Now, I’ve never read any Asimov, and I don’t know all that much about his work, but I did see two Outer Limit adaptations of this story, and as far as I can tell, it’s strickly a court-drama dealing with the meaning of life (or definition, but whatever). To my knowledge, there’s never any robot revolt in any of his books either. I really liked the original story (assuming the other two adaptations were more true to the point) and really find this movie adaptation really silly and disappointing. Anyone else think this is going to be a big crap-fest? And anyone who’s knowledgeable of Asimov’s work care to enlighten those of us with a little less exposure as to what the actual story/world he created was like?
I’m dubious skeptical of the casting of Will Smith. I like him, and I know most Asimov stories could use a little levity, but I’m pretty sure none of Asimov’s characters would have ever said, “Aw, hayl no.”
Actually, that’s Eando Binder’s “I, Robot” Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot” was a collection of short stories taking place in the near future. The company “US Robotics and Mechanical Men” has invented robots, to do all the work we can’t or don’t want to do, and programmed into them three basic laws.
A robot will not harm a human being, nor, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot will obey all orders given to it by a human being, unless those orders violate the first law.
A robot will attempt to preserve its own existance, unless this will violate the first or second law.
The short stories all take place in that world, in roughly chronological order, a lot of them focusing on two field agents for USRMM, named Powell and Donovan. In most of the stories, Powell and Donovan run into a robot that’s not doing what its supposed to (a robot on Mercury sent out to get raw materials is running in circles, a robot assigned to run a space station thinks its a prophet of a new religion), and they have to find out what’s wrong with it. Usually what’s wrong is that a situation comes up where the robot finds itself forced to obey one of the three laws, and is trying to do so under the unusual circumstances.
So, for example, in the case of the robot sent out to get minerals on Mercury, it sets out to get them, obeying the second law, until it gets close enough to the area containing the minerals, which is extremely hazardous. Because the order given to the robot was given casually, the robot senses the danger it will be in if it goes forward, and retreats out of danger. Then, when its out of danger, it remembers its orders, and the second law makes it move forward again.
Some of the other stories in the book focus on Susan Calvin, a robopsychologist who works for USRMM.
When Asimov wrote his robot stories, he was doing it in reaction to the “Frankenstein complex”…what he saw as a disturbing trend in stories about robots. Before he started writing his stories, most robot stories involved the robots turning against their creators, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and wrecking havok. They were generally anti-technology…with the theme that there are some things we’re just not meant to know.
Nonsense, Asimov said, robots, when we create them, will be machines, and well built machines aren’t dangerous when operated correctly. So his robot stories are generally optimistic. The robots are helpful and friendly and they’re not dangerous. As he has one of his characters explain in “Robbie”, his first robot story, a robot “can’t help being faithful and loving and kind. He’s a machine–made so”.
I don’t see how mainstream Hollywood could make I, Robot. It is too ‘deep’ for them. Too much thinking needed. It’s more of a Kauffman or Soderberg type of thing.
I suspect the Will Smith version will be totally unlike the book, just as Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers bared little resemblence to Heinlein’s book.
Which wasn’t a bad thing, as Verhoven’s flick stood on it’s own as a brilliant CGI fest for the time and a great parody of war movies.
I hope Smith’s film (I don’t know who’s directing), does the same kind of thing.
But if Bruckheimer’s involved in it, forgettaboutit!
I just don’t know why they don’t name it something else and say ‘based on a story by Isaac Asimov’.
They changed Susan Calvin, and that saddens me. She is supposed to be severe. All I can picture he wearing is a business suit, or a clean room suit, the kind that on anyone else would be called a "BunnySuit,"but she is the kind of person one would not apply such terms to. She certainly should not ever look tousled and cute as she does in one scene of the trailer.
Personally, I think Will Smith is perfect as asn Asimov hero.
Will Smith does not belong in an Asimov book. Fortunately in that case, whatever this abomination is, it appears to have nothing to do with an Asimov book.
We beat it to quivering components in this thread.
Oh, I don’t know, 'Xappy, I could see Will Smith in any number of Asimovian hero roles. In fact, I think he’d make a great Lije Bailey. I mean, can’t you see him dealing with those snobby spacers? Especially dealing with those uber-snobs on Solaria? That would be cool.
Will Smith isn’t the problem. I could see him doing a plausible Donovan or Powell, in a faithful adaptation. The problem is the plot.
And I’ve heard a lot of people complain about Dr. Calvin in the trailer… While I’ll agree that the one woman we see for about two seconds in the trailer is a far cry from Dr. Calvin, I don’t think we have any indication that that’s who she is. In fact, I rather thought that she was another cop, not a USRMM employee.
Seems to me the best Susan Calvin screen portrayal has already been done: Professor Maggy Walsh of the Initiative, on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That’s exactly how I always pictured Calvin – only with her hair a bit more tamed.
Not sure if this will change your opinion, but the director is Australian (if you’re picky, Egyptian/Australian), as are several of the “key” crew members (I believe).
Actually, the thing was filmed more or less in my back yard. I kept running into sets most of last summer. One of the more memorable ones involved a parade of green suited robots going down Front St. in New Westminster as I came out of work.
If I see it I won’t pay any attention to the story anyway. Too busy checking out the old hometown!
You suppose this will put Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy into perspective for the Tolkien purists?
“They didn’t have Glorfindel! They didn’t go to the Houses of Healing! They raped the source material!”
“No, the LOTR adaptation is not just closer than usual, it’s closer than anyone could reasonably have expected. The filmmakers have great knowledge and respect for their source, and cared about getting as much right as they could. If you want to see what it looks like when the filmmakers know little or nothing about the source material and don’t care to find out, check out I, Robot.”
Then again, Cervaise, maybe it’ll actually be a partially decent movie, thus blowing your comparison to dust. Well, I don’t see much chance of that happening, but I can always hope! After all, this wouldn’t be the first misleading movie trailer that Hollywood ever made.
And just for anyone who might still try to say we should wait for the movie before pronouncing it crap, it’s credited writers are Akiva “Batman and Robin” Goldsman and Jeff “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” Vintar.
It’s crap. And I’d say that even if I weren’t a long-time Asimov fan and it weren’t nominally based on an Asimov story.
Would anyone reading Asimov have imagined that Susan Calvin looked like this??? (Don’t get me wrong, she’s seems like a very nice person, and if anyone has her phone number, I’d be happy to meet her in person to confirm that fact.)
Only a brainless studio executive could read about Asimov’s middle-aged, sexless, spinster robopsychologist and cast a 32-year-old former fashion model in the role.
What struck me seeing the trailer is that the movie is anti-technology, with Will Smith saying “I told you so,” when the robots attack because damn it, he knew better than to trust them bots. It is the exact opposite of Asimov’s moral universe and aesthetics. It’s hypocritical since it’s a high-tech special effects movie, but the movie doesn’t care; it’s just mindless entertainment and needs some sort of really easy-to-understand theme for the rubes who will fill the theater because, well, because the movie is out and it has special effects and movie stars in it.
It is inevitable that some CEO will have been behind the whole robot uprising, James Bond Supervillian wise, and Smith will have a hand-to-hand fight with him in a futuristic building, possibly high up on some sort of scaffolding.
