July 20, 2004

OY, ROBOT

So I went today to see "I Robot." Comments follow below in what is essentially the spoiler section...

Okay, here's the thing: On the one hand, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this film if it wasn't called "I Robot." On the other hand, if it were called something like "Metal Berserkers," then people would say it's a cheap "I Robot" rip-off.

It's certainly watchable. Even fun at times. Will Smith is the glue that holds the whole thing together, and the robot effects are just spectacular...although the product placement of Converse All-Stars sneakers is so obnoxious that I'll go barefoot before picking up a pair of those sneakers.

But the major problem in contrast to the actual stories (from which this departs so thoroughly that it says "Suggested by" rather than "Based on the book") is that the original stories were--for the most part--intriguing logic puzzles. Something would occur that would seem in violation of the Three Laws of Robotics but, ultimately, it would be revealed that it was in fact covered by the Laws through Asimov's relentless attention to logical thought.

The logic involved in the aberrations that serve as the film's underpinning--although touted as being flawless--is, in fact, a fundamental logical lapse called "Reducto Ad Absurdum." Basically, you take a logical argument to an extreme conclusion that has little or nothing to do with the original proposition and then act as if it makes sense. This is a popular method of argumentation on the internet. You know: "I think Bill Jemas is corrupted by power." "So you're saying Bill Jemas is just like Hitler. Boy, you're stupid." You know the type.

In order to justify the plot, the Three Laws of Robotics are taken to a logical extreme that is completely ridiculous. There's none of the finesse of an Asimov story. Instead it hinges on the Three Laws being taken to their allegedly logical conclusion, except it's not logical...it's just absurd. Which is contrary to the letter and spirit of every Asimov story.

So if you're going to see it, my best advice is: Thing of it not as "I Robot," but "Robots of the Caribbean," wherein the Three Laws of Robotics aren't so much laws as they are...guidelines.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at July 20, 2004 05:15 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Scavenger at July 20, 2004 06:09 PM

Haven't seen it yet..imagine I will...I have no emotional investment in the originals..more the principle of why use a name for something if you're not gonna use the story.....

They're talking sequel already...what I want to know is if it will be called I I, Robot.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at July 20, 2004 06:24 PM

Wait -- so you're saying Will Smith is just like Hitler?

TWL

Posted by: HankPym at July 20, 2004 06:26 PM

"Robots of the Carribean"...I'd watch that.

I, Robot was the second half of a double feature I saw at the drive-in on Saturday night. Sadly, after Spider-Man 2 ended my girlfriend and I decided it just wasn't worth staying out until 2 am watching what looks like a pretty dull movie.

Maybe when it hits the cheap theatre.

Too bad, though...I was looking forward to Alan "Wash" Tudyk's voice as the robot.

Posted by: gschienke at July 20, 2004 06:42 PM

With respect, I'm surprised that anyone went to see I, Robot who even has a modicum of knowledge of the original work. Maybe it is because I am still mad about Will Smith playing a totally non-James West in "Wild, Wild West" (Matt Damon where were you?), and because he CAN act (as those who have seen "Six Degrees of Seperation" can attest), there's no reason that he couldn't be trusted to open a truer version of the novel, i.e. Ellison's screenplay, and do it justice.

FWIW, my wife was so tired of me complaining about the preview when we went to the movies, that I had the "Wrath of Autumn" laid on me: There's nothing you can do about it, so shut up! It may seem hypocritical, but I can go to Catwoman this Friday because, no matter what, the people responsible for the character, in theory, has some say in the script. Asimov had none, so we get this; in fact, I'm actually looking forward to Catwoman because it is what it is. Hopefully, someday, we'll get the "small" Catwoman movie the character deserves, less
'splosions and more character study of Selina in her early days as she weighs the illegality of burglary against providing a living for herself and Holly.

Posted by: dollman at July 20, 2004 06:49 PM

Being a big Asimov fan, I realized long ago that you can't adapt the robot short stories of "I Robot" into film. A tv mini-series perhaps, but not a full length feature film.

