@jacob4920 People who get too smart to remember the importance of knowing what they don't know have always been common. I suspect it's just easier to see with the ease with which it can be demonstrated to a broad audience these days.
The book "I, Robot" is actually a collection of short stories that are set in the same fictional future, along with several of Isaac Asimov's novels. I read this collection back in 2004 after seeing the movie. Detective Spooner is a character created for the movie, but Dr. Lanning and Dr. Calvin are Asimov's. Calvin is a central character in some of the short stories, as well as novels written by others after Asimov's passing. Going by her description in the stories I read, she seems like more of an unglamorous Lili Taylor-type instead of a woman who could've been a professional model (as Bridget Moynahan was before she became an actor). One story that I remember more clearly than the others involved a robot that was doing something dangerous unwittingly, so Dr. Cavlin put herself in danger, which prompted the robot to stop what it was doing and save her life instead. Clever! When the movie came out, the famous film critic Roger Ebert complained that the story gave credit for the "three laws" to the fictional Dr. Lanning instead of to Asimov. I thought this was a strange complaint--it would be like calling Stephen King one of the founders of the town Castle Rock, or naming J.K. Rowling as the architect of Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Upon reading a few relevant Wikipedia pages, I discovered that The movie's script is not actually an action movie adaptation of Asimov's work, but started as an original screenplay featuring a "Detective Spooner" that was to become a action movie with Asimov characters and the famous "three laws". Here's the confusing part: Dr. Alfred Lanning is a character who appears in BOTH Asimov's writing AND the original screenplay by Jeff Vintar. (scoffs) Hollywood! Am I right? Since I haven't read Vintar's script, I can only go by what's written on the film's Wiki page, which credits Vintar with the characters of Sonny and VIKI. I didn't know any of this until today, so thanks for reacting to the movie and encouraging me to do some rudimentary research.
cheers mate i read the story decades ago but didnt know it was its own little universe so i'll check them out now, wasnt calvin like an 80yr old in the books? also i think you might like the dark tower series by stephen king start with the gunslinger the first book and quite short but each book gets bigger and bigger😁
Yeah, the movie has very little to do with the book, which is a series of short stories which sets out the "Three Laws of Robotics" and explores the paradoxes that they could produce. The movie is just puts a few characters from the book into a lot of action sequences.
I think the movie is closer to Robots of Dawn, in terms of a Police detective investigating the "death" of a robot, but still a completely different plot.
@@glasgowjohn7831 I don't recall reading anything specific about Calvin's age, but the stories cover a number of years, so I think how old she is varies from book to book.
11:17 "It's _crazy_ that they're demolishing this house with everything inside it." It's odd enough that they're demolishing it, _period,_ instead of just _selling_ it.
Asimov developed the "Three Laws of Robotics" - only to dismantle them and show their shortcomings and errors. As a science fiction fan, Asimov is kinda must read. There are several good books in and around his robots and universe.
I am NOMAD. I am perfect. - Nomad. but, Nomad was programmed by Imperfect human. - KIRK . you Mistook James Kirk for Jackson Roykirk. - kirk. YOU , nomad are in ERROR , you must Sterilize. - kirk. error.....error......Sterilize.......error.....- NOMAD.
@@markplott4820 I was never an ST fan but I love the way they explore the deeper questions on artificial life that way. Especially the "Prove I'm sentient" argument from Picard.
Asimov's novels and short stories are great but I maintain you need to be at least a little on the spectrum to really enjoy them. He had an almost supernatural ability to make complex scientific concepts understandable but the way he wrote interpersonal interactions could be off putting to "normie" readers. Personally I love his work.
Always find it intriguing when movies influence real life like this. I always go back to demolition man. The futuristic logo of Taco Bell was later adopted as the real logo that we all see now. But it was originally created just for the movie to portray a futuristic version
Not quite true, the car used in the movie was a genuine pre-existing concept model, which was slightly altered to fit the futuristic setting. Like Bumblebee's Camaro form in Transformers, which was one of many concept cars sitting in a Chevrolet warehouse, that Michael Bay was shown when scouting for vehicles to use in that movie. The fact that audiences loved the design, made Chevrolet put that concept into production as the new Camaro. The Audi concept's use in I, Robot _may_ have influenced their design choice going forward, or they may have already been going in that direction. Lexus had one of their concept cars featured prominently in Minority Report but neither that vehicle, nor it's design elements ever went into production.
"11% is more than enough." That line always stuck to me. The way humans are just reduced to numbers and then decided whether they are worth saving or not is cruel but they are robots. All they know is numbers.
"That was somebody's baby. 11% is more than enough." It doesn't matter what mood I'm in, that line always gets me a little choked up. I'm not sure why some people hate on this movie. While calling any work of art "harmless" comes dangerously close to an insult, this is good, harmless, fun, and everyone's doing their job just fine. I suppose some people might be offended that it isn't a straight up adaptation of Asimov's short story collection, but still...
I was laughing so hard after “nice, nailed it” @33:57I had to rewind twice… You two really are my fav reactors and have been for what, like 3 years now? Idr when I found your page but I wish you had far FAR more subscribers than you do cuz damn your personalities and commentaries are actually enjoyable and contribute to the whole experience. You’re both self-aware, intelligent, genuine, compassionate people and I appreciate your existence.
To be fair it's rather a.. "Sleep/update/out of commission" indicator.. TECHNICALLY all the new robots DID have the 3 laws of robotics and could never do this by themselves, they did this while being in direct contact with microsoft performing "important system updates".
This is something still seen in movies and media today. This is why the ending of the Wonder Woman film had her with golden-yellow power beams and the main bad guy had white/neon power beams. This is why the ending of WandaVision has Wanda with red power beams and the main bad guy with purple power beams. These CGI messes need a way to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys and color is an easy way to do so.
So, I’ve read the book multiple times and the book is fascinating. The book is a collection of short stories. Isaac Asimov establishes the 3 Laws of Robotics, and they seem simple and infallible. Each story in the book shows how the laws are not, and how things are much more complex in a real world application. The first story is a simple case of a robot pushing a little girl out of the way of an oncoming car. By pushing her it harms her, but if it had not acted, she would’ve died. So it broke the laws. Each story escalates in scale until the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction. So in a digitally controlled world, the robots take over easily. This movie was an existing script that they grafted the 3 Laws into. Other than the laws it bares almost no resemblance to the book at all. I don’t hold that against the movie necessarily, because the book as is is unfilmable. But I don’t think it keeps the spirit of the book, or it could’ve been better. I also have always said that the story would be more impactful if Will Smith had been a believer just like everyone else, and come to the conclusion that robots are dangerous and were breaking the 3 Laws. To have him be the skeptic who nobody believes only to be proven right is no character arc for him. It would’ve been much more interesting if, like the characters in the book, he has to begin to consider that the 3 Laws are not perfect. Now that you have seen both The Crow and I, Robot, you guys need to see director Alex Proyas’s masterpiece, Dark City. Just be sure you watch the Directors Cut, because the studio mandated an opening narration in the theatrical cut that spoils everything (studios assuming people are idiots, who would’ve thunk it, right?). And some of Dark City’s sets were re-used by the next movie to be made in that studio and released a year later, something called The Matrix.
I still vividly remember that one story in the book where the supercomputer on the moon on which humanity's every single calculation depends upon, hypothesizes that humans are way too dependant on its calculations and can't do anything without his help, starts small experiments to screw calculations deliberately, but humans still believe it coz it's coming from the supercomputer. He then starts planning for human genocide but some scientists catch on to the plans and defeat the supercomputer by using the three laws against himself. I felt that story could be converted to a screenplay. I know there won't be any action, but it could be a thriller drama film
_the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction_ That part at least is explored in the film, if little else. But I agree with you about making Spooner a believer, that would have been much more compelling I think.
