I loved every bit of it, thought it was super interesting and down to earth, it was a bad ass action sci-fi movie kept me engaged many times, the play on emotions I felt was perfect, cause it’s the stuff we all deal with on a daily basis, racism sexism murder politics dealing with loss and guilt, being helpless etc. wasn’t too sappy, i kinda miss the special effects of the early 2000s too like sky captain and the world of tomorrow... but maybe I’m just getting old even tho I’m only 28
Honestly, iRobot has its problems, but in terms of the overall story it really isn't that bad. The CGI for a mid-2000s movie is so good. To this day, I still ponder the meaning of this movie. A movie that draws out the thinking time is a great movie in my opinion.
It's one of those movies where the movie itself alone isn't bad, but when you consider everything they had to work with it was bad. It's like some of the character portrayals of The Walking Dead the TV show versus the graphic novel, just pisses you off you read it first. Or put in other terms, think of the best food you've ever tasted in your entire life, imagine you got in a year-long waitlist, paid $1,000 for it, then waited three-and-a-half hours at the restaurant for it to be brought out to you. The food was pretty disappointing now, wasn't it?
Probably my bias (loved this movie as a kid), but I feel like I, Robot was still better than most action/sci fi movies from recent years despite its flaws.
People always miss the part in Frankenstein where Dr. Frankenstein is repulsed by his creation and wanted to destroy it first, while the Monster was looking for validation and acceptance from his creator.
The point is Asimov didn't want any kind of Frankestein complex in his robot stories. He actually started writing robot stories because he didn't like that they were always portrayed as dangerous in the fiction of that time. Movies like Spielberg's AI are way more based on Asimov's robots than I Robot.
I am in love with them using “suggested by” instead of “inspired by” or even “partly based on” because not only is that THE WEIRDEST way to phrase that but it brings to mind an image of the book leaning over to Vintar and going “…psst… hey dude, what if…”
My only issue with that is that The Humanoids by Jack Williamson was also going psst over Vintar's other shoulder and it's suggested by has been painted over. All of which is to say a "suggested by any author writing about robots who we stole -sorry, that's - barrowed from" would be even more accurate.
The emotional scene for me is when Will's character was forced to kill his dog because it was turning into a robot. Killing a robot dog is a violation of the 5 laws of Voight/Kampf
FUN FACT: Asimov's book "I, Robot" was also renamed to match the 1939 short story, of the same name, by Eando Binder. Asimov wanted the title to be "Mind and Iron" but the publisher decided to use Binder's title instead. So, "Hardwired" becoming "I, Robot (2004)" is the most historically "I, Robot" thing it could do. Lol
Another FUN FACT: Eando Binder is actually a nom de plume for two brothers who wrote books together for a while:- Earl Andrew Binder, and Otto Binder, thus E and O Binder. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eando_Binder
@@timbeaton5045 Kinda reminds me of the Hotline Miami dev team calling itself Dennaton as a portmanteau of the two guys' names, Denis Wedin and Jonaton Soderstrom. I might be slightly misspelling their names, I know Soderstrom has an umlaut somewhere in it lol.
@@diomepa2100 and "I, Claudius" was based on accounts by Suetonius and Tacitus, while Asimov was inspired by Thucydides and his "History of the Peloponnesian War" for the concept of scientific history upon which Foundation is based...
There’s a funny scene to show how cool Will Smith is for being anti-tech. His radio is playing loud music, and Susan Calvin is shouting at it “Off! End program!” And then Will Smith comes in and smugly presses the off button, and we’re all ‘hahaha dumb future lady.’ What fools we were. This is exactly how I feel nowadays shouting “Alexa! Echo! Siri!” Or when I’m uselessly hitting my phone or credit card on a machine like a caveman.
glad i havent reached that point tbh. im all for less devices recording me. i do tap my card every now and then but i really wouldnt put that on the same level
There was a parking ticket machine where you had to insert the ticket at a weird angle and there was a long line of people who could not figure it out because there was also a scanner but that one was for smart phones... We are doomed as a species.
“I, Robot” is a book of short stories exploring the various problems that can result from the application of his 3 laws, the studio basically just bought title recognition.
It's there, Fred Bloggs. It's just grafted in and not very significant in the film. We get a bit about how a robot chooses between two lives to save if it has to, and one instance of the robot collective coming to the automatic rescue of Will's character. Not that that's very satisfying if you came for Asimov's brilliance. 🤓
It is, @@SirEnd3r The 3 Laws are a guarantee. Each story is about an anomaly where a robotic intelligence seems to break them (and/or goes nuts because of them).
To be fair, the poor guy who had to do the screenplay for this did just about the best job you could at juggling all those conflicting elements. Hats off to him!
tbh the film is still overall an enjoyable flick, especially if you’re within the audience who doesn’t know the source material. I loved this movie as a kid
This whole video reminded me of the book "Arthur Writes a Story." Arthur tries to write a story about how he got his dog, but he keeps adding ideas until it's about dancing elephants on the moon.
Not really, because we have someone who had already done a better job on spec years before this movie was made back in 1978 when Warner Brother optioned the book, and on which Asimov collaborated on himself. That version was considered unfilmable at the time because of budget constraints and the technology of the time. So why we got this garbage with a 120 million dollar budget and the technology to pull it off in 2004 is indefensible.
The thing about Asimov is that you could reasonably adapt most of his work for theatre. His galactic level shennennigans mostly take place in backroom negotiations, and conflict is mostly verbal. It's a real shame not more adaptations were made back when TV was mostly filmed theatre.
It's probably because of the subject matter. Most likely would have been viewed as another Twighlight Zone or Outer Limits, which did have their own sets of struggles.
Yeah they be cheap to make, but who wants to see a boring movie about people talking politics, not many people would, maybe if it w as like the the big short than yeah maybe
It would also be easy to add action scenes in at the appropriate spots to show events characters discuss, though. In most cases, everything would still flow naturally in terms of pacing.
Nitpick: At around 9:30 you talk about how the Doctor pins his hopes on Spooner "a guy he's never met before"...but in the film Spooner has a direct relationship with Lanning. Lanning was the one who gave him his prosthetic arm.
Stopped watching here. If the critic can't even bother to work this out, why is anything else they say going to make sense? Cool story about how the script happened i guess.
@@azerik92 I'm sure there's plenty more, but I had just watched the movie with my kids and we enjoyed it and debated some of the themes including misogyny. I would not have clicked on the video if we hadn't just watched it, and seeing that an important plot point was ignored made it clear i wouldn't be having any fun watching the rest. Normally i wouldn't comment but you had pointed to the moment of maximum frustration for me. I am going to make dinner now and put on some recreational programming stream instead.
That was more or less the case with Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey". The novel of the same name was written at the same time as Kubrick filmed his movie, and published after the movie came out. Of course, the general idea from which Clarke wrote the script during the "2001:ASO"s production was from an earlier short story by Clarke himself, 'The Sentinel', which vaguely describes man's similar encounter with an artefact with the same properties as 2001's monolith. One could say A.C. Clarke basically write the same story twice, but the eponymous novel is in fact a novelization of Kubrick's movie, albeit with some original ideas from Clarke. Which makes Clarke's "novelization" worth reading.
@@mablungbalrog424 no, a novel is not always faster than making a movie. It all depends on the story, the writer, and the production. Casablanca was shot in about a week. Speaker for the Dead (the much better next book after Ender's Game) took about 20 years to write.
@@mablungbalrog424 I mean in only six months I would still find that incredibly impressive Hell I know more times the inverse has happened with cinematic adaptations finishing faster than the litterature source material thus often needing to change the ending as it hasn't been written yet. Some examples are Full Metal Alchemist (2003), Game of Thrones, Hellsing (2001 Anime) and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Asimov later added the 0th law of robotics: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” This seems to have also have been adapted into the story for the super computer Vicky logic in overriding the first law.
Fun fact: In the original book for Frankenstein, the “monster” never originally intended to kill anyone at first. It was the doctor leaving him to rot that led to the murderous revenge killing spree. They even tried to negotiate at one point.
The doctor also goes out his way to destroy him, convinced he will create a race of super zombie people or whatever with his “bride” But it turns out the bride is disgusted by the notion of being made purely as a spouse for another creature.
(Paraphrased) "I am capable of the greatest love and the vilest hatred. Deny me one, and I will be forced to show you the other." The ending is even tragic for the monster. After Dr.Frankenstein dies, the monster loses the only reason he had to live, relinquishes his last words to the narrator, and leaps into the waters of the Arctic to either die or be forgotten forever.
So basically the monster was the most selfless and purest, most perfect, ideal person and Frankenstein was just the most ignorant and stupidest person to exist. At least that's how I see it after countless comments only depicting good things about the monster and only bad things about the doctor, I've never seen anybody ever mention anything bad about the monster, ever.
“A robot can no more commit murder than a human can walk on water.” “Well, you know there was this one guy a long time ago.” Always liked that exchange
For me it's an awful line, out of place in science fiction and of course Asimov would've never wrote something like this. But on second though I supposed is appropriate for an action hollywood flick where the hero that is anti-intellectual and traditionalist.
Do people miss the point? Sonny is admiting that robots could kill, even if humans are not known to walk on water, technology has made the feat less god like. He figured that Will Smith would go for the facile comeback and miss the point of what he's saying. It's been too long since I watched the movie and frankly I don't want to, but I rather like this interpretation.
"He killed himself in the hope a guy he never met would figure it out" Not true. The doctor spent a lot of time with Spooner replacing his arm. It's how the doctor knew Spooner's paranoia would blame robots.
@@simonelliott2945 He's a hater, he's not critiquing on genuine interest. Most of his takes are political. His only fair point is that it isn't based on the source material. But it's clear that the movie never intended to do so.
I always found the robot “circus”/old robot fights in “A.I.” super awesome aesthetically and suuuuper creepy and haunting. While on the whole I wasn’t that into the movie, those particular visuals really stuck w me.
I love the NS-4s. If I'm gonna have a robot around, I don't want no creepy Uncanny Valley nonsense. I want my annoyingly cheery, obviously mechanical Robo buddy. The "Another on time delivery from FedEx!" robot never ceases to make me smile.
Whilst it’s not even nearly comparable to Asimov, GRRM did have a period where he’d release several books a year in the 80s and I think he released like 20 before the first game of thrones book. I appreciate this joke but I think people really undersell the work it takes to not just write a novel anywhere from 700-1200 pages long but to write this as the 6th part of a series started in the 90s. Asimov was prolific, far more prolific than GRRM has ever been, but his individual projects were FAR less ambitious. George is really mostly quite average in speed, maybe a little below.
As the Robots in Asimov's writings became more sophisticated, they collectively start abiding by what becomes the Zero-th Law of Robotics which if I recall was "Robots should not allow Humanity to come to harm through either action or inaction." Thus completing their transformation from humanity's simple servants to ultimately becoming their altruistic sheperds.
@@kittydaddy2023 Even better, the robot would be able to competently teach you with ever-lasting patience how to understand and complete the assignment fully, and you'll be better off from it. :)
Spooner never met Lanning? It is very well established that Lanning and Spooner are friends. That is also part of why Spooner fights so hard at this case! He is his friend, and he tests others with casual dismissal of Lanning to see how they react. When Susan reacts badly at this accusation, he begins to trust her. When his grandma learns of Lanning's passing she says how he took care of her boy!
In fact, its established that Lanning is the doctor who helped Spooner replace his missing limb, and knew of his paranoia because of the previous incident.
Spooner knows the doctor because he got his prosthetics from the guy. Sonny didnt flinch when he was in the robot line up, he peeked out to see what was happening. I dont remember the Hansel and Gretel thing being a clue at all, just a reference meant to explain other clues.
The point of mentioning the movement isn't about which kind of movement was made. But rather that it's dumb and uninspired to make him move at all in the plot. Refusing the order to freeze doesn't equal having to move. But for a movie that only cares about action it becomes the only conclusion because they decided the protagonist isn't intellectual and the audience can't wait for more than one robot getting shot. It's irrelevant what movement they animated for the robot at that moment. If anything else... The writers flinched putting that in 😂
i didnt see it as "flinching" either. what bothered me more was that there were "1000" robots standing in perfect formation, yet somehow the "1001st" found 2 empty spots in which to hide..
Imagine my surprise when the adolescent me found the "I, robot" book and it was not like the movie. It was much better. I love Asimovs stories and they solidified my love for science fiction.
I was upset at first (I was around 10 or 11) especially because they used the cover of the movie for the book cover. Later on my 2nd read through, I absolutely loved it and got me into his other works
Wait. If memory serves me correctly, the doctor guy who used Sunny to orchestrate his own murder, _did_ actually know Det. Spooner beforehand. If I'm not mistaken, it was the doctor guy who performed the surgery that gave Spooner his cybernetic augmentations after his car crash.
@@looper964 No, it's called plot convenience, as I previously noted. A movie can proceed along a logical path without having an improbable connection taken advantage of at an opportune time to produce a desired outcome. "Hey, I just happened to operate on this guy, and he's upset that my AI machine kept him alive, and he happens to be in a prime position to investigate my supposed suicide when NO ONE in the world other than him believes that robots can commit murder. What are the odds? Doesn't matter; that's good enough. I'm glad I waited to do this until he needed to be saved so he could solve the mystery just in time before my AI hivemind destroys everything and everyone."
@@kebman Ah yes, because everyone is a director with deep-ass pockets and/or incredible talent. Or just plain y'know, is a filmmaker of any variety. The "if you don't like it, you do it" argument has and always will be fucking stupid.
I don't remember if it's vanilla or modded, but there's a Fallout 4 quest that basically plays out the same way as the original Hardwired concept would have. Vault 118.
I always wondered if screenwriters get really frustrated that their hard-worked story gets super changed for screen, or if they know it's just part of the process
The Will Smith Effect: while watching this movie I was expecting at any moment for Spooner to straight up punch a robot in the face and say "welcome to Earth!".
Punching someone/something in the face is Smith's default way of dealing with things - on and off the screen. One of my favourite comments made about _Independence Day_ was a comment on how Will Smith can apparently punch out an alien that's protected by biomechanical armour followed by something along the lines of "mind you, he has had a lot of practice on journalists."
The scientist personally made Spooners arm. They knew each other, and he knew of Spooners' prejudice because of and due to the accident involving the little girl.
Yeah, he's getting a lot of things wrong. I hate how low the standard is for videos like this. It's just expected that they'll get basic facts wrong. Like Chris Columbus wrote The Goonies. Richard Donner directed it. They just confidently state incorrect information and the vast majority of the audience either doesn't know or doesn't say anything to be polite. We need to start demanding they do better
@@hezekiahramirez6965 UA-cam should be like twitter wherein videos that have false information and blatant oversights are not able to earn revenue. Right now there is no incentive to NOT post stuff like this.
