Friday, December 1, 2006

I Read I, Robot

That's right, folks. I had read it before (and before the movie came out as well), and this is kind of a joint venture.

First, the book.

If you've never read science fiction (and I mean, actual science fiction, and not fantasy), or do read science fiction, but have never read I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov, then there is probably a serious problem with your reading list. I, Robot is not only part of the science fiction literary canon, but probably deserves a place in the American literary canon as a whole.

Which makes it required reading.

The book itself is definitely not the greatest story ever told. In fact, it's not even the half-dozen greatest stories ever told, which is really what the "novel" amounts to. The book is, in theory, the musings of one of the first great robotocists, Susan Calvin (the name might sound familiar, but I assure the character is not). Realistically, the book is a collection of short stories bound into a single purpose by the o'-so-clever narrative device of the interview. It is mildly successful in this regard. What it is incredibly successful in doing, though, is establishing the Three Laws of Robotics, which will become very important in the rest of the Robot Series.

Here's where you should be impressed:

The stories are logical, adhere completely to the Three Laws, and are a pretty interesting look into what the future may be like.

Here's where you might not be impressed:

It's slightly repetitive, the characters do not seem to have multiple dimensions, it's completely dialogue driven, and the dialogue is not super-inventive. It's also a bit dated (considering that some of the stories of the "future" occur in 1996).

Still, you'll keep reading because you want to find out how they figure out what the newest dilemma is, how it meshes with the Three Laws, and what are the solutions. And, then, of course, it is a great primer to read the Robot Series, which is more or less an actual novel series with the same characters.

That is, the same characters from the movie.

Sort of.

Because the plot of the movie, I, Robot, is more closely aligned to Asimov's second book in the series, The Caves of Steel. In it, a detective is assigned to investigate the death of a scientist, and this human, like almost all humans, distrust and dislike robots. The detectives name is not Spooner, as Will Smith's character is, but it's the same guy.

That's why the credits state "Inspired by the work of Isaac Asimov." Not even based, "inspired." My friend would argue that the movie was not very "inspired" at all, but then again, he's a huge Asimov fan as well as working on a Ph.D. in robotics. Those facts aside, he does have a point: why call the movie I, Robot, and then pretty much completely disregard the tenets set forth in said book? Robots seriously do try to harm humans, and despite some flimsy pretenses about "the greater good," (which you will find in the book), they are doing so in clear violation of the First Law, something the book is determined to say is impossible. In this regard, the movie is an abysmal failure, and it's sort of sad that one of the most beloved science fiction books is so grossly abused for sheer commercial gain.

That being said, I liked the movie. It was fun. The action was good, the special effects were good, the dialogue was decent, and it had all the charm of a Will Smith movie without all the Wild, Wild West baggage. Yes, the movie is not the book. It's not even Asimov, truthfully. But it is entertainment, and for that, you can't find much fault. Part of the problem with movie adaptations of books (and the cliche is almost universally true: the book is always better), is that devoted fans are devoted for a specific reason. Those reasons generally do not find their way to the silver screen. Even as great as the Lord of the Rings movies were, I can still hear my friends grumbling about the lack of Tom Bombadill in the Fellowship (which should help demonstrate just how geeky me and my friends are).

Anyway, go read the book. Read the rest of the series. And then read Asimov's true masterpiece, The Foundation series. His style is simple, and yet his ideas are definitely profound. He tails off, at the end (considering he picked up the series decades later), but the man is one of America's most prolific and important writers.

And then go watch the movie again, and remember that said gifted writer was in no way involved.

Peace.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I approve of this blog.

I would go out on a limb and say that Wild Wild West is the better movie because it has all the fun, action, special effects and tried-and-true plot devices, without the pretension and baggage of adapting Asimov.

