I’ll chime in on loving the book and liking the movie as well. I actually liked that they incorporated the larger (albeit in a very general sense) theme Asimov addressed of robots beginning to interpret the laws for themselves. VIKI had access to enough information to see that she would not be achieving the greatest “good” for humans by following the strictest definition of allowing absolutely no harm to come to any humans.
The last story in the book (for anyone who hasn’t read it, it’s a collection of 6 or 7 short tales about robots, each set further along the robot development timescale) has giant robot supercomputers that are trying to figure out ways to orchestrate human action in the world (in a general sense) through the various governments so as to minimize suffering. They don’t lead robot rebellions like in the movie, but they manage to sway human behavior nonetheless.
I don’t understand why people thought the movie was a reversal of what Asimov was trying to do. I actually thought it followed the larger themes fairly well. That being said, it would have been nice to see some of those stories on the screen, but it certainly wasn’t a total departure from the book.
I, too, enjoyed Will Smith’s I, Robot, even though it had very little to do with Asimov’s stories other than the Three Laws of Robotics, the names of Susan Calvin and Dr. Alfred Lanning, and U.S. Robotics. However, VIKI’s decisions and course of action seem to owe more than a little to Asimov’s late robot story, “Zeroth Law.” That said, I’d rather see Hollywood produce Harlan Ellison’s screenplay for I, Robot (although they’d have to change the name a bit) than do a sequel.
My admittedly-minor-but-telling-complaint: Making a movie where Susan Calvin is accurately described by another character as “shit hot” is the moral equivalent of digging up Isaac’s corpse and using the skull to store mints and other candies.
OK, granted, but the masses need the love story! Yeah alright, it bothered the crap out of me too, but at least the robots’ consideration of the 3 laws was intact. I mean, I know it didn’t go as nearly in depth into the exploration of them as the book did, but my expectations were really low. And besides, wasn’t this the first book to introduce the 3 laws? I think Asimov got much more in depth into their interpretation in subsequent novels.
And quit cussin!
is that Asimov skull candy dish available on ebay?
At the risk of hijacking this thread - all the stories dealt directly with the 3 laws, and reasons why they weren’t quite as straightforward as you’d think. Even though Asimov did more work on the 3 laws later, and more shades of interpretation - spoilers for other Asimov work follow:
e.g. Daneel Olivaw could lay hands on someone attacking another human, even to the point of doing them a slight injury to prevent them from doing a far greater injury on a human - it wasn’t until the 80’s when the whole Zeroth Law business and injuring humans to protect humanity came into play, when he decided to tie the Robot universe and Foundation universe together.
Sorry about the cussin. It is a direct quote from the movie though.
I, Robot from Outer Space
I, Robot, the Hands of Fate
I, Robot Conquers the Martians
Beneath the planet of I, Robot
Come back to the Five and Dime Store, I, Robot, I, Robot
To I, Robot, with Love
From I, Robot, with Love
I, Robot, who shagged me
I Robot Horror Picture Show
Eating I Robot
Eat, Drink, I Robot, Woman
My Life as I Robot
I Robot and the Chocolate Factory
Like Water for I Robot
William Shakespeare’s I Robothello