It came to the same thing in the movie. I don’t see the difference.
Ok. I do.
I don’t get this at all. The spirit of I, Robot was the First Law. Oh, the Three Laws in general, but especially the First. A robot may not harm a human being, nor, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. In the movie, they had robots harming human beings galore. In what possible sense is this in keeping with the spirit of I, Robot?
Most of the stories in the book are about the Three Laws being misapplied, twisted, circumvented, or interacting in ways nobody thought about. As a result, humans are endangered, screwed with, and harmed. VIKI’s actions are particularly in keeping with the last story in the book.
Oh, and also, most of the stories end up being mysteries where Susan Calvin has to figure out why the robots are behaving in ways they aren’t supposed to. Same with the movie, although she’s a supporting character.
Even if the movie doesn’t fit the book, so what? I’d rather have a movie take liberties with the source material rather than try and duplicate the book in a visual medium.
There’s a huge difference between the Laws being misapplied or interacting in unanticipated ways, and them being just suggestions. It’s a copout to just say “Oh, that robot just isn’t following the Laws”. And the only stories in I, Robot where humans are actually endangered by the robots are “Runaround” (where the robot didn’t realize the humans were at risk) and “Little Lost Robot” (where a robot is made with a defective set of Laws, and Dr. Calvin’s immediate response is to destroy all sixty. There are a few stories where someone’s job is at risk (Donnovan and Powell, if they don’t fix the robot they’re assigned to), and a few where someone thinks they’re at risk (“Reason”), but there’s nothing like an outright murder (even in “Little Lost Robot”, the robot is unable to finish the deed, though it tries).
I’m not saying it’s a plot Asimov would’ve used. I’m saying as a general idea it’s not really that different.
Slight hijack…
Anybody BSG watchers catch the Chief in this movie?
He doesn’t have a line, but he’s there behind the CEO of the Robotics company when they go to the police station to pick up Sonny.
I probably wouldn’t have noticed it if I hadn’t watched it right after seen BSG.
I have to say that I really enjoyed it, even though I went into it expecting to hate it, given the reviews and the general panning by Asimov fans. Bear in mind that I’ve not read any of his stuff.
I like Will Smith as an actor, but i think that the robots really carried this movie. Sonny was very well fleshed out, and I watched more for him than anything. The ‘evil’ robots were also really chilling.
I have to say that for me, the defining moment of the film was when Smith goes to the old storage facility and discovers that the new robots are destroying the old ones because they know that when they take over, the old robots would be the only defense humanity has against them. That was very well done.
So, despite the gratuitous product placement and really unnecessary psychologist character, i loved it.
Well, he didn’t say that it was any good, just that it was better than the “adaptation” of Starship Troopers. Two hours of kaleidoscope patterns and a dial tone would fit that description (since it would not have been a Verhoeven-style willful misrepresentation of the source material).
Remember, Viki’s actions would have stopped wars, possibly poverty, etc. She was sort of keeping that Zeroeth law mentioned above, which is itself sort of following the First Law.
Oddly, the movie makes much more sense in many ways than Asimov’s books, which sort of ignored any ‘human’ element. Asimov never set out to write a comprehensive sci fi universe, which the movie does a much beter job at, despite its close-knit focus.
I liked Sonny a lot, too. I have to admit, though we were kidding around - “So if you just don’t put any red light bulbs in their chest, they won’t go evil, right?”
All the same, we did like it.