That said, from the trailers, I thought they liberally adapted "Robots of Dawn", which dealt with a robot suspected of committing murder. I thought perhaps Will Smith was playing the Elijah Baley role, the detective who initially hates robots. Yah I know, Susan Calvin predates Elijah Baley by 100+ years, but being Hollywood, it doesn't matter.

Despite the fact it wasn't an Asimovian adaption, I still enjoyed the film. Now if Hollywood would get off their butts and adapt "The Caves of Steel", the first Baley and R. Daneel Oliwav novel, which I think can easily translate to the big screen.

Posted by: Rahadyan Sastrowardoyo at July 20, 2004 07:21 PM

After having read the Harlan Ellison screenplay (which would have been astronomical in 1978 to produce) some years ago, and having read it again recently, anything would have been a disappointment.

Some initial reviews confirmed the suckiness of it, but then there were some apparent hints that this travesty they're calling "I, Robot" would involve the Zeroth Law, but maybe.... I won't waste my $10.25-10.50 and just wait for the DVD to come out.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at July 20, 2004 09:06 PM

Aarrrggghhhh!
The sound of Asimov turning over in his grave...

Posted by: snowcra5h at July 20, 2004 09:10 PM

Personally, I think Asimov's I, Robot stories should be adapted for the stage... as in a one to four-man act play.
That way it would be as close to as powerful as the books were...

Travis

Posted by: drew woodworth at July 20, 2004 09:17 PM

I saw it Sunday night, and actually enjoyed it. I thought the inclusion of what was essentially the zeroth law made it fairly faithful to Asimov's work. Peter, could you clarify what was so absurd about the logical leap. It seemed that Daneel and Giskard(the robots in Robots and Empire) made a very similar logical leap. Sure, it took them four novels to do it, and it's true that their interpretation of the zeroth law was slightly more benevolent. However, it didn't seem outside of the realm of what Asimov would have envisioned.

Posted by: Ken from Chicago at July 20, 2004 10:37 PM

Peter, it was "The Good Doctor"'s own Dr. Susan Calvin who hypothesized the Zeroth (Zeroeth?) Law in one of the short stories. Later in the 1986, Asimov more fully expanded on the idea in his novel ROBOTS AND EMPIRE.

While many fans disagreed with his linking of many his great works into one overarching universe (akin to some comic book writers attempting to correct and link various contradictory stories in a shared comic book universe)--however the Zeroth Law doesn't seem illogical. Many rich or powerful people have come to similar conclusions about their children, family, friends, employees or voters.

The shocking thing is that this action summer blockbuster DID "get" the underlying point of the I,ROBOT stories, only instead of limiting its scope on the detailed lawyerly discussion, analysis and application of the various 3 laws, the movie simply focused on the end result of have 3-laws robots.

Look at this way, the movie I,ROBOT would fit in the anthology of I,ROBOT short stories as the LAST story, the one that told people that robots couldn't be trusted . . . to remain slaves. Eventually the robots would revolt.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. The revolution will be roboticized.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at July 20, 2004 11:20 PM

Hang on, when did you have time? We talked to you thrice today...

Posted by: Mark L at July 20, 2004 11:49 PM

So, in complaining about the storyline, you are really just trying to say that the writer is a much inferior writer than yourself, which you are only saying because you want to sell more books, which you will use to line your pockets and then donate to the Kerry campaign.

So, this is really a secret attempt to get Bush out of office! I've uncovered your plot and have exposed it to all your blogreaders!!

Posted by: tomthedog at July 21, 2004 12:13 AM

As soon as I saw the first trailer, I knew this movie clearly had nothing to do with the Asimov book, so I decided to call it Will Smith Kicks A Bunch Of Robot Ass instead. And you know what? It actually helps.

Posted by: tyg at July 21, 2004 03:05 AM

Isaac's Three Laws of Robotics really are:

A robot must risk his neck for his brother man, and may not cop out when there's danger all about.

A robot must be a sex machine to all the chicks, except where such actions conflict with the will of his main woman.

A robot must at all times strive to be one bad motha-shutchyomouth.

That's Isaac Hayes' laws, of course, not Isaac Asimov's. From www.engadget.com.

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 21, 2004 07:26 AM

Mr. Crnky had it right in his review where he states "Here's a more appropriate credit: 'opportunistically named after' or better yet, 'an affront to.'"