That's not the first story, nor is it in the book at all. The first story is about a girl who has a robot for a nanny but the family gets rid of it because neighbors think its weird. They go to the city and the robot happens to be nearby and rescues her from a piece of machinery, making the family trust the robots again.
That was one of those movies where the marketing for it was SO different from what the film actually was. The goofy stuff is really just in the first 10 minutes, after that it's basically Spielberg's AI but with one fewer apocalypse (and almost as sad).
There was an unmade script for a movie of "I, Robot" written by Harlan Ellison that was later published with concept art as a script/graphic novel. Harlan Ellison once said of Isaac Asimov, "Isaac Asimov had writer's block once. It was the worst ten minutes of his life."
Creepiest Thumbnail of the year so far. As for the book it has no relation to the movie beyond Asimov's three laws of robotics. The book is a compendium of short stories that were originally published in magazines such as Astounding Science Fiction. The stories outlined the three laws and then in different ways explored why those laws could be flawed or even broken. The movie basically writes a completely new story with the three laws of robotics as its starting point.
Technically Dr. Susan Calvin is also in the book, but beyond her name and the fact she’s a roboticist there’s nothing linking her to the Susan Calvin in the film.
The three laws are perhaps the earliest exploration of the AI alignment problem, which boils down to the fact that it’s insanely difficult to explicitly codify human values. The whole point of the stories was to show the innumerable unforeseeable failure modes that arise when you try to explicitly enumerate moral priorities, and no amount of patching is sufficient to fix this fundamentally flawed approach.
Have you not seen Boston Dynamics new humanoid robot? Or the humanoid robots working in Amazon warehouses now? We are MUCH closer to having humanoid robots out on the streets by 2035 than you think.
9:00 Possibly my favourite exchange of the whole movie, and was fairly impactful back when this came out in my youth. Spooner is bringing up all the artistic talents and capabilities of humanity and "can you do these things" as reasons that robots are lesser in his eyes (based on his projection/bias from his accident-induced trauma), and the way Alan Tudyk delivers the simple line of "Can you?" just hits perfectly. It isn't delivered sarcastically (maybe with just a hint of 'I wonder if you could'), there's actual inquisitiveness in Sonny's voice where you can see him having a positive emotion towards the concepts of self-expression and creativity - but at the same time, it shows that many things that humans pride themselves on as examples of our potential, are things that only a handful of us can actually do. At least for me, it instills a bit of fear of the potential of robotics/AI - if all the things that we hold up as human can be programmed into a machine, how would we ever consider ourselves "greater than" or "in control of" our creation?
Another request for you to watch Dark City from the director of this and The Crow. Dark City is a must watch masterpiece whereas I Robot is a fun popcorn flick with some philosophical musings. *However* when you do watch it either watch the Director's cut or mute the sound at the start until you see a pocketwatch. The studio mandated that the cinema version have a voiceover introduction that spoils/explains the plot as they thought audiences would be to stupid to understand it. Think of it as watching the Sixth Sense with an introduction that just gives away the plot twist right at the start because 'you might not get it otherwise'. Personally, If it weren't for the spoiler opening I'd prefer the cinema release to the director's cut... but that voiceover is a real deal breaker.
The movie is a totally different story to the book. The book was more a collection of short stories that showed situations where robots appeared to have malfunctioned, but were shown to be still following the 3 Laws.
The Asimov Robot-books plus the Foundation-Trilogy plus the book-sequels altogether are 18 big books (belonging together) and span a time-period of at least 20.000 years. It is one of the greatest things I have read in my life.
Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles actually deals with the growth of an AI as one of its plotlines. Starting off with it being very simple and then how it learned and got became more complicated. It was definitely an interesting plot line for the whole thing to go down and definitely a fresh take for the franchise hinting that they're actually may have been more than one AI at work in the future besides skynet. Which is pretty damn cool.
In Asimov's various "robot books," one eventually did come up with the "Zeroth Law": a robot cannot through action or inaction allow harm to the human race. That's what Viki came up with in this movie. It was just never called such.
I, bibliophile have a duty to point out it's *not* based on the book, just borrows it's name. Kid me thought this was the most awesome thing he'd ever seen. I remember watching it on an almost endless loop for a little bit. I can't really believe it's almost 2 decades old.
One thing that is especially amusing about the "book" now than ever before is the future predictions. In one of the stories, astronauts in like 2015 were still using giant paper maps with pencils. Not a touch screen in sight. Then they would upload data to their computer by physically feeding it the paperwork. Just really funny in hindsight.
I still feel strongly that this is a prequel to the Matrix. In the animatrix they talk about the origins and its pretty similar to this, with the robots showing they can hurt and evolve and the humans getting fed up with them and throwing them out so they go out and build their own city, 01. It works.
Like a lot of people had commented, this has a couple of superficial things related to the original book series. However, one of books did involve a detective investigating the murder of a robotics scientist that is complicated by his new robot partner being a replica of said scientist.
This is not based on the Robot books. Only the three laws (and some character names) were used. The concept is simar though. Asimov wrote the three laws into his world as a "perfect system", then wrote stories where the laws are circumvented in unexpected ways, showing that perfect systems always have flaws.
This movie is very underrated. It’s a bad adaptation of the Isaac Asimov story. But it’s a very good action/sci-fi flick on its own merit. Another underrated action/sci-fi involving a rogue AI is ‘Eagle Eye.’ It’s worth a watch.
The difference is that Sandra Bullock's character is fascinated by the 20th century, and is surprised and more than willing to reciprocate when kissed.
Probably a more authentic Asimov treatment of a robot would be in "Bicentennial Man" (1999). That film is panned for being as boring as already dried paint, but it's also probably a lot closer to a faithful rendition of Golden Age scifi (though published in 1992 from an earlier treatment in 1976). They added a couple of subplots and changed the ending a bit to try to make it less boring, but other than that, it's pretty close. Possibly adding the subplots was a mistake, as the movie could have been shorter. Another Will Smith film in the "paranoid-but-with-good-cause" genre, but a few years earlier, is "Enemy of the State" (1998).
After learning what kind of person the guy playing Reese is and was during the production of that show - saying things like how great a person Hitler was, talking to an Asian studio executive in a mock Chinese accent and claiming he was actually speaking Chinese, refusing having his character enter a relationship with Carter because she was black (though he hated improvised a kiss with her), initially refusing to have his character save a gay couple, until he was told the firefighters on 9/11 would've done it, and many more things - that show lost all appeal to me.
@@mulrich Well yes, him being a gigantic P.O.S. in real life certainly casts a shadow over things. However, I now feel much better about what ultimately happened to his character. Come to think of it, they had started to deliberately sideline his character a little in the later seasons. The official reason was that the fight scenes were starting to wear on his body, which is why they introduced Sarah Shahi's character to take over much of the physical action. But now I wonder if the actual reason was because everyone wanted to work with him as little as possible.
This movie came out before the iPhone, then I think with the iPhone 5, it was the first time the phone could get wireless updates (without a computer). It immediately reminded me of I Robot!!
For more Will Smith, I highly recommend watching the first three Bad Boys films. Sonny is played by Alan Tudyk, arguably best known for his role in Firefly and its movie follow-up Serenity. Shia Labeouf stars in another film about a rogue A.I. called Eagle Eye
As others have pointed out, this movie bears very little resemblance to the book it takes its name from (actually a collection of short stories).The works of Isaac Asimov are weirdly underrepresented in the world of cinema, given how foundational (heh) his library is to the sci fi genre. His robot series which follows the robot detective R. Daneel and his human partner Elijah Bailey in particular seems like they’re just begging for adaptation, as their structure is more or less a buddy cop mystery. It’s right there, why doesn’t anyone run with it?
