I, robot / I have a deleted thread!

[-=jt=-]

*spoilers*
I, robot. i have seen the first 40 mins of it, before i got invited out for drunkness, but does it follow the ideals of asimov?? (i searched for a thread on this but didn't find one)

i can think of some reasons for the robot hiding/running in the murder room, but throwing will smith across the room. even if the robot had some reason for protecting its own life over the first law applied to a individual, wouldn't minimum force be required?

not related but could the mod who deleated my last thread pm me with an alternate and acceptable phrasing of the query if possible?

 

[Majestic XII]

Why dont you watch the movie instead? They will tell you why.

 

[-=jt=-]

i finished the movie, and it still kicks asimov in the happy sack... A robot who is unable to do his first law duty(save a man) immediately breaks down.

I have no problem with the robots having a revolution to protect humanity,but the robots would allways strive to use minimum force. at no point did i see minimum force.

if, as the movie suggested, these robots are designed to be able to break the 3 laws, the VIKI would be bound by them. destroying a house will was in was more than a slight violation. after she saw what damage was being done to the humans, she should have broken down.

 

[Sui]

i watched it yesterday with loads of mates, i really liked it, dispite not reading the book. I thought Will Smith played a very good part (like he does in most his movies) and the whole movie basked in quality.

The three laws were obviously changed so they could put more action in the film, as it would have been a bit boring if the robots just died as soon as they threw a punch at will...

 

[-=jt=-]

reading the particualr book dosn't make much differance as its a collection of short stories. the main relationship between the stories is the discussion and exploration of the
three laws.

if they where going to change/bend them it would have been better written under another title, and say inspired by asmiov.

as for will, he did an ok part. i just wish the first 15 minuites wheren't dedicated to him being pritty and athletic...he did play the role very similar to his MIB part, but that worked out.

apologies for the rabid-faness now i've had a rant i'll probably never discuss it again.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

SPOILS THE ENDING REVELATION

Spoiler

Actually, they just turned off the three laws rule whenever they wanted the robots to do something.

Oh no! These robots have had their laws turned off! Run!
Sonny got to kill stuff because he was built with emotions, which replaced the laws, and the big brain thing just turned off the laws whenever it wanted the robots to attack stuffs.
In the end, the only asimov-like rule bending came when the laws evolved, and the brain saw it could keep the most people alive by harming a few of them first.

 

[-=jt=-]

Spoiler

1.the three laws are supposed to be such an integeral part of the design of the robot brain, that to make one that would work without them would mean designing the brain from scratch (although the suicide proffesor designed the laws, that was a long time ago, the brains where supposed to get a lot more complicated)
2.VIKI is still bound by the 3 laws, if she could see the revolution and all the unecersary harming of humans(them getting the shit beat out of them) and she had caused it, she would have broken instantly. again i must mention the small matter of her demolishing the house

 

[Chris D]

*spoilers*
I, robot. i have seen the first 40 mins of it, before i got invited out for drunkness, but does it follow the ideals of asimov?? (i searched for a thread on this but didn't find one)

i can think of some reasons for the robot hiding/running in the murder room, but throwing will smith across the room. even if the robot had some reason for protecting its own life over the first law applied to a individual, wouldn't minimum force be required?

not related but could the mod who deleated my last thread pm me with an alternate and acceptable phrasing of the query if possible?

It wasn't myself that closed the thread but I think the general conensus was that it's not big and it's not clever to piss on McDonalds. It's even less big and clever to brag about it.

 

[-=jt=-]

True, that but i was very very drunk at the time... i was hoping for a bit of discression from mods... could you please remove your post, i feel very silly about it now and would rather it stay as low profile as possible

 

[Majestic XII]

True, that but i was very very drunk at the time... i was hoping for a bit of discression from mods... could you please remove your post, i feel very silly about it now and would rather it stay as low profile as possible

Sorry, but we're not allowed to do that. Dont be drunk next time or (like me) try to write non-important posts

 

[Hazar]

AAAA!!! they're mauling Asimov's book!

It's nothing like the book from the previews and the spoilers!