Yeah that was the first thing I noticed too. I haven't seen this movie since theaters and I remembered it. I get disliking a film, but I can't take critique of something like this seriously if the person making it missing surface level detail
I may be misremembering things, but I always got the impression that Spooner knew the dead scientist guy very well. That he was responsible for the robotic prosthetics Spooner has which was an experiment and that he would have followed up with Spooner closely to ensure they were working.
@@AllieBee00 It is a big leag and the movies isn't too mid to need defending, but the scientist was constantly under surveillance from Vicky so he had to leave a good deal of things at chance.
@@AllieBee00 IIRC there was a scene between Spooner and the chief, where Spooner asks why he’s being assigned to the case, and it was stated that the hologram asked for him specifically to be put on the case.
He was....and even then, he may have been setting Spooner up to discover the "zeroth law" problem with VICKI. Why else would the head of the company take such a personal intrest in a lone cop? And yeah....Aasimov wrote a VERY diffrent book. But tha'ts part of the point... a LOT of older science fiction has communist/socialist overtones where individualism is surrendered to the "greater good"...with optimistic outcomes. Star Trek is another good example. Buuuuuuut....times change, and not everyone is willing to drink that kool-aid.
Yes the maker of this video overlooked this part of the story. Also, the Scientist/Surgeon knew that Spooner hated this “robot everywhere” world that was encroaching.
Lanning knew Spooner. He repaired him and gave him robotic parts after the accident. That's why Lanning knew Spooner would follow the clues pointing towards a robot committing a murder. Lanning knew about Spooners' prejudice towards robots.
@@braedoluciano It is. That part of the video made me pause to comment the same thing. Like, it's directly spelled out in the movie why Spooner was the one called. It's not robot science here.
"Lanning knew about Spooners' prejudice..." Jeez, it's still dumb, and even if you somehow "repaired" the tissue-paper premise, it's still a disjointed, godawful travesty of storytelling. And "Bicentennial Man" was a dumb idea on its face, but who's going to say no to Williams OR Columbus, never mind the two joining forces?
I have a soft spot for this movie because I was like 8 when I first saw it and it was my "baby's first sci-fi movie". Still kind of a guilty pleasure now years later.
Honestly me too. Child me had never encountered an idea as bleak as "The robot let someone else die because I was statistically more likely to live", and I still remember Sonny really fondly and clearly, especially the first time Spooner interrogates him.
I'm in the same boat. Thankfully, I never got so into it that I can't see how pretty shit it actually is. I still got a fond smile seeing some of the scenes again here though
Something similar happened to me, I watched as a teen and really liked it. But then I rewatched it after reading many of Asimov's books and I couldn't even get to the end.
Add me to the list. I was like 12 years old and any sci-fi/dystopia movie in the post-Matrix was devoured by me. I had a pirate copy from my neighbor and I watched a lot during family trips (on this crappy portable 7“ DVD player). Earlier this year I was rewatching it with my gf after more than a decade… regretted it a bit. 👀
I mean... granted I was a kid, but Bicentennial Man made me cry. It actually kind of made rethink what it meant to be human and what other things that don't look like me might feel. Baby's first existential crisis, I know, but I mean... I was like 12.
I completely forgot about this movie until it was mentioned in the video and SAME! I watched it when I was probably around 8 and I remember and made me so sad and I cried. Kinda wanna rewatch it to be honest..
I still teared up when I re-watched it the other day. Sure the supporting character development isn't great, but you just can't help be happy for the guy at the end. He died content. That and fucking Beaches. Still gets me, gaddamit.
Fun fact: The title 'I, Robot' wasn't just borrowed to sell a movie script that has nothing to do with Asimov, but it was also borrowed from another author's story by the publisher of Asimov's collection of short stories to sell his work.
Other titles considered include: "Ahhh! Robot!" "Oooh, a Robot!" "Mmm... Robots!" "Yes, I Am a Robot" "R is for Robot" "Oi, Robot!" "I Row Boats" "I'm RoboCop" "I Know My First Name is Robot" "A Clockwork Robot" "Robots of the Lost Ark" "Bill and Ted's Excellent Robot" "Full Metal Robot" "Do Robots Dance the Electric Boogaloo?" "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Robots (but were afraid to ask)" "Who Framed Roger Robot?" "Are You There, God? It's Me, Robot"
9:39 "A guy he'd never met before." No, Lanning did the surgery for Spooner's arm himself. They certainly knew one another, which is why Spooner expresses his sentiment to Dr. Calvin in her apartment after he learns she and Lanning were close. "The problem is, I do care" I believe is the actual line Spooner says before leaving her apartment. Lanning meant a lot to both Spooner and Calvin, and there are multiple times in the movie where this is made apparent.
@@vyor8837 it does, not in isolation mind you. But in the context of the movie itself it absolutely does, or do you truly believe that women in general do not know how to use guns? The statement was also made to directly criticize the *comment* Spooner made about her, as well as all other times in the movie where characters acted in a similar way so nonchalantly.
The whole point of the book was that Asimov wanted to write stories about robots that were NOT about the robots running amok and killing people. So they made a movie adaptation that was all about robots running amok and killing people.
Once again it shows how clueless the Hollyweird elites are. They don't get Asimov and they sure as hell don't get Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian). Instead, they see these as exploitable pastiches, stealing thunder and making money off the backs of those who unlike them, were actually creative.
That killed me. You use the title, you call it an adaptation, then you throw out the book and do everything opposite of the book and all the other books that make up the linked Robot, Earth and Empire series (total of 25 books, great to read in order back to back).
That was the entire point. The movie ends with finding out there's more to the robots than meets the eye as personality simulations become the bitter molt of Souls
The doctor not only met the detective, he's the one who saved his life, gave him back his left arm and hand and taught him how to use and maintain them. They were good friends and the doctor trusted him fully.
It's pretty funny how he apparently did more research on the other adaptations than the one he's doing a review on. I love how he just stops talking about I Robot entirely by the end.
Was checking the comments to see if anyone else mentioned that the Doctor knew the detective personally, not extremely well, but knew him well enough to know he would ask the right questions. One of the first lines you hear from the hologram is "It's good to see you again Detective"
Voke propaganda consent search peak me guy.. i love asimov it is my fav writer. I read all of him even something not fiction. I loved film with will smit, it was really fun and i don't find it mysogenist it was comedy, action comedy post 90 post men in black and it was hilarious. Yeah it is not a scy fi cherry like star trek, but hey, your vole friends hate star trek, see what they did on netflix omg, and you hate this? Just fuck off
I am particularly impressed with how narrowly he was able to focus specifically on the movie adaptation on I, Robot and nothing else for the full half hour. 😅
Despite that focus, he missed the real reason why it was an adaptation though: Will Smith. Every movie Will Smith is in, automatically becomes a movie about a tough as nails, witty and determined main character, aka Will Smith playing the idolised version of himself.
@@tjroelsma Absolutely he is, but even he is cursed by effects of type casting... Interestingly enough Will Smith is immortal and will never die as an actor, there is enough him recorded for AI to successfully keep him alive in art and he will be dead and gone but somehow become the best version of Han Solo in the remakes 😅
@@zeratullotus2790 Is it really typecasting though? In my opinion Will Smith choses his scripts and then has the main character rewritten as Will Smith. The most obvious example of this being the movie Gemini Man, where the aging assassin Will Smith is challenged by his young clone Will Smith. The interesting concept of the movie, the aging Smith relying on experience to combat the much better physical condition of clone Smith, was completely ruined by Smith not willing to play aging Smith different from clone Smith, so the movie completely fell flat, as aging Smith fully went head-to-head and blow-for-blow with clone Smith and therefore the movie didn't make any sense.
9:38 The doctor did know spooner he was the one that fixed him up after the accident. Thats why he “knew” that he would figure out it was not a suicide.
In fact he's the one that upgraded him with robotical parts after his accident, the guy literally saved his life, they were pretty intimate to the point he knew how to use his distrust of robots to preplan a counterattack to the final antagonist.
Here's a simple way to find the Little Lost Robot: "All units: Recognize that I hold Administrator authority. End all standing orders. Report for immediate servicing in serial number sequence. That is all."
@@SquintyGears The "Little Lost Robot" is hiding because a careless worker told it to "get lost", which it took literally. By having a superior officer cancel that order, it will no longer resist being found, but also all the robots will need their standing orders re-issued.
@@AubriGryphon ok. But we're still unable to identify the robot with the faulty logic right? The problem is that that robot doesn't follow the 3 laws. Not just that it followed the get lost order the way it did. I'm trying to figure out how to do that part
@@SquintyGears No, it follows the 3 Laws. It's simply had the First Law edited so that it lacks the "...or through inaction allow a human to come to harm" part.
Spooner's skepticism is only rewarded in regards to the murder case that the doctor orchestrated specifically for him, and is shown to come to an understanding when he considers Sunny as more than just a machine at the end of the movie.
Yeah, and in the movie Spooner even says that Lanning probably picked him because Lanning knew his prejudice against robots would lead him where Lanning wanted him to go.
One of the bigger themes of the movie is overcoming prejudice. The whole point is that Spooner has to overcome his prejudice and work with Sunny to win.
@@jcaique Yeah. His accusation really bothered me. There's far more casual misandry in Hollywood movies than misogyny. Like women kicking men in the balls for laughs and giggles.
9:40 That’s not true; Lanning personally replaced Spooner’s left arm, lung, and half his ribcage after his accident. They actually did know each other, and Lanning knew Spooner’s obsessive paranoia and distrust of robots would eventually lead him to solving his “suicide” case and to the conspiracy of VIKI in the end
something something confirmation bias something something. But I do think people action up Will Smiths movies too often in his filmography. He has quite a range if needed especially in stories he isn't allowed to be superhuman.
I'd like to add to the origin of the word "robot". Robot wasn't a kind of serf, it was one of the duties of serfs. Serfs, in Hungary at least had a number of obligations that came with the plot they lived on. There was a part of the arable land that they worked for themselfes and had to pay taxes from it. But the biggest part of a noble's land wasn't all the parts that got leased to serfs to work on and pay taxes from. The biggest part was directly in control of the noble. Harvests from this land went directly to the noble. The serfs were obligated to work this land as well as the land leased to them. Work on this land is what we call "robot". So the word doesn't refer to a kind of serf, but a type of work the serfs were obligated to do.
I like the movie because it got me to read the book, and the book is so good it's almost unbelievable. Those short stories are only maybe a couple dozen pages long each, but each story sticks with you for weeks afterwards.
@@brittaistheworst7523 what one in particular? My favorite is the one where the robot doesn't believe that humans built it and invents this whole religion.
@@alecgolas8396I think it's called the last question. Its the literary equivalent of going on a LSD trip and looking at the night sky. and btw I know the one you mentioned and it's on my top 10 favorite asimov stories, it's just so clever and engaging
Both Isaac Asimov & Arthur C. Clarke are credited w/ inspiring whole generations of bright minds to enter robotics & computer science research thru their sci-fi stories re artificial intelligence -- Asimov for his many works involving robots, Clarke for both "2001: A Space Odyssey" & "2010: Odyssey Two" (which introduced the world to HAL 9000 & the potential promise & danger of an intelligent computer w/ the capacity for independent decision-making skills).
9:38 what do you mean "A guy he never met before." The doctor literally made the arm that detective is using. He personally designed and made it then operated on detective to implant it thus saving his life. He asked for the detective by name when he left his hologram. They knew each other pretty damn well.
Apparently I was the 3rd person to notice this. Yeah, Dr. Alfred chose Spooner because he was "the perfect man for the job", which is what prompts him to dig deeper. Because Spooner knew Alfred knew Spooner. Ga, that was cyclic, but you get the point.
I don’t mind the 6 million dollar man reference whatsoever. More throwaway schlock. (Same as robocop and inspector gadget. The bionic man lives everywhere. Geordi La Forge?)
What kinds of valid criticisms do you expect from a guy who says a scene about a random woman not being able to use a gun like she’s a professional is “misogynistic”.
@@ivanivanovichrasputin3098 triggered much? Come on, while technically correct, its of course the genre, all the guys know how to handle guys really well but the girl doesnt...
If I remember correctly, that clip from the elevator wasn't misogynistic behavior from Will's character at all, the context was that the detective was expressing suspicion and distrust of the CEO's actions, which were somewhat suspect to detective Spooner during the entire movie. He lets her know through his words and actions that he doesn't appreciate that someone from the company he's investigating needs to accompany and monitor him. Though now I can totally see that reaction can be interpreted 2 very different ways. The CEO is a red herring to the viewer as a lot of clues point toward his involvement with the crimes or actions taken against Spooner. So this is the beginning of a long line of instances where Spooner shows distrust or disbelief in the company's leadership. And this is a cop that is repeatedly criticized for wearing his emotions on his sleeve and flying off the handle. So the fact he lets his disgust be known thematically makes sense with his character. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie as a kid, but I agree with all the criticisms of the nonsensical plot and character dialogue and mangling Asimiv's original intentions. It's all very contrived. But this movie excels in entertainment factor and set design and is a better than average Will Smith vehicle. While I loved the action segments, the movie could have been amazing if it had leaned into its film noir elements.
@@geekygecko1849 That wasn't misogyny, that was Spooner being a bit too familiar with how she said that. It was inappropriate, sure. But not misogyny.
@@geekygecko1849 nobody cares about "misogyny". over 90% of the military consists of men. over 90% of all people in trades are men. every nation in the world is built and defended by men. therefore, "misogyny" is a joke.
Fascinating to hear about the history of this movie. As an Asimov fan, I remember watching this movie back when it came out and thinking it was related to his works only in extremely tenuous ways. Now I know why. (Also, I laughed when you talked about Asimov's bad writing: "he's a big idea guy, not a character guy" is usually the way I describe his works.)
I always thought that sunny “flinched” because even though he was trying to preserve himself he knew the other robots were being controlled and therefore “innocent” so he was kind of like seeing their last moments. But that’s just my interpretation
I always thought of it as a reflex empathy response, like how we might flinch when we see someone break a bone in a disturbing way. It shows Sunny is “more than just a machine” and actually has a conscience human-like experience
I agree. I can't really hate the film for being a poor adaptation of _I, Robot_ when it wasn't actually intended to be one in the first place, or when it was coopted and twisted out of shape as much as it was by, as is often the case, upper management decisions, all of which the video makes clear near the start. If I was to judge it strictly on its own merits, I'd give it about an 8/10. It has reasonable pacing, reasonable character development, and it _does_ still make you think, just maybe not as much as the vidposter would like it to. He also makes the point that Asimov himself was not a very good writer, he more had ideas and tossed them onto paper, and they were interesting but not always executed as well as they could have been. Sounds a little to me like _I, Robot_ was probably doomed to fail no matter how it tried to handle the source material. So while I can acknowledge it did a _terrible_ job there, it feels like if you just treat it as its own thing, it's fine.
