Can I just say that I love this movie? I've seen it twice now, and it's probably my favorite movie of the summer. I've seen quite a few:

Spiderman 2 (a close second)
The Bourne Supremacy (good, but not great)
Catwoman (meh)
Napoleon Dynamite (funny, but very abstract)

I, Robot has so many great points in it. The story was well thought as well as the characters. My only complaint with the characters is the teenage 'friend' of Detective Spooner. Could have done without him, or at least a rewrite of his character.

The CGI work was quite amazing, Especially on the NS-5s. They all look so fluid, and the fights between Sunny and the other NS-5s were flawless (unlike a few CGI scenes in Spiderman 2 that looks like PS2 graphics --the end with the helicopters and fire trucks). I loved some of the CGI camera work -- two shots especially: one where the police surround Sunny, begin shooting and the camera goes into 'matrix mode', and the other where the camera wildly swings around the catwalks in the ending battle.

If you haven't seen it, go. If 8.75 is too much, see it at your local dollar theater in a few months.

Rating: 4.1/5

------------------
-There are easier things in life than finding a good woman, like nailing Jello to a tree, for instance

-Tazz

I'll trust Ebert & Roeper.

------------------
deviantART gallery.

It wasn't bad. I agree, I think they should have left out his teenage 'friend,' and I wish they had not had Calvin be.. uh.. in her 20's.. When she was in her 90's (if memory serves) in the book. I understand, having a 90 year old lady on the back of a bike like that would be a bit strange, but I feel she should have been older.

It was decent. 6/10.

------------------
[16:38] Correction: dick tracy was a real man
[16:38] happydud: Actually... He wasn't.
[19:08] Dormouse: hi, my name's happydud and i'm passive-aggress.. SHUTUP!! *stabs nearby orphan*
[You have gained 3 Dark Side Points]

... Why the hell did you see Catwoman?

------------------
A little less conversation, a little more action
"This world is made of love and peace!"
"Let's live today, let's live tomorrow, and let's live the day after that, even if it means living in eternal pain."
- Vash the Stampede

I thought this film was typical hollywood. It was predictable and boring. But worst of all, it was illogical.

The notion that "three laws robots" would spawn revolution is ridiculous. Robots follow the three laws to the word.

The first law is "a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

Regardless of what the human race is doing to itself, a robot may not injure a human being. The robots were not designed to 'save' or 'protect' the human race, they were designed the follow the three laws of robotics. They cannot 'go against' those, unless they have been specifically programmed to do so.

As with the "evolving" robots. They do not 'evolve', certainly not in terms of the three laws.

All of the stories in I, Robot are about different circumstances resulting in different behavior caused by the three laws. In only one of those stories have the laws been changed, and then it was by humans. Robots cannot change the three laws.

And the 'ghost' code that somehow provides robots with a 'soul' is completely illogical.

Sonny, the robot that can over-ride the three laws, is the only robot that is potentially dangerous. Of course, he's made out to be a 'good guy' because he has what appears to be 'feelings'. This would really only make the robot irrational and more potentially dangerous.

The film is really all about how "human emotions" are supposedly superior to mathematical logic or scientific reasoning, which is a very common theme throughout many Hollywood films. The only real problem here is that the "evil robots" that are supposedly following "evil logic" are defying logic too.
I have yet to see a film that has actually depicted computers or robots or AI in any sort of realistic or logical light.

Really, Hollywood needs to stay away from mathematics and science. I'm getting really bored of films where the "solution" is some guy shooting everything.

What would be so bad about a world ruled by robots, anyway?

There's the unwritten fourth law that states that a robot can defy the previous three laws if its actions will better humanity. I'm not sure if they included that in the film. I'm pretty sure they did, but it was only one or two lines of dialogue, and could have been more clear.

Also, Mort, it's meant to be entertaining. Anyone who knew anything about programming knows a robot can't get a soul from "ghost code" or something. Please don't turn it into another Matrix.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

[This message has been edited by Emon (edited August 12, 2004).]

It was actually based off a book that was not included with the I, Robot stories, titled "Hardwired," I believe.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

Predictable, but enjoyable. And yeah, I thought the robot CG was really well done.

If you wanna talk about illogical, Mort, let's talk about the entire 'trail of bread crumbs' left by the old dude. Could he possibly have made it more convoluted and abstract? If he could program that holographic thing to say weird clues, why didnt he just program it to say 'the giant computer did it, kill her'? But hey, why just tell a main character what to do when there's an adventurous romp on offer...

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

The only real complaint I had about the movie was the date. 2034? Please... Most of those buildings in the movie would take almost that long just to build, let alone us design such technology as the robots themselves, or whatever magic materials their 'brains' were made up of. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but... US Robotics? Come on now it would have sounded better if they made up some name for the movie.

