I, Robot - My Fault

[RogerFGay]

When I suggested to Will Smith that he should do "I, Robot" I warned it was inevitable that people would say the result wasn't close enough to the Azimov's writings. Go ahead - you try. Azimov's books are for reading and I understand that translating it to cinema is a big challenge. For me, there were many scenes in the movie that were exactly what I imagined as I read. Smith's character was a little experimental but after Independence Day, I was completely convinced that a little of his characteristic cockiness would make it more entertaining for modern audiences. I still laugh when I think about him smacking the alien in the face (Independence Day) in their first face-to-face encounter. Azimov's work is not comedy however and I would take that back today, but would still be very happy with Smith as the lead character. I am willing to take responsibility for Smith's humorous deviation from pure Azimov. It was my fault. I will say however, that his portrayal merely added a little rather than being completely different (while not denying that the addition made it different). Starting at the beginning (unlike Star Wars) with the short stories was my fault too. My expectation - more Azimov based films - through the robot, galactic empire, and most definitely the foundation series.

Russian immigrant Azimov blended commentary on mass social (and political) movements and cultural differences in his writing as clearly as descriptions of science and environment - which rivaled Jules Verne. The robot rebellion itself, complete with central computer, mirrored the Bolshevik Revolution and rise of Communism. He defined (take this literally) the meaning of "hero." (One person can make a difference.) Some might have been more satisfied had the film included a Blade Runner type narration to beat home particulars - to have made the central computer's (V.I.K.I) reasoning for the take-over clearer. While viewing with others previously unfamiliar with the story, I heard some "What?" - "Why?" and even a "What's wrong with that?" The apparent loss of understanding of the evil of dictatorship and value of freedom convinces me that Azimov's work is as important today as it ever was.

I think it is important to bring Azimov's work to the screen, not least because it is some of the very best science fiction produced in the twentieth century. And I do prefer keeping films true to the original work. I would argue that this film is the best adaptation of Azimov so far. Letting action speak for itself - to some extent - is not entirely wrong in film. I am hoping that sci-fi fans everywhere will join me in encouraging more Azimov at the movies in the future; regardless of the challenge. Perhaps a nip and tuck here and there will bring the experience a little closer to the read. But I will now caution viewers just as I caution movie-makers. If you really want the full experience of the original writing - read it!

[DoctorDoom]

Unfortunately, adaptastion of classic SF to the big screen becomes an irresistible temptation for Unholywood to compromise the story in favor of gee-whiz CGI. Why bother with the plot when computers can create mind-blowing eye candy that distracts the audience from cardboard characters and thoroughly bad science?

[RogerFGay]

Unfortunately, adaptastion of classic SF to the big screen becomes an irresistible temptation for Unholywood to compromise the story in favor of gee-whiz CGI. Why bother with the plot when computers can create mind-blowing eye candy that distracts the audience from cardboard characters and thoroughly bad science?

I want them to stick to Azimov. There's a huge pile of gold in running through the three series back to back - potentially as or more profitable than Star Wars. Azimov's science is good, both in the soft and hard science fiction sense. His positronic brain is still futuristic today. The three laws are still credible to all but a few extremely serious robotics researchers. (And BTW: Azimov found its weaknesses first.) The overall social poltiical message is taken to scientific definition and simplicity.

I've been looking at short articles on the rumored "I, Robot sequel" - written by people who don't know what they're talking about. One says - there is no series of robot stories by Azimov - another wants a shift toward a Battlestar Galactic movie.

I find the reactions and arguments quite predictable, but totally irrelevant. The closest I've found to an interesting comment was that it could have been closer to another Blade Runner. Well not exactly, but I always saw Del Spooner as a somewhat quiet character, closer to Harrison Ford's portrayal of Rick Deckard in Blade Runner. As a book character, it was sort of his job to go around observing things so that readers could find out about them; and of course necessarily get involved in the action, and Azimov's social - political message should not be overlooked - 1984 meets Star Trek. Adding some narration to add Azimov's perspective so well presented in his writing ... a la something like Blade Runner could be helpful if done right - I'm just not exactly sure what done right means in this case - just that Blade Runner is the closest mention I've seen to the idea.

I'm starting to think maybe Brad Pitt instead of Will Smith.

[RogerFGay]

Unfortunately, adaptastion of classic SF to the big screen becomes an irresistible temptation for Unholywood to compromise the story in favor of gee-whiz CGI.

I've thought about Azimov on screen for years. There are two problems. One is that it would take advanced special effects. I don't believe Azimov could have been done well without advanced computer graphics. The second one is all the thought; the social / political implications and analysis. I'm just starting to take an interest in utopian / dystopian films. Believe it or not, I had never seen or read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 etc. until recently. Maybe this will give me some ideas.

[RogerFGay]

Is it a good thing or not that Ronald D. Moore is said to be writing the "sequel" to I, Robot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_D._Moore

[DoctorDoom]

I don't believe Azimov could have been done well without advanced computer graphics.The graphics are available, but given Hollyweird's notion of SF, Asimov adaptations will sacxrifice depth for graphics. And that, unfortunately, is what the average sci-fi film fan wants. They're not interested in deep plotting, strong characters and sociopolitical commentary. They want action, explosions and bodies dismembered in creative ways, without their having to think.