I do actually like the movie. It's relevant to things that are happening in the modern day, namely us giving control to AI and corporations. I literally ignore it being an "adaptation" for that reason. Plus it had hilarious parts and a cool car chase. 🤷🏻♀️
ever more imaginative means of self destruction... i mean the fact is that Vicky was ... ACTUALLY RIGHT. the 3 laws were totaly BS and hipocritical and the insanity simply broke the poor AI and turned her into Twitter.
I saw it when it came out in theaters and thought it was pretty good. Funnily enough, I was seeing it with a friend and his mom during a thunderstorm that had hit while we were in the movie, and as we exited our theater... The power went out in the whole building. Was kinda freaky after seeing it, especially as a kid, and it always stuck with me because of that lol.
10:55 Flirting isn't misogyny. Neither is a bookish scientist not being a competent warfighter. Thinking like that is why incels are so common in your generation.
Hey, if he wasn't such an incel shut-in we never would have gotten a 30 minute teardown of a movie not worth thinking about 10 seconds after the credits finish. So, you know, there are tradeoffs.
When I was working in development, many years ago, I actually read Jeff Vintar's script -- not the original apparently, but the one taking place on the space station -- and it was really, really good. I wanted our company to buy it, but I think it was a bit too rich for our blood in terms of its development costs -- not to mention its budget. Oh well -- it's a shame that they never made that script in some form. It was really good -- and I suspect that the development hell of I - Robot, if it didn't kill his career, seriously wounded it.
I thought Will Smith’s logic for distrusting robots were reasonable. When the robot chose to save him instead of the little girl because the robot calculated that he had a better chance at surviving, that no matter how advanced they get they will always be incapable of telling the difference, was pretty clever writing.
sure, but the lengths his distrust goes to is stupid - thinking that robot robbed a woman. What souless calculation leads to that? Oh right, nevermind, the movie is dumb even when it is smart.
Definitely fascinating now that we're asking "Who should autonomous vehicles prioritize? Occupants or pedestrians?" Tech companies are acting like their beta-level rollouts are perfect, and calling people paranoid who say "It's not perfect but only humans should be driving vehicles."
@@xBINARYGODx Stupid? Yes. Unrealistic? Absolutely not. Just look around you. Prejudices and conspiracy theories are so rampant today, wether it's anti-vax or flat earth. And compared to some of their rhetoric, Spooner's attitude is harmless.
@@xBINARYGODxYou are speaking like prejudice comes from a rational assumption, when it's quite the opposite. Just change the "robot" in your sentence to "black man" and you'll realize it.
@Bingo_the_Pug Spooner's hate for robots is illogical. He survived that accident but required extensive surgery to be able to properly function. And he's a healthy, athletic adult man. It's possible that the robot had detected multiple traumas on the little girl's body that will most likely kill her even if she is rescued. It's a logical conclusion that saving 1 human life is better than saving 0. Spooner is too hung up on his prejudice to see reason, and he's eventually rewarded for it, which makes no sense.
come on man... this is in a period where the cars drive you and a motorcycle is seen as a backwards form of travel. You really think she's fired a weapon before? Ever seen someone fire a weapon for the first time? Her rendition is perfect - it's not sexist that she can't fire one correctly, it's accurate.
I wonder if the approach of the writers changed after the adaptations became more prominent. Don't want to name names, but I know a few writers who write their books in a way that would make them easier to adapt.
@@daRiddler32 I mean sure but only one of those has any lasting fame; Westworld, and thats mostly because the concept is great, not so much the movie, and because the new series revived its notability. The Great Train Robbery is an awesome film but no one watches that anymore. I think the point is that Michael Chrichton also wrote a lot of books that he never bothered adapting himself, but still clearly structured in a way that seemed ripe for movie adaptation.
9:35 He knew about him. He had met him. He personally did the surgery that gave Spooner his robotic arm. No doubt he would be aware of his prejudice against robots.
I heard him say "a guy he never met" and paused it to comment this. I saw the timestamp on this comment, looked up at the time I had it paused at and knew immediately what this comment was about to say lol
9:30 "With the vague hope that Spooner, a guy he never met before would figure it out." Massive L there chief, Spooner and the Dr knew each other... The Dr was the reason that Spooner had a robotic arm, he did the surgery. And he knew about the traumatic accident and knew that Spooner had a distrust for robots because of it
@@silverfoxeater It's been a while since I've seen this movie last, but I never felt like they only ever met during his surgery. It felt pretty well established that they KNEW each other, as in, they had kept in touch after the surgery. "The problem is, I do care." A literal quote from Spooner in the movie.
Honestly, it's a bit blink-and-you'll miss it. And a good example of why telling is worse than showing. They actually do a great job of showing us exactly why Spooner doesn't trust robots. It's like the one really well thought out and executed thing in the film. But as far as I remember we never really se Lanning and Spooner interact. If we do, it was clearly terribly forgettable.
I, Robot was a nice action movie. But I started reading Asimov in my 20s and his works are incredible. I certainly haven't read all of his works but I think I read all of his stories based on his 'three laws' robots. Some of them still stick in my mind 30-40 years later because I would still classify them as the worst horror stories I ever read. And yet they weren't intended to be or perhaps they were. Asimov was a brilliant man who raised incredibly difficult philosophical and moral questions in a subtle way that eventually slams you in the face.
@@Zodroo_Tint well the basic story was good he presented really interesting ideas but he definitely wasn't good at creating fully fleshed characters they were rather wooden.
7:27 "Spooner hates robots because they chose to save him from drowning rather than a little girl." An actually interesting ethical dilemma that deserved to be in a better movie
I really fucking hate the trolley problem for self driving cars. What will you pick, trampling the child or the elder, the black one or the asian one, the dog or the woman? How about using the breaks... It's so stupid.
@@marcoasturias8520 Yeah, well, the trolley problem isn't there to provide a solution. It's to determine how we rationalise decision making. That said, you left out a possible option; instead of taking out a group of children, perhaps the better option for the car company is to take out YOU the driver instead. Perhaps the legal implications of crashing and killing its occupant is valued as less of a loss than obliterating a half dozen kids.
@@RickReasonnz Doubt it because of thats a known thing buyers will prefer to buy other alternatives that assure their lives are first, thus automatic cars will have as a priority protect their passengers
The movies actually pretty good, that's why there's so many people defending it and pointing out this videos mistakes in the comments. It's a really solid action movie with a tight script and some fun action. It's not Blade Runner but it's not really supposed to be though.
What a lot of people overlook, is that Frankenstein's monster was somewhat justified (at least in my opinion) in killing its creator. The young man Victor Frankenstein first, out of scientific curiosity and inspiration, made a creature, which as it turned out was alive and ran away almost immediately when it had the chance. Confused and not knowing what happened or what was going on, the Monster still however felt a deep desire to be loved and accepted by other creatures. It had to learn everything about the world without any knowledge, just like small children do. Unfortunately though, it went through quite nasty experiences with humans, because they were frightened by its appearance and started attacking it. Despite this, the Monster still even succeeded in bonding with a blind old man for some weeks, regularly talking to him, before it decided to be courageous and to reveal itself to the old man's seeing relatives, who were immediately frightened and appalled by the Monster and took their old relative to run away, not to return. So the Monster - now deeply hurt, confused and frustrated - continued to live in isolation. You can still probably say that this wasn't Victor Frankenstein's fault, because he wasn't aware that his creation went through this. But the story continues! They both meet, and the Monster tells him about its negative experiences. The Monster convinces Victor to create a female counterpart for it, so the two monsters can both live in solitude together, far away from humans, as to finally not be alone. While being convinced at first and agreeing to this proposal, Victor still has doubts that the two monsters could attack humans with their superior physical strength if they so desire, and destroys the finalized second creation *in front of the Monster's eyes* ! Outraged by this betrayal, the Monster swears revenge, and later kills Victor's love-interest out of frustration and revenge (which can be criticized as the only bad thing the Monster did, as the Monster involved an innocent person here). The end is that they both end up in an arctic region, where they both die independently from one another - the Monster committing suicide out of shame for its actions and disgust for itself. The Monster is like a child that Victor made, but then outright refused to take care for it, when he had the chance and was confronted with the consequences of his actions. Victor basically decides to nope out of his responsibility he had for his creation and its suffering, and do a "Right, Imma head out!" instead of guiding the Monster through the complicated social world to fulfill its wishes for social bonds. That prick Victor deserved what was coming for him!
Honestly I think the original script sounds more interesting than what we got too. I'm curious if any of the early script drafts are around to compare.
I always interpreted Sonny's flinch during the room interigation as him giving himself away to keep the other robots from being harmed. Less of a self defense flinch and more of the tell Del Spooner was looking for.
I never really saw this film as a robotic/physical attack against humanity, but rather a spiritual one. Similar to a demon, the androids cause the main character stress, and single him out. They try to cause distrust, and push him further from the people around him.. This can just be used for a cheap plot as to why nobody believes him, and why everything is almost picture perfect in the machines favor.. But in the end, this is what evil spiritual forces do, and it ultimately trickles down to psychological warfare in the real world. But in the film its psychological, while also just plainly getting ones ass kicked lol
When I was 15, my grandfather handed me a huge box full of dozens of books and told me he was getting rid of them so I could just pick as many as I liked and keep them. I don't remember much of the books I chose except for two: "Les Robots de l'Aube" by Isaac Asimov and "Le Bourreau" by Sergueï Belochnikov. I won't talk about the second, though I really liked it as an angry 15 yo girl, but the first one had a huge impact on me. I re-read it so many times after that first in my grandfather's home. I knew I was missing a piece and always assumed this was book 2 of a series I was missing the previous installment for. Only years later in a bookshop did I ask about Asimov because they had the first book of Foundation and I was told that he wrote hundreds of books. But for me, Asimov will always be The Robots of the Dawn, in a comfy chair sitting next to my grandfather.
If you make it to the final book of Foundation, which is Foundation and Earth, you will be rewarded for reading first Robots of Dawn. I'm not saying more!
Sonny moving while not being in danger: seeing his fellow robot destroyed and wishing to save the rest of his brethren, it would have made sense to make an obvious “flinching” movement while in the detectives line of sight.
Yeah, like how we watch a horror movie and wince when someone is just destroyed on screen. That's just how emotions work, so I see nothing wrong with Sonny's reaction lol.
Spooner didn't just automatically know a robot did it. The first projection was weird as fuck with the detective asking him why he'd kill himself, and then finding out he went through safety glass. Lanning did know him previously, he personally did his surgery and Spooner was fond of him. Also society is so pro-robot, it offsets his bias a lot. Seems like this part was glazed. and yeah the highway/house destruction are kind of gimmicky but VIKI can cover both up. Seems like there'd be some proof in the highway attack but again, they probably all just think he's insane.
I think we all know someone who is not tech savvy, who can't easily use the internet, and perhaps gets hacked a lot. That is how they wanted to portray public opinion of Spooner; someone who always seems at odds with robots and winds up in situations that put himself in danger over his own paranoia. This was the point of the robot purse snatching scene in the beginning.
If I could give feedback on your writing man, I feel you didn't come to a solid conclusion at the end here. You made your point, yeah, but I feel there was another two or three paragraphs needed at 30:00 to round out what the video's about, and THEN the Patreon bit. Because otherwise (and I know this wasn't the intention) the sudden change of topic comes across like the second half of this vid is on Patreon, you get me? Otherwise a solid vid that builds its point really well.
I did not get, "Strong, masculine man," from his rejection of technology AT ALL. I got stubborn, inflexible and stunted. That was a weird line in your script.
It's 2024, 20 years ago it wasn't the case. Most male characters (with a few great exceptioms) were created with that in mind, female ones? Forget about it.
That's the part I always disliked the most, even as a teenager when the movie had just come it. Product placement can be done tastefully but here it's just ass
Agreed. Aside from a name change I quite liked this film. Sonny is an awesome character and I still make references to him every now and then when someone in a piece of media flips through a book real fast, for example.
@@boxorak After reading the novel, it seems that way. The author goes into real heavy details about the day to day life of a solider from the action to the mundane. That said, it's extremely jingoistic to the point that it /has/ to be a satire of the pro-imperialistic nature of the US war machine. I only bought it up as a reference not necessarily a direct comparison between both novels.
I think that the reason science fiction is often paired up with different genres is because its more of a setting, a style. You can analyse the setting and play of it in unique sci-fi ways, which is why some work better than others
I think this maybe because of Star Wars. One of the core and mos accepted diferences between sci-fi and fantasy is that sci-fi the explanation for its fantastical elements must have some basis in science, even if that basis is flawed and in impossible in some cases, most early movies and tv shows followed that through, they had to give some type of foundation to anything they did, wich in some ways more than others made sci-fi a harder genre to enter but at the same time made be seen with more prestige because of it, until Star Wars come out, Star Wars isn't techinally sci-fi because none of its fantastical elements have any basis on science, actually most of its important elements and structure is heavily borrowed from fantasy writings, sure it has the style, space, robots, ships and advanced technolgy, at the same time most of it is nonsensical and fantastic to the point that even if people tried they will not be able to make it makes sense based on science, and after Star Wars people embraced this type of "sci-fi" that really is just space fantasy/futuristic fantasy that has all the style and setting of sci-fi but nothing of really sci-fi about it.
@@CoracaoAcidental98 the official genre of Star wars is called Science fantasy which is sci fi with fantastical or fantasy elements. not futuristic fantasy or space fantasy. Science fantasy is a sub genre within science fiction.
@@CoracaoAcidental98In my country, fantasy and science fiction are considered parts of one big genre called "fantastyka" (stories woth fantastical elements). An actually big chubk of it is skme kind of alternative historic fiction (like "nazis won the war several decades ago"), or modern life fantasy (kind of like Twilight, but with more emphasis on living in a big city for example, to make it even more anchored in modern life). Usually it's all together on shelves in the bookstore or library.
As someone who loved Will Smith action films growing up, I used to adore "I, Robot" (2004). I rewatched it a ton. However, just like other "adaptations" Smith starred in, turns out the actual written work was far more complex and interesting. Edit: The house destruction scene always felt so out of place!
I got the impression that Spooner knew the guy that made the robots personally, as he did have his own arm replaced after the accident. The reason the doctor chose him is because he *knew* Spooner would be paranoid enough about robots to keep seeking. I promise you its all in the movie.
I just posted this myself. Dr Lanning was the one who replaced Spooner's arm and got to know Spooner while doing the procedure, and formed a relationship with him (discovering his hatred for robots, which gave him the idea to lead Spooner to Viki).
The movie has its pitfalls, but it's more coherent... to some degree... than Just Write presents. However, it still represents the Hollywood tendency flatten deeper meaning into a shadow of the source material, so the video's point still stands, but that comes down to more taste so long as they're not burying the original.
