I, Robot

[DinoDoc]

The movie inspired me to read the book. It was pretty good but left me with a few questions. I'll post them as I think of them. The first is that I was wondering why Dr. Calvin so compliantly accepts being lied to by a robot for argueably much more sinister motives than RD-34 who she "killed" earlier in the book?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh jeez... I bet you are underwhelmed at the making of an action movie from Asimov's masterpiece. I refuse to pay to see the movie after they butched the whole point of "I, Robot". Hell, they just bought the name after the movie was all set up so they could try to entice Asimov fans to the theater. It just ended up pissing them off.

Put it to you this way, from all I've read the movie has VERY little relation to the book. For one, Susan Calvin is in her 60s in the book.

[DinoDoc]

I don't think you read my post. I'm asking about the book. I saw the movie before reading the book anyway. I actually kind of liked both of them. Now back to my questions...

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I don't think you read my post, I'm *****ing about the movie .

[Sprayber]

The movie was pretty good. I went in with my usual low expectations and was pleasently surprised. Now when I get the chance I'll probably try to read the book. That is after I get done with my first LOTRs read through

[Imran Siddiqui]

See, DD, my post is useful...

Sprayber, take note of my post... the book is VERY different from the movie. You will not find the plot of the movie AT ALL in the book "I, Robot" (if anything parts of it come from "Caves of Steel", but not really). However, if you want to read some interesting stories about how the 3 laws interact and can cause robots to malfunction, it's a great book. One of the kinds of sci-fi.

[DinoDoc]

The last chapter contains shades of the movie plot, Imran.

I still fail to see the usefulness of your post to me though as it has no bearing on my quest!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do I care about your quest?

Shades? Perhaps, but only very slight.

Spoiler:

A Zeroth Law is not introduced until later books and Asimov never imagined a horde of angry robots looking to kill. It's usually just one who malfunctions and there is no purposeful killing in the book. In the last chapter the trick was finding out which one was the 'defective'

[DinoDoc]

Spoiler:

The last chapter was called Evitable Conflict and dealt with robitic superintelligences that control the world and how they deal with potential threats to thier rule. You were thinking of another chapter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That has even LESSER to do with the movie plot!

Spoiler:

The beauty in that story is the not knowing what would happen and the idea of helplessness of knowing something, but not being able to know the bigger thing. Perhaps the movie shows what could happen as a result of that story, but that isn't a part of "I, Robot". It'd be like making a movie about what would happen with Hari Seldon's plan if the Mule didn't come around and calling it "Foundation".

Besides, the movie itself was all set to go as "Hardwired" until the producers bought the name "I, Robot" and changed some of the names and played around with the 3 Laws. It was just plugged into a finished thing.

[DinoDoc]

Whatever. I'm still curious about Calvin's reaction given her past actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, if you are talking about the last chapter.

Spoiler:

It's because the Machines are acting in the good of humanity. The prior one just lied to spare feelings which meant it was no good to anyone. The Machines are still good to humankind because that is who they must first protect, so Susan has fewer qualms about them

[DinoDoc]

I found it a little disturbing after I grew to like her character during the course of the book. Does he explore this a little more in the other Robot novels?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in the other Robot books the whole Machines story thread is dropped. You won't find any other story like that in his works. I guess it was just a fun short story he wrote and perhaps he didn't think the book would be the basis for an entire literary industry.

[The Mad Monk]

Spoiler:

It's because the Machines are acting in the good of humanity.

If you're refering to that, you could say there are shades of it in the Foundation series.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh look! Spoilers don't work for quotes!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well you can nest spoiler tags, I'm sure.

[Asher]

I've heard the movie was only very loosely based on the book, which is good, seeing as the book sucked ass and the movie was entertaining for a summer action movie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bah! The book is a masterpiece of sci-fi! Out heathen!

[Asher]

It's not very hard to be a masterpiece in sci-fi.

[Arrian]

BURN HIM!

I will probably catch I, Robot on HBO sometime next year, but I'd have to be pretty bored. It looks awful.

