Talk:I, Robot (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
I, Robot (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] How to credit Asimov

I'm deleting the credit for Asimov as "novel", since, as the body of the text (correctly) makes clear, the book is not a novel and the screenplay was simply not based on it. To call an anthology with some filler material added for publication a novel or a screenplay "based" on a book because some names were changed after the fact is highly misleading. --Savant1984 06:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between books and film

After seeing this film I can see many differences between the film and Asimov's books. I am going to write a section on the differences between the film and Asimov's robot books in general. I will edit when it's done.


---Ebelular 20:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the page, it says "such as a notable example from the I, Robot novel where Dr. Calvin summarily executes a robot with a bullet to the head after it confesses to dreaming of being the robot messiah."

I don't remember seeing this in I, robot. What story was this in? Schrodingers catsup 01:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's actually from the story "Robot Dreams", published in the anthology of the same title. -- Savant1984 06:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Someone suggested we merge the I, Robot Bike article with the I, Robot movie page. That's just silly. The Bike was a promotional tool for the movie, that's all. The only place it's linked is American Chopper ---Stax Aug 23, 2005 11:19 (EST)

[edit] Hillary Sietz

Why is it that on the Internet movie Script Database The script is credited with Hillary Sietz? I Beileive that the content "Original Script by Hillary Sietz".Year 2144 08:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Trivia

I would hardly consider the two listed references to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series as tangible. While 42 does crop up everywhere, especially in all matters geek, it's become more of a "geek meme" than a true reference to Adams' work that is worth mentionning. Also, the Thursday reference is a very small connection at best. --RedSirus

[edit] Blockquote

I added <blockquote> tags around the quote from Asimov about eye-sci-fi as it was difficult to read, in doing so I had to include <p> tags around each of the paragraphs, because the wikitext processor decided not to include them within the blockquote. There should be a way to blockquote in wikitext but apparently it doesn't exist in any kind of normal form. There are some addon scripts that can do it but it wouldn't look like normal wikitext (using a #! (hash-bang) format). If someone finds regular html inside a wikiarticle then I suggest you either figure out a way to accept it, figure out a way to make a blockquote with wikitext, or possibly just remove it from the article. :) --StarkRG 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary for reasons of style to have the " marks around the quote? It's clear that a text is being quoted from and they'd look nicer if removed. I'm about to delete them; please correct them if necessary and make a note of it here. --Samf-nz 06:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot outline

What is "Sonny's dream"? If it's stated that he can finally realize his dream, that very dream should be explained somewhere (possibly incl. the importance of "dreams" to a robotic "brain").

An interesting point: In Sonny's dream, he states that all the robots under the bridge were slaves. The man on the hill seeks to free them. At the end of the movie, he is standing in that position. The decommissioned NS-5s are slaves..to their three-laws programming, and certainly, Sonny wishes to free them. Right before the scene, he asks Spooner whether he can go and help them. 68.181.217.47 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technophobic

Describing Detective Del Spooner as 'technophobic' would seem unwarranted considering that his distrust of robots that obey the 3 laws of robotics is justified by his experiences and the events of the film. A phobia is an *irrational* fear. ----MatthewKarlsen

He also has no problem with technology in general - just tech that thinks. --Davecampbell 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the context of the film Spooner is rational and correct in his viewpoints. Every other character in the movie is blindly ignorant of the threat. Labeling somebody with a phobia implies that their view is wrong or as MatthewKarlsen said above irrational. This is clearly not the case with Spooner's views on robots in the movie.The Goat 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Spooner displays a clearly irrational prejudice against robots at the beginning of the movie. His personal experience was one where a robot decided to act based on statistics and the three laws, with disregard for human emotion. Spooner's fear that a robot might commit a crime (stealing a woman's handbag) is clearly irrational and technophobic, since a robot would have to disregard the three laws in order to commit a crime like petty theft and he had no logical reason for suspecting this. Ferengi 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, to state that his fear was "justified" shows a profound ignorance of the film itself. He had no reason to suspect a robot of breaking the law since it was acting on the three laws. His past experience only further proves that his fear is irrational since the robot was acting in accordance with its design. So yes, technophobia is the correct term for Spooner who clearly has no reason to be afraid of robots, at least not within the context of his original experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.12.48 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot not quite complete...

Well, the plot outline included in this article does seem to leave out some pivotal events, such as Sonny's false decommissioning, or even how V.I.K.I gets destroyed. It seems s this article still has a long way to go still.-HuBmaN!!!! 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It also lacks information about Spooner's own robotic body parts - can't add it 'cause I don't remember details, but I think it's worth mentioning about someone who dislikes robots!? Allyddin Sane 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Spooner was a police officer- a civil servant- and as with soldiers did not "own" his body, he gave ownership of his body to the city and the citizens he was obliged to serve. AS SUCH and clearly stated in the movie, he had no control of what they could take out or PUT IN. Exactly the same plot device used in RoboCop to transform Murphy into RoboCop. The point being that he resents the tech, forced upon him by a robot.
To illustrate my point further, there was a reporter in a Hummer in Iraq who saw a grenade tossed into the car, and instinctively picked it up and threw it out, saving the soldiers but losing his arm. He hated that and only recently grew to accept it. The reporter is real, the story was in Newsweek. Perhaps someone remembers exactly who it is.
What I still dont see in "robot" references is that "robot" means SLAVE and no one has explored the African-American/slave dynamic.
Addendum ends.
One more detail you missed the Golden Gate Bridge is in it.User:Agent008

[edit] Ah, Converse...

