written down on paper and handed to Asimov, by his editor, John W. Campbell, Jr. Campbell delighted in logic-chopping, and specifically designed the Three Laws as a "thought problem" that could be used for story generation.

He wrote a couple of robot stories for Astounding, which was being edited by Campbell; they got bounced for re-writes, and in one of the story conferences, Campbell handed Asimov a slip of paper with the Three Laws written on it, and said something to the effect of, "You thought of those; they're inherent in the story you wrote." Asimov demurred, and up until the late Sixties, insisted that was the first he'd ever heard of the Three Laws, and that they were CAMPBELL's invention.

Mensch, either way.

 

Yeah, we've seen the three laws since the beginning with the first teasers. But that doesn't just make the book. The screen writers were right, it's almost impossible to do that as a movie and keep the original content.


BTW: I Robot Chat
July 13 @ 9pm EST
Corey Doctorow, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Wil McCarthy will chat about Robots and Isaac Asimov's fiction just before the movie comes out.
www.scifi.com and www.asimovs.com

 

From T2Q's post it looks like they made a movie they wanted to call Hardwired and used I, Robot for the title.

 

From T2Q's post it looks like they made a movie they wanted to call Hardwired and used I, Robot for the title.

No, it sounds like they adapted a movie called "Hardwired", which they felt had alot of Asmovian ideas to begin with, and basically created a 10th story for the "i, Robot" series that pulls in alot of the ideas that Asimov played with..

Geeze, you people are actin' like this is a crime..I actually think it's kinda cool! They're paying homage to Asimov whilst creating a new story of their very own..

Was there this much backlash when the "Starship Troopers" movie came out?

 

That movie had to be a spoof of the book. Making a spoof film out of a crap book isn't the same as making up stuff, from what I know to be a good book. (Haven't gotten to read it yet. )

-P!-

 

...naw, it wasn't meant to be a spoof.. The way i understand things, the writer came up with this script about man at war with bugs.. Some producer chap said "gosh, ya know, this sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", do you think the rights are still available?" The rights were available, thus they modified the script a bit so that it kinda fit more with Heinlein's story (names and such), and away they went...


The book and the film really don't have much in common, besides the names and the general idea that 'man is at war with bugs'..I mean, there are some thematic issues that are similar, but there are some things that are wildly different..

At any rate, you would think Heinlein fans would have had more justification to be upset about this sort of thing then Asimov fans do, yet i don't recall much in the way of violent backlash (though i'm sure there had to be SOME)..


And i think calling Heinlein 'crap' is punishable by DEATH in some cultures.. I mean, Heinlein's right up there with Asimov among Sci-fi's elite!

 

Eh, I read the book myself, and found it's politics to be horrible, and ill thought out. If anybody wants to talk to me on the matter, I'm here. Also, the writing was infantile.

I can't speak on his other work, but from what I know Starship Troopers signaled the beginning of a downward slump in his writing quality.

I did not know that about how the film came to be though. From what I thought I knew, it was made by a guy who didn't like the book.

-P!-

 

Actually I'm offended more by Asimov than Heinlin's politics. Though I admit there is something nostaglic about being ruled by machines and pure mathmatical models.

Heinlin's book was actually satirical on fascist culture.

Unfortunately, apparently the master forgot that people aren't too smart and the book became a rallying cry for them.

Rather like Fritz Lang was contacted by the Nazi party after 'Metropolis' and was told they loved the movie. Could he do some more for them?

 

If you have any doubts, as I did, check this out:

http://www.foxjapan.com/movies/irobot/

I hope this movie is great, and I am willing to give it a chance, especially since

the Crow is my favorite movie or all time and
I loved Dark City. (Proyas's other movies)

 

Yes as I have said before I like the trailer from Japan better than that of America.

It may be a good movie.
But I will hate it because it is just far too different from the vision and genius of Isaac Asimov.

-Seldon

 

I have big problems with this movie. Now, when I first saw the big "I" cardboard standup I was really hesitant. The book was great, yet it didn't really seem to have enough to be a movie. There just a bunch of short stories.

As time went on, I saw the first (or one of the first) American trailers with the white screen and the robot standing there and the words moving around the screen and I was still a little hesitant.

Then when I saw the more recent trailers, I was blown away! WHAT WAS THAT!?! Robot attacking Will Smith who is destroying robots that are COMING AFTER HIM. That completely destroys the First and Third Law! Now I'm willing to believe that maybe the first law was tweaked or altered a bit, but the third law prevents them from getting hurt by someone who is them all, but it seems they are still coming after him. The only reason I can think of is that they were ordered to go kill, thus they must die by orders.

Or they are attacking Smith's character, Del Spooner, because he threatens man kind so the Robots must protect the greater good of man kind.

Anyways, I wouldn't have these problems if and only if they didn't call this movie I, Robot. It holds very little resemblance (from what I saw from the previews) to the book I, Robot. I wouldn't mind the movie if they called it by another name such as Rise of the Mechanical Machines or anything else and said the movie was based off of I, Robot and other of Asmiov's stories. Is it that hard is it to do that? Just the fact they called it I, Robot and from what I saw, looks nothing like the book I've read, gets me upset.

I have no problem with the movie's creators creating another different story using Asimov's ideas, the world he created, and characters as a starting point. Lots of movies do that such as Minority Report. Now, every book that becomes movie I do expect some variations and differences, but if they call a movie by the books name, they should stick with it's main events and stories.

Exceptions for me would be those such as comic movies. Hulk, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and even Daredevil create a new story, or mix several stories into one movie but that is because comics are a continuation consisting of several small stories and adventures. James Bond movies are also another example. Some are based off of the books while others are new, made up adventures.

Ok, I'm going off on a tangent, so I'll get to the main point I'm trying to say. . .

The fact they call the movie I, Robot and it looks almost nothing like the book really upsets me. That is my biggest problem with the movie. I'm still going to see the movie, but I'm not expecting much when it comes to the movie's relation to the book. I have been wrong before, and, who knows, maybe it will be more close to the book that I expect and maybe it will be a surprisingly great movie. I'll make my final judgement once the movie comes.

Props to you if you actually read the whole thing.

 

Interestingly enough,

The Elijah Baily novels might be remade with Will Smith as Spooner replacing him and eventually getting a robot partner.

Oddly, I think this movie will be more faithful to Asimov than "Bicentenniel Man"

Or maybe that's me replacing 'faithful to Asmiov' for 'I won't be bored to tears by this'

 

I'm going to have to watch this telling myself to ignore the title. I have such mixed feelings here.

Charles, please tell me you didn't say they would take away Elijah Bailey too.

 

SkafeeXAddict: I don't think the Zeroth Law is part of this film. That law did not come around till after the spacer worlds were colonized and the settlers began to move out. So this film takes place a long time before Giskard and Daneel create the zeroth law.

Elijah Baley is too great a character to just change and make into Will Smith. These two have nothing alike. Elijah is intelligent and a thinking man. Will Smith is a Shoot em and then ask questions type of guy. It would just not work out.

-Seldon

 

...well, i saw this film...

Quite enjoyed it..

"Spider-man 2" is the #1 movie this summer..

This one is #1A..


Will report more later..


However ***SPOILERS***




There is only 1 robot with a gun, and he never fires it. In fact, his holding the gun is actually upholding one of the 3 laws..

But more on that later..

 

I will see the movie this weekend and then give you all my detailed review of the movie.

-Seldon

 

I'll probably be seeing it tomorrow. At least I hope to.

 

It looks pretty good ill see it next week probably.

 

Saw this tonite and thoroughly enjoyed it! 8/10 B+!!
Will Smith actually did a great job as did all of the supporting cast, especially "Sonny." Gives some definitely competition to Gollum for best C.G. character. Had some interesting plot twists and also provided a nice commentary on prejudice, tolerance, war, politics...see it...you'll get the picture!