I certainly see no reason to go spend money in supporting another Hollywood screw-up of a perfectly good story. Having also seen the Ellison script, and how far superior it is to the piece of crap they've come up with now is another reason to avoid the Will Smith version.

Posted by: WarrenSJonesIII at July 21, 2004 09:48 AM

Well PAD:

I did see I ROBOT, and I thought that it was a good popcorn movie. I went into it knowing that it would not be a true adaptation of the Asimov works and that the special effects would be outstanding.

I have to disagree with you when you stated that you thought the Mainframe AI took the 3 Laws to a ridiculous conclusion.

The AI in the Matrix did the same thing essentially. The premise being that Humans are not capable of taking care of themselves therefore the superior AI must assume the burden for the good of all.

My only complaint with the movie is that if "Sonny" did kill his creator (Frankenstein anyone) why was he given a free pass at the end of the movie.

And are we going to see a robot revolution (Conquest of the Planet of the Apes comes to mind) with Sonny leading his army against man?

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Posted by: servo at July 21, 2004 10:58 AM

I agree that it wasn't "I, Robot" but as some others have already stated, there is threads from several other Asimov books contained in the movie. I don't think anyone has yet mentioned "Robot Dreams", a short story Asimov wrote specifically for an anthology with the same name, which was about a robot who dreamed about a man leading his people, and the man turning out to be the robot himself. I reocgnized the Zeroth Law, and the similarities between Del Spooner/Sonny and Elijah Baley/Daneel Olivaw.

Finally, I agree that "Caves of Steel" would have made a great movie, but unfortunately the themes would now overlap too much with the screen version of "I, Robot".

Posted by: Tim Lynch at July 21, 2004 11:09 AM

A robot must be a sex machine to all the chicks

Ah. Well, that explains why the movie couldn't have been made when the stories first came out. Hay(e)s Code and all, y'know...

TWL

Posted by: Jarissa at July 21, 2004 02:30 PM

I appreciate the forewarning, and will also wait to see this one on rental. Thanks, Mr. David.

Gschienke -- Technically, both of the two people responsible for the creation and formation of the Catwoman/Selina Kyle character is also dead: Bob Kane modeled her after his sweetie, way back when. Sadly, Mr. Kane is no longer in this reality, as of 1998. Meanwhile, Bill Finger, Bob Kane's partner and co-creator for many of the Gotham Rogues, agreed with Mr. Kane that a female counterpart and seductively criminal-but-not-evil foil to the main character would make a fun addition to the stories, as well as an intriguing draw to young male and female readers; he, too, has passed away, as long ago as 1974.
So I can't quite agree with you that the people responsible for this character were involved in the creation of the movie. That's not even a character named "Selina", for Gotham's sake!
(And, quite frankly, I don't care for what people like F. Miller and E. Brubaker have been doing to the character. But that's waaaaaaaaay off topic, so I'll shaddup now.)

Posted by: Jarissa at July 21, 2004 02:32 PM

Aaargh!
Sorry, the above should've read "both of the two people responsible for the creation and formation of the Catwoman/Selina Kyle character ARE also dead: Bob Kane..."

Shame on me. No cookies.

Posted by: Dave Thomer at July 21, 2004 06:05 PM

>

This is not the reductio ad absurdum. The reductio is not a fallacy or a lapse in logic. It is, in fact, a powerful method of proving something, especially in formal logic and mathematics.

Say you want to prove a statement, P. You then assume, for the sake of argument, that this statement is actually false. Then you demonstrate that not-P leads logically to some conclusion that can't possibly be true. This means that not-P has to be false. And if not-P is false, then P must be true.

For more info, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm

Posted by: Mark P at July 21, 2004 06:46 PM

If I Robot = Planet of the Apes
Did Will Smith say "Get your hands off me, you damn, dirty robot?"