Thank you guys so much for watching this movie! This is one of my childhood favourites! God I love the jokes, the Cgi is pretty good for when it came out and *OH MY GOD THE SOUND TRACK!!!* It's so so good, I could listen to it for hours! I'm so happy you liked it!
The only thing this film has in common with anything written by the great Issac Asimov, is the title. The screenwriter has clearly read some Asimov, but just as clearly, didn't understand any of it. By the way; if you want to do your mind an unbelievable kindness, buy and read Asimov's 'Caves of Steel' and then get the next book in the series and keep going.
Um... the three laws were in the stories of the book. Let's see... oh, there were robots in both the book and movie. Um, both were in English. I think that's about it as far as the similarities go.
George was right about Villain, but Simone was correct about Robot. As someone who works in architecture (when I'm actually working...), Viki's chamber would have never passed through the building department, let alone site inspections. they would have been forced to install railings before giving the building go to open for business. I enjoy the majority of the movie, but there is a lot of stupid that I have to overlook to get through it. Also, you might have read this in trivia and cut it from the final video, but this was NOT based on Isaac Asimov's Robot books. They only took the three laws from them. It was actually based on the book Hard Wired. The actual Robot books took the three laws more seriously.
He brought her baby back by giving him the robotic arm and maybe saving his life. Remember at the beginning the dead guy hologram said "good to see you again son" and he programmed a call to him specifically
the short stories evolved into a series of books about R. Daneel and that series then got linked into his Foundation series which takes the story of robots thousands of years into the future and involved galactic empires.
Regarding a somewhat different take on A.I., there's Duncan Jones' "Moon" from 2009, starring Sam Rockwell, and well worth a watch. Also, this movie is way more entertaining than I remember. Time for a re-watch. Thanks for the reaction!
Yeah, while I might "enjoy" it as a generic sci-fi action movie, I also HATE it (like the OG Dungeons & Dragons movie) because it feels like such a bait & switch! (Both have barely ANYTHING to do with their respective namesakes! Which I find insulting.)
There is not really a single book here. Asimov is the most prolific SF writer ever with 500+ novels, but the robot series is mostly comprised of short stories (of which he also wrote hundreds). The 0th law is actually in one of the R. Daneel Olivaw books, a character also used in his later Foundation books, in which he bridged his Foundation universe and the robot universe together. 'I Robot' is the title of one of his short story collections, so not the title of a novel. Action stuff aside, I find this movie to be very well in spirit of those stories. The breadcrumb way of coming to a conclusion is featured in lots of them. The 0th law is a typical reveal. And the philosophy was very prominent. I'd love it if more movies stayed as close to their source material as this movie was.
@@toddjones1480 Really? The info I saw said the first feature film to use motion capture was Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Which came out in 1999. Is this not correct?
@@1938superman Also, looked at the IMDB page for the guy credited as motion capture supervisor on Titanic and found a motion capture credit for The Island Of Dr. Moreau.
@@toddjones1480 I think I’ve figured out where I messed up. I confused the term motion capture with performance capture. The information I’d read stated that Jar Jar Binks was the first entirely CG character created using performance capture. My mistake.
The movie combines elements from several robot short stories e.g, little lost robot and evitable conflict. If going for the book grab the complete robot vs I robot as it is more comprehensive for the robot short stories and novellas
The "book" I, Robot is a collection of short stories published together in 1950. As others have mentioned this isn't based on any of them and had the three laws tacked on to an existing screenplay. One fun fact is that there was a short story published in 1939 with the same name by Eando Binder and it was an inspiration for Asimov. He himself attributed it to the story by Binder and said the publisher chose the title over his objections.
The movie's not based on the short stories explicitly, but some scenes and the entire overarching plot are definitely heavily inspired by them. The scene where Sonny is hiding among the other 1,000 robots is directly inspired by Little Lost Robot; it has almost the exact same setup but becomes an investigation rather than an action scene. And Viki's entire reasoning is exactly what is discussed in The Evitable Conflict
Thank you for this comment. The Dresden Files(Fantasy) has a character named Binder(Earnest Armand Tinwhistle) who binds creatures from the Nevernever to his will. I had no idea!
This movie gets talked about. BUT there is another Science Fiction movie which is VERY SIMILAR to this movie down right to the casting called "SURROGATES (2009)" starring Bruce Willis! That movie does not get the attention as much.
The movie picks up a lot of themes from across Asimov's robot stories. VIKI's modification to her understanding of the Three Laws resembles that of a more good-guy robot in the later novels, who developed a "Zeroth Law" - a robot must not harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to harm itself - that took precedence over the Three Laws, but only just barely.
At the end when Spooner is jumping around the catwalk area at the top of the building his head detatches from his body. It made it into the final cut of the film.
The movie has almost no connection to the original Asimov stories. That said, although they don't name it in the movie, Viki voices what was called the "Zeroth Law of Robotics" in the books, which is: "A robot cannot harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". The other laws were modified to include this new law, but only for two robots.
This comment might ruin your enjoyment of this movie... The laws of robotics that they showed at the beginning make the events of this movie IMPOSSIBLE. The events of this movie also NEVER happened in the source material.
this is very different from the book origins only a couple of names and the three laws of robotics. Asimov actually invented the term robot and created a series of shore stories that mostly involved strange outcomes from applications of the three laws by sometimes damaged robots in strange situations.
Another rare movie with no reshoots or retakes is 1940s The Philadelphia Story. It starred Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart. Stewart won Best Actor for the role. It had been a Broadway play headlining Hepburn. Howard Hughes was so impressed by her performance he bought the film rights for her. Her co-stars were such consumate professionals, and much of the cast came directly from the play. The closest they came was the " hiccup" lines, which any fan of the movie will know, and were ad libed by Grant and Stewart, but they managed to stay in character instead of busting up. It's a favorite with fans of the era. It has ratings of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.9 on IMDb. If you're ever in the mood for a sophisticated Romantic -Comedy it's unbeatable. In the 1950s it was remade as a musical titled High Society, but even Cole Porter's talents couldn't make it better, just different.
This movie was more than solid, and while Will Smith isn't playing anyone besides himself here, this is probably my favorite movie that he stars in.(keep in mind I haven't seen many). LOL Decent little mystery going on, nothing world shattering, and all the characters play their parts well, and the robot sci-fi angle is of course the glue that keeps it all together. Whenever this plays on one of my streaming channels, I always give it a go, and it never disappoints.
Someone probably already answered this; I read all books of Asimov in the library where I lived before I was 16, so.. My memory is hazy. I don't even remember this book, much less if there were direct follow ups, but I can say that pretty much all Asimov's books were kind of "in the same universe", so even in one trilogy that kind of is intended as a stand-alone trilogy they may reference events in another book as if it was something that happened before, so.. I can't say if there is a DIRECT sequel following the same characters, but if there isn't I would be surprised if there ~wasn't~ some book that kind of referenced this and explained something about what happened afterwards, even if only as a small parenthesis with no relevance to the story beyond what they actually explain. I read the books out of order, and the only thing that I "regret" about not realizing that there kind of still WAS a type of time-line is the mere fact that I sometimes realized that I was reading something that was referenced in some other book and I couldn't quite remember how the stories was presented to interweave.. It's not important to understand the books themselves, but I still feel like I may have missed out on some subtext because of it.
(In response to your "movie that shows the robot not already bad") Colossus: The Forbin Project. 60s movie that, in essence, tells the story of Skynet. The 0th Law (Protect Humanity- Viki's logic) is in a few different stories of Azimov.
What VIKI figured out was the "Zeroth Law". In the books, it was determined by an individual robot. That robot kept itself alive for a very long time and appears in the Foundations series, in the prequel. I don't know how many Robot stories there are, I never counted, but there are multiple short stories and several novels. If the movie industry wanted they could make a franchise like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, only longer.