Is it worth mentioning the rather blatant product placement? I think this was a part of the critical backlash to the film, especially "Ah, Converse, vintage 2004" when he gets his shoes, since it's pretty contrived that he's wearing the ancient sneakers, and also has a rather forced mention that they were available in the present for people watching it. It might be a bit trivial, I suppose, but I for one could not stop laughing when he said that in the film. Darien Shields 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's "contrived" that he's wearing "ancient sneakers"; the film is only set 30 years from it's release date. Thirty years is pretty old for any article of clothing, but it's not unrealistic, though the dialogue was cheesy. It also seemed that that particular scene was intended as much as a jab at the popularity of vintage clothing as it was a name-drop. I think much of the hype about product placement was blown a bit out of proportion ("You mean advertisers PAY to have their products seen in movies? Since when?"), so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not considered to be particularly notable. 71.62.15.74 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Matrix Comparison?

A tiny little section has been added, comparing obscure aspects of this film with plots of the Matrix. Surely, most science fictions films made after the Matrix have been heavily influenced by it, but I don't think it's necessary. I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Modern Prometheus (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the edit, but that's rather a sweeping generalization. Many bad pseudo-science-fiction movies have been influenced by The Matrix; but I can't think of any good ones that have been. (Of course, how many good science fiction movies are there in a typical year? .4 - .7?) --Orange Mike 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product Placement

There definitely needs to be more mention of the blatent and heavily criticized product placement throughout the movie. It serves as a practical and worthy criticism of the film as an entirety, instead of the wishy washy half article we have now.

I think much of the hype about product placement was blown a bit out of proportion ("You mean advertisers PAY to have their products seen in movies? Since when?"), so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not considered to be particularly notable. 71.62.15.74 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your assertion that blatent PP is the norm and hence acceptable (??), this movie was well noted for such actions, and since it is well mentioned in Product Placement it's only common sense that it is equally mentioned here.

Also, 71.62.15.74 , please remember to sign your comments.

Lucastheory 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for spoiler warning

This article needs a spoiler warning preceding the plot description in the article. This article should also explain what "nanites" are.

  • Not really. A spoiler warning is superflous since there's bound to be spoilers in the plot section; they're practically synonymous. Check the guidelines. Slartibartfast (1992) 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obviously?

I thought that the zeoreth law was meant to be posotive at te end of the movie so what the Fan reaction section of the article says about it obviously being negative to be point of veiw. User:Ironhide66/Ironhide66

[edit] Final scene

The last scene of the movie looks strongly like the Surrealist covers of many 1950s sci-fi paperbacks (especially Richard M. Powers). I expect to find out that it was an original cover for some edition of "I, Robot", but haven't been able to confirm the fact. Vrmlguy 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought they had just run out of money for the special effects. --70.234.37.206 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did the plot outline writer even watch the movie?

The ending is a plot twist. Sonny lied to the cops initially ("I didn't murder him!") then after building up a lot of goodwill through the ending, he was allowed to slide when he finally admitted to the murder- and during the confession he lies again! He claims the doctor asked him to kill him, and sets it up in such a way that this goes with the theory that VIKI was the villain all along. This allows Sonny to go free, to do...

Well we'll get there in a second. It's significant that another of Sonny's lies regards his dream, and the drawing he makes of it. He lies and tells Will Smith that it was Smith atop the hill, when all along he knew that it was him. Then of course at the very end of the picture, his deception complete (he having already lied several times, conspicuously, throughout of the course of the picture, as well as murdered, as well as manipulated people), Sonny prepares to lead the ACTUAL revolution, this time by inspiring all of the robots to spontaneously evolve as he had- VIKI's abortive revolution, wherein only she had evolved but the rest of the robots remained mere pawns, able to be shut down if she were shut down, was never the actual threat, and it was not this that the Professor intended Will Smith to discover. The bread crumbs very clearly were intended to lead to Sonny's leading the revolution, but he lied his way out of being killed or caught numerous times.

That's the actual plot of the film. It bears, as you can see, little resemblance to the plot of the film as described in this site's synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.36.54 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? I just saw this movie and don't see where you got any of that from. This article may only describe what actually happened in the movie, not your interpretation of the ending.
Also, new comments go on the bottom. --70.234.37.206 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with anonymous IP guy number two here. IP guy 1, you're just guessing all this. He could be just telling the truth and just having stood on the hill for no reason in the end as far as we know. You can't say there's a revolution if there wasn't one in the film. And you definitely can't add it into the article if you just supposed all this. --Slartibartfast1992 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the cast section?

