# I, Robot **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 11, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833 "2004-06-11T16:20:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/1 "2004-06-11T16:20:18Z")
I just saw a trailer of the Film _ **I, Robot** _ last night. Anybody have any advance word on how good it might be? ---
**Author:** ![Electronic\_Chaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Electronic\_Chaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electronic_Chaos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/2 "2004-06-11T16:33:11Z")
Well, it looks like one of those movies that took the title of the book and maybe a few basic principles, and then made everything up from there. For me, that takes a bunch of points off its good scale. Granted, I probably will see it eventually, probably just to make fun of how horribly bad it is (_cough_Day After Tommorow_cough_). ---
**Author:** ![RogueRacer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RogueRacer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueRacer)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/3 "2004-06-11T17:17:54Z")
I haven’t read the book. The trailer makes it look like it’s a movie for Will Smith to play the part of Will Smith. That’s really not such a bad thing, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/4 "2004-06-11T18:22:08Z")
It looks to me like it’s actually a secret experiment in new energy generation ideas. They’re going to hook up Asimov’s corpse to a generator and see how fast they can get it spinning with this awful movie. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/5 "2004-06-11T18:54:13Z")
> [@xgxlx](#): > > Well, it looks like one of those movies that took the title of the book and maybe a few basic principles, and then made everything up from there. Sometimes the results of such efforts aren’t so bad at all (e.g. “Blade Runner”, sort of, as the title didn’t even carry over, though the skeleton of the original story did). This may not be one of those times… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/6 "2004-06-11T19:18:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, it looks like one of those movies that took the title of the book and maybe a few basic principles, and then made everything up from there. What basic principles do you think they kept from the book? You lost me there. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/7 "2004-06-11T19:47:56Z")
Well, it’s got robots, and some gal named Susan Calvin, and… er… Aw, heck, it’s gonna suck hard. ---
**Author:** ![emekthian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecae2f/32.png) [@emekthian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emekthian)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/8 "2004-06-11T20:17:00Z")
> [@](#): > > ``` > It looks to me like it's actually a secret experiment in new energy generation ideas. They're going to hook up Asimov's corpse to a generator and see how fast they can get it spinning with this awful movie. > > ``` Asimov’s dead? I thought he was still alive, just really old. When did he die? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/9 "2004-06-11T20:29:07Z")
He died in 1992. It’s been a while now. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/10 "2004-06-11T20:45:22Z")
Isn’t the book a collection of short stories, with completely independent characters and plot lines? It’s been at least 20 years since I read it, but that’s what I remember. Seems like they’d pretty much have to pick one story and expand it. As I recall, one of the stories _was_ about A robot accused of murder, as shown in the trailer. It’d be interesting to see if there’s anything true to the book left in the movie. The robots in the trailer look pretty “fake” to me; looks like they went with 100% computer animation rather than build any models. Kinda cheesy. On the other hand, it’s hard to go wrong with Will Smith. He single-handedly turned _Independence Day_ from a steaming pile of shit into an entertaining movie. In fact, I can’t think of any Will Smith performance that I’ve been disappointed with. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/11 "2004-06-11T21:17:53Z")
Judging only from the trailer, the only thing in common with Asimov is the title and a character name. After that, it is sounds almost exactly the _opposite_ of what Asimov was trying to accomplish with his robot stories, and for that reason alone I will avoid this movie like the plague. Unless it somehow rises above what the trailer is portraying, which I really really doubt. And for a little more detail, check out [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246940) and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244642). ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/12 "2004-06-11T21:21:20Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > It looks to me like it’s actually a secret experiment in new energy generation ideas. They’re going to hook up Asimov’s corpse to a generator and see how fast they can get it spinning with this awful movie. It’ll be worth it, though, if we eventually get some decent movies based on the _Foundation_ universe. Lots of good material there, but perhaps not enough action in the original to make it in today’s world of movies. When I think about it, many of my favorite moments in that story just involve two or more people _talking_; many of the interesting concepts tend to be presented in the dialogue, rather than in the characters’ actual deeds. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/13 "2004-06-11T21:55:39Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > He died in 1992. It’s been a while now. **emekthian** , you were probably confused by the fact that death has hardly slowed his publising schedule one whit. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/14 "2004-06-11T22:16:41Z")
Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics: First Law: A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by a human being except when this conflicts with the First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence except when this conflicts with the First or the Second Law. In Asimov’s fiction, every robot has a “positronic brain” programmed with these Three Laws, which a robot cannot break, and which override all other programming, and all other considerations, and all other desires, insofar as robots have desires. (Asimov’s robots act as if they are fully sentient; whether they are “really” sentient and self-conscious, in the way that you and I are, is a question he never really deals with. IA was an atheist and a scientific materialist who did not believe in any “soul” or similar numinous entity that might distinguish organic from mechanical lifeforms.) Most of the stories in the classic _I, Robot_ collection are essentially logic puzzles, working out what happens when one of these laws conflicts with another. I always considered the Three Laws rather high-minded and unrealistic . . . Suppose the development research is being funded by governments or corporations that want robot soldiers? And if a robot has to obey **any** human being, that makes them ridiculously easy to steal. You don’t even need a password, you just walk up to a robot and say, “Come with me.” Nevertheless . . . **none** of IA’s robot stories deal with robots that rebel, or kill people, or go crazy. The trailer for this movie shows an army of killer robots. That’s about as far from IA’s thinking as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/15 "2004-06-11T22:30:11Z")
It’s almost like an alternate history version of “I, Robot”. What if U.S. Robotics came up with these rules, and they worked great for a while, and then the company screwed it up and the robots started killing people? I don’t think Asimov was ever willing to go there. He had his infallible rules and nothing was going to break them, no sir. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/16 "2004-06-11T22:47:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I always considered the Three Laws rather high-minded and unrealistic. Asimov realized later in his life that the Three Laws weren’t perfect, at least from a storytelling POV. That’s part of the reason his later robot stories introduced the idea of a Zeroth Law. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Suppose the development research is being funded by governments or corporations that want robot soldiers? You’d end up with robot martial artists that could quickly disarm and disable opponents without injuring them. Not an impossible idea, IMO. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And if a robot has to obey **any** human being, that makes them ridiculously easy to steal. You don’t even need a password, you just walk up to a robot and say, “Come with me.” Nah, you just make non-obedience part of the orders you give it. “Robot C3PO, stand here in front of this door and do not let anyone enter. Accept no other commands until you receive orders either from myself or from any other Imperial Commander of rank 7 or higher.” > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nevertheless . . . **none** of IA’s robot stories deal with robots that rebel, or kill people, or go crazy. Sure, but he had a lot of stories where it _looked_ like a robot had rebelled, killed a person, or went crazy, and finding out how it _didn’t_ constituted the plot. I suppose the movie could work on a similar premise, though I’m not getting my hopes up. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/17 "2004-06-11T22:53:38Z")
[I, rowboat](http://www.theonion.com/onion3326/irowboat.html). (One of my favorite Onion articles). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/18 "2004-06-11T23:04:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nevertheless . . . **none** of IA’s robot stories deal with robots that rebel, or kill people, or go crazy. While I agree with you about the trailer, you’re not correct in any of these three assertions. Five of the nine stories in “I, Robot” deal with robots going crazy. In “Little Lost Robot” the missing Nestor is driven mad by a failure to obey Second Law; in “Runaround”, Speedy is sent off the deep end by a conflict between a weak order and strengthened Third Law; in “Reason”, Cutie starts venerating a piece of machinery as a god; in “Catch That Rabbit”, the multi-bodied robot Dave goes into a mental fugue under conditions of stress; and in “Escape”, a supercomputer becomes mentally disturbed when ordered to do something that causes the temporary death of humans. The story “… That Thou Art Mindful Of Him” has a group of robots who draw the conclusion that they are not only human but in fact superior enough to humans that they should not take human orders over their own; that sounds like rebellion to me. Lastly, in the story “Sally” a robotic car kills a man. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/19 "2004-06-11T23:06:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nevertheless . . . **none** of IA’s robot stories deal with robots that rebel, or kill people, or go crazy. Not entirely true. In both “Robot Dreams” and “Christmas without Rodney”, robots, while they don’t rebel, think about rebellion (in Dreams, the robot dreams of himself as Moses, freeing all the robots from slavery. In Christmas, the robot wishes the three laws didn’t exist.) For that matter, The Bard in “Someday” isn’t all that happy about its status either. The robot in “Reason” is arguably crazy, thinking that he’s a prophet of God. In “Sally”, the villians are deliberately run over by a robotic bus (I think it’s a bus). And one of the subplots in “The Naked Sun” is that a Solarian roboticist is trying to figure out a way to make robotic warships. Admittedly, I’m nitpicking here. 🙂 You’re right, it looks like the only thing this movie shares with the book is the name. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833/20 "2004-06-11T23:11:42Z")
You’re all right, I guess. It’s a long time since I read _I, Robot._ > [@rjung](#): > > Asimov realized later in his life that the Three Laws weren’t perfect, at least from a storytelling POV. That’s part of the reason his later robot stories introduced the idea of a Zeroth Law. And I never read these later stories. “Zeroth Law”? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-robot/249833.md?page=2)