This story for this movie is wholly original and does not exist in book form. However, several parts of this story were taken from some of the short stories in the books. The three laws, the names of the doctors. things like that were used as well.
The movie was extremely fun but they could've explored the fundamental flaws of Asimov's three laws a bit more, they were written as a way to expose the imperfections present in them in the first place. They don't actually poke any holes in VIKI's logic when there are many. It's performances like this that makes me wonder why Will Smith was so slandered as an actor before King Richard, you could feel his emotions when recounting the inhumanity of saving someone based on percentages instead of empathy. (Of course he then slandered himself after King Richard) I still quote "excuse me, I'm just allergic to bullshit" regularly.
The part about why he was slandered before king Richard, well some people know things before the rest of us. Look at Seth McFarlane making fun of Weinstein before it was public.
As others have mentioned, this movie is not based on the book. There are a number of call backs, though. Asimov's short stories include Dr Calvin, the Three Laws, a robot hiding among others, a robot with "softened" Three Laws, a robot which dreams (Dr. Calvin kills that one), the 'zeroth law', and of course positronic brains.
The term "robotics" actually came from I Robot, or one of the stories within at least. Asimov actually coined the word on top of essentially establishing the ideas that would become basically every modern concept of what a robot is.
I don't much care for this movie, it's a bit all over the place and Will Smith just plays himself on autopilot.. But I highly recommend Dark City by the same director Alex Proyas. That movie is awesome.
The AI in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream is "AM," and man what a great story. This movie takes a little bit of Asimov's story "The Evitable Conflict" but with a darker take on it. (It's the final story, I think, in I, Robot.)
Love Simone's "OK!" at 11:14. Might have been a long day of shooting, and she's over any of George's more outrageous comments. Don't ever change, George!
Don't know if you read the comments (or books), but you should really read "I, Robot." According to Isaac Asimov, "I, Robot" (the book) was the first story in the "Foundation" timeline. So, I like to think that the movie version eventually leads to the Apple TV version of "Foundation." Here's the timeline in chronological order according to Isaac Asimov's notes: I, Robot (1950) Caves of Steel (1954) The Naked Sun (1957) The Robots of Dawn (1983) Robots and Empire (1985) The Currents of Space (1952) The Stars, Like Dust (1951) Pebble in the Sky (1950) Prelude to Foundation (1988) Forward the Foundation (1993) Foundation (1951) Foundation and Empire (1952) Second Foundation (1953) Foundation's Edge (1982) Foundation and Earth (1986)
The better take on the premise (even though, technically no donate as such involved) is Surrogates(2009). It even features same actor in same role in both movies.
In the early stages of development there was no collection to Asimov's work. The "I, Robot" name and a few other bits (The Three Laws, Dr. Susan Calvin, etc) were sort of wedged in to capitalize on name recognition without further basing anything on the book (which isn't a novel but a collection of stories only linked by interpretation of the three laws.) In the final story the world's most advanced robots DO essentially take over to protect humanity from itself, but without violence and by working behind the scenes and with enough subtlety that few ever realize that it's happened.
It’s “based” on “I, Robot” in as far as they both have robots and one character from the film shares a name with a character from the book. I won’t even go so far to say they have the Three Laws in common, because the movie plot could never happen in the book because the Three Laws prevent it. If a machine in the book came to the same conclusion as the computer in the movie, it would enter a feedback loop that would either shut it down or leave it otherwise unable to act. In the book the Laws are never broken because they *cannot* be broken. You can’t rules lawyer around them.
I haven't read "I, Robot" but I know people who have, and the movie from my understanding isn't like the book. Fun fact though, the Robot Sonny, from "I, Robot", is also the same Robot that is the Emperor's assistant in Foundation about 20,000 or 30,000 years in the future.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
The allergic to BS joke has lived in my head since I first watched this lol
Lived there rent free lol
Because it's so bad?
It's one of my favorite lines, I've used it so many times and it's always funny that it catches people by surprise.
@@30noir Because it's so good
“Hatchu!” I still do this when people continue nagging BS
"You are the DUMBEST smart person I know" has been in my insult rotation ever since this movie came out.
Facts.
How many people nowadays could that insult be applied to? That's the scary part.
@jacob4920 People who get too smart to remember the importance of knowing what they don't know have always been common. I suspect it's just easier to see with the ease with which it can be demonstrated to a broad audience these days.
The book "I, Robot" is actually a collection of short stories that are set in the same fictional future, along with several of Isaac Asimov's novels. I read this collection back in 2004 after seeing the movie. Detective Spooner is a character created for the movie, but Dr. Lanning and Dr. Calvin are Asimov's. Calvin is a central character in some of the short stories, as well as novels written by others after Asimov's passing. Going by her description in the stories I read, she seems like more of an unglamorous Lili Taylor-type instead of a woman who could've been a professional model (as Bridget Moynahan was before she became an actor). One story that I remember more clearly than the others involved a robot that was doing something dangerous unwittingly, so Dr. Cavlin put herself in danger, which prompted the robot to stop what it was doing and save her life instead. Clever!
When the movie came out, the famous film critic Roger Ebert complained that the story gave credit for the "three laws" to the fictional Dr. Lanning instead of to Asimov. I thought this was a strange complaint--it would be like calling Stephen King one of the founders of the town Castle Rock, or naming J.K. Rowling as the architect of Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry.
Upon reading a few relevant Wikipedia pages, I discovered that The movie's script is not actually an action movie adaptation of Asimov's work, but started as an original screenplay featuring a "Detective Spooner" that was to become a action movie with Asimov characters and the famous "three laws". Here's the confusing part: Dr. Alfred Lanning is a character who appears in BOTH Asimov's writing AND the original screenplay by Jeff Vintar. (scoffs) Hollywood! Am I right? Since I haven't read Vintar's script, I can only go by what's written on the film's Wiki page, which credits Vintar with the characters of Sonny and VIKI. I didn't know any of this until today, so thanks for reacting to the movie and encouraging me to do some rudimentary research.
cheers mate i read the story decades ago but didnt know it was its own little universe so i'll check them out now, wasnt calvin like an 80yr old in the books?
also i think you might like the dark tower series by stephen king start with the gunslinger the first book and quite short but each book gets bigger and bigger😁
Yeah, the movie has very little to do with the book, which is a series of short stories which sets out the "Three Laws of Robotics" and explores the paradoxes that they could produce. The movie is just puts a few characters from the book into a lot of action sequences.
I think the movie is closer to Robots of Dawn, in terms of a Police detective investigating the "death" of a robot, but still a completely different plot.
@@woo545 Is that an Asimov story?
@@glasgowjohn7831 I don't recall reading anything specific about Calvin's age, but the stories cover a number of years, so I think how old she is varies from book to book.
Did anyone notice that in the entire movie there are no trees and there are only plants in the mansion?
11:17 "It's _crazy_ that they're demolishing this house with everything inside it."
It's odd enough that they're demolishing it, _period,_ instead of just _selling_ it.
Around here it’s common for houses to be demolished, but it’s usually the buyer who does it.
Sometimes demolition is often done when a bad event is attached to a house.
Asimov developed the "Three Laws of Robotics" - only to dismantle them and show their shortcomings and errors. As a science fiction fan, Asimov is kinda must read. There are several good books in and around his robots and universe.
I do like the idea as a writting practice, to try and come up with "perfect" law. And how it might be broken, even by its own laws.
I am NOMAD. I am perfect. - Nomad.
but, Nomad was programmed by Imperfect human. - KIRK .
you Mistook James Kirk for Jackson Roykirk. - kirk.
YOU , nomad are in ERROR , you must Sterilize. - kirk.
error.....error......Sterilize.......error.....- NOMAD.