Star Wars provides that sort of shallow, SFX-intensive entertainment. Asimov's series couldn't be converted to the big screen without gutting them to attract a mass audsience. That would be intolerable.

Gott verboten if Unholywood ever decides to do Foundation.

[DoctorDoom]

Is it a good thing or not that Ronald D. Moore is said to be writing the "sequel" to I, Robot?I never heard of him prior to this thread, but given that he has two Hugos to his credit, if anyone is going to do a sequel to "I, Robot", he is probably the best choice.

That said, one must remember that he's working for perople with one interest: $$$$$$. As a capitalist, I have no qualms about that, but in order to make SF films that maximize box-office take, the films must appeal to the LCD of audiences, not just to SF fen who know what wormholes and Spindizzy drives are, and who can quote the Three Laws of Robotics from memory.

To make a profitable SF film, it's necessary to appeal to those who are clueless about what real science fiction requires, and who expect ray guns, noisy space ships, and robots that look like Kristanna Loken.

Moore knows it and his writing must be directed to that end. He might be a hellova screen writer, but adapting Asimov to film mandates compromises that no SF purist can accept.

[RogerFGay]

I never heard of him prior to this thread, but given that he has two Hugos to his credit, if anyone is going to do a sequel to "I, Robot", he is probably the best choice.

What I'm thinking is that Star Trek, even more so in ST-NG and even the flics (and even in what is to me the lesser Battlestar Galactica), there's a whole team that's involved in the stories; not just one cowboy, a robot, a girl, and a mystery. You can bring more of the social - political commentary to the screen through additional characters, as Azimov did in his novels.

If you've read my other post today, you know I've been watching films that are social - political commentary - so-called soft sci-fi. They pretty much hammer away at their point however until just that makes you feel bad if nothing else. The challenge for Azimov on screen is a better blend of soft and hard science fiction; perhaps quite ground-breaking if they do it well. How about another Hugo?

[TeenageRepublican]

I haven't read I, Robot. Is it any good?

[gnome]

I, Robot is a collection of short stories that is an excellent starting point if you want to get into Asimov's main universe.

My problem with the movie: it was not with Will Smith, or because they took liberties with the stories for the sake of cinema. It was because they completely REVERSED the underlying theme of the stories (spoilers):

In the "I, Robot" stories, humans give robots more and more power to manage their affairs, on one occasion unknowingly hiring a humaniform robotic mayor, and eventually building giant Robot brains to administer entire nations. Eventually under the First Law (not harming humans or allowing them to come to harm) the robots realize that usurping the ability of humans to guide their own destiny is harmful to them, and begin to malfunction intentionally.

In the movie "I, Robot" you have the overdone plot where the robots decide to take over under the First Law for humanity's own good. That's not only a movie cliche, it's exactly the opposite of Asimov's books.

[DoctorDoom]

The challenge for Azimov on screen is a better blend of soft and hard science fiction; perhaps quite ground-breaking if they do it well. How about another Hugo?The challenge is converting an Asimov story or novel to a screenplay without dumbing it down to make it palatable to people whose idea of SF is Starship Troopers.

The bottom line always prevails over integrity. If a film will cost $30M to produce and distribute, and its audience consists of a subset of movie viewers who are into SF rather than sci-fi, it will NOT recoup the production and distribution costs. Hollywood isn't about to do that.

If a film that depicts an alien growing from an egg to full size in a matter of minutes (e.g., Species) does well at the BO, then we will see films that include such impossibilities. If a film that is faithful to at least basic science does poorly, it will not be repeated.

An old maxim of SF writing is that an author is allowed one impossible thing per story. Most of what passes for SF on the screen is impossible things, with the only difference being the brazenness of the disregard for scientific accuracy.

It is extremely unlikely that a film based on works by Asimov or any other notable SF author will be faithful to the source. Movie-goers don't want to think. They want to be entertained.

Ergo I, Robot depicts robots and computers deciding to take over, whereas in the stories, as gnome pointed out, "the robots realize that usurping the ability of humans to guide their own destiny is harmful to them, and begin to malfunction intentionally."

The average ticket-buyers don't want noble, self-sacrificing robots. They want deadly ones that the hero(es) must vanquish. And that's what they will get.

"Danger, Will Robinson!" is passe.

[gnome]

If I were to take an Asimov story and make a movie out of it, I would use "The Robots of Dawn" as a starting point.

Throw in a little more action, perhaps, and some charismatic actors (I always envisioned Ricardo Montalban as Kelden Amadiro, but sadly he's dead)... and this story can have some kick.

Foundation might work if they didn't stick too literally to the story, which is kind of dry, but perhaps used a young/old Hari Seldon, and combining parts from the original trilogy and Prelude/Forward. Maybe key parts of the original trilogy as a "framing" story with the meat of the film(s) being the far more dramatic Prelude period. Then it's on to "Foundation's Edge" for a sequel.

