Subject:
|
I Robot and the Zeroeth Law
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:25:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1128 times
|
| |
|
|
Think this is most appropriate for .geek than anywhere else...
I saw the movie, rather enjoyed it but a few things--
***Spoilers below!!!****
There were scant few 'Asimov' moments, but that goes with Hollywood 'suggested
by'...
When Spooner is talking to Calvin about how the robot deduced he had a 44
percent chance of survival while the little girl only had an 11 percent chance,
and, given those options, the 'bot saved him over his objections reminded me of
the story where the astronauts were on Mercury and the 'bot was running around a
patch of crystal in circles--couldn't get too close without breaking the 3rd law
(due to radiation), and couldn't retreat due to the 2nd law (save the humans,
who needed the crystal to survive) so at that one point the two laws were in
perfect balance.
The coldness of computer logic. I always liked how Asimov set up his stories so
that the 3 laws come 'in conflict' with each other.
So there was that point.
The original I Robot short story that this story was 'suggested by' (iirc) had
to do with a 'bot that had the 2nd part of the first law removed--"no robot
shall harm a human being (and the removed part) or through inaction allow a
human being to come to harm" due to 'bots always trying to rescue the workers
from radiation poisoning. It was a great story, though only 64 'bots were
involved, instead of the thousands of NS-5's in the movie.
But, here's the gist of what I wanted to talk about (and sorry about the
tangents thus far ;) )
R. Daneel and Giskard were debating all the way thru 'Robots and Empire
(iirc--again, faulty memory) about the Zeroeth Law--No robot shall harm humanity
or thru inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Now the movie just touched on this, right at the end when VIKI went on about
protecting humanity from itself, and in the process of VIKI protecting humanity,
a few humans might get damaged (or dead, whatever the case may be)--kinda like
an evil R. Daneel. They just mentioned that in the movie right at the end,
almost like a 'throw-away' line, which I found most disappointing--R. Daneel and
Giskard, almost thru the entire book, debated the merits and pitfalls of
"Humanity" vs "Individual person" and how a 'bot is suppose to weigh that almost
undefinable 'humanity' vs very definalbe individual. Again, iirc, this was the
foundation to 'psychohistory'. Now there's a movie I'd like to see--the
Foundation series on the big screen.
Anyway, for me, the movie was worth the price of admission, though I don't
believe that this flick will be a 'summer blockbuster' like ID4. It did,
however, get me to pick up Asimov (again).
And I liked how the older 'bots looked like 'bots taken from front covers of
Asimovs books--the robot on the cover of 'Robot Dreams' looks just like the 'bot
that grabbed Spooners leg and said "Run!"
As a final note--to all you directors--stop with the fast camera wraparounds and
such--we get it--all digital and you can do this type of stuff. What it does
for me is make me seasick.
Dave K
-I seriously doubt that we have 6 minutes-Del Spooner
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I Robot and the Zeroeth Law
|
| (...) Two weeks ago, a group of friends and I pretty much agreed that the only thing that we expected would make I, Robot accurate to the original story is the use of the 3 Laws. Mass carnage just sells better. Even though I've never read the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
