I,Robot

[TexasProgresive]

Anyone here read Asimov's book and seen the movie? I read "I, Robot" years ago and most of the rest of Asimov's fiction biblography. What I remember of the 3 laws of Robotics doesn't seem to jive with the clips they are showing. I really don't understand why they make movies purportedly based on a book when all they really use is the title. Why don't they come up with their own title?

[Kelvin Mace]

1. The movie is an insult

to the book.

[SnowGoose]

2. If you watch it, you'll understand.

At the core of this movie's plot is a classic redirect. I don't want to spoil it for you, so I won't say any more than this: the 3 laws (and what they mean to machine consiousness) are the essence of the movie. They are not ignored.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this movie is good. Far from it. I did enjoy it - in much the same way I'd enjoy eating 12 grape popcicles in a row - with the full knowledge that I'm consuming plesanty-flavored crap.

If you read the book, you'll rember USR (a more modern version of US Robotics and Mechanical Men - remember STNG's "Where no *one* has gone before...) who makes the robots and you'll remember the main character Dr. Calvin (although as in "Contact", Hollywood feels compelled to fill a female lead with a foxy actress even though the book character was more cerebral than sexual... ah what are you going to do? Will Smith shows off way more skin, FWIW, and that man has been eating his Wheaties! He's more sexually objectified than she is.).

How did I get off on a Will Smith tangent? They borrow more than simply Asimov's title, anyhow. I read somewhere that the original version of the screenplay had nothing to do with Asimov's stories, but was later rewritten when permission was obtained from the estate to make an i, Robot movie.

In terms of borrowing, it's worth noting that "i, Robot" wasn't even Asimov's title - it was originally from a short story by someone who's name I can't recall. They used it when the original Asimov stories were condensed into the book.

As I read over this post I realize that it's way past time for me to go get a life.

Cheers.

[LizW]

8. about your Will Smith tangent

I just have to say I think he's a very underrated actor. Sure, he gets all pigeonholed in the sci-fi action movie genre, some of which is crap, but it pays the bills. Use it while you got it, I say.

But I saw him do an amazing scene once (and I'm not talking about Six Degrees of Separation). I don't remember the premise, but it was in that Fresh Prince tv show, and his character was angry, I think, because his biological father didn't want to have anything to do with him. He had a speech where he was ranting to his uncle with typical teenage bravado about his father and his voice suddenly broke and he started crying. He finished the speech totally weeping with tears streaming down his face, and it was as real as anything I've ever seen an actor do. The actor doing the scene with him looked floored and broke down crying too.

Okay, sorry to butt in, but just thought I'd share that. :)

[rock]

3. The movie is really quite anti-Asimovian

Let me make two points.

1) The movie plays on the Frankenstein Theme: The created truning on the creator. Asimov purposely (as he explained several times) always tried to turn this around. Typically by having it appear that a robot had broken one of the three laws, but in the end resolving the paradox.

2)It was a very good movie. A typical Will Smith action flick. I highly recommend it.

[BlueJazz]

4. I saw it and was pleasantly surprised..

I've also read every I,Robot story in existence, along with Asimov's other works.

And No, the film isn't great but it's a hell-ov-a-lotta Fun ! :)

[TexasProgresive]

5. What you say resonates with me

I don't doubt that the movie is a good show, entertaining and whatnot. What I don't understand is why don't they let it stand on it's own and not use Asimov as a crutch. About the title, I've posted this before on the F-451/9/11 flap that it is my understanding that titles are not copyright-able and often the publisher hangs a title on the book that the author would not agree to. That said, I don't think any publisher would have the cojones to publish a work with an iconic title like, I, Robot or Gone with the Wind.

[Khephra]

6. You might want to check out this review

Lots of spoilers, of course. More than usual since the reveiwer was writing for people who read the Asimov book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1416813&mesg_id=1416813

[lefty_mcduff]

7. I could try and be clever an wail

"oooooh, it's nothing like the book" but if I went to see this movie *after* seeing the trailer - I'm not as clever as I think I am. This movie rocked! (naysayers be damned). Great night of balls to the wall entertainment, and just enough "hmmmm" moments to keep it interesting. Will carries the role decently as always, special FX are top notch, and other than a few badly telegraphed plot angles (think service hatch, demolition robot and 'they look like me, but the're not me") the movie would be enjoyed by the same folks who enjoyed Terminator 2/3, Aliens 2, Minority Report, etc.

[TexasProgresive]

9. That's my question-

If it's a great story and movie that can stand on it's own why use Asimov's title? Why not use a little of that imagination that went into the creative process and call it something else? I'm sure that most of the audience did not read the book so why create a different story and put it in the cover of another?