 

[[Matt]]

ive read the book and seen the film... the only thion the two have in common is the title.

 

[Sui]

ive read the book and seen the film... the only thion the two have in common is the title.

and the fact that they have robots in them

 

[Direwolf]

Well I'm not surprised at that. Its difficult enough moving a book to the big screen, but moving a book composed of short stories is even harder.

 

[Hazar]

I hate it when hollywood ruins good books just for the title and the publicity.

 

[h4vvok]

OH just shut up you fools....you think robots wont be able to alter themselves someday? Asimov had no idea of how technology would advance or how AI would develop, so this movie isn't so far off. Programming errors occur and things can conflict and cancel out which is essentially the whole "Ghosts in the code" thing, a programming anomaly that can happen...besides that I just made all this up to make it look like I know what I am talking about.

 

[Hazar]

books can be good without being technically right or accurate.

Asimov, was pretty close to the future for having wrote the book like 50 years ago. Just wrong on the dates.

But I haven't seen the movie, I'm just talking from what I've heard and seen.

 

[Sui]

go watch it. innacurate or not, its a great movie.

 

[-=jt=-]

two things,
1. i had hoped this thread would die off, so i refrained from posting
2. essentialy h4vvok is correct, asimov was way before ai (being as it hasn't happend yet, and it wont happen for a good long time), so he couldn't acuratly predicted the path it would take, at the moment it looks like the path to true ai is impossible, the closest method we can get is insectoid type behaviours, teaching an insect to not only understand the three laws but to obey them no matter what is basically impossible.

ive read the book and seen the film... the only thion the two have in common is the title.

this is more or less my thinking, although you must concede the point of it being impossible to follow the book, its nature being a collection of stories

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

AAAA!!! they're mauling Asimov's book!

It's nothing like the book from the previews and the spoilers!

he wasn't be best writer in the first place, ok his ideas were pretty interesting but the way he brought them across in his books didn't really strike me as anything brilliant.

Also, remaking them with a different story is good(Bicentenial man was based ont he same story, yet the film is vastly different). Its like when they do a remake of a film, people complain about the stuff thats changed...but if it was done exactly the same, then you might as well watch the first one again but there would be nothing new and interesting about the remake.

 

[-=jt=-]

bicentanial man was a good film, it changed most of the story but the theme and feel of the film is accurate and good. changes while changing a book to a film are inevitable, these must be accepted admitably asimov may not have been the best writer but i think he understood phychology and human nature better than most.

the deeper you read, the less his storys are about robots and the more about humans....

edit: did i just say that? i must have drunk more than i was aware

 

[OCybrManO]

It's the fact that they didn't even bother with giving it an original name. The story is different and the three laws are broken frequently but they still try to pass it off as a movie version of "I, Robot" to get money from fans of Asimov. I know there are differences in the way you have to tell a story in a book and in a movie... but that's irrelevant in this case.

If I were to make a movie about Moby Dick where everyone survives, they kill the white whale, the people are different, and even the story leading up to it is completely different... it wouldn't be Moby Dick.

It would be like a Romeo & Juliet where the Capulets and Montagues don't mind them being in a relationship and they live happily ever after.

It's just stupid. They could have at least changed the name and said something like "Inspired by the short stories of Isaac Asimov."

 

[-=jt=-]

It's the fact that they didn't even bother with giving it an original name. The story is different and the three laws are broken frequently but they still try to pass it off as a movie version of "I, Robot" to get money from fans of Asimov. I know there are differences in the way you have to tell a story in a book and in a movie... but that's irrelevant in this case.

If I were to make a movie about Moby Dick where everyone survives, they kill the white whale, the people are different, and even the story leading up to it is completely different... it wouldn't be Moby Dick.

It would be like a Romeo & Juliet where the Capulets and Montagues don't mind them being in a relationship and they live happily ever after.

It's just stupid. They could have at least changed the name and said something like "Inspired by the short stories of Isaac Asimov."

What i meant to say! In fact what i thought i said, but looking back i realize i didn't. just another case of pre-emptive deja vu...