This is how I feel about a lot of art/entertainment. Art is best when it is fresh, and well constructed. Entertainment is best when it is entertaining and not bogged down in being something it's not. Art can be entertaining, entertainment can be artistic. And then there is a dark black hole between the two where everthing is a disaster. A quick e.g. section:

The Mummy - Good entertainment, very little artistic/philosophical value. Plot holes and historical errors abound, but it is clear fun that is intended and so all is forgiven.

Charlie Parker's Music - Good art. Difficult to appreciate on first listen, but revolutionary, genre changing music that will leave a lasting impression on the future of human music.

I, Robot - The enterainment and artistic/philosophical intentions of the film are clashing. The prolonged fight scenes undermine the subtleties while the emotional revelations of the humanoid robot hurt the viewers in a movie that was trying to be fun only moments ago.

Anways, just thought I'd post that

archmandrate said...

I think the problem with your thinking is that your are possibly not looking at this with an objective eye.

I don't want to claim bias, but it seems to me that you wanted the movie to be like the book, and unfortunately for you, it wasn't.

That does not make it any less entertaining, though. I can see there being initial disappointment, perhaps even resentment, but in the end, the movie version had all the elements necessary to make for an enjoyable experience.

Clearly what is "art," and what is "entertainment" are subjective labels, and therefore need to be understood and interpreted as opinion. If you didn't like the movie, fine, you thought it was a bad movie.

But if you thought it was a bad movie simply because it didn't resemble the story you were familiar with, then I suggest you watch it again, this time with no expectations of what it will be. I know this is hard (I sat through the three Star Wars prequels hoping to Jesus that they would be awesome, and walked away disappointed every time. My attachment with the story was too great to get over the fact that the movies might have been entertaining.

I'm realizing as I write this that the book of I, Robot might hold the same effect over you. However, for someone who enjoys what Will Smith can do on screen, or who likes a fairly decent action movie, or excellent special effects, try the movie version again.

You may not hate it as much as you think.

Anonymous said...

I see what you're saying. It is a good point to not let a good memory of a book, or for that matter an original version of a movie, spoil what could be fun movie. This is true.

But I think what I was saying about art and entertainment, would stand up outside of the remake area. My main problems are movies stuck between the two worlds. Or come to think of it, book, music etc. that make the same mistakes.

So for instance, the very serious movie that is ruined because someone decides a wacky charecter must be thrown in to amuse children. Or the fun movie spoiled because someone decides that we must learn some moral from it. You see what I mean?

I, Robot the movie has a case of this. Perhaps if it wasn't a remake, it wouldn't be so glaring, but I still think it has a sort of clashing double identity of fun-filled romp and introspective "makes-you-thinker" (it's late and I can not think of the word).

Wild Wild West has picked its team and doesn't leave it. I, Robot the book is quite light on action to highlight the stories. So, what I'm saying is, I definitely understand enjoying a movie for itself and not letting memories of its inspiration make me say I don't like it. I like Jurassic Park the movie, even though I think they worsened the story with pretty much every change they made (the old man's change of heart, the children aren't the same, the lawyer is one-dimensional...), but I still like the movie for what it is.

What I mean is that I, Robot the movie has the problem of trying to be all things, which some movies not derived from books also suffer from.

Anonymous said...

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_robot

archmandrate said...

One thing about the movie that I think you are all forgetting: the numbers don't lie.

Check out this: I, Robot to see just how popular this movie was. 144 million! That's a lot of loot. That means that people thought this movie was worth going to. Profit-wise, it wasn't the greatest block-buster ever, but it still proved itself as being successful.

As for the product placement stuff, well, yes, it was egregious. However, I can honestly say that it didn't really faze me all that much. Maybe I'm so used to being inundated with such things. I'm going to say, though, that I really didn't notice it (yeah, the Converse thing was blatant).

As for the gay thing: well, that if that story was any more made-up, it could pass for a 15-year-old girl going to her first high school party.

Face it: the movie was fun. You didn't like it. I did. It's not the book. Sorry.