@@markplott4820 I was never an ST fan but I love the way they explore the deeper questions on artificial life that way. Especially the "Prove I'm sentient" argument from Picard.
Asimov's novels and short stories are great but I maintain you need to be at least a little on the spectrum to really enjoy them. He had an almost supernatural ability to make complex scientific concepts understandable but the way he wrote interpersonal interactions could be off putting to "normie" readers. Personally I love his work.
not clicking like because its at 69 and I'm childish.
34:00 The appearance of the car was so popular it influenced the design of Audi for the next 20 years, especially the single frame grill design
Always find it intriguing when movies influence real life like this. I always go back to demolition man.
The futuristic logo of Taco Bell was later adopted as the real logo that we all see now. But it was originally created just for the movie to portray a futuristic version
Not quite true, the car used in the movie was a genuine pre-existing concept model, which was slightly altered to fit the futuristic setting.
Like Bumblebee's Camaro form in Transformers, which was one of many concept cars sitting in a Chevrolet warehouse, that Michael Bay was shown when scouting for vehicles to use in that movie. The fact that audiences loved the design, made Chevrolet put that concept into production as the new Camaro.
The Audi concept's use in I, Robot _may_ have influenced their design choice going forward, or they may have already been going in that direction.
Lexus had one of their concept cars featured prominently in Minority Report but neither that vehicle, nor it's design elements ever went into production.
"a human would have known that"
and the emotional gut punch out of nowhere
"11% is more than enough." That line always stuck to me. The way humans are just reduced to numbers and then decided whether they are worth saving or not is cruel but they are robots. All they know is numbers.
"That was somebody's baby. 11% is more than enough."
It doesn't matter what mood I'm in, that line always gets me a little choked up.
I'm not sure why some people hate on this movie. While calling any work of art "harmless" comes dangerously close to an insult, this is good, harmless, fun, and everyone's doing their job just fine. I suppose some people might be offended that it isn't a straight up adaptation of Asimov's short story collection, but still...
@@Serenity113 NHS in the UK does this everyday
@@The3nd187What do you mean the NHS does that every day?
@@The3nd187 they literally killed a young girl last year. Intentionally.
The movie was directed by Alex Proyas who directed the brilliant "Dark City". That is another movie you must watch
Dark City would drive George absolutely mad while watching it.
If they do, I hope they go for the Director's Cut. It doesn't give away the twist in the first 2 minutes.
Here to back this claim!! Brilliant.
@@Kaspar.C0LD I'm fairly sure they've done The Crow already
@@asmrhead1560 Why?
I was laughing so hard after “nice, nailed it” @33:57I had to rewind twice… You two really are my fav reactors and have been for what, like 3 years now? Idr when I found your page but I wish you had far FAR more subscribers than you do cuz damn your personalities and commentaries are actually enjoyable and contribute to the whole experience. You’re both self-aware, intelligent, genuine, compassionate people and I appreciate your existence.
i love they remembered to put in the "i've turned evil" red indicator.
To be fair it's rather a.. "Sleep/update/out of commission" indicator.. TECHNICALLY all the new robots DID have the 3 laws of robotics and could never do this by themselves, they did this while being in direct contact with microsoft performing "important system updates".
This is something still seen in movies and media today. This is why the ending of the Wonder Woman film had her with golden-yellow power beams and the main bad guy had white/neon power beams. This is why the ending of WandaVision has Wanda with red power beams and the main bad guy with purple power beams.
These CGI messes need a way to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys and color is an easy way to do so.
So, I’ve read the book multiple times and the book is fascinating. The book is a collection of short stories. Isaac Asimov establishes the 3 Laws of Robotics, and they seem simple and infallible. Each story in the book shows how the laws are not, and how things are much more complex in a real world application. The first story is a simple case of a robot pushing a little girl out of the way of an oncoming car. By pushing her it harms her, but if it had not acted, she would’ve died. So it broke the laws. Each story escalates in scale until the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction. So in a digitally controlled world, the robots take over easily.
This movie was an existing script that they grafted the 3 Laws into. Other than the laws it bares almost no resemblance to the book at all. I don’t hold that against the movie necessarily, because the book as is is unfilmable. But I don’t think it keeps the spirit of the book, or it could’ve been better.
I also have always said that the story would be more impactful if Will Smith had been a believer just like everyone else, and come to the conclusion that robots are dangerous and were breaking the 3 Laws. To have him be the skeptic who nobody believes only to be proven right is no character arc for him. It would’ve been much more interesting if, like the characters in the book, he has to begin to consider that the 3 Laws are not perfect.
Now that you have seen both The Crow and I, Robot, you guys need to see director Alex Proyas’s masterpiece, Dark City. Just be sure you watch the Directors Cut, because the studio mandated an opening narration in the theatrical cut that spoils everything (studios assuming people are idiots, who would’ve thunk it, right?). And some of Dark City’s sets were re-used by the next movie to be made in that studio and released a year later, something called The Matrix.
I still vividly remember that one story in the book where the supercomputer on the moon on which humanity's every single calculation depends upon, hypothesizes that humans are way too dependant on its calculations and can't do anything without his help, starts small experiments to screw calculations deliberately, but humans still believe it coz it's coming from the supercomputer. He then starts planning for human genocide but some scientists catch on to the plans and defeat the supercomputer by using the three laws against himself. I felt that story could be converted to a screenplay. I know there won't be any action, but it could be a thriller drama film
_the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction_
That part at least is explored in the film, if little else. But I agree with you about making Spooner a believer, that would have been much more compelling I think.
@@thecompanioncube4211 That's not from the book I, Robot. There are several other books though so it might be one of them.
That's not the first story, nor is it in the book at all. The first story is about a girl who has a robot for a nanny but the family gets rid of it because neighbors think its weird. They go to the city and the robot happens to be nearby and rescues her from a piece of machinery, making the family trust the robots again.
@@winterthemuteson 🤔 you could be right. I read I robot like 25 years ago so I could have mish mashed couple other Sci-fi books in memory.
The Bicentennial Man is closer to an Asimov story.
Yeah much closer. Though Asimov didn't like fart jokes as much as Williams.
God, yes.
That was one of those movies where the marketing for it was SO different from what the film actually was. The goofy stuff is really just in the first 10 minutes, after that it's basically Spielberg's AI but with one fewer apocalypse (and almost as sad).
Yeah, really good movie, just didnt like the love plot, it was unnecessary in my opinion...
There was an unmade script for a movie of "I, Robot" written by Harlan Ellison that was later published with concept art as a script/graphic novel.
Harlan Ellison once said of Isaac Asimov, "Isaac Asimov had writer's block once. It was the worst ten minutes of his life."
Creepiest Thumbnail of the year so far.
As for the book it has no relation to the movie beyond Asimov's three laws of robotics. The book is a compendium of short stories that were originally published in magazines such as Astounding Science Fiction. The stories outlined the three laws and then in different ways explored why those laws could be flawed or even broken.
The movie basically writes a completely new story with the three laws of robotics as its starting point.
Technically Dr. Susan Calvin is also in the book, but beyond her name and the fact she’s a roboticist there’s nothing linking her to the Susan Calvin in the film.
Lol have you seen their other thumbnails? I don't think think there's levels in creep anymore.. is all good
The three laws are perhaps the earliest exploration of the AI alignment problem, which boils down to the fact that it’s insanely difficult to explicitly codify human values.
The whole point of the stories was to show the innumerable unforeseeable failure modes that arise when you try to explicitly enumerate moral priorities, and no amount of patching is sufficient to fix this fundamentally flawed approach.
Very true.
They took a great story collection and tried to make Bladerunner. I hate it.
Have you not seen Boston Dynamics new humanoid robot? Or the humanoid robots working in Amazon warehouses now? We are MUCH closer to having humanoid robots out on the streets by 2035 than you think.