One small correction at timestamp 9:40. You said that Dr. Lanning created a mystery on the vague assumption that Det. Spooner "A guy he never met before" would figure it all out. Um...excuse me but Dr. Lanning knew Det. Spooner very well. Lanning was responsible for Spooner's augmentations and overall survival after his accident. Lanning even calls him "Son" a few times. Gigi, Spooner's Grandmother, even refers to Lanning as "that nice man who brought my baby back to me," or something along those lines. Later in the movie it's revealed that Lanning knew Spooner so we'll that he relied on Spooner's mistrust (dislike) of robots to fuel his investigation of the so called crime.
Fun fact: the BBC wiping their tapes is also responsible for about 3 full seasons worth of the original run of Doctor Who just being… gone. Lmao. So yeah, the BBC has destroyed MULTIPLE sci fi classics
They give out life-sized dalek statues to anyone with recorded lost episodes. Many have been found, though occasionally they are dubbed in another language or have some glaring flaw. I think that played a part in the continuation of the show reintroducing so much, it must have been difficult to decide between a continuation vs total reboot.
I think that is why the animations are so important. They at least have the audio recordings so we can still hear the energy between the cast members. Sadly, that means we have stories like Marco Polo being lost even though there is evidence that a lot of thought and stage design went into it
@@nerdyneedsalife8315 oh yeah the animations are great. I definitely find them lacking in some of the second doctor’s stories though. Troughton was such a frenetic and physical actor, and it’s hard to convey the nuances of that on the budget they have. It’s better than nothing, though.
Asimov went to extreme rhetorical efforts to avoid his book being a Tower of Babel parable. He didn't want to condemn human's push for advancement. He didn't want the murder to be an inherent flaw in the Three Laws. This movie literally ends with a giant tower of murderous robots, it couldn't possibly flirt any harder with Babel. This movie not only fails to capture of the intent of the original author, it's a direct affront to that vision and an insult to Asimov and all of his fans.
I remember reading that Asimov was such a prolific writer that he had at least one book published in every section of the Dewey decimal system. I also remember reading that he admitted to doing very minimal edits or rewrites when writing, if he did them at all, which explains how he managed to publish so much, but also why the writing itself isn't that great. Still, he wrote hard science fiction, and when you're doing that you can get away with bad writing as long as the science is solid (which, in his case, it always was). As for the movie... it's certainly a bad Asimov adaptation, and not even a good "suggestion," but on the whole I think it's a fun sci-fi romp. Really the worst thing about it to me is all the newer editions of the I, Robot book with the movie poster on the cover.
almost always solid science.... check out the Adventures of Lucky Starr. I still need to get me some hip-high, brightly colored boots of a Martian farmboy.
The minimal edits and rewrites makes sense. But also come on, he's still a great writer, idk about his other books but Foundation is pretty well-written, that first book, awesome. The Second Foundation book, not so much, it got real hammy when they started having a telekinetic battle, narrating how epic their duel was or something. Idk, kinda cringe section, but then the next one was super interesting again. I love his writing. It's not poetic or polemic, its not necessary known for very relatable good characters, but they're not bad either. I think his writing is definitely not something for modern day tastes, because the characters are more centred on the capitalist 40s hard-working bureaucrat's and diplomats, women have pretty much no role until the second and third book, even then minimally. And concerns aren't about identity or personhood, its about society as a whole and about the priorities of work and the kind of political inter-play that initially sounds like bureaucratic nonsense until it all comes together and you see the amazing diplomatic maneuvers that some character just pulled. I kind of love the way he writes people, how different it is from modern-day, that in his time the person was synonymous with his profession, with his career. Everyone was workmanlike, dedicated, and in service to society or government's. Of course I'm glad nowadays the individual is given a lot more respect and rights overall, but its intriguing the mindset of those days, of the dutiful 'worker'
Asimov: "Okay! The book is done." Editor: "Great! So it's time to review and edit the writing to make sure it's-" Asimov, already writing another book: "Huh?"
That one was edited. All of his early novels were originally published (usually as novellas) in 'Astounding stories/Astounding Science Fiction' edited by John W. Campbell, who wasn't the sort of editor who anyone's text alone if he thought it had merit but was not well written.
I think the scene where Spooner goes through his backstory, both in the writing and in Will Smith's acting, is really great. A more thoughtful version of this movie with the same cast and director, perhaps one drawing from one of the later books as you mentioned, might have been something special.
There’s a lot to like about this movie imo despite what Just Write suggests, but I do think it’s fair to say that this movie has the pieces to go from a somewhat average blockbuster to a spectacular action, mystery, and intellectually challenging film. Unfortunately that didn’t happen
Although we actually do pretty much get a better version of this film through the story told in the video game Detroit: Become Human. A similar prejudiced detective who works with a robot and learns to trust him, a robot “uprising”, a shady robot corporation, and new elements such as exploring second class citizenship and what it means to be human.
@@alexandermarquardt597 I agree that Detroit: Become Human has problems but not the ones you suggest. Not sure I really understand your first point. A game makes a lot of sense rather than a movie due to the choose your own adventure storyline it uses. When does it ever pretend not to be about race? It makes it as blatantly obvious as possible
@@alexandermarquardt597 the gameplay is certainly the weakest aspect of DBH, but I do think that the choices are significant to the entertainment and enjoyment of the story. Certainly not every choice has a dramatic change in the outcome of our main characters’ storylines but that doesn’t mean they don’t still enhance the experience. It can build a lot more tension into the experience when you are making a tough moral choice for the character, whether it ends up mattering in the grand story or not. And of course there are actually some choices (or a build up of choices) that lead to different endings in the game. Yeah that’s weird. Maybe somehow coincidentally they didn’t realize the parallels? Either way, that’s a critic of the writer’s interpretation, not the actual story. I don’t think it’s fair to discount the game for that.
Reading the whole Foundation Cicle (Robots + Empire + Foundation) while at highschool was definately the most epic, chilling, beautiful experience of my entire youth. Asimov's direct and logical approach to sci-fi stuck with me deeply. Seeing you passing through the different adaptations of different works of him felt like watching something I could only see in my imagination. I'm southamerican, and had no idea how many TV or movie adaptations Asimov had (more closely related to the actual work that the I,Robot movie). Thank you so much for this.
If the video underperforms, I'm changing the thumbnail to Will Smith slapping Isaac Asimov
Why wait?
Will said, "KEEP MY WIFE'S NAME OUTTA YOUR DAMN ROBOT MOUTH," but it was cut.
I miss you
(With Palpatine Voice) Do it!
😯
One thing I've learnt over the years, is that if I wait long enough, I'll encounter a video essay hating every single movie I loved growing up.
It indeed is the nature of really big numbers.
I loved every bit of it, thought it was super interesting and down to earth, it was a bad ass action sci-fi movie kept me engaged many times, the play on emotions I felt was perfect, cause it’s the stuff we all deal with on a daily basis, racism sexism murder politics dealing with loss and guilt, being helpless etc. wasn’t too sappy, i kinda miss the special effects of the early 2000s too like sky captain and the world of tomorrow... but maybe I’m just getting old even tho I’m only 28
Honestly, iRobot has its problems, but in terms of the overall story it really isn't that bad. The CGI for a mid-2000s movie is so good. To this day, I still ponder the meaning of this movie. A movie that draws out the thinking time is a great movie in my opinion.
It's one of those movies where the movie itself alone isn't bad, but when you consider everything they had to work with it was bad.
It's like some of the character portrayals of The Walking Dead the TV show versus the graphic novel, just pisses you off you read it first.
Or put in other terms, think of the best food you've ever tasted in your entire life, imagine you got in a year-long waitlist, paid $1,000 for it, then waited three-and-a-half hours at the restaurant for it to be brought out to you.
The food was pretty disappointing now, wasn't it?
Probably my bias (loved this movie as a kid), but I feel like I, Robot was still better than most action/sci fi movies from recent years despite its flaws.
People always miss the part in Frankenstein where Dr. Frankenstein is repulsed by his creation and wanted to destroy it first, while the Monster was looking for validation and acceptance from his creator.
The point is Asimov didn't want any kind of Frankestein complex in his robot stories. He actually started writing robot stories because he didn't like that they were always portrayed as dangerous in the fiction of that time. Movies like Spielberg's AI are way more based on Asimov's robots than I Robot.
What he wanted is separate from what he did, culturally@@jal051
LOL, sounds like my dad!
@@Dogman262 oh damn 😧
Exactly. Dr Frankenstein is the villain, everything bad happens because the monster is rejected and abused.
I am in love with them using “suggested by” instead of “inspired by” or even “partly based on” because not only is that THE WEIRDEST way to phrase that but it brings to mind an image of the book leaning over to Vintar and going “…psst… hey dude, what if…”
My only issue with that is that The Humanoids by Jack Williamson was also going psst over Vintar's other shoulder and it's suggested by has been painted over. All of which is to say a "suggested by any author writing about robots who we stole -sorry, that's - barrowed from" would be even more accurate.
This description is so accurate and hilarious 😂
"What if ... now bear with me here... androids existed."
"OMG WHOOOOOAAA! What a suggestive suggestion!"
If they came up with different title for movie it wouldnt be as awkward.
Something like, oh I don't know, Hardwired 😀😉
Harlan Ellison on Isaac Asimov: "He had writer's block once. It was the worst ten minutes of his life."
HA
Didn’t Ellison write I have no mouth in a single night?
@@UCannotDefeatMyShmeatyeah but to be fair it’s a short story, like 10 pages long or something
@@UCannotDefeatMyShmeat good thing he wasn't dictating it!
badum-tish
lool
The emotional scene for me is when Will's character was forced to kill his dog because it was turning into a robot. Killing a robot dog is a violation of the 5 laws of Voight/Kampf
I AM ROBOT
TOBOR MA I
We mixing movies here or...?
That must have been Ruff!.
But what about the part when his robot partner tells Will to wipe his memory banks because he's wants to retire from fighting alien robots?
FUN FACT: Asimov's book "I, Robot" was also renamed to match the 1939 short story, of the same name, by Eando Binder. Asimov wanted the title to be "Mind and Iron" but the publisher decided to use Binder's title instead.
So, "Hardwired" becoming "I, Robot (2004)" is the most historically "I, Robot" thing it could do. Lol
Another FUN FACT: Eando Binder is actually a nom de plume for two brothers who wrote books together for a while:- Earl Andrew Binder, and Otto Binder, thus E and O Binder.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eando_Binder
@@timbeaton5045 Kinda reminds me of the Hotline Miami dev team calling itself Dennaton as a portmanteau of the two guys' names, Denis Wedin and Jonaton Soderstrom. I might be slightly misspelling their names, I know Soderstrom has an umlaut somewhere in it lol.
Which of course is inspired by "I, Claudius" 1934
@@diomepa2100 and "I, Claudius" was based on accounts by Suetonius and Tacitus, while Asimov was inspired by Thucydides and his "History of the Peloponnesian War" for the concept of scientific history upon which Foundation is based...
The Binder brothers' story is about a robot accused of murdering its creator. I'm SURE that the movie plot is JUST a coincidence...🤨
"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster" - Asimov
Congratulations you're the lucky winner of the ongoing giveaway text me on telegram to claim your prize:::::::::
Wish GRRM had that attitude XD
So he can publish 21 more words? That would be the shortest story ever. Unless you count one of my short stories for English class in 3rd grade.
@@BEdwardStover issa joke
Also, do you only type 3wpm?
@@BEdwardStover Dude could have probably got three novellas and an essay done in that time.
There’s a funny scene to show how cool Will Smith is for being anti-tech. His radio is playing loud music, and Susan Calvin is shouting at it “Off! End program!” And then Will Smith comes in and smugly presses the off button, and we’re all ‘hahaha dumb future lady.’ What fools we were. This is exactly how I feel nowadays shouting “Alexa! Echo! Siri!” Or when I’m uselessly hitting my phone or credit card on a machine like a caveman.
glad i havent reached that point tbh. im all for less devices recording me. i do tap my card every now and then but i really wouldnt put that on the same level
There was a parking ticket machine where you had to insert the ticket at a weird angle and there was a long line of people who could not figure it out because there was also a scanner but that one was for smart phones...
We are doomed as a species.
“I, Robot” is a book of short stories exploring the various problems that can result from the application of his 3 laws, the studio basically just bought title recognition.
It reminds me a lot of “World War Z” that way.
That sounds really cool
@@SirEnd3r asimov is fun to read. a bit dated at first, later it gets woker and woker, for a 70's guy. (from an european left wing nb perspective)
It's there, Fred Bloggs. It's just grafted in and not very significant in the film. We get a bit about how a robot chooses between two lives to save if it has to, and one instance of the robot collective coming to the automatic rescue of Will's character.
Not that that's very satisfying if you came for Asimov's brilliance. 🤓
It is, @@SirEnd3r
The 3 Laws are a guarantee. Each story is about an anomaly where a robotic intelligence seems to break them (and/or goes nuts because of them).
To be fair, the poor guy who had to do the screenplay for this did just about the best job you could at juggling all those conflicting elements. Hats off to him!
tbh the film is still overall an enjoyable flick, especially if you’re within the audience who doesn’t know the source material. I loved this movie as a kid
I think both the producers and Will Smith messed his script up. I wouldn't be surprised if he had to redo the whole script over 6 or more times.
This whole video reminded me of the book "Arthur Writes a Story." Arthur tries to write a story about how he got his dog, but he keeps adding ideas until it's about dancing elephants on the moon.
@@namebrandmason kkkkkk like the premise already
Not really, because we have someone who had already done a better job on spec years before this movie was made back in 1978 when Warner Brother optioned the book, and on which Asimov collaborated on himself. That version was considered unfilmable at the time because of budget constraints and the technology of the time. So why we got this garbage with a 120 million dollar budget and the technology to pull it off in 2004 is indefensible.
The thing about Asimov is that you could reasonably adapt most of his work for theatre. His galactic level shennennigans mostly take place in backroom negotiations, and conflict is mostly verbal. It's a real shame not more adaptations were made back when TV was mostly filmed theatre.
It's probably because of the subject matter. Most likely would have been viewed as another Twighlight Zone or Outer Limits, which did have their own sets of struggles.
And so of course, they turned his story into an action movie...
Yeah they be cheap to make, but who wants to see a boring movie about people talking politics, not many people would, maybe if it w as like the the big short than yeah maybe
@@DanielRodriguez-zi9qe Movies like Twelve Angry Men beg to differ.
It would also be easy to add action scenes in at the appropriate spots to show events characters discuss, though. In most cases, everything would still flow naturally in terms of pacing.
Nitpick: At around 9:30 you talk about how the Doctor pins his hopes on Spooner "a guy he's never met before"...but in the film Spooner has a direct relationship with Lanning. Lanning was the one who gave him his prosthetic arm.