Changing things when adapting a book to a movie is one thing. Making a movie that bears no resemblence whatsoever to the book is another. What's even WORSE is that the "Robot as menace" theme is one that Asimov specifically despised.

-Arrian

[Asher]

If the movie has no resemblence whatsoever to the book, why don't you look at it as a different story, then, and quit whining?

[Imran Siddiqui]

BURN HIM!

BURN HIM!

Changing things when adapting a book to a movie is one thing. Making a movie that bears no resemblence whatsoever to the book is another. What's even WORSE is that the "Robot as menace" theme is one that Asimov specifically despised.

Indeed! It's just going to piss the fans off, not bring them in. I wonder why Hollywood doesn't realize this. With the internet, all the Asimov fans know what kind of movie it'll be. HELL, with the trailers, they turned fans of the books off (like you said "Robot as Menace". My only hope is that they don't **** up the "Foundation" movie (if it every really gets made). That would be cause to go to Hollywood and kill of the sonofa***** who did it!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Spoiler:

If you're refering to that, you could say there are shades of it in the Foundation series.

Rather obvious, with daneel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the movie has no resemblence whatsoever to the book, why don't you look at it as a different story, then, and quit whining?

Because then we CAN'T have a movie which does resemble the book until the option on the title runs out! And because it is a disgrace .

[DinoDoc]

An I, Robot movie faithful to the book would have been rather boring for the most part. Only a few of the chapters would have been interesting on screen. Evidence being cheap among them but that is hardly enough to sustain a picture.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You could always expand a few of those stories to create a movie surrounding Susan Calvin or done a movie on 'Caves of Steel' or something instead.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed! It's just going to piss the fans off, not bring them in. I wonder why Hollywood doesn't realize this. With the internet, all the Asimov fans know what kind of movie it'll be.

Has it occured to you that maybe there are more people interested in fun sci-fi action movies than "faithful Asimov reproductions"?

[Arrian]

To be honest, I don't think the Robot stories or the Foundation stories are good material for movies. Especially the Foundation. Tough to follow characters over time in that one... centuries pass between important things happening.

I just don't think I, Robot should have been made into a movie at all. As Dino says, a movie faithful to the book would probably be quite boring. So they jazzed it up, changed the plot, and stuck Will Smith in it. *sigh*

Asher - because they called it I, Robot and because it so directly contradicts the author's take on things (robot as menace).

-Arrian

[Natalinasmpf]

What is the book generally about?

The movie, from the commercials surrounding its display on my TV channel, it sounds like yes, pointless killing of mass robots just for the big splash screen effect. Are these robots self-aware?

Because then, "defective" is subjective, and we only call them subjective because they have declared independence. Its like saying, "Jews are defective and dirty. Therefore, we shall ethnically cleanse them".

Or self-preservation as one's higher virtue above all else, is defective, it is doubleplusbad and therefore the thinkpol will take these robots to the minilov, to impose some doublethink and crimestop algorithms.

Yeah, I'm writing a piece to submit for Language Arts, where robots are self-aware, but to prevent them from proclaiming independence, Orwellian and neo-Pavlovian conditioning is imposed on them. Hardwired to serving humanity as the highest good and virtue (Eudaimonia, anyone?) yet be very effective in commanding battles and science. (To find the underlying reason, to adapt) and is very much self-conscious. The mechanisms are called "Antivirus software". Its obviously a euphemism for "thought police software", but the robots do not know that.

But you see, in a immature form of sentience, the dominant thought is the thought that is followed (forming emotions, flood repitition of thought, also giving rise to irrationality) and since the feedback loop will call for a different higher virtue at times, which will inevitably override the preconfigured mechanisms, namely by overwhelming all the antivirus and checking mechanisms all at once.

"No its not thought control, thats a antivirus mechanism to prevent viral and bad thought processes. The antivirus itself is pre-sentient, and can adapt to the mechanical organism it was designed to check, and to check itself, to adapt to check itself. It is called the Norton Antivirus Faction Edition 2257: Hunter-Seeker Algorithm"

I actually thought about this on my own (but inspired by Alpha Centauri) but my own writing isn't too similar in any way to any existing piece, I hope?

Yes, I also know I'm going very off topic.