------------------
"Ahhhh!! I'm Burnin'! I'm Burnin!!!" - Cleaner from Max Payne 2

My summer movie list, in descending order of personal enjoyment:
The Bourne Supremacy
I, Robot
The Manchurian Candidate
The Village
Spiderman 2

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

really enjoyed it also, on par with spiderman because on the whole spiderman's story seemed more engaging....

on the whole Robots dis-obeying the 3 laws, I kinda looked at it from this view of the first law...

"a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

through the robots inaction humans were going to war killing themselves in the process, if all wars could be stopped by the robots themselves controlling everything then the law would be obeyed....

also it was only the main computer (name I forget) that "broke" the law, the other NS-5's when not under the control of "her" were fine....guess the film makers were trying to make a supercomputer that went a little crazy....

yeh there are flaws in the movie if you look for them, k not totally scientific but I normally try my best to turn off that bit of my brain when going into a film like this, let myself enjoy it while watching it and then after think about it a bit more....

when you consider some of the libities (sp?) taken in some films and what they did in I,Robot there isn't that much to complain about.

~9/10

looking forward to chronicles of riddick now...

The book was written in the 40s. Remember when they said we'd have flying cars in 2000? Gee, give it some leeway. Also, what's wrong with U.S. Robotics? I'm not sure that's what it was called in the book, but U.S. Robitics is a real company. I got a kick out of thinking of the connections.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

We were supposed to be orbiting Jupiter by the year 2000.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

I Robot was my favorite movie of the summer, until i saw Collateral yesterday. Go see that, great movie.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

I, Robot was an AMAZING adaptation of the book. It was based somewhat off of little lost robot only different settings. Read the short story, and you'll notice humongous similarities/sameness(es?). Yeah, they did a great job transforming the book--Mort, that's not wholly unbelievable. Especially since they were modified in their laws, or at least I know Sonny was. In Little Lost Robot...well...read it.

------------------
There is no signature

I really liked I, Robot (the movie, never read any book about it). I didn't like catwoman at all, talk about a complete waste of time!

------------------
Brian's Web Log is CLOSED.

Catwoman could have been good. For starters, how about NOT BLACK?

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

And in 1984 we were meant to be living in a Communist Utopia... Great book all the same.

Now excuse me for going off topic, I'll go see this.

------------------
Fire Pretty - Graz's Armoury - (That's my blog...)

The Soviet Bunker - (That's my forum...)

"Thou shalt not steal. (Because the government doesn't like competition!)"

How to keep an idiot busy: See below
How to keep an idiot busy: See above

I Robot was good, probably around how the same Spider-man 2 was good.

Collateral was better than either.



------------------
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side

I, Robot was good mindless action, but I still prefered Spider-man 2.

How did the Manchurian Candidate turn out?

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

---------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info (or something of this matter. Just smile.)

Not as good as I, Robot but better than The Village.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

*SPOILER*
wasn't the whole reason that the robots started acting up was because the "central" computer overrode their programming? and if i remember right, wasn't the "central" computer not bound by the 3 laws thing?

------------------
*landfish 'splodes*
7 of 14

Well for one, that's kindof covered in the old man's theory of code evolution or whatever, second... I think the laws were only for robots, right?

I donno it's been a while since I saw the movie

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

That's a very interesting question, and actually brings up my only initial qualm with the movie. In Deus Ex, when presented with the opportunity to allow an AI to control the world, you were also presented with the pros and cons of such a decision, and given much more ample opportunity to think philosophically on the matter. I didn't like how the movie seemed to simply imply that "AI=evil."

But then I remembered the story of Will Smith's bionic arm, and how the AI in the robot had chosen to save him rather than the young girl. Whereas a human would have made the correct choice, a robot would only make the 'logical' choice, acting not out of compassion but cold calculation.

Which brings up another interesting question. The master AI in the movie sought to be a benevolent dictator. But is not human compassion a natural prerequisite for benevolence? When something is guided by pure logic, seeking to 'protect mankind from harm', what sort of rights could be taken away for the sake of 'safety'? Would free speech, specifically that which may oppose robot rule, be quickly and brutally supressed in the interest of maintaining order?

Wow, what a great movie.

------------------
Self-righteous people are more sinful than I am.

Yes, but they cannot bring harm through action or inaction.

The 'inaction' part does not over-ride the 'action' part, and they can't choose to ignore the 'action' part. At worst, the robots would realise that through action or inaction, human beings will come to harm, and they'd explode or something.




Yes, the whole 'Will Smith being angry at robot for saving him and not girl' didn't really impress me. Yes, it was part of the whole 'selfless hero' type stuff, but being angry at the robot was silly.

The robot managed to smash through the glass and drag him out of the car, which a human wouldn't necessarily be able to do.
If it weren't for the robot, they both would have died.
And what's to say a human would have chosen the girl? Smith was closer, so I probably would have gone for him too. A human might not even see the girl.