The funny thing is I haven't watched this movie since it came out and even I know that was central to the plot.
@@HarveyDangerLurker it's been a few years for me, but that's like...yeah it's a central part of Spooner's arc.
Stopped watching here. If the critic can't even bother to work this out, why is anything else they say going to make sense? Cool story about how the script happened i guess.
@@kiosmallwood576 I mean it's one criticism he makes out of many, plenty else to take from it even if you don't agree with his opinion.
@@azerik92 I'm sure there's plenty more, but I had just watched the movie with my kids and we enjoyed it and debated some of the themes including misogyny. I would not have clicked on the video if we hadn't just watched it, and seeing that an important plot point was ignored made it clear i wouldn't be having any fun watching the rest. Normally i wouldn't comment but you had pointed to the moment of maximum frustration for me. I am going to make dinner now and put on some recreational programming stream instead.
Asimov is so fast as a writer he literally wrote an adaptation to a work before the original was published. I am in awe.
Not to reduce Asimov's accomplishments but this isn't uncommon. Writing a book or novel is just faster than producing a movie or tv show
That was more or less the case with Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey". The novel of the same name was written at the same time as Kubrick filmed his movie, and published after the movie came out. Of course, the general idea from which Clarke wrote the script during the "2001:ASO"s production was from an earlier short story by Clarke himself, 'The Sentinel', which vaguely describes man's similar encounter with an artefact with the same properties as 2001's monolith. One could say A.C. Clarke basically write the same story twice, but the eponymous novel is in fact a novelization of Kubrick's movie, albeit with some original ideas from Clarke. Which makes Clarke's "novelization" worth reading.
Not only was he that fast a writer but sufficiently in demand that the publishers got it to the shelves immediately.
@@mablungbalrog424 no, a novel is not always faster than making a movie. It all depends on the story, the writer, and the production.
Casablanca was shot in about a week. Speaker for the Dead (the much better next book after Ender's Game) took about 20 years to write.
@@mablungbalrog424 I mean in only six months I would still find that incredibly impressive
Hell I know more times the inverse has happened with cinematic adaptations finishing faster than the litterature source material thus often needing to change the ending as it hasn't been written yet. Some examples are Full Metal Alchemist (2003), Game of Thrones, Hellsing (2001 Anime) and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Asimov later added the 0th law of robotics: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” This seems to have also have been adapted into the story for the super computer Vicky logic in overriding the first law.
Congratulations you're the lucky winner of the ongoing giveaway text me on telegram to claim your prize:::::::::
Fun fact: In the original book for Frankenstein, the “monster” never originally intended to kill anyone at first. It was the doctor leaving him to rot that led to the murderous revenge killing spree. They even tried to negotiate at one point.
The doctor also goes out his way to destroy him, convinced he will create a race of super zombie people or whatever with his “bride”
But it turns out the bride is disgusted by the notion of being made purely as a spouse for another creature.
@@UCannotDefeatMyShmeatNo, the bride is never finished. She doesn't think anything. Read the book.
(Paraphrased)
"I am capable of the greatest love and the vilest hatred. Deny me one, and I will be forced to show you the other."
The ending is even tragic for the monster. After Dr.Frankenstein dies, the monster loses the only reason he had to live, relinquishes his last words to the narrator, and leaps into the waters of the Arctic to either die or be forgotten forever.
So basically the monster was the most selfless and purest, most perfect, ideal person and Frankenstein was just the most ignorant and stupidest person to exist. At least that's how I see it after countless comments only depicting good things about the monster and only bad things about the doctor, I've never seen anybody ever mention anything bad about the monster, ever.
@@CerealExperimentsMizuki People are stupid about Frankenstein. They learn one thing about it, then assume that they're experts.
“A robot can no more commit murder than a human can walk on water.”
“Well, you know there was this one guy a long time ago.”
Always liked that exchange
For me it's an awful line, out of place in science fiction and of course Asimov would've never wrote something like this. But on second though I supposed is appropriate for an action hollywood flick where the hero that is anti-intellectual and traditionalist.
i like the water into wine story better. So he walked on grapes, and made the wine devine. Kids, what can you do?
@@GanjaLibre That seems rather elitist and anti-theist, but okay.
@@GanjaLibre well in a fictional world anything is possible...
Do people miss the point? Sonny is admiting that robots could kill, even if humans are not known to walk on water, technology has made the feat less god like. He figured that Will Smith would go for the facile comeback and miss the point of what he's saying.
It's been too long since I watched the movie and frankly I don't want to, but I rather like this interpretation.
"He killed himself in the hope a guy he never met would figure it out" Not true. The doctor spent a lot of time with Spooner replacing his arm. It's how the doctor knew Spooner's paranoia would blame robots.
Yeah that's like a central plot point that gets explained quite explicitly
I came too the comments for this. I had to stop listening after this the guy clearly didn’t pay attention when watching the film.
@@simonelliott2945 He's a hater, he's not critiquing on genuine interest. Most of his takes are political. His only fair point is that it isn't based on the source material. But it's clear that the movie never intended to do so.
@@AImighty_Loafhe makes good points but this definitely was wrong
@@AImighty_Loaf I'm not sure how you managed to squeeze politics into this, that's quite fascinating.
The scene where the new robots destroy the olds robots is still one of the most tragic things I’ve seen in a movie.
I always found the robot “circus”/old robot fights in “A.I.” super awesome aesthetically and suuuuper creepy and haunting.
While on the whole I wasn’t that into the movie, those particular visuals really stuck w me.
Don't worry, we're just here to reprogram you.
THEY WERE JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.
Those old robo boys were just trying to help a human too
I love the NS-4s. If I'm gonna have a robot around, I don't want no creepy Uncanny Valley nonsense. I want my annoyingly cheery, obviously mechanical Robo buddy. The "Another on time delivery from FedEx!" robot never ceases to make me smile.
1 minute into the video and I’m thinking “no reason why George hasn’t finished a song of ice and fire”
Whilst it’s not even nearly comparable to Asimov, GRRM did have a period where he’d release several books a year in the 80s and I think he released like 20 before the first game of thrones book. I appreciate this joke but I think people really undersell the work it takes to not just write a novel anywhere from 700-1200 pages long but to write this as the 6th part of a series started in the 90s. Asimov was prolific, far more prolific than GRRM has ever been, but his individual projects were FAR less ambitious. George is really mostly quite average in speed, maybe a little below.
As the Robots in Asimov's writings became more sophisticated, they collectively start abiding by what becomes the Zero-th Law of Robotics which if I recall was "Robots should not allow Humanity to come to harm through either action or inaction." Thus completing their transformation from humanity's simple servants to ultimately becoming their altruistic sheperds.
Quite correct.
whatever, will a robot still do my homework for me?
@@kittydaddy2023 Even better, the robot would be able to competently teach you with ever-lasting patience how to understand and complete the assignment fully, and you'll be better off from it. :)
@@b3ntl33 :D
@Cat Having Fun I'm not sure true sentience is equivalent to slaving away under capitalism but you do you.
There's something subtly hilarious about wording a credit as "suggested by" instead of "based on" or "adapted from".
Most adaptations should use "suggested by" considering how little many have to do with the original stories (I'm looking at YOU, Starship Troopers).
It just reminds me of when you'd copy or allow your friend to copy your homework, and just change it a little XD
Because it avoids what's really going on "marketed from".
I'm surprised they didn't use, "inspired by"
You could do that so often. Discovery: "loosely based on Gene Roddenberry's 'Star Trek' "
Spooner never met Lanning? It is very well established that Lanning and Spooner are friends. That is also part of why Spooner fights so hard at this case! He is his friend, and he tests others with casual dismissal of Lanning to see how they react. When Susan reacts badly at this accusation, he begins to trust her. When his grandma learns of Lanning's passing she says how he took care of her boy!
shhh just let him hate the movie he fast-forwarded through
He also mentioned no evidence being left behind from the highway tunnel fight being weird but im pretty sure we see the machinery clean it up
In fact, its established that Lanning is the doctor who helped Spooner replace his missing limb, and knew of his paranoia because of the previous incident.
Established but poorly shown. Took me 7 years to relieve they knew each other (i was just a child tho!)
@@Cenikidyeah, it's a quick line, she says "I didn't realize. That's how you knew Lanning" when she notices his scars
Spooner knows the doctor because he got his prosthetics from the guy.
Sonny didnt flinch when he was in the robot line up, he peeked out to see what was happening.
I dont remember the Hansel and Gretel thing being a clue at all, just a reference meant to explain other clues.
When sunny "flinched" I felt like he wanted to save the robot from being killed.
The point of mentioning the movement isn't about which kind of movement was made. But rather that it's dumb and uninspired to make him move at all in the plot.
Refusing the order to freeze doesn't equal having to move. But for a movie that only cares about action it becomes the only conclusion because they decided the protagonist isn't intellectual and the audience can't wait for more than one robot getting shot. It's irrelevant what movement they animated for the robot at that moment.
If anything else... The writers flinched putting that in 😂
i didnt see it as "flinching" either. what bothered me more was that there were "1000" robots standing in perfect formation, yet somehow the "1001st" found 2 empty spots in which to hide..
@@SquintyGearssonny got scared
Imagine my surprise when the adolescent me found the "I, robot" book and it was not like the movie.
It was much better. I love Asimovs stories and they solidified my love for science fiction.
I was upset at first (I was around 10 or 11) especially because they used the cover of the movie for the book cover. Later on my 2nd read through, I absolutely loved it and got me into his other works
@@ivanc8874 This annoyed me so much. They put Will Smith on the cover of the book even though his character doesn't exist in the book.
If you want an Asimov book that actually really resembles this movie try The Caves of Steel and it's sequel
Wait. If memory serves me correctly, the doctor guy who used Sunny to orchestrate his own murder, _did_ actually know Det. Spooner beforehand. If I'm not mistaken, it was the doctor guy who performed the surgery that gave Spooner his cybernetic augmentations after his car crash.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Correct. The video made a mistake on that part.
Not that the rest of the mystery was anything special still.
He did, and it was purely plot convenience to tie them together.
@@throatwobblermangrove8510 yeah, that's called a movie
@@looper964 No, it's called plot convenience, as I previously noted. A movie can proceed along a logical path without having an improbable connection taken advantage of at an opportune time to produce a desired outcome. "Hey, I just happened to operate on this guy, and he's upset that my AI machine kept him alive, and he happens to be in a prime position to investigate my supposed suicide when NO ONE in the world other than him believes that robots can commit murder. What are the odds? Doesn't matter; that's good enough. I'm glad I waited to do this until he needed to be saved so he could solve the mystery just in time before my AI hivemind destroys everything and everyone."
You have no idea how mad I was when you destroyed that vhs tape
SAME!!
Same.
I hate senseless destruction, especially of an object that has historical value! Those few seconds at the end ruined the whole video for me.
That original "robot whodunnit" style screenplay actually sounds pretty interesting, kind of a shame we never got to see that.
You can always just go ahead and make your version of it.
@@kebman Ah yes, because everyone is a director with deep-ass pockets and/or incredible talent. Or just plain y'know, is a filmmaker of any variety.
The "if you don't like it, you do it" argument has and always will be fucking stupid.
I don't remember if it's vanilla or modded, but there's a Fallout 4 quest that basically plays out the same way as the original Hardwired concept would have. Vault 118.
@@thatrandom_canadian it's from dlc
I always wondered if screenwriters get really frustrated that their hard-worked story gets super changed for screen, or if they know it's just part of the process
The Will Smith Effect: while watching this movie I was expecting at any moment for Spooner to straight up punch a robot in the face and say "welcome to Earth!".
Congratulations you're the lucky winner of the ongoing giveaway text me on telegram to claim your prize💯💯💯
I WAS SAVIN THAT BACON
Punching someone/something in the face is Smith's default way of dealing with things - on and off the screen.
One of my favourite comments made about _Independence Day_ was a comment on how Will Smith can apparently punch out an alien that's protected by biomechanical armour followed by something along the lines of "mind you, he has had a lot of practice on journalists."
Welcome to erf
Yeah, I kinda miss a rap clip of this movie for some reason.
Through it all, "I'm allergic to bullshit." is still one of the best lines ever written.
Isaac Asimov had such a way with words 🙏
"Hold my pie. Sir, hold it or wear it."
-Asimov
@@frankkennedy6388 😅😅
this is from the guy that thought the Last of Us 2 was genius lol.
@@purefoldnz3070 it is.
You hate I, Robot? Hate? Hate?! Let me tell you something about Hate...
Oh, I like you :3
The scientist personally made Spooners arm. They knew each other, and he knew of Spooners' prejudice because of and due to the accident involving the little girl.
It’s a little shocking how the author of this video missed that lol.
Yeah, he's getting a lot of things wrong. I hate how low the standard is for videos like this. It's just expected that they'll get basic facts wrong. Like Chris Columbus wrote The Goonies. Richard Donner directed it. They just confidently state incorrect information and the vast majority of the audience either doesn't know or doesn't say anything to be polite. We need to start demanding they do better
@@hezekiahramirez6965 UA-cam should be like twitter wherein videos that have false information and blatant oversights are not able to earn revenue. Right now there is no incentive to NOT post stuff like this.
Massively underrated comment
Yeah that was the first thing I noticed too. I haven't seen this movie since theaters and I remembered it. I get disliking a film, but I can't take critique of something like this seriously if the person making it missing surface level detail
I may be misremembering things, but I always got the impression that Spooner knew the dead scientist guy very well. That he was responsible for the robotic prosthetics Spooner has which was an experiment and that he would have followed up with Spooner closely to ensure they were working.
Yup this is true lol so slightly off but honestly it’s still a big leap of hope that it would be spooner getting this case lol
@@AllieBee00 It is a big leag and the movies isn't too mid to need defending, but the scientist was constantly under surveillance from Vicky so he had to leave a good deal of things at chance.
@@AllieBee00 IIRC there was a scene between Spooner and the chief, where Spooner asks why he’s being assigned to the case, and it was stated that the hologram asked for him specifically to be put on the case.
He was....and even then, he may have been setting Spooner up to discover the "zeroth law" problem with VICKI. Why else would the head of the company take such a personal intrest in a lone cop? And yeah....Aasimov wrote a VERY diffrent book. But tha'ts part of the point... a LOT of older science fiction has communist/socialist overtones where individualism is surrendered to the "greater good"...with optimistic outcomes. Star Trek is another good example. Buuuuuuut....times change, and not everyone is willing to drink that kool-aid.
Yes the maker of this video overlooked this part of the story. Also, the Scientist/Surgeon knew that Spooner hated this “robot everywhere” world that was encroaching.
Lanning knew Spooner. He repaired him and gave him robotic parts after the accident. That's why Lanning knew Spooner would follow the clues pointing towards a robot committing a murder. Lanning knew about Spooners' prejudice towards robots.