ETA: A Foundation project will never happen unless there's more really successful Asimov stories made into films. So far we have Nightfall which was horrible, The Bicentennial Man which was too sappy, and I, Robot which almost doesn't count.

[RogerFGay]

If we think outside of sci-fi, it seems easier to imagine incorporating the dimensions of Azimov in a movie. All it takes is the will to do it. Take M*A*S*H for example. One might argue that was a boring story, just some people living in tents and worked in a medical unit. But that didn't stop if from being a blockbuster on account of interesting events and dialog; and in a foreign setting.

I watched 1984 the other night. Again - how dull can you imagine such a film might be - about a whole bunch of people who don't think for themselves and a person who dares to think that 2+2=4. Throw in a nasty representative of the dictatorship, and you're done?

I suppose this comment could acknowledge that simplicity works, as long as you have great production values, great acting and directing, writing .... some interesting things to look at along the way. THX 1138 - how dumb was that - a chase movie kind-a sci-fi version of Speed (with a twist). Amazing how much Lucas stole from other films to create that (not Speed which came later) ... but what do you expect -- it began as his student project.

But anyway - what I'm thinkin' is - if such simple themes work, .... maybe I'm not telling this right - you might have to take my word for it - there's a logic to this even though ....

The story is important. If you can get people involved in something, they'll buy it. Unconventional things have been done and worked and become award winning films. In Slaugherhouse Five, the audience is taken out of the normal time stream - all you need is an excuse. Even the excuse in this movie was not totally clear - which amazing as it may seem - gave it a mysterious quality that was relished by many. It's arguable whether the story is sci-fi because it involved time travel (for which it won a Saturn award), or that the main character did not enjoy real life and spent much time in his own imagination, remembering past events and fantasizing. I think the truth is that Kurt Vonnegut found a way to write without bothering so much with organization; not really even one story but more some sometimes related short stories. From a writer's perspective - that's pretty cool - it's rare to impossible to get your creative juices flowing at their best starting at the beginning of chapter 1 and proceeding continuously in order. If you're in the middle of writing a novel set in war torn Europe, there's nothing to stop you from waking up thinking about last Sunday's wedding, or while your creative juices are flowing, about living in a bubble on a distant planet as a zoo exhibition for unseen aliens. One imagined representation of the war could be Hogan's Heros humorous and another tragic. In getting away with it, I think he did a better job of portraying the way real human imagination works - giving the sense of getting into another person's mind. He understood the main point of this part of my rambling, about making sense of a story no matter how it's told ... just tell the audience what to expect so they have some way to relate to it - Vonnegut simply said - I have become unstuck in time. He was then able to jump all over the place ... pretty much do whatever his imagination felt like doing. He didn't need extreme simplicity in the story - just in the explanation - the rationalization for what was happening - simply being unstuck in time.

I'm sure that I have rambled - but I'm in the midst of tryiing to figure out how to do Azimov in the best way. I think the arguments given here about the simplicty of Hollywood fiims is a reasonable way to understand the problem. If Vonnegut can get away with jumping all over the place by saying his character is unstuck in time, then there's no limit to what can be done - simplicity in the "excuse", providing a place for the audiences' imagination to sit while watching whatever is presented - not necessarily simplicity in the story. Let the audience know where they're supposed to be - and then tell the story you want to tell in whatever way you want to tell it. All I'm trying to do is figure out how - even Hollywood - could do it well. I quite frankly think that with the computerized special effects, combined with big studio budgets, and the amazing amount of talent that's out there - it's really possible to do Azimov well today. Whether they will is another story - I'm just hoping - and wondering what they mean by a sequel to I, Robot - are they just going to make something up - or do they intend to move into the robot series of novels?

[RogerFGay]

Come to think of it, Star Wars is not a bad comparison. You have the "big picture" context - the battle between The Empire, etc. and all that. Given the context, you can focus on different people and events in different times and places - for example; Luke's training with Yoda. Azimov should not be done as a series of chase movies, not as simple action films; they need the "big picture" context that allows focusing on the elements Azimov provides.

I, Robot wasn't too bad, even though it may have focused on Will Smith too much. The worst example of that kind of mistake I can think of is Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Maybe Stephen King should write the screen play and direct.

[RogerFGay]

That's not only a movie cliche, it's exactly the opposite of Asimov's books.

A bunch of Azimov stuff has been ripped off and repeated. The answer is to tell Azimov's stories and include the big picture context. The rip offs are over simplified and pale by comparison. If done right, even those who think there's "cliche" involved - i.e. who've never heard of Azimov - are going to end up with the satisfied feeling that this take on the ideas is just better than the rest.

[RogerFGay]

As I recall, Journey to the Center of the Earth (which I will probably watch again this week after about 48 years since the last time), based on a novel by Jules Verne might be an ancient, pre CGI example to think about. All they really needed was a goal and they could move through many caverns of the imagination (so to speak).

I think in the end, the answer I'm looking for is just do Azimov. All the brainstorming seems to just be a way of convincing myself that the books can be made into great movies. I started out differently you see. To me, Azimov has always been for reading. A bit hard to imagine at first that there's any other way.