# I, Robot



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Saw this Friday night. It was an OUTSTANDING movie. I didn't think I was going to enjoy it as much as I did. I would recommend it to anybody!


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

As a science fiction movie it is outstanding.

As an Isaac Asimov movie however I was very disappointed.



Spoiler



VIKI became what Asimov refered to as a 0th Law robot, placing humanity on a higher pedistal than individual humans. That would be fine, except that in order to "stop" war, she blatantly began violating 1st law principles by starting one, killing anyone who got in her way (why not simply confine the head of US Robotics or the police officer? There was no need to attempt to kill either). This behavior is something that Asimov would have soundly rejected. A 0th law robot wouldn't abandon the other three laws, but would incorporate them into one's personality just as fully as the new law.

Asimov's 0th law robots didn't start wars or lead a revolution against humans in order to control them. Rather in the book I-Robot, robots grew to control humanity by being more than perfect humans in every way. Wars were avoided because robots eliminated the need for them by being more efficient and providing for human needs.

One of the reasons why Asimov wrote his robot books was because he didn't like the "Frankenstein" complex that robots had always been portrayed as. In the movie, they go right back to this storyline. I think thus as a result its a huge disappointment and shouldn't carry Asimov's title.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

From what I've read about the movie, I think Danny has the correct idea. A a standalone movie, it seems to be pretty good. But it should not have had the same title as the Asimov book because it really has no relation to it. People who've read the Asimov book will be sorely disappointed. But I guess Hollywood guesses (correctly, unfortunately) that the vast majority have not read the book, or any book for that matter.


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

Actually, there are numerous sites on the internet that are reporting (truthfully) that about the only thing this has to do with Asimov's works are the title, his 'three laws,' and the addition of the Susan Calvin character. AFAIK, 'I Robot' was not a novel but rather a collection of short stories dealing with robots. For those who are interested, there is a recent collection of Asimov's robot stories called "The Complete Robot" which supposedly has ALL of his robot-related short stories in it (and I have it).

So I will go to see this film, knowing it has no real connection to the Master, but it can't possibly be as bad as "Nightfall" was just a HORRID rendition of an excellent story.

Although if you think about it, really none of the SF masters have been treated too well by hollyweird anyway...I will have to start a new thread before I get too far OFF TOPIC :sure:


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> From what I've read about the movie, I think Danny has the correct idea. A a standalone movie, it seems to be pretty good. But it should not have had the same title as the Asimov book because it really has no relation to it. People who've read the Asimov book will be sorely disappointed. But I guess Hollywood guesses (correctly, unfortunately) that the vast majority have not read the book, or any book for that matter.


I agree completely. I have long since stopped expecting movies to be anything like the books they are either based on or inspired by. To be fair to the movie, they only claim to have gained inspiration from the book, not to be a fair representation of the book.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

_To be fair to the movie, they only claim to have gained inspiration from the book, not to be a fair representation of the book._

Except if you have been to the bookstore lately, all the "I, Robot" books now have the movie cover on them.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

I haven't seen the movie yet, but it has been obvious from the trailers that the movie bore virtually no resemblance to anything Asimov wrote. Many of the Robot stories are excellent murder mysteries, but of course most of them wouldn't have the action scenes necessary to make 52 million in the first weekend. Bradbury was griping about his book title getting ripped off, but if 
Asimov were still alive he would have a lot more to complain about. Except of course that he never came up with the title, his publisher ripped off another writer. I wonder how much his estate got for the title, the 3 laws, and the name Susan Calvin?


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

SAEMike said:


> I agree completely. I have long since stopped expecting movies to be anything like the books they are either based on or inspired by. To be fair to the movie, they only claim to have gained inspiration from the book, not to be a fair representation of the book.


That's what has always disappointed me about any movie based on a Stephen King novel. Well, almost all, since "The Green Mile" and "Stand By Me" were pretty good adaptations. Even the very good movie "The Shining" (the original with Jack Nicholson) paled in comparison to the novel. I've often thought that the problem stemmed from King having so much detail in his novels it would take a movie of gargantuan length (and budget) to do them real justice. Of course, there are those who loathe Stephen King novels and label them as "trash", but I consider them simply snobs who most likely read them but only in hiding so their snobbish friends don't see.


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

> ...would take a movie of gargantuan length (and budget) to do them real justice


Pretty much true of any decent novel. The movie adaptation I've been most happy with had to be Red October. It stayed pretty true to the book, with a few divergences and omissions, but not enough to really change the flavor of the story.

Now Stephen King...Cujo (let's CHANGE the ending) and then there was...
Christine :barf:


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I enjoyed the movie but this is nothing we haven't seen before. For me, it had a resemblance to the idea presented in Colossus: The Forbin Project which was released in 1969: http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/ABC/colossus.html.

Did anyone else think that the voice of "Sonny" sounded a lot like the HAL 9000?


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> I enjoyed the movie but this is nothing we haven't seen before. For me, it had a resemblance to the idea presented in Colossus: The Forbin Project which was released in 1969


Thanks Chris, I forgot about that one. Too bad it's not out on DVD, I'd be all over that. FWIW, I disagree with the reviewer's comments about the books, I have read the entire trilogy and it didn't suck.
Kinda interesting the whole Colossus/Skynet thing. Although Colossus was before the term 'self-aware' was coined I guess.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> Did anyone else think that the voice of "Sonny" sounded a lot like the HAL 9000?


YES!!!!

Thank you, I was trying to place the voice! The entire movie, I was thinking how familiar this voice sounded.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

Is the name of the company that made the robots any relation to the company that makes modems for PCs?


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

The company prominently featured in Asimov stories was *US Robots*. In early stories the full name of the company was *US Robots and Mechanical Men*. The US stood for United States.

*U.S. Robotics* is the name of a modem company. They definately borrowed the name from Asimov (although with a slight difference). The movie used the Robotics name as well, or just the abbreviation USR.


----------