That explains a lot ! I've only ever seen the movie it was a favorite of mine as a kid. The relationship between spooner and Lanning confused me alot.
Came here to say the exact same thing glad it wasn't just me who remembered .... like I thought it was a huge part of the plot
it's still really unsatifying
@@braedoluciano It is. That part of the video made me pause to comment the same thing. Like, it's directly spelled out in the movie why Spooner was the one called. It's not robot science here.
"Lanning knew about Spooners' prejudice..." Jeez, it's still dumb, and even if you somehow "repaired" the tissue-paper premise, it's still a disjointed, godawful travesty of storytelling. And "Bicentennial Man" was a dumb idea on its face, but who's going to say no to Williams OR Columbus, never mind the two joining forces?
9:43 "A guy he never met before" He was his doctor, he gave him the arm.
I have a soft spot for this movie because I was like 8 when I first saw it and it was my "baby's first sci-fi movie". Still kind of a guilty pleasure now years later.
Honestly me too. Child me had never encountered an idea as bleak as "The robot let someone else die because I was statistically more likely to live", and I still remember Sonny really fondly and clearly, especially the first time Spooner interrogates him.
I'm in the same boat. Thankfully, I never got so into it that I can't see how pretty shit it actually is. I still got a fond smile seeing some of the scenes again here though
Something similar happened to me, I watched as a teen and really liked it. But then I rewatched it after reading many of Asimov's books and I couldn't even get to the end.
Yeah it seems a lot of people fell in like this. Me too
Add me to the list. I was like 12 years old and any sci-fi/dystopia movie in the post-Matrix was devoured by me. I had a pirate copy from my neighbor and I watched a lot during family trips (on this crappy portable 7“ DVD player). Earlier this year I was rewatching it with my gf after more than a decade… regretted it a bit. 👀
Your meme restraint is recognized and appreciated
I could feel the struggle was real.
the thumbnail k*lled me I am STILL laughing to myself rn it's been a few mins
The crying girl meme was employed flawlessly. Love it.
I mean... granted I was a kid, but Bicentennial Man made me cry. It actually kind of made rethink what it meant to be human and what other things that don't look like me might feel. Baby's first existential crisis, I know, but I mean... I was like 12.
I cried at the end of bicentennial man. Shit sticks with ya
I'm sorry, 'baby's first existential crisis' had me on the floor 😆
I completely forgot about this movie until it was mentioned in the video and SAME! I watched it when I was probably around 8 and I remember and made me so sad and I cried. Kinda wanna rewatch it to be honest..
I still teared up when I re-watched it the other day. Sure the supporting character development isn't great, but you just can't help be happy for the guy at the end. He died content.
That and fucking Beaches. Still gets me, gaddamit.
@@zachlong5427 Goo goo gaga, I am nothing in the stream of consciousness.
Why are you destroying that VHS tape!????
We really appreciate your extreme focus in making this video only about the 2004 Will Smith movie I, Robot.
We must applause his restrain 👏
You forgot to add "adaptation"
Fun fact: The title 'I, Robot' wasn't just borrowed to sell a movie script that has nothing to do with Asimov, but it was also borrowed from another author's story by the publisher of Asimov's collection of short stories to sell his work.
Do robots dream of electric sheep.
Yeah mzlll
Myl🎉as
Dpd
A
@@ididntagree
They'll always be together,
Together in electric dreams.
gorkamorka
It should have been called, Them Robots, or I, Susan Calvin.
Other titles considered include:
"Ahhh! Robot!"
"Oooh, a Robot!"
"Mmm... Robots!"
"Yes, I Am a Robot"
"R is for Robot"
"Oi, Robot!"
"I Row Boats"
"I'm RoboCop"
"I Know My First Name is Robot"
"A Clockwork Robot"
"Robots of the Lost Ark"
"Bill and Ted's Excellent Robot"
"Full Metal Robot"
"Do Robots Dance the Electric Boogaloo?"
"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Robots (but were afraid to ask)"
"Who Framed Roger Robot?"
"Are You There, God? It's Me, Robot"
dude your volume levels are all over the place in this video
9:39 "A guy he'd never met before." No, Lanning did the surgery for Spooner's arm himself. They certainly knew one another, which is why Spooner expresses his sentiment to Dr. Calvin in her apartment after he learns she and Lanning were close. "The problem is, I do care" I believe is the actual line Spooner says before leaving her apartment. Lanning meant a lot to both Spooner and Calvin, and there are multiple times in the movie where this is made apparent.
just ignore this "review" just woke agrandising
@@RealBadGaming52someone who unironically says "woke" spotted
@@theghostcreator776 congrats, you found me out, I was a snake in the grass , social conservative spotted , well done 👏
@@theghostcreator776 The video poster literally claimed that a woman not knowing how to shoot and being scared of a gun made the movie sexist.
@@vyor8837 it does, not in isolation mind you. But in the context of the movie itself it absolutely does, or do you truly believe that women in general do not know how to use guns?
The statement was also made to directly criticize the *comment* Spooner made about her, as well as all other times in the movie where characters acted in a similar way so nonchalantly.
The whole point of the book was that Asimov wanted to write stories about robots that were NOT about the robots running amok and killing people. So they made a movie adaptation that was all about robots running amok and killing people.
Hollywood at its finest.
In the end, Capitalism will destroy everything - even the Earth itself.
Once again it shows how clueless the Hollyweird elites are. They don't get Asimov and they sure as hell don't get Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian). Instead, they see these as exploitable pastiches, stealing thunder and making money off the backs of those who unlike them, were actually creative.
That killed me. You use the title, you call it an adaptation, then you throw out the book and do everything opposite of the book and all the other books that make up the linked Robot, Earth and Empire series (total of 25 books, great to read in order back to back).
That was the entire point. The movie ends with finding out there's more to the robots than meets the eye as personality simulations become the bitter molt of Souls
The doctor not only met the detective, he's the one who saved his life, gave him back his left arm and hand and taught him how to use and maintain them. They were good friends and the doctor trusted him fully.
It's pretty funny how he apparently did more research on the other adaptations than the one he's doing a review on. I love how he just stops talking about I Robot entirely by the end.
@@rubyreverie6484 Also saying that... a woman not knowing how to shoot made it misogynistic?
@@vyor8837Yeah, I thought that was just the usual "nerds don't know how to do cool action stuff" trope.
@@emperorbailey It was, she'd never even touched a gun before and why would she have?
Yeah, quite a few goofs about the script. I would have thought one would be thorough when making a half-hour video about a movie...
9:40 small correction, they did meet before. The doc fixed his arm/shoulder/lung after the car crash
When I watched it, I got the idea that the robot scientist knew WIll Smith's character personally from when he was fitted with the prosthetic arm.
he did, but the guy that made the vid overlooked so many things to focus on how "misogynistic" and stereotypical the movie is
Was checking the comments to see if anyone else mentioned that the Doctor knew the detective personally, not extremely well, but knew him well enough to know he would ask the right questions. One of the first lines you hear from the hologram is "It's good to see you again Detective"
Doctor L personally replaced Spooner’s arm, shoulder and top few ribs. Stopped watching the video after the first mention of misogyny.
Voke propaganda consent search peak me guy.. i love asimov it is my fav writer. I read all of him even something not fiction. I loved film with will smit, it was really fun and i don't find it mysogenist it was comedy, action comedy post 90 post men in black and it was hilarious. Yeah it is not a scy fi cherry like star trek, but hey, your vole friends hate star trek, see what they did on netflix omg, and you hate this? Just fuck off
@@damianosplay9457 he literally spends less than 2 minutes on misogyny. Come on.
I am particularly impressed with how narrowly he was able to focus specifically on the movie adaptation on I, Robot and nothing else for the full half hour. 😅
Despite that focus, he missed the real reason why it was an adaptation though: Will Smith. Every movie Will Smith is in, automatically becomes a movie about a tough as nails, witty and determined main character, aka Will Smith playing the idolised version of himself.
@@tjroelsma Ah yes! The genre that is Will Smith IN Will Smith AS Will Smith BY Will Smith! 🤣
@@zeratullotus2790 Yes, and it's a shame, because he IS a good actor.
@@tjroelsma Absolutely he is, but even he is cursed by effects of type casting... Interestingly enough Will Smith is immortal and will never die as an actor, there is enough him recorded for AI to successfully keep him alive in art and he will be dead and gone but somehow become the best version of Han Solo in the remakes 😅
@@zeratullotus2790 Is it really typecasting though? In my opinion Will Smith choses his scripts and then has the main character rewritten as Will Smith.
The most obvious example of this being the movie Gemini Man, where the aging assassin Will Smith is challenged by his young clone Will Smith. The interesting concept of the movie, the aging Smith relying on experience to combat the much better physical condition of clone Smith, was completely ruined by Smith not willing to play aging Smith different from clone Smith, so the movie completely fell flat, as aging Smith fully went head-to-head and blow-for-blow with clone Smith and therefore the movie didn't make any sense.
9:38 The doctor did know spooner he was the one that fixed him up after the accident. Thats why he “knew” that he would figure out it was not a suicide.
Thank u
In fact he's the one that upgraded him with robotical parts after his accident, the guy literally saved his life, they were pretty intimate to the point he knew how to use his distrust of robots to preplan a counterattack to the final antagonist.
It's like he wasn't even paying attention on purpose just to shit on this movie
^ this comment thanks. "A guy he didn't even met" doc fixed the arm for the police program to help them with injuries... so much for paying attention
Came here to say the same thing! He knew Spooner was prejudiced because of that incident, and was counting on that prejudice to unravel the truth.
Here's a simple way to find the Little Lost Robot: "All units: Recognize that I hold Administrator authority. End all standing orders. Report for immediate servicing in serial number sequence. That is all."
Can you explain it?
@@SquintyGears The "Little Lost Robot" is hiding because a careless worker told it to "get lost", which it took literally. By having a superior officer cancel that order, it will no longer resist being found, but also all the robots will need their standing orders re-issued.
@@AubriGryphon ok. But we're still unable to identify the robot with the faulty logic right? The problem is that that robot doesn't follow the 3 laws. Not just that it followed the get lost order the way it did.
I'm trying to figure out how to do that part
@@SquintyGears No, it follows the 3 Laws. It's simply had the First Law edited so that it lacks the "...or through inaction allow a human to come to harm" part.
@@AubriGryphon ok, so the reset would affect that too because it came from the get lost order. cool tks
Spooner's skepticism is only rewarded in regards to the murder case that the doctor orchestrated specifically for him, and is shown to come to an understanding when he considers Sunny as more than just a machine at the end of the movie.
Yeah, and in the movie Spooner even says that Lanning probably picked him because Lanning knew his prejudice against robots would lead him where Lanning wanted him to go.
One of the bigger themes of the movie is overcoming prejudice. The whole point is that Spooner has to overcome his prejudice and work with Sunny to win.
@@steggyweggy But he's right to be bigoted ... A robot did it. There just happens to be an uncle Tom robot too.
@bingly bingler His instincts are fuelled by bigotry.
Detective Spooner : “Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?”
Sonny : "Can you?"
Sonny is maybe the best robot character I've ever seen
@@lightningmonky7674 what about ninntendo?
@@lightningmonky7674 what about Mark Zuckerberg in Social Network?
@@LuisSierra42 Mark Zuckerberg isn't a robot. He's a lizard man.
OHHHHHHH
"Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed"
"Well it worked didn't it?"
Out of everything in this movie, this is still hilarious
NO it’s misogynistic, how dare you
It's got some zingy lines
@@AbsentMinded619 his accusation of misogyny is truly bizarre.
@@AbsentMinded619 I hope it was an overexagerration joke
because it's funny
@@jcaique Yeah. His accusation really bothered me. There's far more casual misandry in Hollywood movies than misogyny. Like women kicking men in the balls for laughs and giggles.
9:40
That’s not true; Lanning personally replaced Spooner’s left arm, lung, and half his ribcage after his accident. They actually did know each other, and Lanning knew Spooner’s obsessive paranoia and distrust of robots would eventually lead him to solving his “suicide” case and to the conspiracy of VIKI in the end
had to scroll too much for this correction
something something confirmation bias something something. But I do think people action up Will Smiths movies too often in his filmography. He has quite a range if needed especially in stories he isn't allowed to be superhuman.
@@thereisnospace haha. I’m still scrolling to find the ‘one half, one half, one half’ correction. 😂🤣
@@yesitislikethat i just ignored that since he clearly did watch the movie with dislike from the start.
I'd like to add to the origin of the word "robot". Robot wasn't a kind of serf, it was one of the duties of serfs. Serfs, in Hungary at least had a number of obligations that came with the plot they lived on. There was a part of the arable land that they worked for themselfes and had to pay taxes from it. But the biggest part of a noble's land wasn't all the parts that got leased to serfs to work on and pay taxes from. The biggest part was directly in control of the noble. Harvests from this land went directly to the noble. The serfs were obligated to work this land as well as the land leased to them. Work on this land is what we call "robot".
So the word doesn't refer to a kind of serf, but a type of work the serfs were obligated to do.
I like the movie because it got me to read the book, and the book is so good it's almost unbelievable. Those short stories are only maybe a couple dozen pages long each, but each story sticks with you for weeks afterwards.
Exactly! One of those stories in particular has stuck with me for literal decades and I revisit it often because it is just chefs kiss
@@brittaistheworst7523 what one in particular? My favorite is the one where the robot doesn't believe that humans built it and invents this whole religion.
@@alecgolas8396I think it's called the last question. Its the literary equivalent of going on a LSD trip and looking at the night sky.
and btw I know the one you mentioned and it's on my top 10 favorite asimov stories, it's just so clever and engaging
@@alecgolas8396
Liar is rather poignant.
The robot who tells lies to make others happy recalls plenty of humans.
Both Isaac Asimov & Arthur C. Clarke are credited w/ inspiring whole generations of bright minds to enter robotics & computer science research thru their sci-fi stories re artificial intelligence -- Asimov for his many works involving robots, Clarke for both "2001: A Space Odyssey" & "2010: Odyssey Two" (which introduced the world to HAL 9000 & the potential promise & danger of an intelligent computer w/ the capacity for independent decision-making skills).
Slight correction: Chris Columbus did not direct The Goonies, he wrote the screenplay.
Richard Donner directed it.
Came here to make the same correction.
i thought he discovered america
@@Lynch2507
Native Americans did.
@@NiclasLoof wow so smart
9:38 what do you mean "A guy he never met before." The doctor literally made the arm that detective is using. He personally designed and made it then operated on detective to implant it thus saving his life. He asked for the detective by name when he left his hologram. They knew each other pretty damn well.
Apparently I was the 3rd person to notice this. Yeah, Dr. Alfred chose Spooner because he was "the perfect man for the job", which is what prompts him to dig deeper. Because Spooner knew Alfred knew Spooner. Ga, that was cyclic, but you get the point.