9:00 Possibly my favourite exchange of the whole movie, and was fairly impactful back when this came out in my youth.
Spooner is bringing up all the artistic talents and capabilities of humanity and "can you do these things" as reasons that robots are lesser in his eyes (based on his projection/bias from his accident-induced trauma), and the way Alan Tudyk delivers the simple line of "Can you?" just hits perfectly.
It isn't delivered sarcastically (maybe with just a hint of 'I wonder if you could'), there's actual inquisitiveness in Sonny's voice where you can see him having a positive emotion towards the concepts of self-expression and creativity - but at the same time, it shows that many things that humans pride themselves on as examples of our potential, are things that only a handful of us can actually do.
At least for me, it instills a bit of fear of the potential of robotics/AI - if all the things that we hold up as human can be programmed into a machine, how would we ever consider ourselves "greater than" or "in control of" our creation?
Another request for you to watch Dark City from the director of this and The Crow. Dark City is a must watch masterpiece whereas I Robot is a fun popcorn flick with some philosophical musings. *However* when you do watch it either watch the Director's cut or mute the sound at the start until you see a pocketwatch. The studio mandated that the cinema version have a voiceover introduction that spoils/explains the plot as they thought audiences would be to stupid to understand it.
Think of it as watching the Sixth Sense with an introduction that just gives away the plot twist right at the start because 'you might not get it otherwise'. Personally, If it weren't for the spoiler opening I'd prefer the cinema release to the director's cut... but that voiceover is a real deal breaker.
The movie is a totally different story to the book. The book was more a collection of short stories that showed situations where robots appeared to have malfunctioned, but were shown to be still following the 3 Laws.
"HOLY SHIT she just shot at you with her eyes closed"
I love that line. ahh good Ole Shia before he went a bit nutty.
He was BORN nutty
a bit?
Same goes for Will.
@jasonweible2834 thank you. That boy is nuttier than a bag of peanuts 🥜!!!
@@MakoBallistic Too true. Sad when idols break your faith in them
The Asimov Robot-books plus the Foundation-Trilogy plus the book-sequels altogether are 18 big books (belonging together) and span a time-period of at least 20.000 years. It is one of the greatest things I have read in my life.
my favorite assimov is The End of Eternity. But yeah, all the robots sagas was amazing. I remember The Caves of Steel it was soo good.
@@HernanSoberon Yes, great, the one outside the timeline but still part of the universe 🙂
The Foundation TV Series is in this Universe.
Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles actually deals with the growth of an AI as one of its plotlines. Starting off with it being very simple and then how it learned and got became more complicated. It was definitely an interesting plot line for the whole thing to go down and definitely a fresh take for the franchise hinting that they're actually may have been more than one AI at work in the future besides skynet. Which is pretty damn cool.
The Cameron terminator on that show was fascinating
0:22 Favorite Will Smith quote in the movie is when he points at himself and says “I. I the robot.”
When he said "Robot Time!" and robot-ed all over the place.
The VICKI graphic feels like it’s a direct homage to SHODAN - just without all the wires.
That Audi concept still looks amazing.
Yeah, it looks awesome.
I didn't realise until I looked it up from this reaction video that Sonny is played by Alan Tudyk.
Isaac Asimov is so important to science fiction. Love his works
In Asimov's various "robot books," one eventually did come up with the "Zeroth Law": a robot cannot through action or inaction allow harm to the human race. That's what Viki came up with in this movie. It was just never called such.
"Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams!
THIS!^
So sad
Second this
Doing I, Robot instead of Bicentennial Man seems like an epic facepalm...
Great choice
I, bibliophile have a duty to point out it's *not* based on the book, just borrows it's name.
Kid me thought this was the most awesome thing he'd ever seen. I remember watching it on an almost endless loop for a little bit. I can't really believe it's almost 2 decades old.
One thing that is especially amusing about the "book" now than ever before is the future predictions. In one of the stories, astronauts in like 2015 were still using giant paper maps with pencils. Not a touch screen in sight. Then they would upload data to their computer by physically feeding it the paperwork. Just really funny in hindsight.
I still feel strongly that this is a prequel to the Matrix. In the animatrix they talk about the origins and its pretty similar to this, with the robots showing they can hurt and evolve and the humans getting fed up with them and throwing them out so they go out and build their own city, 01. It works.
Like a lot of people had commented, this has a couple of superficial things related to the original book series. However, one of books did involve a detective investigating the murder of a robotics scientist that is complicated by his new robot partner being a replica of said scientist.
"Gotta get a road pie" I got one of those once. We almost drove off into a ditch.
This is not based on the Robot books. Only the three laws (and some character names) were used. The concept is simar though.
Asimov wrote the three laws into his world as a "perfect system", then wrote stories where the laws are circumvented in unexpected ways, showing that perfect systems always have flaws.
This movie is very underrated. It’s a bad adaptation of the Isaac Asimov story. But it’s a very good action/sci-fi flick on its own merit.
Another underrated action/sci-fi involving a rogue AI is ‘Eagle Eye.’ It’s worth a watch.
Bridget Moynahan in this reminds me of Sandra Bullock in "Demolition Man"
The difference is that Sandra Bullock's character is fascinated by the 20th century, and is surprised and more than willing to reciprocate when kissed.
@@itzbp9949 Yes that movie is awesome.
Probably a more authentic Asimov treatment of a robot would be in "Bicentennial Man" (1999). That film is panned for being as boring as already dried paint, but it's also probably a lot closer to a faithful rendition of Golden Age scifi (though published in 1992 from an earlier treatment in 1976). They added a couple of subplots and changed the ending a bit to try to make it less boring, but other than that, it's pretty close. Possibly adding the subplots was a mistake, as the movie could have been shorter.
Another Will Smith film in the "paranoid-but-with-good-cause" genre, but a few years earlier, is "Enemy of the State" (1998).
"11 percent is more than enough." Favorite line, right above "I'm allergic to b.s."
I am glad you watched this movie!! Check out Eagle Eye and Bicentennial Man too! I think you would enjoy them both.
I couldn't tell you how accurate it is but one show that digs into AI learning is Person's of Interest!
Very underrated show.
Person of Interest is Jonathan Nolan's *good* show about AI. The other one is Westworld.
Check out the Channel "why are movie" for reactions on that series.
After learning what kind of person the guy playing Reese is and was during the production of that show - saying things like how great a person Hitler was, talking to an Asian studio executive in a mock Chinese accent and claiming he was actually speaking Chinese, refusing having his character enter a relationship with Carter because she was black (though he hated improvised a kiss with her), initially refusing to have his character save a gay couple, until he was told the firefighters on 9/11 would've done it, and many more things - that show lost all appeal to me.
@@mulrich Well yes, him being a gigantic P.O.S. in real life certainly casts a shadow over things. However, I now feel much better about what ultimately happened to his character.
Come to think of it, they had started to deliberately sideline his character a little in the later seasons. The official reason was that the fight scenes were starting to wear on his body, which is why they introduced Sarah Shahi's character to take over much of the physical action. But now I wonder if the actual reason was because everyone wanted to work with him as little as possible.
This movie came out before the iPhone, then I think with the iPhone 5, it was the first time the phone could get wireless updates (without a computer). It immediately reminded me of I Robot!!
Love this thing. It's not much. It's just utilize some old robotic sci-fi tropes. But it's a solid movie and you can rewatch it anytime with pleasure.
For more Will Smith, I highly recommend watching the first three Bad Boys films. Sonny is played by Alan Tudyk, arguably best known for his role in Firefly and its movie follow-up Serenity. Shia Labeouf stars in another film about a rogue A.I. called Eagle Eye
29:26 Great in IMAX, with some 50/50 Hybrid Cannabis
The comparison to I Have No Mouth And Must Scream is on point. Love the book and the short story.
