I Robot

Posted by: andym

I Robot - 07/08/2004 16:31

Saw this last night, Mr. Smith does a good job and film on the whole is something I'd recommend. There weren't many people, however it was the Big Brother final. Has anyone else seen it? What did you guys/gals think?

Is it me or do you think people will stop using the Microsoft Update feature?
Posted by: BartDG

Re: I Robot - 07/08/2004 19:44

Quote:
Is it me or do you think people will stop using the Microsoft Update feature?


Hahaha! That was EXACTLY what I was thinking when I saw the movie !

Seriously, I enjoyed this movie very much. Reviews put it up there with Minority Report and A.I., but comparing this movies with those really doesn't do it justice. I enjoyed this one far more. Excellent special effects, good storyline and decent acting. Highly recommended !
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I Robot - 07/08/2004 20:22

I thought it was decent enough, though I'm not sure Asimov would have liked it. Of course, it wasn't really based on Asimov's work anyway. Still there are a few scenes and characters who bear a passing resembelence to (or share name with) Asimov's stories.

MUCH better than minority report, IMO, though.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 00:01

I thought the movie made for a fun summer flick. I did get a kick out of this unofficial review though.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 13:24

Actually, I feel like I should mention my biggest irritation with the move (but note I discuss the movie's ending, so don't read this unless you've seen it or don't care).

[spoliers]
. . . for those who don't know the movie ends up with robots trying to take over the world. This was the thing that irked me the most. If you've read Asimov's comments about his robot stories, the key thing to him was that robots not always be pictured as a threat to humanity. It was his express intention to write stories where robots are tools and we are protected from them by the three laws. The very first robot stories (before Asimov) were about humans losing control of their creation- a plot Asimvo felt quickly wore out it's welcome. He strove to write different kinds of stories, and was very successful to say the least. Not that he didn't have the ocasional bad robot or computer, but it was far from a forgone conclusion that robots and computers were a threat to hummanity.

Hollywood has (in large part) returned to the theme of "robots and computers inevitably will end up trying to take over and opress humans". Some of our best SF flicks- The Matrix, Terminator- etc. revolve around this theme. I Robot is no exception (though there is the odd "hero" robot and ultimately it appears that the robots en masse are only evil because they are being controled by the master computer). I'd hoped for (but not expected) that when making a story named after one of Asimov's books that they'd try to take some of his thoughts on this point seriously- that much more interesting stories can be made if you don't constantly return to the well-worn story of robots maliciously taking over.

So while "I Robot" was a decent SF flick- it really failed to show any kind of the imagination of Asmiov, especially since it ended with a plot he spilt so much ink trying persuade people to avoid. That was my biggest dissapointment with the movie.
[/spoilers]
Posted by: drakino

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 14:21

Wasn't that most of the reason for the 0th law? Exactly what they did in the movie? It's a shame it never came up.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 17:17

As I remember, a lot of Asimov's stories revolve around robots appearing to be breaking the laws of robotics, but it eventually comes out that they're actually following the laws in a way that's not immediately obvious. Is this the case at all in the movie, or do they just throw the laws out of the window, making them just be broken?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 17:54

Quote:
I did get a kick out of this unofficial review though.


I got so much of a kick out of it, I think I'll skip the movie. Product placements really get under my skin when they are so blatant and contrived. One quibble with the review: Asimov was cremated, but I take his point.

Oh, and is this the right name-dropping moment to mention that I lived 3 doors away from the man himself all the way through grammar and high school? Ah, so what did I gain from this experience you might ask? Well as a 7 year-old I got in deep doo-doo for whacking his son (very gently mind you!) with a toy hammer. His daughter was friends with my little sister and she was (and probably still is) very nice. The family lived in a very modest house that you would miss if you didn't look twice. When playing in their back yard under a willow tree you could look up and see a small screened window on the 2nd floor (seemed more like an attic space, really) and catch glimpses of him working. Seemed like he was *always* up there. The hardest workin' man in show business.
Posted by: genixia

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 18:08

Quote:
is this the right name-dropping moment

I can't think of any better...

Wow. The weird links that crop up in this BBS...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 20:44

Quote:
or do they just throw the laws out of the window, making them just be broken?
Yes.

In one example Asimov sets up a scenerio where a robot has to kill a human to prevent the death of another human (both first law violations). In this case, however, the damage done to the robot by killing a human would render it inoperable. So a robot can kill a human if the circumstances are right, but it will have drastic consequences. In the movie this is clearly not the case, as they have robots going around attacking humans without any consequence at all.

In the movie they clearly did not understand the strength or purpose of the three laws, jettisoning them by the end so they could get on with the "evil robot" plot.

Oh, and Dr. Calvin being emotionally attached to a robot without the three laws is so out of her character (as described by Asimov) that it's clear the writers didn't understand her in the least. The one time in the stories she was confronted with a robot who had a partial removal of the first law she immediatly called for hundreds of robots to be destroyed to make sure the one (who was hiding among them) would not continue to operate. She was *serious* when it came to the three laws.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I Robot - 08/08/2004 20:53

Quote:
Wasn't that most of the reason for the 0th law?
I wonder if the writers even knew of the 0th law? It only appeared in one of his books (the last robot novel I believe). I haven't read that one so I don't even know how it's applied in context, only that it places the safety of humanity above the safety of the individual. It's hard to see how opressing humanity is not a 0th level violation though.