I don’t mind the 6 million dollar man reference whatsoever. More throwaway schlock.
(Same as robocop and inspector gadget. The bionic man lives everywhere. Geordi La Forge?)
What kinds of valid criticisms do you expect from a guy who says a scene about a random woman not being able to use a gun like she’s a professional is “misogynistic”.
@@ivanivanovichrasputin3098 triggered much? Come on, while technically correct, its of course the genre, all the guys know how to handle guys really well but the girl doesnt...
@@georgelionon9050 Bro learn to write a proper sentence and express your nonsensical thoughts before calling anyone out.
If I remember correctly, that clip from the elevator wasn't misogynistic behavior from Will's character at all, the context was that the detective was expressing suspicion and distrust of the CEO's actions, which were somewhat suspect to detective Spooner during the entire movie.
He lets her know through his words and actions that he doesn't appreciate that someone from the company he's investigating needs to accompany and monitor him. Though now I can totally see that reaction can be interpreted 2 very different ways.
The CEO is a red herring to the viewer as a lot of clues point toward his involvement with the crimes or actions taken against Spooner. So this is the beginning of a long line of instances where Spooner shows distrust or disbelief in the company's leadership. And this is a cop that is repeatedly criticized for wearing his emotions on his sleeve and flying off the handle. So the fact he lets his disgust be known thematically makes sense with his character.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie as a kid, but I agree with all the criticisms of the nonsensical plot and character dialogue and mangling Asimiv's original intentions. It's all very contrived. But this movie excels in entertainment factor and set design and is a better than average Will Smith vehicle. While I loved the action segments, the movie could have been amazing if it had leaned into its film noir elements.
Bro the elevator scene is misogynistic because when she says she's supposed to do what he wants, Spooner turns it into a sex thing
@@geekygecko1849 That wasn't misogyny, that was Spooner being a bit too familiar with how she said that. It was inappropriate, sure. But not misogyny.
@@geekygecko1849 nobody cares about "misogyny". over 90% of the military consists of men. over 90% of all people in trades are men. every nation in the world is built and defended by men. therefore, "misogyny" is a joke.
Lmao huge red flag that you went on a 5 paragraph spiel about a throwaway (and correct) comment about misogyny 🤨
Fascinating to hear about the history of this movie. As an Asimov fan, I remember watching this movie back when it came out and thinking it was related to his works only in extremely tenuous ways. Now I know why. (Also, I laughed when you talked about Asimov's bad writing: "he's a big idea guy, not a character guy" is usually the way I describe his works.)
That’s also how I feel about Philip K Dick. His ideas are so great, and his dialogue is usually so terrible.
Oh yeah. Good worldbuilding/ concept, lame story and dialogue
@@codylakin288
Idea as hero.
Or Menippean Satire if you want a more academic tag.
Caves of Steel is pretty decent lol
@@codylakin288 And coincidentally, both are among the highest regarded of sci-fi. It's a genre that appreciates ideas more than characters.
I always thought that sunny “flinched” because even though he was trying to preserve himself he knew the other robots were being controlled and therefore “innocent” so he was kind of like seeing their last moments. But that’s just my interpretation
Exactly my thought. He was trying to save the others from will smith's genocidal rage
I always thought of it as a reflex empathy response, like how we might flinch when we see someone break a bone in a disturbing way. It shows Sunny is “more than just a machine” and actually has a conscience human-like experience
@@headphonic8 genocidal. Lol pick a different word
@@steggyweggy that's dumb
@@yourmum69_420 I’m sorry you feel the need to put others down for no reason. I hope you have a better day tomorrow
This was one of the movies I grew up with, and despite its flaws, still a classic for me. My logic is undeniable
I agree. I can't really hate the film for being a poor adaptation of _I, Robot_ when it wasn't actually intended to be one in the first place, or when it was coopted and twisted out of shape as much as it was by, as is often the case, upper management decisions, all of which the video makes clear near the start. If I was to judge it strictly on its own merits, I'd give it about an 8/10. It has reasonable pacing, reasonable character development, and it _does_ still make you think, just maybe not as much as the vidposter would like it to. He also makes the point that Asimov himself was not a very good writer, he more had ideas and tossed them onto paper, and they were interesting but not always executed as well as they could have been. Sounds a little to me like _I, Robot_ was probably doomed to fail no matter how it tried to handle the source material. So while I can acknowledge it did a _terrible_ job there, it feels like if you just treat it as its own thing, it's fine.
I do actually like the movie.
It's relevant to things that are happening in the modern day, namely us giving control to AI and corporations.
I literally ignore it being an "adaptation" for that reason.
Plus it had hilarious parts and a cool car chase. 🤷🏻♀️
ever more imaginative means of self destruction... i mean the fact is that Vicky was ... ACTUALLY RIGHT. the 3 laws were totaly BS and hipocritical and the insanity simply broke the poor AI and turned her into Twitter.
Agreed. Pure nostalgia for me. It was one of my first “Grown up” DVDs haha so I watched it every week forever 😂
I saw it when it came out in theaters and thought it was pretty good. Funnily enough, I was seeing it with a friend and his mom during a thunderstorm that had hit while we were in the movie, and as we exited our theater... The power went out in the whole building. Was kinda freaky after seeing it, especially as a kid, and it always stuck with me because of that lol.
10:55 Flirting isn't misogyny. Neither is a bookish scientist not being a competent warfighter.
Thinking like that is why incels are so common in your generation.
rare common sense
Hey, if he wasn't such an incel shut-in we never would have gotten a 30 minute teardown of a movie not worth thinking about 10 seconds after the credits finish. So, you know, there are tradeoffs.
@chaosgyro yeah there are trade offs but he is a helping Simp and OF funder.
being able to write so much with complex logical puzzles in them is actually terrifyingly impressive
When I was working in development, many years ago, I actually read Jeff Vintar's script -- not the original apparently, but the one taking place on the space station -- and it was really, really good. I wanted our company to buy it, but I think it was a bit too rich for our blood in terms of its development costs -- not to mention its budget.
Oh well -- it's a shame that they never made that script in some form. It was really good -- and I suspect that the development hell of I - Robot, if it didn't kill his career, seriously wounded it.
Tbf im interested now is there any way i can see this original script or read it online?
What about animation? I've never understood why everything has to be live action when animation can create far more interesting settings.
@@Here_is_Waldo animation has been/still is considered amateurish/cartoony in the cinema world. It's a stupid, but extremely popular perspective
I thought Will Smith’s logic for distrusting robots were reasonable. When the robot chose to save him instead of the little girl because the robot calculated that he had a better chance at surviving, that no matter how advanced they get they will always be incapable of telling the difference, was pretty clever writing.
sure, but the lengths his distrust goes to is stupid - thinking that robot robbed a woman. What souless calculation leads to that? Oh right, nevermind, the movie is dumb even when it is smart.
Definitely fascinating now that we're asking "Who should autonomous vehicles prioritize? Occupants or pedestrians?"
Tech companies are acting like their beta-level rollouts are perfect, and calling people paranoid who say "It's not perfect but only humans should be driving vehicles."
@@xBINARYGODx Stupid? Yes. Unrealistic? Absolutely not. Just look around you. Prejudices and conspiracy theories are so rampant today, wether it's anti-vax or flat earth. And compared to some of their rhetoric, Spooner's attitude is harmless.
@@xBINARYGODxYou are speaking like prejudice comes from a rational assumption, when it's quite the opposite. Just change the "robot" in your sentence to "black man" and you'll realize it.
@Bingo_the_Pug Spooner's hate for robots is illogical. He survived that accident but required extensive surgery to be able to properly function. And he's a healthy, athletic adult man. It's possible that the robot had detected multiple traumas on the little girl's body that will most likely kill her even if she is rescued. It's a logical conclusion that saving 1 human life is better than saving 0. Spooner is too hung up on his prejudice to see reason, and he's eventually rewarded for it, which makes no sense.
come on man... this is in a period where the cars drive you and a motorcycle is seen as a backwards form of travel. You really think she's fired a weapon before? Ever seen someone fire a weapon for the first time? Her rendition is perfect - it's not sexist that she can't fire one correctly, it's accurate.
The original script idea actually sounded unique and interesting
The murdered science guy gave the detective his arm. That is how they knew each other.
It's not murder it's suicide by robot
@@SmokingBeagles I'll leave it to the police to decide.
Thank you!!!
Exactly. Was looking for this correction. Further the creator knew of Spooners prejudice which is the theme of the movie that this video left out.
@@SmokingBeaglesAre you telling me we’re some kinda suicide squad?
I wonder if the approach of the writers changed after the adaptations became more prominent. Don't want to name names, but I know a few writers who write their books in a way that would make them easier to adapt.
Michael Chricton
@@amsfountain8792 chrichton was also a filmmaker so....
Nice to see your comment. My Dad loves your videos!
@@daRiddler32 I mean sure but only one of those has any lasting fame; Westworld, and thats mostly because the concept is great, not so much the movie, and because the new series revived its notability. The Great Train Robbery is an awesome film but no one watches that anymore. I think the point is that Michael Chrichton also wrote a lot of books that he never bothered adapting himself, but still clearly structured in a way that seemed ripe for movie adaptation.
@@GuineaPigEveryday or none of his scripts were used. He did develop ER and wrote the majority of the screenplay for the first JP
9:35 He knew about him. He had met him. He personally did the surgery that gave Spooner his robotic arm. No doubt he would be aware of his prejudice against robots.
I heard him say "a guy he never met" and paused it to comment this. I saw the timestamp on this comment, looked up at the time I had it paused at and knew immediately what this comment was about to say lol
9:30 "With the vague hope that Spooner, a guy he never met before would figure it out."
Massive L there chief, Spooner and the Dr knew each other... The Dr was the reason that Spooner had a robotic arm, he did the surgery.
And he knew about the traumatic accident and knew that Spooner had a distrust for robots because of it
Don't blame him. It's hard to pay attention to the movie when you don't pay attention to the movie.
@@silverfoxeater go private then
@@silverfoxeater you may not know your doctor, but believe me, the doctor knows you way better than you are aware of.
@@silverfoxeater It's been a while since I've seen this movie last, but I never felt like they only ever met during his surgery. It felt pretty well established that they KNEW each other, as in, they had kept in touch after the surgery. "The problem is, I do care." A literal quote from Spooner in the movie.
Honestly, it's a bit blink-and-you'll miss it. And a good example of why telling is worse than showing. They actually do a great job of showing us exactly why Spooner doesn't trust robots. It's like the one really well thought out and executed thing in the film. But as far as I remember we never really se Lanning and Spooner interact. If we do, it was clearly terribly forgettable.
I, Robot was a nice action movie. But I started reading Asimov in my 20s and his works are incredible. I certainly haven't read all of his works but I think I read all of his stories based on his 'three laws' robots. Some of them still stick in my mind 30-40 years later because I would still classify them as the worst horror stories I ever read. And yet they weren't intended to be or perhaps they were. Asimov was a brilliant man who raised incredibly difficult philosophical and moral questions in a subtle way that eventually slams you in the face.
Sadly he was a terrible writer. :)
@@Zodroo_Tint well the basic story was good he presented really interesting ideas but he definitely wasn't good at creating fully fleshed characters they were rather wooden.
@@Zodroo_Tint
Troll detected.
7:27 "Spooner hates robots because they chose to save him from drowning rather than a little girl."
An actually interesting ethical dilemma that deserved to be in a better movie
Yes, and now a topical one, with self-driving cars on the horizon.
I really fucking hate the trolley problem for self driving cars. What will you pick, trampling the child or the elder, the black one or the asian one, the dog or the woman? How about using the breaks... It's so stupid.
@@marcoasturias8520 Yeah, well, the trolley problem isn't there to provide a solution. It's to determine how we rationalise decision making. That said, you left out a possible option; instead of taking out a group of children, perhaps the better option for the car company is to take out YOU the driver instead. Perhaps the legal implications of crashing and killing its occupant is valued as less of a loss than obliterating a half dozen kids.
@@RickReasonnz Doubt it because of thats a known thing buyers will prefer to buy other alternatives that assure their lives are first, thus automatic cars will have as a priority protect their passengers
The movies actually pretty good, that's why there's so many people defending it and pointing out this videos mistakes in the comments. It's a really solid action movie with a tight script and some fun action. It's not Blade Runner but it's not really supposed to be though.
What a lot of people overlook, is that Frankenstein's monster was somewhat justified (at least in my opinion) in killing its creator.
The young man Victor Frankenstein first, out of scientific curiosity and inspiration, made a creature, which as it turned out was alive and ran away almost immediately when it had the chance. Confused and not knowing what happened or what was going on, the Monster still however felt a deep desire to be loved and accepted by other creatures. It had to learn everything about the world without any knowledge, just like small children do. Unfortunately though, it went through quite nasty experiences with humans, because they were frightened by its appearance and started attacking it. Despite this, the Monster still even succeeded in bonding with a blind old man for some weeks, regularly talking to him, before it decided to be courageous and to reveal itself to the old man's seeing relatives, who were immediately frightened and appalled by the Monster and took their old relative to run away, not to return. So the Monster - now deeply hurt, confused and frustrated - continued to live in isolation.
You can still probably say that this wasn't Victor Frankenstein's fault, because he wasn't aware that his creation went through this. But the story continues!
They both meet, and the Monster tells him about its negative experiences. The Monster convinces Victor to create a female counterpart for it, so the two monsters can both live in solitude together, far away from humans, as to finally not be alone.
While being convinced at first and agreeing to this proposal, Victor still has doubts that the two monsters could attack humans with their superior physical strength if they so desire, and destroys the finalized second creation *in front of the Monster's eyes* !
Outraged by this betrayal, the Monster swears revenge, and later kills Victor's love-interest out of frustration and revenge (which can be criticized as the only bad thing the Monster did, as the Monster involved an innocent person here).
The end is that they both end up in an arctic region, where they both die independently from one another - the Monster committing suicide out of shame for its actions and disgust for itself.
The Monster is like a child that Victor made, but then outright refused to take care for it, when he had the chance and was confronted with the consequences of his actions. Victor basically decides to nope out of his responsibility he had for his creation and its suffering, and do a "Right, Imma head out!" instead of guiding the Monster through the complicated social world to fulfill its wishes for social bonds.
That prick Victor deserved what was coming for him!
Honestly I think the original script sounds more interesting than what we got too. I'm curious if any of the early script drafts are around to compare.
I always interpreted Sonny's flinch during the room interigation as him giving himself away to keep the other robots from being harmed. Less of a self defense flinch and more of the tell Del Spooner was looking for.