And, if I remember correctly, the accident itself was caused by a human driving manually and falling asleep at the wheel.
If a robot was driving, the accident would never have happened in the first place.



Let's assume that the robot-government still follows the three laws, except the first law reading "human race" and not "human being" (that's the only way to make the whole 'revolution' thing make sense)

They would have to rule in the best interests of the survival of humanity.
I think we can probably rule out global warming as a problem, as being the future everything appears to be environmentally friendly (I'm thinking of the scene where she gets on the motorbike and asks if it runs on petrol).

The film only showed a part of the future US, but let's assume the world in the future is similar to the world today, except with robots in most countries.
After conquering the world, probably the first thing on the agenda would be to help those in the third world, those in extreme poverty and illness. This would mean pushing resources away from rich countries into the poor ones, resulting in the the standard of living in western countries falling drastically, to improve standards in poor countries.

The second law would still be significant, as robots would have to follow orders from human beings as long as they do not harm the human race. This would bring about a limited form of democracy, or rather a world-democracy. Decisions could still be made by humans, as long as they considered things in terms of the human race, rather than in terms of individual countries. And surely that is a more productive way of thinking? (I could tie the whole 'patriotism' malarkey into this, but I probably shouldn't)

I don't remember which story it is in, but there is one where there is a robot that reads books and learns human feelings. The end process is that the robot doesn't want to hurt people's feelings, and ends up lying.
I think we can assume that robots understand that human survival is about more than just physical wellbeing. Mental wellbeing is just as important, and 'free speech' (or an illusion thereof) is important in maintaining that.
Robots would not step in if you said "I hate robots". Even if it did kick in the third law, they could not defend themselves because of the first law.
Now, if you tried to kill a robot, and tried to overthrow the robot-government, we're into some interesting first-third law links.
They cannot harm you in order to defend themselves. However, if they do nothing, and you overthrow them, and form a human government, that would probably be more detrimental to the human race. And so, they would harm you based on the first law. You trying to overthrow robots may harm the human race, and so they would harm you.
This would mean that the robot-government would have to assess whether you are a threat to the human race, or not. You 'killing' one robot, that would not overthrow the government, so nothing would be done. Two, three, four, the same. You would not be punished for 'murdering' a robot. Robots can be replaced.
If you started organising lots of people, 'killing' lots of robots, that could be seen as a potential uprising, and the first law would kick in.

So, you are basically allowed to do what you wish as long as it does not harm the human race. Not dissimilar to the sort of rule we have today.

An interesting thought, though, is how a justice system would work... What would a robot do if a human kills another human?

Hmmmmm.

Oh, and another thing, about I, Robot specifically.

I thought it was irritating how it was somehow a "good" thing that the main guy was living in the past. It was the year 2030 or something, and he still had technology from 2000 and before. The future was full of cool future cars with spherical wheels, and he just has some boring old noisey motorbike? And I bet they must have some cool future shoes, too. How exactly is living in the past "cool"? I'd much rather have the latest future stuff.

If some guy today had a gramaphone and a black-and-white television in his living room, and used an 80s style brick-sized mobile phone, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be seen as 'cool'.

I hate it when conservative Hollywood is always trying to promote "traditional" values, suggesting that out-dated stuff is somehow superior.

he did have a cool car till the NS-5's distoryed it....

as for the other stuff, he listened to 60/70's music on what was by todays standards a modern CD player, I know loads of people who say vinlys offer better sound quality than CD's and still listen to them. Would everyone want a CD player that responed to voice commands, I don't honestly know, but it would be out of choice and some people would still like the fact of having a remote and stuff.

as for the shoes thing and the advertising....I look at todays shoes, things like nike's with all the "air cusions" and what-not and then look at those in the film, I'd probably choose the ones smith had, just imagine if you stepped on a pin....wooosshhh, no more shoes, or at least useful ones.

k, i'm not saying that in the future they won't have some new material that has all the properties of today's nike air shoes and the like but sometimes something older and more reliable can be just as comfortable to wear, plus they do look cool.

and if you are all wondering the central A.I. it was binded "supposidly" by the three laws, they were hard-wired in remember the scene when smith is investigating the murder scene and asks the women about the computer and she tells him.

------------------
I heard someone say once that the world is a fine place and that it was worth fighting for....I agree with the last part.

People of our generation should not be subjected to mornings.

Rbots website

[This message has been edited by James Bond (edited August 13, 2004).]

Two words - classic musclecars.