As others have pointed out, this movie bears very little resemblance to the book it takes its name from (actually a collection of short stories).The works of Isaac Asimov are weirdly underrepresented in the world of cinema, given how foundational (heh) his library is to the sci fi genre. His robot series which follows the robot detective R. Daneel and his human partner Elijah Bailey in particular seems like they’re just begging for adaptation, as their structure is more or less a buddy cop mystery. It’s right there, why doesn’t anyone run with it?
Thank you guys so much for watching this movie! This is one of my childhood favourites! God I love the jokes, the Cgi is pretty good for when it came out and *OH MY GOD THE SOUND TRACK!!!* It's so so good, I could listen to it for hours! I'm so happy you liked it!
There's a series of books, in the Foundation Series, The Elijah Bailey Chronicles and beyond.
Baley. ;-)
The only thing this film has in common with anything written by the great Issac Asimov, is the title. The screenwriter has clearly read some Asimov, but just as clearly, didn't understand any of it.
By the way; if you want to do your mind an unbelievable kindness, buy and read Asimov's 'Caves of Steel' and then get the next book in the series and keep going.
Um... the three laws were in the stories of the book. Let's see... oh, there were robots in both the book and movie. Um, both were in English. I think that's about it as far as the similarities go.
George was right about Villain, but Simone was correct about Robot.
As someone who works in architecture (when I'm actually working...), Viki's chamber would have never passed through the building department, let alone site inspections. they would have been forced to install railings before giving the building go to open for business.
I enjoy the majority of the movie, but there is a lot of stupid that I have to overlook to get through it.
Also, you might have read this in trivia and cut it from the final video, but this was NOT based on Isaac Asimov's Robot books. They only took the three laws from them. It was actually based on the book Hard Wired. The actual Robot books took the three laws more seriously.
He brought her baby back by giving him the robotic arm and maybe saving his life. Remember at the beginning the dead guy hologram said "good to see you again son" and he programmed a call to him specifically
the short stories evolved into a series of books about R. Daneel and that series then got linked into his Foundation series which takes the story of robots thousands of years into the future and involved galactic empires.
Now y’all can finally appreciate the smash Christmas hit song “Please Don’t Joke About I, Robot this Christmas”
Regarding a somewhat different take on A.I., there's Duncan Jones' "Moon" from 2009, starring Sam Rockwell, and well worth a watch.
Also, this movie is way more entertaining than I remember. Time for a re-watch.
Thanks for the reaction!
How does this compare to the book? They both have robots and that's literally the only thing they have in common.
Yeah, while I might "enjoy" it as a generic sci-fi action movie, I also HATE it (like the OG Dungeons & Dragons movie) because it feels like such a bait & switch!
(Both have barely ANYTHING to do with their respective namesakes! Which I find insulting.)
This killed it for me. It's a pretty good movie, but going in expecting Asimov and getting generic robot action movie was so jarring.
NOT canon.
There is not really a single book here. Asimov is the most prolific SF writer ever with 500+ novels, but the robot series is mostly comprised of short stories (of which he also wrote hundreds). The 0th law is actually in one of the R. Daneel Olivaw books, a character also used in his later Foundation books, in which he bridged his Foundation universe and the robot universe together.
'I Robot' is the title of one of his short story collections, so not the title of a novel.
Action stuff aside, I find this movie to be very well in spirit of those stories. The breadcrumb way of coming to a conclusion is featured in lots of them. The 0th law is a typical reveal. And the philosophy was very prominent.
I'd love it if more movies stayed as close to their source material as this movie was.
Vicky was a valid interpretation of the Zeroeth Law, you know.
15:13 Not just voice. He is in full mo-cap for this role. They only started using the technology in feature films 5 years before this.
Mocap was being used for movies at least nine years before this.
@@toddjones1480 Really? The info I saw said the first feature film to use motion capture was Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Which came out in 1999. Is this not correct?
@@1938superman I can think of at least three movies that used motion capture for characters before that, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin and Titanic.
@@1938superman Also, looked at the IMDB page for the guy credited as motion capture supervisor on Titanic and found a motion capture credit for The Island Of Dr. Moreau.
@@toddjones1480 I think I’ve figured out where I messed up. I confused the term motion capture with performance capture. The information I’d read stated that Jar Jar Binks was the first entirely CG character created using performance capture. My mistake.
I loved the smart cars in this movie, Will's car was my personal favorite (before it got wrecked)
The movie combines elements from several robot short stories e.g, little lost robot and evitable conflict. If going for the book grab the complete robot vs I robot as it is more comprehensive for the robot short stories and novellas
The "book" I, Robot is a collection of short stories published together in 1950. As others have mentioned this isn't based on any of them and had the three laws tacked on to an existing screenplay. One fun fact is that there was a short story published in 1939 with the same name by Eando Binder and it was an inspiration for Asimov. He himself attributed it to the story by Binder and said the publisher chose the title over his objections.
The movie's not based on the short stories explicitly, but some scenes and the entire overarching plot are definitely heavily inspired by them.
The scene where Sonny is hiding among the other 1,000 robots is directly inspired by Little Lost Robot; it has almost the exact same setup but becomes an investigation rather than an action scene.
And Viki's entire reasoning is exactly what is discussed in The Evitable Conflict
Thank you for this comment. The Dresden Files(Fantasy) has a character named Binder(Earnest Armand Tinwhistle) who binds creatures from the Nevernever to his will. I had no idea!
This movie gets talked about. BUT there is another Science Fiction movie which is VERY SIMILAR to this movie down right to the casting called "SURROGATES (2009)" starring Bruce Willis! That movie does not get the attention as much.
The movie picks up a lot of themes from across Asimov's robot stories. VIKI's modification to her understanding of the Three Laws resembles that of a more good-guy robot in the later novels, who developed a "Zeroth Law" - a robot must not harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to harm itself - that took precedence over the Three Laws, but only just barely.
Yep, and the scene with Sonny hiding among the 1,000 robots has the exact same setup as "Little Lost Robot"
It has been a while since I read the books but I think that robot was called Daniel
@@TheFalconerNZ Daneel Olivaw.
@@DrakeAurum Thanks it was over 20 years ago I read the books & wish I hadn't lost them in my divorce or I would read again
This is a really underrated movie.
At the end when Spooner is jumping around the catwalk area at the top of the building his head detatches from his body. It made it into the final cut of the film.
Maybe it was an upgrade that Dr. Lanning gave him.
Since you covered this movie and "The Crow", maybe next react to Alex Proyas' movie between those two, "Dark City".
That thumbnail is both hilarious and terrifying!
I would buy me a Simone Bot from the Merch store in an instant, though.
@@funnyml3356 Of course, and fetch you a glass of milk because you're thirsty 😂
Aside from the name of the film, and the robot the movie is nothing like any of the short stories in Asimov's I robot anthology.
The movie has almost no connection to the original Asimov stories.
That said, although they don't name it in the movie, Viki voices what was called the "Zeroth Law of Robotics" in the books,
which is:
"A robot cannot harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm".
The other laws were modified to include this new law, but only for two robots.
Okay. But you word it as if the movie came up with it first. Not the case.
@@flaggerify
Good point, edited.
Ah yes, the two endings of the Laws of Robotics, "Bicentennial Man" and "That Thou Art Mindful Of Him".
This comment might ruin your enjoyment of this movie...
The laws of robotics that they showed at the beginning make the events of this movie IMPOSSIBLE. The events of this movie also NEVER happened in the source material.
this is very different from the book origins only a couple of names and the three laws of robotics. Asimov actually invented the term robot and created a series of shore stories that mostly involved strange outcomes from applications of the three laws by sometimes damaged robots in strange situations.
