Hollywood Betrays the Vision of Dr. Asimov

  • Thread starter Thread starter Janus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vision
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the adaptation of Isaac Asimov's work in Hollywood, particularly focusing on the film "I, Robot." Participants express concerns about how the film diverges from Asimov's original themes, especially regarding the portrayal of robots and the implications of the three laws of robotics. The conversation touches on the broader issue of fidelity to classic science fiction narratives in film adaptations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the film's plot, which involves robots attacking humans, contradicts Asimov's intent in creating the three laws of robotics, which were designed to challenge the "Frankenstein complex."
  • Others question what significant plot elements may be sacrificed for special effects in the film adaptation.
  • A suggestion is made by one participant to boycott the movie due to its perceived betrayal of Asimov's vision.
  • One participant provides a brief overview of the three laws of robotics, emphasizing their importance in Asimov's stories.
  • Another participant reassures that the director claims the three laws are never broken in the film, suggesting that the adaptation may still respect Asimov's original framework.
  • Concerns are raised about the marketing strategy of using Asimov's name to attract fans while potentially altering the core message of his work.
  • Some participants express a desire for a faithful adaptation of Asimov's "Foundation" series, noting the challenges of translating its complex narrative to film.
  • One participant mentions a related article discussing the portrayal of flawed science in Hollywood films, highlighting a broader trend of inaccuracies in science fiction adaptations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the film's fidelity to Asimov's original themes, with multiple competing views on the implications of the adaptation and its marketing. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on whether the film will honor Asimov's legacy.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific stories and concepts from Asimov's work, indicating a reliance on varying interpretations of the three laws and their implications. There are also mentions of broader issues related to the representation of science in film, suggesting a need for critical examination of adaptations.

Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
3,768
Reaction score
1,982
After reading the reviews and seeing the promos, all I can say is that the "Good Dr." must be spinning in his grave! To make a movie based on his work that revolves around a plot by robots against humans is a slap to his face and memory.

Dr. Asimov created the three laws of robotics for the express purpose of writing stories that bucked the "Frankenstein complex" that plagued so many robot stories of the time. This movie is the complete antithesis to that.

It's getting to the point that I'm starting to cringe every time that I hear that Hollywood is going to do a trearment of a classic SF story or novel. All I can think is "How are they going to screw this up?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Or what significant plot is sacrificed to make room for all of those special effects.
 
Last edited:
Could you expand a little, Janus (or provide a link?)? I'm completely ignorant of Asimov's work here. What are the 3 laws, for example?

edit: n/m - recon's link was pretty good.
 
Don't panic too much. The director said on his website that the 3 laws are never actually broken. And besides, he must have met with the approval of whoever owns Asimov's intellectual property rights. Remember too, that most of Asimov's robot stories involve testing the Three Laws to their limits. Eg. The robot with weakened first law which could have attacked humans, the supercomputer which went crazy, the robots which took over the space station for their religion, the robot murder suspects, robots killing robots to give the appearance that robots were killing humans, the robot governer of the world, robots redesigning the three laws (such as the zeroth law, which Proyas has hinted at...) And so on and so forth.

Don't panic. Yet.
 
First Law:

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

Second Law:

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

source: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html#Laws1940


I remember one story in particular though, where some robot had a Law 0, which could allow him to injure human beings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read I Robot a few years ago and I saw the trailer with all those robots attacking people. I love this book what they are doing to it isn't right. According to lies.com it was supposed to be some action film called hardwired, but they are just using Asimov name for publicity. How would non-geeks react if they just took their favorite classic and changed the whole meaning of it? I bet asimov is turning in his grave as I type this.
 
Clearly, it's just a marketing ploy to title the movie "I, Robot." That way, the producers can be sure to rope in a large segment of Asimov fans.

It's like having John McCain sing the praises of President Bush. It's just wrong !
 
Now if someone made a good movie (series) based on the Foundations, I wouldn't miss it for the world. On the other hand, that would be like the hardest plot to movie-ize.
 
  • #11
I've got the first two R. Daneel novels bound in one book. Daneel was a robot detective who was very careful not to do harm to humans, and who was optimized to seek justice.
 
  • #12
I don't care about the plot for i robot... honeslty set the bar low... then you can be surprised however the teaser special effects look orgasmic so that's what I will be spending my 7.50 to see.
 
  • #13
I remember reading Asimov's book on the laws of robots.

If anybody gets a chance, look at this month's Popular Science's FYI section. The topic is about how physicist (like us) are having more and more troubled with flawed science in Hollywood. It goes on to talk about how Central Florida U. has begun a class studying these movies, and how they are flawed.

I distinctly remember reading how, in the movie Armagendon, If you were to actually put a nuke in the center of a astroid the size of Texas, and blow it in proximity to where they did in the movie, there would have been 2 half-Texas sized asteroids that would have collided with Earth 400 meters apart.

Check it out.

Paden Roder
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K