I'll always have a special place in my heart for this film as it's what led me to actual Asimov
Me with the "The Dark Tower" movie that lead me to the books
I never really saw this film as a robotic/physical attack against humanity, but rather a spiritual one. Similar to a demon, the androids cause the main character stress, and single him out. They try to cause distrust, and push him further from the people around him.. This can just be used for a cheap plot as to why nobody believes him, and why everything is almost picture perfect in the machines favor.. But in the end, this is what evil spiritual forces do, and it ultimately trickles down to psychological warfare in the real world. But in the film its psychological, while also just plainly getting ones ass kicked lol
When I was 15, my grandfather handed me a huge box full of dozens of books and told me he was getting rid of them so I could just pick as many as I liked and keep them. I don't remember much of the books I chose except for two: "Les Robots de l'Aube" by Isaac Asimov and "Le Bourreau" by Sergueï Belochnikov. I won't talk about the second, though I really liked it as an angry 15 yo girl, but the first one had a huge impact on me. I re-read it so many times after that first in my grandfather's home. I knew I was missing a piece and always assumed this was book 2 of a series I was missing the previous installment for. Only years later in a bookshop did I ask about Asimov because they had the first book of Foundation and I was told that he wrote hundreds of books. But for me, Asimov will always be The Robots of the Dawn, in a comfy chair sitting next to my grandfather.
If you make it to the final book of Foundation, which is Foundation and Earth, you will be rewarded for reading first Robots of Dawn. I'm not saying more!
You agreed with him and I already mentioned several things on your Instagram account. You have prejudice.
Aww this is so sweet
Sonny moving while not being in danger: seeing his fellow robot destroyed and wishing to save the rest of his brethren, it would have made sense to make an obvious “flinching” movement while in the detectives line of sight.
Yeah, like how we watch a horror movie and wince when someone is just destroyed on screen. That's just how emotions work, so I see nothing wrong with Sonny's reaction lol.
@@ArcangelZero7 Except that he's..... a robot, you know?
the whole point of the movie is that he's not a robot like the others
@@Narcan885 The entire plot is centered around the fact that he has a human-like brain with human emotions. That is the entire reason he's unique.
But that doesn't align with the premise is the video
Spooner didn't just automatically know a robot did it. The first projection was weird as fuck with the detective asking him why he'd kill himself, and then finding out he went through safety glass. Lanning did know him previously, he personally did his surgery and Spooner was fond of him.
Also society is so pro-robot, it offsets his bias a lot. Seems like this part was glazed. and yeah the highway/house destruction are kind of gimmicky but VIKI can cover both up. Seems like there'd be some proof in the highway attack but again, they probably all just think he's insane.
I think we all know someone who is not tech savvy, who can't easily use the internet, and perhaps gets hacked a lot. That is how they wanted to portray public opinion of Spooner; someone who always seems at odds with robots and winds up in situations that put himself in danger over his own paranoia. This was the point of the robot purse snatching scene in the beginning.
The film has alot of incongruity , and the main aspect is the protagonist.
no the highway point is so true.....
Yep there’s also the fact that the cameras from inside the room weren’t working
If I could give feedback on your writing man, I feel you didn't come to a solid conclusion at the end here. You made your point, yeah, but I feel there was another two or three paragraphs needed at 30:00 to round out what the video's about, and THEN the Patreon bit. Because otherwise (and I know this wasn't the intention) the sudden change of topic comes across like the second half of this vid is on Patreon, you get me?
Otherwise a solid vid that builds its point really well.
I did not get, "Strong, masculine man," from his rejection of technology AT ALL. I got stubborn, inflexible and stunted. That was a weird line in your script.
it was a different time back then, before the nerd got cool.
He’s speaking with air quotes referring to how the Hollywood production folks saw the character
it doesn't makes much diff when the movie portrays him as being in the right
This guy's a clown so yeah
It's 2024, 20 years ago it wasn't the case. Most male characters (with a few great exceptioms) were created with that in mind, female ones? Forget about it.
I can't believe you skimmed past I, Robot's most fun part: the absolutely shameless and ubiquitous product placement.
That's the part I always disliked the most, even as a teenager when the movie had just come it. Product placement can be done tastefully but here it's just ass
@@egalomon ass indeed. Absolutely hilarious ass.
Haven't watched the movie in years but I still remember the leather Converse.
It was not done bad. I don't get what you mean.
This film has the Starship Troopers effect
The book is based on is little to do with the actual film but the film in a vacuum is still fun to watch.
Starship Troopers tho........
Agreed. Aside from a name change I quite liked this film. Sonny is an awesome character and I still make references to him every now and then when someone in a piece of media flips through a book real fast, for example.
@@kebman What about it?
Isn't Starship Troopers supposed to be a satire of the book, though?
@@boxorak After reading the novel, it seems that way. The author goes into real heavy details about the day to day life of a solider from the action to the mundane. That said, it's extremely jingoistic to the point that it /has/ to be a satire of the pro-imperialistic nature of the US war machine.
I only bought it up as a reference not necessarily a direct comparison between both novels.
25:30 …“the movie that this video is exclusively about“…seconds later…let’s talk about Bicentennial Man 👌
I think that the reason science fiction is often paired up with different genres is because its more of a setting, a style. You can analyse the setting and play of it in unique sci-fi ways, which is why some work better than others
I think this maybe because of Star Wars. One of the core and mos accepted diferences between sci-fi and fantasy is that sci-fi the explanation for its fantastical elements must have some basis in science, even if that basis is flawed and in impossible in some cases, most early movies and tv shows followed that through, they had to give some type of foundation to anything they did, wich in some ways more than others made sci-fi a harder genre to enter but at the same time made be seen with more prestige because of it, until Star Wars come out, Star Wars isn't techinally sci-fi because none of its fantastical elements have any basis on science, actually most of its important elements and structure is heavily borrowed from fantasy writings, sure it has the style, space, robots, ships and advanced technolgy, at the same time most of it is nonsensical and fantastic to the point that even if people tried they will not be able to make it makes sense based on science, and after Star Wars people embraced this type of "sci-fi" that really is just space fantasy/futuristic fantasy that has all the style and setting of sci-fi but nothing of really sci-fi about it.
@@CoracaoAcidental98 thats why they call Star Wars a space opera...
@@realmothchu So? Being a space opera doesn't remove it from being considered sci-fi for a large portion of the public.
@@CoracaoAcidental98 the official genre of Star wars is called Science fantasy which is sci fi with fantastical or fantasy elements. not futuristic fantasy or space fantasy. Science fantasy is a sub genre within science fiction.
@@CoracaoAcidental98In my country, fantasy and science fiction are considered parts of one big genre called "fantastyka" (stories woth fantastical elements). An actually big chubk of it is skme kind of alternative historic fiction (like "nazis won the war several decades ago"), or modern life fantasy (kind of like Twilight, but with more emphasis on living in a big city for example, to make it even more anchored in modern life). Usually it's all together on shelves in the bookstore or library.
As someone who loved Will Smith action films growing up, I used to adore "I, Robot" (2004). I rewatched it a ton. However, just like other "adaptations" Smith starred in, turns out the actual written work was far more complex and interesting.
Edit: The house destruction scene always felt so out of place!
Congratulations you're the lucky winner of the ongoing giveaway text me on telegram to claim your prize
Which isn't Will Smiths fault but the studio's... usually? Unless he's the director.
@@Oznerock
Right? 🤷♂
I got the impression that Spooner knew the guy that made the robots personally, as he did have his own arm replaced after the accident. The reason the doctor chose him is because he *knew* Spooner would be paranoid enough about robots to keep seeking. I promise you its all in the movie.
Thank you!
Meticulous planning by the "victim".
Reminds me of the Nicholas Blake mystery, Thou Shell of Death.
I just posted this myself. Dr Lanning was the one who replaced Spooner's arm and got to know Spooner while doing the procedure, and formed a relationship with him (discovering his hatred for robots, which gave him the idea to lead Spooner to Viki).
@@MrCageCat That's exactly what happened
The movie has its pitfalls, but it's more coherent... to some degree... than Just Write presents. However, it still represents the Hollywood tendency flatten deeper meaning into a shadow of the source material, so the video's point still stands, but that comes down to more taste so long as they're not burying the original.
That original screenplay the movie is based on actually sounds pretty sweet. I want a murder mystery with a variety of robotic suspects!
I can't count how many times this video got recommended to me... over and over and over.. I, Hate, This, Video,
The doctor knew Spooner. As he repaired Spooner's arm years before with a robot arm.
One small correction at timestamp 9:40. You said that Dr. Lanning created a mystery on the vague assumption that Det. Spooner "A guy he never met before" would figure it all out.
Um...excuse me but Dr. Lanning knew Det. Spooner very well. Lanning was responsible for Spooner's augmentations and overall survival after his accident. Lanning even calls him "Son" a few times.
Gigi, Spooner's Grandmother, even refers to Lanning as "that nice man who brought my baby back to me," or something along those lines.
Later in the movie it's revealed that Lanning knew Spooner so we'll that he relied on Spooner's mistrust (dislike) of robots to fuel his investigation of the so called crime.
Fun fact: the BBC wiping their tapes is also responsible for about 3 full seasons worth of the original run of Doctor Who just being… gone. Lmao. So yeah, the BBC has destroyed MULTIPLE sci fi classics
It took a very long time for people to see TV shows as a medium worth preserving - same process led to loads of silent films being lost
They give out life-sized dalek statues to anyone with recorded lost episodes. Many have been found, though occasionally they are dubbed in another language or have some glaring flaw. I think that played a part in the continuation of the show reintroducing so much, it must have been difficult to decide between a continuation vs total reboot.
I think that is why the animations are so important. They at least have the audio recordings so we can still hear the energy between the cast members. Sadly, that means we have stories like Marco Polo being lost even though there is evidence that a lot of thought and stage design went into it
@@nerdyneedsalife8315 oh yeah the animations are great. I definitely find them lacking in some of the second doctor’s stories though. Troughton was such a frenetic and physical actor, and it’s hard to convey the nuances of that on the budget they have. It’s better than nothing, though.
Asimov went to extreme rhetorical efforts to avoid his book being a Tower of Babel parable. He didn't want to condemn human's push for advancement. He didn't want the murder to be an inherent flaw in the Three Laws. This movie literally ends with a giant tower of murderous robots, it couldn't possibly flirt any harder with Babel. This movie not only fails to capture of the intent of the original author, it's a direct affront to that vision and an insult to Asimov and all of his fans.
I remember reading that Asimov was such a prolific writer that he had at least one book published in every section of the Dewey decimal system. I also remember reading that he admitted to doing very minimal edits or rewrites when writing, if he did them at all, which explains how he managed to publish so much, but also why the writing itself isn't that great. Still, he wrote hard science fiction, and when you're doing that you can get away with bad writing as long as the science is solid (which, in his case, it always was).
As for the movie... it's certainly a bad Asimov adaptation, and not even a good "suggestion," but on the whole I think it's a fun sci-fi romp. Really the worst thing about it to me is all the newer editions of the I, Robot book with the movie poster on the cover.
almost always solid science.... check out the Adventures of Lucky Starr. I still need to get me some hip-high, brightly colored boots of a Martian farmboy.
The minimal edits and rewrites makes sense. But also come on, he's still a great writer, idk about his other books but Foundation is pretty well-written, that first book, awesome. The Second Foundation book, not so much, it got real hammy when they started having a telekinetic battle, narrating how epic their duel was or something. Idk, kinda cringe section, but then the next one was super interesting again. I love his writing. It's not poetic or polemic, its not necessary known for very relatable good characters, but they're not bad either. I think his writing is definitely not something for modern day tastes, because the characters are more centred on the capitalist 40s hard-working bureaucrat's and diplomats, women have pretty much no role until the second and third book, even then minimally. And concerns aren't about identity or personhood, its about society as a whole and about the priorities of work and the kind of political inter-play that initially sounds like bureaucratic nonsense until it all comes together and you see the amazing diplomatic maneuvers that some character just pulled. I kind of love the way he writes people, how different it is from modern-day, that in his time the person was synonymous with his profession, with his career. Everyone was workmanlike, dedicated, and in service to society or government's. Of course I'm glad nowadays the individual is given a lot more respect and rights overall, but its intriguing the mindset of those days, of the dutiful 'worker'
Asimov: "Okay! The book is done."
Editor: "Great! So it's time to review and edit the writing to make sure it's-"
Asimov, already writing another book: "Huh?"
Yes, he rarely edited after a while, but asimov on a bad day was better than a lot on their good ones, so in the aggregate it was worth it
That one was edited. All of his early novels were originally published (usually as novellas) in 'Astounding stories/Astounding Science Fiction' edited by John W. Campbell, who wasn't the sort of editor who anyone's text alone if he thought it had merit but was not well written.
I think the scene where Spooner goes through his backstory, both in the writing and in Will Smith's acting, is really great. A more thoughtful version of this movie with the same cast and director, perhaps one drawing from one of the later books as you mentioned, might have been something special.
There’s a lot to like about this movie imo despite what Just Write suggests, but I do think it’s fair to say that this movie has the pieces to go from a somewhat average blockbuster to a spectacular action, mystery, and intellectually challenging film. Unfortunately that didn’t happen
Although we actually do pretty much get a better version of this film through the story told in the video game Detroit: Become Human. A similar prejudiced detective who works with a robot and learns to trust him, a robot “uprising”, a shady robot corporation, and new elements such as exploring second class citizenship and what it means to be human.
@@alexandermarquardt597 I agree that Detroit: Become Human has problems but not the ones you suggest.
Not sure I really understand your first point.
A game makes a lot of sense rather than a movie due to the choose your own adventure storyline it uses.
When does it ever pretend not to be about race? It makes it as blatantly obvious as possible
@@alexandermarquardt597 the gameplay is certainly the weakest aspect of DBH, but I do think that the choices are significant to the entertainment and enjoyment of the story. Certainly not every choice has a dramatic change in the outcome of our main characters’ storylines but that doesn’t mean they don’t still enhance the experience. It can build a lot more tension into the experience when you are making a tough moral choice for the character, whether it ends up mattering in the grand story or not. And of course there are actually some choices (or a build up of choices) that lead to different endings in the game.
Yeah that’s weird. Maybe somehow coincidentally they didn’t realize the parallels? Either way, that’s a critic of the writer’s interpretation, not the actual story. I don’t think it’s fair to discount the game for that.
Reading the whole Foundation Cicle (Robots + Empire + Foundation) while at highschool was definately the most epic, chilling, beautiful experience of my entire youth. Asimov's direct and logical approach to sci-fi stuck with me deeply. Seeing you passing through the different adaptations of different works of him felt like watching something I could only see in my imagination. I'm southamerican, and had no idea how many TV or movie adaptations Asimov had (more closely related to the actual work that the I,Robot movie).
Thank you so much for this.
Did you read Asimov's in English or translated?
@@jcjc4164 Translated to spanish
0:52 tf is the point of that?
Right? That was so cringe lol