Asimov himself stated that the term "robot" was created by Karel Čapet, whose play "R.U.R. - Rossum’s Universal Robots" was published in 1920.
@@jhdix6731 well there you go
Love that George has read some Harlan Ellison. He's my favorite writer and there are so many great stories!
You always save the kitty!
it puts the kitty in the Basket , or it gets the hose again .
it does this when its told.
It's a literal "save the cat" moment.
@@drafezard7315 "Save the cat, save the world!"
In alot of videos I love George’s look of confusion about simones intros , he’s always like huh ? 😂. Love this film has huge rewatch ability
This movie is a great adaptation of the book!
It has so many things in common with it!
Here are some examples:
-The Name
-
-
-
You summed up my thoughts exactly!
Another rare movie with no reshoots or retakes is 1940s The Philadelphia Story. It starred Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart. Stewart won Best Actor for the role. It had been a Broadway play headlining Hepburn. Howard Hughes was so impressed by her performance he bought the film rights for her. Her co-stars were such consumate professionals, and much of the cast came directly from the play. The closest they came was the " hiccup" lines, which any fan of the movie will know, and were ad libed by Grant and Stewart, but they managed to stay in character instead of busting up. It's a favorite with fans of the era. It has ratings of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.9 on IMDb. If you're ever in the mood for a sophisticated Romantic -Comedy it's unbeatable. In the 1950s it was remade as a musical titled High Society, but even Cole Porter's talents couldn't make it better, just different.
This movie was more than solid, and while Will Smith isn't playing anyone besides himself here, this is probably my favorite movie that he stars in.(keep in mind I haven't seen many). LOL Decent little mystery going on, nothing world shattering, and all the characters play their parts well, and the robot sci-fi angle is of course the glue that keeps it all together. Whenever this plays on one of my streaming channels, I always give it a go, and it never disappoints.
Someone probably already answered this; I read all books of Asimov in the library where I lived before I was 16, so.. My memory is hazy. I don't even remember this book, much less if there were direct follow ups, but I can say that pretty much all Asimov's books were kind of "in the same universe", so even in one trilogy that kind of is intended as a stand-alone trilogy they may reference events in another book as if it was something that happened before, so.. I can't say if there is a DIRECT sequel following the same characters, but if there isn't I would be surprised if there ~wasn't~ some book that kind of referenced this and explained something about what happened afterwards, even if only as a small parenthesis with no relevance to the story beyond what they actually explain.
I read the books out of order, and the only thing that I "regret" about not realizing that there kind of still WAS a type of time-line is the mere fact that I sometimes realized that I was reading something that was referenced in some other book and I couldn't quite remember how the stories was presented to interweave.. It's not important to understand the books themselves, but I still feel like I may have missed out on some subtext because of it.
If your man likes chicken, he might like Chicken Man! That's the Chicken Man guarantee! 😂
(In response to your "movie that shows the robot not already bad")
Colossus: The Forbin Project.
60s movie that, in essence, tells the story of Skynet.
The 0th Law (Protect Humanity- Viki's logic) is in a few different stories of Azimov.
What VIKI figured out was the "Zeroth Law". In the books, it was determined by an individual robot. That robot kept itself alive for a very long time and appears in the Foundations series, in the prequel. I don't know how many Robot stories there are, I never counted, but there are multiple short stories and several novels. If the movie industry wanted they could make a franchise like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, only longer.
Spooner shouldn't be so harsh with his grandmother, if he doesn't want her to have a robot to help her then he should carry her shopping bag.
This story for this movie is wholly original and does not exist in book form. However, several parts of this story were taken from some of the short stories in the books. The three laws, the names of the doctors. things like that were used as well.
The movie was extremely fun but they could've explored the fundamental flaws of Asimov's three laws a bit more, they were written as a way to expose the imperfections present in them in the first place. They don't actually poke any holes in VIKI's logic when there are many.
It's performances like this that makes me wonder why Will Smith was so slandered as an actor before King Richard, you could feel his emotions when recounting the inhumanity of saving someone based on percentages instead of empathy. (Of course he then slandered himself after King Richard)
I still quote "excuse me, I'm just allergic to bullshit" regularly.
The part about why he was slandered before king Richard, well some people know things before the rest of us. Look at Seth McFarlane making fun of Weinstein before it was public.
As others have mentioned, this movie is not based on the book. There are a number of call backs, though. Asimov's short stories include Dr Calvin, the Three Laws, a robot hiding among others, a robot with "softened" Three Laws, a robot which dreams (Dr. Calvin kills that one), the 'zeroth law', and of course positronic brains.
Underrated movie, I remember when my dad and I rented it back in the day and we loved it.
The term "robotics" actually came from I Robot, or one of the stories within at least. Asimov actually coined the word on top of essentially establishing the ideas that would become basically every modern concept of what a robot is.
I don't much care for this movie, it's a bit all over the place and Will Smith just plays himself on autopilot.. But I highly recommend Dark City by the same director Alex Proyas. That movie is awesome.
The AI in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream is "AM," and man what a great story. This movie takes a little bit of Asimov's story "The Evitable Conflict" but with a darker take on it. (It's the final story, I think, in I, Robot.)
Love Simone's "OK!" at 11:14. Might have been a long day of shooting, and she's over any of George's more outrageous comments. Don't ever change, George!
Don't know if you read the comments (or books), but you should really read "I, Robot." According to Isaac Asimov, "I, Robot" (the book) was the first story in the "Foundation" timeline. So, I like to think that the movie version eventually leads to the Apple TV version of "Foundation."
Here's the timeline in chronological order according to Isaac Asimov's notes:
I, Robot (1950)
Caves of Steel (1954)
The Naked Sun (1957)
The Robots of Dawn (1983)
Robots and Empire (1985)
The Currents of Space (1952)
The Stars, Like Dust (1951)
Pebble in the Sky (1950)
Prelude to Foundation (1988)
Forward the Foundation (1993)
Foundation (1951)
Foundation and Empire (1952)
Second Foundation (1953)
Foundation's Edge (1982)
Foundation and Earth (1986)
Alert! any similarity with Isaac Asimov's work apart from the title is pure coincidence.
The cyborg arm reveal is so good.
In my own head cannon I've always seen I, Robot as a prequel to The Matrix
This may require familiarity with the Animatrix to see just how similar this world feels to the canonical history of the Matrix universe.
The better take on the premise (even though, technically no donate as such involved) is Surrogates(2009). It even features same actor in same role in both movies.
The Crow, I Robot, are we doing Alex Proyas movies? If so...then include the Gods of Egypt 😂😂😂
'Dark City' first, please. 'Knowing' would be a good reaction as well.
In the early stages of development there was no collection to Asimov's work. The "I, Robot" name and a few other bits (The Three Laws, Dr. Susan Calvin, etc) were sort of wedged in to capitalize on name recognition without further basing anything on the book (which isn't a novel but a collection of stories only linked by interpretation of the three laws.) In the final story the world's most advanced robots DO essentially take over to protect humanity from itself, but without violence and by working behind the scenes and with enough subtlety that few ever realize that it's happened.
It’s “based” on “I, Robot” in as far as they both have robots and one character from the film shares a name with a character from the book.
I won’t even go so far to say they have the Three Laws in common, because the movie plot could never happen in the book because the Three Laws prevent it. If a machine in the book came to the same conclusion as the computer in the movie, it would enter a feedback loop that would either shut it down or leave it otherwise unable to act. In the book the Laws are never broken because they *cannot* be broken. You can’t rules lawyer around them.
I haven't read "I, Robot" but I know people who have, and the movie from my understanding isn't like the book.
Fun fact though, the Robot Sonny, from "I, Robot", is also the same Robot that is the Emperor's assistant in Foundation about 20,000 or 30,000 years in the future.
Y'all should watch Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams.