I, Robot

[Snarky]

Holy crap, this discussion/argument/debate/bitch-session sounds familiar.

Where have I seen it before?

Oh wait, I know, it was here except it was Alice in Wonderland instead of I, Robot.

I think I used a good expression to describe such instances. I believe it was "raping the corpse" -- as in the way the producers of I, Robot (the movie) have defiled the dead body of Asimov.

That was very different, though, as American McGee's Alice is clearly based on Lewis Carroll's stories, while I, Robot just appropriates the name for something that has almost nothing to do with Asimov's book.

As for the necrophilia, the canonical example has got to be this.

[DGMacphee]

It doesn't matter how many times a person tries to rationalise between the two, I can still hear the ghosts of Carroll and Asimov violently screaming while their corpses get majorly screwed.

[PaulSC]

I'm quite interested in seeing this - because of the name, it had people biased against it by default, yet it looks like it's going to come out of it all with a decent reputation as a film in its own right.

I think a film must have something pretty worthwhile about it to achieve that kind of turnaround, just as the way Terminator 3 has apparently managed to largely overcome the massive "there's no Cameron" backlash suggests to me that it's almost certainly worth checking out (though I still haven't gotten round to it).

The whole name thing *is* rather shitty behaviour on their part, but at least they were honest enough to not pretend they were trying to make a straight adaption - there have probably been worse crimes made under a full "based on" credit.

[LGM]

Yes.. Suggested by and Based on are totally different things. :-p

Anyways, yes.. Terminator 3 was a good watch.. But the ending just is a let down. Oh well, still see it. It's worth it.

[Shattered Sponge]

But you miss a little point LGM.

It's not that it's not exactly asimovian, is the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories.

He often complained about the "Frankenstein" complex, that extended from the Golem to the present, that human's shouldn't create something because it would turn on them.

Since he considered this to be absolutely absurd, since human's would create safe guards, he wrote all his stories on the basis of those safe guards apparently failing and not.

I assume that you're talking about the three laws of robotics.  I'm not familiar with Asimov's work (though I plan to give either I, Robot or The Complete Robot a whirl at some point in the near future), and I've yet to see the film, but from what I understand the revolts/apparent malfunctioning et cetera you see in the trailer is not down to ignorance of the three laws (which actually feature in one of the trailers, and I believe the films opening), but due to the inclusion of a zeroth law -  'No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm' - which I hear did actually show up in Asimov's stories (although admittedly not in any of those contained within I, Robot).

I'm not defending the film as a whole - I've yet to see it, after all - but if I understand correctly what you are saying and if what I have read about the film is true, that particular criticism would seem to be an unfair one.

[Babar]

There is a zeroeth law? I never knew that. From the Asimov books I have read, the 1st law seemed to suffice, even enough to encompass this zeroeth law you talk about. But then again, I only read 3 or 4 of his books. Do you know which book/story has this?

[Shattered Sponge]

I didn't know off the top of my head, but I googled around a bit and apparently it appears in Robots and Empire.

[LGM]

Well.. If you really must know WHY the robots do not "follow" the three laws, I shall include a spoiler.

Spoiler

Okay.. So the big USR Mainframe computer, VIKI, has direct control over the upling to the new NS-5s, correct? And the running theme in the film is that eventually, through code anomallys "Ghosts in the machines", robots inevitably will evolve. So VIKI evolves, and sees past the laws. She still wants to protect humans, but the laws never state the method of this.. Do they? So VIKI gets the clever Idea to protect the humans from themselves. This is how and why you see scenes of robots attacking people, etc. Because they are resisting being under the control of robots. Not each individual robot is doing this on it's own "free will" either, it's basically VIKI.. The one who has evolved.

I know this is a big mess.. It is in my head too because I suck at explaining things. But the robot, Sonny, was programmed with the ability to ignore the three laws, kind-of like free will. It was programmed with emotions, etc. VIKI is similar in a way that she's evolved, but she still follows the three laws.. Just not the same way. She still is trying to protect humans, from themselves. She's trying to prevent wars, pollution, etc. by restraining the humans..

*pant* yea, I dunno if you can make much sense of that.. But it really DOES make sense if you just watch the damn movie.

[close]

[Blackthorne]

This movie blew.

I've been more entertained by certain bowel movements.

Oh well.

Bt

[Hollister Man]

The concept of the Zeroth Law takes a minor form in the book Robots of Dawn

Spoiler

A robot decides that by allowing humaniform robots (those that look and behave nearly like humans) might, in time, cause humanity to be harmed.Ã,  Thus, he decides that he must stop them from being a viable solution.

[close]

It is an important part of the plot in the Foundation books, all of which I HIGHLY recommend.Ã,  Particularly Prelude to FoundationÃ,  I want to read Positronic Man the basis for the movie Bicentennial Man Ã,  There was another I read recently that was excellent, if odd.Ã,  Shortly after its writing, Asimov apologized, he underestimated the lethal nature of radiation, but the story is good anyway.

[Las Naranjas]

Then I can base my non willingness to watch the film on the basis that Proyas is a charlatan.

He struck a few good chords with The Crow, but man, Dark City and Garage Days....maaaaan.

[Babar]

I thought Bicentennial man was based on Bicentennial man! It is a short story, which I happen to own in the Complete Robot book

[LGM]

What was wrong with Dark City?

[Las Naranjas]

Apart from the posturing, the self conscious cinematography that distracted rather that illuminated, the absolutely tortured acting, that lack of insight, warmth and real emotion, the  ill conceived pursual of the steampunk aesthetic, the absolutely tortured acting, the reams of pointless and sophistical rhetoric, direction designed to appeal to those who want to see direction tricks to appease some need to feel they have a cinematic eye [which means it's obvious and layered on top of the film rather than being worked in] and the absolutely tortured acting?


If you want a single reason, the doctor....gives one of the worst.....performances....I have....ever seen....and.....it's a result....of direction....that has no understand....of character....and serves......only to.....infuriate the audience....whilst producing nothing.....and holding no.....redeeming features......


Cardinal sin.

--edit--
And Bicenttenial Man was based on Bicentennial Man, being originally written for a [never produced] anthology of stories based on the theme of the US Centennial celebrations, the was a dispute over the name however as a result, so in some areas the name may have changed.

[LGM]

Sadly, the reasons you list don't really appear to ME when i watch it. I liked it because of the atmosphere and characters and direction. The doctor wasn't poorly acted... in fact I liked how he was. He didn't talk like that because he sucked at acting like a deranged doctor.. he talked like that because of some condition (I can't remember if they say what it is)

I personally think it's a nice film. Why is it that all the films I like are  films other people think suck? GAH

[Hollister Man]

I read the credits for Bicentennial Man, and I thought it said "Based on the book The Positronic Man by Isaac Asimov" or something to that effect.  I LOVED that movie, and I wanted to read the basis, since I was fairly sure it was an Asimov story.  I could have misread it, though.

As for I Robot, I want to see it, cause every Will Smith movie that people say sucked, I happened to like a lot. 

[Peter Thomas]

To lgm's defence, I happened to like Dark City too, though Kiefer Sutherland wasn't exactly a strong character in it.

And Bicentennial man WAS based on Bicentennial man, though I remember an interview where someone admitted to including Asimov influences along the way.

The more I think about it, though, the more I'm beginning to dislike I, Robot. It's unjustified, but the more I read about people telling me to appreciate a movie for what it is, despite the fact that it obviously claims to boast the plot from a successful novel and then deviates greatly from it and tries to go all matrix-esque in a way that dismally fails, the more stubborn I become in my view that the directors have done some major brain crapping.

[Fuzzpilz]

"The Bicentennial Man" is a story by Asimov. "The Positronic Man" is a novel based on that story, written in cooperation with Robert Silverberg.

[Kinoko]

Dark City is awesome ^_^ I love that movie... it may not be a blockbuster but it's just a good, fun movie to watch.

[DGMacphee]

I looked up IMDB this afternoon and it had the following headline in the news:

'Robots To Invade Australia'

Naturally, I freaked out and tried to find the nearest weapon, which was a can of air freshener. (That'll teach those robots to smell bad!)

Then I actually read the news story. It's been confirmed. There will be a sequel. And it's going to filmed in Australia.

And the title?

I, Robot II