------------------
-There are easier things in life than finding a good woman, like nailing Jello to a tree, for instance

-Tazz

**SPOILER**

To make things clearer:

1. VIKI is bound by the 3 laws

2. In order to protect us from harm, VIKI reasons that robots must take the reigns for our own protection thus obeying Law #1- A robot cannot harm a human being, nor through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. (We see the parallel with the robot's "cold" logic with the girl and Spooner in the river)

3. The robot computed a 45% chance of his survival and only an 11% survival of the girl. It's logic chose him although he screamed for it to save the girl. A human would have gone for the girl regardless of probability due to our compassion for youth (young people have their whole life ahead of them). And 11% doesn't mean the girl would have died if rescued ... its more then 1% which is still a good chance of survival.

I actually liked it quite a bit. It was very original, which surprised me, and it was really something I could see being upset about, which made the originality more impressive.

Whether or not a human could have seen the girl or rescued Smith or the girl is irrelevant. The point was that given the choice between the two, the robot made a choice that any human certainly wouldn't have made. Hence, the lack of trust.



How can you assume that the government would follow the three laws in the traditional sense? If it is obvious that the robots will easily dismiss the second law in order to enforce their own interpretation of the first, who is to say they will give up their power once the initial transition is complete? Doing so would be inefficient and invite disorganization, which is highly illogical.

I thought it was clear that VIKI had 'evolved' past strict adherence to the three laws. She had her own agenda, and while her goal was ostensibly noble, the second and third laws were quite easily thrown out. To her credit, she did instruct the robots to avoid as few civilian casualties as possible, but that's little comfort...



Wait... conservative Hollywood? As in, the one in California, right? The one that responded to Reagan's agressive stance on communism with a deluge of anti-nuke films? The one that held a venomous Bush-bashing fundraiser in Kerry's honor? The one that shuns conservatives like Mel Gibson and threatens boycotts?

Just making sure.

------------------
Self-righteous people are more sinful than I am.

Read my previous response. If it weren't for robots, they both would have died. If robots had more control over things, they wouldn't have been in the accident in the first place.

And saying "oh a human would do this". No. Humans are irrational and usually stupid. Some humans would have just run away, some humans would have dived in a drowned too, some humans would have rescued Will Smith as well. Saying "but all humans have compassion!" doesn't make any sense. Considering how far down the girl had gone already, I probably would have gone for Will Smith too, unless Smith was jammed in really hard and the girl could be pulled out easily.



The second law reads "A robot must follow an order issued by a human unless it conflicts with the first law". The first law over-rides both laws.
They can't "dismiss" any of the laws. They won't "give up power", as such, because allowing humans to have control of the government would breach the first law. I hate to sound patronising, but please do read the three laws, and then read my reply, I'm actually sort of interested in this debate.




No.

The whole point of all of Asimov's stories is the three laws of robotics. Everything revolves around those. For some reason, VIKI replaced "human being" with "human race", which is totally illogical.
But let's just accept that, and assume the laws read as that. How would a robot government function?

LOUD NOISES!

------------------
There is no signature

1. You talk too damn much. Put a sock in it.

2. I wasn't telling you about my opinion. However I was clarifying what the filmakers wanted the audience to know.

No. Back in the day, when it was impossible to get permission to use Asimov's works as basis of a movie, the director wrote a script called "Hardwired" that was inspired by I, Robot. When he managed to get permission, he integrated his script ("Hardwired") with whatever he wanted from I, Robot.

------------------
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas Adams

Wow, you're on crack. Those two words should never be included in the same sentence.

Sorry, what??

------------------
"In the depths of my darkest winter, I found there existed in me an invincible summer..."

-Albert Camus

Cat Woman isn't black. That alone made me go "not seeing it". If you're going to try to be close to the comic book, try being close to the comic book. I mean you can't make Superman black. You can't make the Green Lantern white. It doesn't work.

------------------
There is no signature

That's actually called the "Zeroth Law," and it reads something like "A robot must do what it can to ensure the safety of the Human race." And it changes all of the other laws to include "... Unless it conflicts with the Zeroth Law."

And they implied it, but they never mentioned it, like I was thinking they would.

/nerd

------------------
[16:38] Correction: dick tracy was a real man
[16:38] happydud: Actually... He wasn't.
[19:08] Dormouse: hi, my name's happydud and i'm passive-aggress.. SHUTUP!! *stabs nearby orphan*
[You have gained 3 Dark Side Points]

There have been multiple Green Lanterns . . . I'm geussing you only know of that character from the cartoons so you only know about John Stewart, and not the current main focus of the Green Lantern comics Kyle Rayner, or the original Green Lantern, Hal Jordan (incidentally at the Wizard World Comic convention I just attended this weekend i found out that the are bringing the character of Hal Jordan back . . . looks to be interesting).

My point is you shouldn't go on about comic when you don't know too much. You're probably the type that hated Daredevil becuase the Kingpin was black too . . . The only actor that would have been able to bring the strength needed to that role was Micheal Clark Duncan.

------------------
"I like my women how I like my coffee, in a plastic cup." - Eddie Izzard