My one and only problem was below

*SPOILERS*



Why did the creator have to commit "suicide" when there was a secret tunnel underneath the headquarters the whole time He just needed to try a little harder.

 

*****HUGE SPOILERS****


Why did the creator have to commit "suicide" when there was a secret tunnel underneath the headquarters the whole time

Well, way i understood things, Dr. Lanning was being held prisoner by Vicki INSIDE HIS LAB..He hadn't left that lab for WEEKS (Will says that Lanning's home looked like it hadn't been lived in in weeks or months or...something.. i forget the time period exactly.. It was longer then usual, of course ..and you saw the cot IN Lanning's lab)..It would appear that, one day, Lanning went into work and, during the course of that day, figured out what was coming. Vicki realized this, and thus locked him down before he could get out to warn anyone..

Lanning really couldn't get to that tunnel cause he wasn't even being allowed out of his office (remember dr. Calvin referred to him as a recluse)..

 

**Major Spoilers****

















You have been warned


















I just saw the film.
I will begin on a positive note then get really into it.
This was better than I expected (which does not say much considering how terrible I thought it would be.) The supporting cast did well. Sonny, Alfred Lanning, Susan Calvin, The Police Chief, GG, Robertson.

Will Smith was not as bad as he could be but not as good as he should have been.

I was happy to see a few things they kept from Asimov's stories. The Robot Dream reference and reference to Little Lost Robot.

I thought it was an interesting film.


Now let me go into it a little deeper.

Isaac Asimov hated the Frankenstein approach to robots. That they were terrible creators of revolution and war. That they were monstors. Asimov prefered to see them as guides and helpers. The scenes where the robots fight humans on the streets made me cringe. This is not how Asimov would ever do it. He never wanted Robots to be seen like this.

So yes Asimov's robots manipulated things behind the scenes to help humanity. R. Daneel and R. Giskard did have the zeroth law to help humanity. But did Daneel ever take to the streets to help humanity by massive revolution? NO. Daneel waitied quietly for about twenty thousand years. He quietly helped make the foundations and Gaia to fix the galaxy and humanity. That was the way the Asimovian robot would bring about reform. A Asimov robot would never march onto the streets to take over in that manner.

Susan Calvin was played very well at times, at others she was out of character. Calvin by Asimov was strong willed. Parts of the film potrayed her as a damsal in distress. Parts of the film showed she had emotions. In Robot Dreams she killed the dreaming robot without a second to think about it. In the film she was all emotional about it. In the stories she would do anything for the robots and cared more for them then humans. In the film she liked Will Smith more than the future of the robots. So she was out of character at times.

Asimov would make robots with distorted three laws but he never made one without the three laws.

So I hated the fighting scenes on the street. I also thought the plot twist was a little weak.

So how would I have done it?
Well....Asimov made huge plot twists.
So to give it a better Asimovian feel...I would make Will Smith's character a robot. That would be the twist. When I saw his arm i hoped that was the twist. He hated the other robots because he was one of them. It would have also explained why in the beginning the robots would attack him but no one else. There is no reason why a robot cannot fight another robot. So Spooner would be a humanform robot, this also explains how he knew Lanning. I would have liked it a lot more if they had gone with this idea. Will Smith was a robot, and Susan Calvin did not know about it until she figured it out towards the end.
If the movie was made in this fashion they would not have shown his injured arm...there would be no clues.

Another thing that bothered me came in the credits. Where it read

"Suggested by Isaac Asimov's novel"

that is a huge insult to Dr. Asimov. It was his three laws, his characters (for the most part) and his ideas. It should have read

"Based on the stories by Isaac Asimov"

Since I'm being negative I will end on a positive note,
I loved Alfred Lanning's speech on the ghosts within the robot.

I hope it generates more interest in the writings of Asimov.
Not a bad movie, but in my opinion a movie which could have been so much better if they followed Dr. Asimov's ideas.

-Seldon