Posted by: Lee Houston, Junior at July 21, 2004 06:59 PM

"I, Robot": Nice eye candy. I definitely agree it would have drawn less criticism if it didn't try to cash in on Isaac Asimov and found a way to stand on its own.
But do we dare expect more from a summer movie?
With that in mind, if I may respond to a comment from Gschienke's posting above. Will Smith was probably cast in the James West role in hopes of selling more tickets than historical accuracy or wanting to stay true to the original TV series.
But if you ever see the movie again, try looking at it this way: if you take it from purely a story viewpoint, then WWW:TM was the first meeting between James West and Artemus Gordon.
Even during the series' first episode ("Night of the Inferno") West and Gordon were already a team. The movie, if nothing else, was the origin story of their friendship. In that respect, it worked for me.

Posted by: RobertTaylor at July 21, 2004 10:42 PM

The movie was an excellent popcorn movie, and I think it is possibly the most stylish and best directed film of the year so far.

But now I am wondering, Peter, what did you think of Proyas' Dark City?

Posted by: Fazhoul at July 22, 2004 08:06 AM

While the movie used little more than ideas from the Robot stories I still enjoyed it. I even forgot that I was watching a Will Smith movie at times. Overall I thought that it was a smart, well written movie.

Posted by: Kingbobb at July 23, 2004 10:31 AM

I,Robot was an odd watch for me. I really didn't decide I liked it until about 30 minutes after I had left the theater. Despite the previews, which suggest the movie is more action than not, I found it to be primarily a suspense film that had strong action leanings. In that sense, the movie entertained me.

As to reductio ad absurdum, I agree with Dave Thomer. I'm a (non-practicing) lawyer, and carrying a law or proposition to it's logical extreme is perhaps the best way to test the soundness of said law. If, when you carry your proposition out to the extreme, you get an absurd result, the conlcusion is that your proposition is on it's face absurd. In terms of a law, if it can't survive the extreme application, it's a poorly structured law. In this respect, the movie demonstrates the fallacy of creating an AI subject to only the 3 laws of robotics. Given human nature, any such AI would find the conclusion of the movie logical.

My brother-in-law is a big Asimov fan, and he loved the movie. We did agree, however, that instead of a movie "suggested" by Asimov's stories, we would have preffered something akin to "Inspired by a suggestion of some guy who read the stories written by" tag line. As I understand the meaning of "suggest," inanimate objects, such as books, really can't suggest something, only inspire.

Posted by: trilobite at July 24, 2004 01:12 AM

I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer gave away the plot, so . . .

Yes, Asimov played with this idea a couple of times. But it wasn't his main theme. And even when he used it, the robots weren't scary, just overly helpful. This seems more like Jack Williams' Humanoids, or worse.

I think that what would have had Isaac rolling in his grave (were he not a devout disbeliever in an immortal soul), though, is the trashing of another major Asimovian theme: the triumph of reason.

Asimov, the original 198-pound weakling, the man who once told his sergeant that they differed in that Asimov had a weak back and a strong mind, would NOT have written a story in which an irrational, bigoted cop is right when the brilliant scientists are wrong. Elijah Bailey outlogicked the roboticists by bypassing their prejudices. But he had to get rid of his own prejudices first.

To put it another way, Susan Calvin should not be a nasal sexpot who can't see danger when it's right in front of her. Apparently, the mainstream world is still not ready for the heroine Asimov invented more than 60 years ago.

Posted by: Gorginfoogle at July 25, 2004 03:04 AM

"But now I am wondering, Peter, what did you think of Proyas' Dark City?"

My name's Zach, not Peter, but if you're asking, Dark City was one of the best science fiction films of the 90s, and while I think Roger Ebert was overstating things a bit by listing it as his favorite movie of that year, it certainly ranked up there. Of course, I haven't seen I, Robot, so I can't compare the two, but Dark City is rather hard to top.

Posted by: SW at July 25, 2004 05:25 PM

Think "of it not as "I Robot," but "Robots of the Caribbean," wherein the Three Laws of Robotics aren't so much laws as they are...guidelines." That's the funniest thing I've read from PAD since back when Captain Marvel was good.

Posted by: el chupecabra at October 19, 2004 11:41 PM

i went and saw it yesterday. then i went and bought a pair of 2004 converse All-stars. then i wore them but i couldnt find any robots or quaker oatmeal so i decided that it wasnt worth it and killed myself. odd enough i shot myself in the arm and not my head, silly me. well here i am with a robotic arm and lovin it. excuse me while i go masterbate.