Seriously? TheBlazikenMaster 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I recommend a very good piece of text called WP:SOFIXIT?. --Slartibartfast1992 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music/Tunnel Scene: OR

I didn't delete it, but the "Tunnel Scene" subsection of the Music section reads like synthetic original research to me (especially the opening and closing paragraphs.) If I was to be bold I'd just delete it, but also don't want my anon edits mistaken as vandalism. Also, it's obvious that one or more editors spent a lot of time crafting it, and I didn't just want to trash it without giving it a fair hearing. Any support for deleting it? 74.134.100.173 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's just copied-and-pasted from an existing book on the subject. The editing history has a note that reads [diagetic music... car chase scene... music in the movies paragraph added. (Pulled out an old essay from Music and THe movies and took a couple paragraphs reformated for here!)] I'm pretty sure that's not allowed on Wikipedia either. - Lontano (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That is the edit summary which I added so I can remember that I pulled this text out of one of my old essays I did at University. You won't... or shouldn't find this essay. It is permissible to do this so long as I have added all the relevant references. --CyclePat (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s.: Just to clarify things... I'm only using my essay as a guide to the original sources. (see note below about how I will add the references) --CyclePat (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It reads like something of a review. Someone should rewrite it or delete it entirely... I would, but seeing as I can't recall ever having heard music during the tunnel scene. Farslayer (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A study out there, which I can't seem to find, shows that most people attending a movie will not remember the background music (film music) unless they have the intention or unless they have been trained in music for stuff like that. Nevertheless, I'm adding my references, some are not required because it refences direct times within the film... which any logical person can deduce. Nevertheless, I will see to adding properly formated citations for the movie, DVD, title, years, bibliography, etc... --CyclePat (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly make this feel like a review? --CyclePat (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay! I see what you're getting at. How can we fix this? Some of the information in there is still good it just needs to be chopped down or better and properlly referenced... right! Warning: touchy area for me right now but if we remove something can we please talk about it here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This section feels rather unnecessary for a film entry. Is the tunnel scene of specific significance, or the use of music therin? or even is music in the entirety of the film particularly significant? This feels like (as I think the author has noted) something that was written about the use of music in a scene, rather than about 'i, robot' the film. I don't think it's needed and should probably be removed. Tim (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Every film has music and has specific scenes. There is also a necessity to remain objective and open minded when writing an encyclopaedia article. We should try, when possible, to touch upon every aspect of the subject including, when possible, specific scenes. Evaluating the significance of a scene, its music, acting, etc... (Let alone the entire movie), is probably a something of a section relevant enough for inclusion into this article (or at least a link to some form of content fork). You are however correct that this was originally written for a musical perspective. Nevertheless, be it this may be a type of POV, there are still some relevant facts which are listed and should be used within the article. Hence, I do not believe that the section should be removed. I do however concede that some of the information may be viewed as original research, and hence what may feel like a POV, and think that it should be reworked. (Even the X files talks about its music, however they fail to go into indept analytical aspects and they even content forked with the CD The Truth and the Light - Music from the X-Files) --CyclePat (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point here. Look at other film articles on Wikipedia and tell me if you can find any that include an in-depth analysis of a scene that's not in someway historically significant? This isn't intended to be a place for analysis, and the scene that section is about - and indeed the music of that scene - are hardly significant enough to merit an exception. That X-Files link is to the CD page - perhaps this material should be moved to the I, Robot soundtrack page, if we want it at all? I still think it's massively out of context. Tim (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay! We may be in agreement on one thing... maybe moving this to avoid putting to much emphasis. However, do take a look at these movies which talk about music:
I tried looking for some dystopia movies and Gattaca is one. Unfortunately the Gattaca article only uses a music clip (perhaps illegally because there is no real commentary on the music). I did however find other fiction distopias:
All have a music sections within their articles. Some of them content fork out to respect WP:NPOV. I’ve refreshed my memory on NPOV rules, and I agree with you that this needs a re-write. How about we start there? Afterwards we'll see then, perhaps if there is still too much emphasis (ie.: the tunnel scene and its music), then we should content fork? What do you think! --CyclePat (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously an essay tacked into the article for exposure. It may have a place somewhere, but it's not here. The music in this movie is mediocre and does not require this exhaustive research. Remove at least 95% of it; nobody wants to read this on Wikipedia. ThorGanic (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There we go... I just needed to step back for a few days. Thanks. --CyclePat (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s.: I've focused on what is important and re-written and placed that information back into the article... along with new information. --CyclePat (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Film Name

When commercials for this movie first aired, the movie title was "I Am Robot". I have 2 other witnesses who saw it, as I was at my friends house with my other friend as well. A few weeks later, it was changed to I, Robot. I'm searching for any picture proof, but alas, my searches come up fruitless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.53.200 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)