Sorry, but I don’t buy that writing a completely different character, thenslapping the name of a haracter from a book that had nothing to do with that one constitutes “improving” the character. It’s a matter of definition. You migjht not like how Asimov handled er, and there might indeed be room for improvement, but slapping her name on a previously-written differently conceived character ain’t improvement. At bst, I’ll let you get away with saying that the creature in the film was a better developed character.
I think Asimov tells the story in one of his books about his daughter, then 13, asking why the science in science-fiction movies was always so bad, to which he answered “It’s because a Hollywood producer is not as smart as a 13-year-old girl.”
(Thanks to Zyada for this one.)
This thread is almost as infuriating as the movie. Thank God some stood up for Asimov.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
“The film I, Robot originally had no connections with Isaac Asimov’s Robot series. It started with an original screenplay written in 1995 by Jeff Vintar, entitled Hardwired. The script was an Agatha Christie-inspired murder mystery that took place entirely at the scene of a crime, with one lone human character, FBI agent Del Spooner, investigating the killing of a reclusive scientist named Dr Hogenmiller, and interrogating a cast of machine suspects that included Sonny the robot, HECTOR the supercomputer with a perpetual yellow smiley face, the dead Dr Hogenmiller’s hologram, plus several other examples of artificial intelligence.”
So its a story about robots killing humans with Asimov’s characters slapped on. Ie. Completely un related to Asimovs stories. Asimov’s association was just a marketing tool.
Asimov, btw wrote stories about robots, the way he did, to fight what he called the Frankenstein complex. Oh well, Isaac. Rip as these will smith fanboys $… all over your grave.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Try reading Liar! from the real I Robot and get back to me.
Back when Asimov wrote the stories women who had high positions in engineering were a bit more restricted than today.
When I saw Susan Calvin as action heroine Akiva Goldsman’s life passed before my eyes.
It would make sense to update her for modern times, but the character in the movie was ridiculous.
What makes it even worse is that a good script by Harlan Ellison exists.
However in an alternate universe I’d love to have sat behind Dr. A in a theater when he saw the movie for the first time. I have seen him MSTie a fan movie at a con - it would have been hilarious.
BTW Goldsman was also responsible for the Lost in Space travesty. I know people liked A Beautiful Mind but anyone who read the book - not to mention having knowledge of the people involved - knows he botched that one also.
But he’s also the genius behind the Surrealist masterpiece that was Batman and Robin, so that’s got to count for something, right?
(I know this is an old post but…)
The zeroth law is in, but perhaps not named, in “I, Robot”. Yes, as you later go on to say, it’s smart enough to be way more subtle.
Basically, there is an investigation into the “mistakes” the economic planner computer is making but they turn out to be purposeful moves to screw with the anti-robot people
I was an Asimov fan, read everything I could and read the Foundation trilogy a few times. I don’t think his stuff can really be made into a good movie so I didn’t get too worked up about how Will Smith’s movie got it wrong.
I see that nobody’s mentioned that the book isn’t a story at all. It’s a collection of short stories, unconnected aside from having a few characters in common between some of them. And most of the stories are puzzles of a sort: Here are the Laws of Robotics, here is how the robots are behaving, now why are they behaving that way, is it a problem, and if so, how do we fix it? And in most of the stories, lives aren’t on the line, except in an indirect way that the robots involved couldn’t possibly comprehend.
And I feel I must defend Dr. Calvin, here. She was far better characterized than most literary characters, and resonated strongly with me and at least some other fans. She didn’t act like a robot. She acted like a human (and a distinctly feminine human, at that) who was acting like a robot, but who was still human underneath.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, and I’m sure many Dopers are aware, Harlan Ellison wrote a screenplay for I, Robot that I would’ve loved to have seen used. (The screenplay was serialized in the magazine, then later reprinted in book form with illustrations). There’s a great temptation to do it as an anthology work because, as Chronos points out, you have a series of stories about robots, not a single connected work. Ellison, though, avoided making it an anthology by borrowing the structure from the film Citizen Kane and making it an exploration of the life of Susan Calvin. It worked out pretty well, and the script got Asimov’s approval. It would’ve been much more difficult to make back then, but with modern CGI you could do a helluva job in bringing Asimov’s ideas to life.
but, of course, they weren’t interested in that. The mere fact that they have a “Robot Revolt” with the robots trying to “get” the humans shows that there’s as big a disconnect between the filmmakers and the source here as there was in the case of Starship Troopers. The sad fact is that, in almost all cases, the adaptations of Asimov’s work to the big screen 9or the small screen) have been pretty awful. aside from student films and ultra low-budget stuff (like The Ugly Little Boy), the adaptations have been awful – two different versions of Nightfall and this travesty. The closest the movies have gotten to the “feel” of his work was in The Bicentennial Man. It wasn’t one of his best, but at least it was definitely Asimov.*
*The British TV series “Out of This World” and “Out of the Unknown” adapted some of his stuff, but I’ve never seen them, and I don’t think the tapes still exist.
I am not shocked that Hollywood execs didn’t think scientists discussing why a robot decided to drive in circles would sell a lot of tickets.
There is no novella titled “I, Robot.” There is no Asimov story titled “I, Robot.” When Martin Greenberg put Asimov’s robot stories together into a collection he used the title I, Robot without asking Asimov. “I, Robot” was the title of the first of a series of robot stories by Eando Binder, earlier as well as far more interesting and sophisticated than the minor engineering puzzles Asimov wrote.
Most writers dismissed Asimov’s stories in the 1940s because his three laws have a giant unintended consequence if approached logically. Jack Williamson demonstrated this in “With Folded Hands” in the July 1947 Astounding. Surprise, surprise, the exact same consequence is the answer in the movie I, Robot.
John W. Campbell devised the three laws and either he or Asimov codified them in final form. That was the greatest public relations move in the history of robotdom. Readers and later writers seized on them. Dozens of stories namecheck them. We’ll be seeing programmers sweating their brains out for years trying to apply them to self-driving cars and swearing loudly because they are unworkable in practice.
As for the movie. I just watched it for the first time. It’s not that bad except for the scenes Will Smith is in.
He’s in every scene, you say. Yeah. That’s a problem. He’s what Spinal Tap would imagine as the maverick cop turned up to 11, a parody of a parody. The plot is almost as bad. I especially loved the overcrowded city of Chicago having a five lane wide one-way tunnel miles and miles long that somehow is totally devoid of any other car. Hey, adults, we will now stop the movie for a stunt that’s only for the kids. The plot will resume in five minutes. Take a bathroom break while you can. Don’t worry about the nice concept car. It will suffer only minor dings.
The similarities between the film of* I Robot* and the anthology* I Robot* are comparable to the similarities between a post-1970 James Bond movie and the novels by Ian Fleming, in that the movie contains a few scattered elements here and there that readers will recognize. They’re almost like Easter eggs.
So, is this thread an* iZombie*?
Well, there is an Eando Binder short story called I, Robot. Not related to Asimov’s stories in any way, but predating them. An early example of the robot being the good guy.
See post 27 for an Amazon link.
:smack: Didn’t notice that. No one in this thread got banned - that’s unusual for such an old thread.
Anyhow, outrage at this movies is never out of date.
Uh, Voyager, did you read the rest of Exapno’s post that you quoted? Or even the rest of the paragraph?
Well, back then, the moderators were robots.