Yeah this idiot took 10 minutes and 25 seconds to say the only 2 words that mattered - "Absolutely nothing" There might have be some redeeming features if it was just another sci-fi the robots go crazy flick. Except Captain Self Indulgent Himself - Will Smith slapped the name of one of the great works of sci-fi literature on the posters, promos and DVD cover to get attention for yet another Will Smith "look at me" video. Yes I am an fan of the writing of Isaac Asimov, but then when you can say/write the following why wouldn't you be. “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
Also definitely another one for the loo she gives Spooner when he tells her the demolition timer had changed. She's so confident in what the machine tells her that she flat out assumes Spooner was too dumb to read the time off of the display.
I love I, Robot's depiction of the future. Everything isn't super sleek and not everyone has the newest, futuristic fashion. If you pay attention to the first scenes showing the city, about 2-3 ladies only have newer fashion while everyone else has early-somewhat recent fashion. Same with the cars. They still look like believable cars but have that futuristic tone to them. Everything isn't holographic, just flatter(like now) and a bit sleeker. Plus, there should be a super win for Spooner keeping something from the past(it shows his character and even keeps realism because not everyone throws out their old things for newer models).
I think other than AI the prospect of automation replacing human jobs is very gripping and realistic. Spooner came up with an idea for a commercial for US Robotics, mocking them, saying that the slogan should be: "shitting on the little guy". It's 15 years later and I felt that. Low skill labor is being more taken over by machines.
Honestly this feels like a prequel to demolition man, this could be the great tragedy they were talking about before the world turned into whatever it was in demolition man.
But again it’s only 2035 so it wouldn’t make sense if they had crazy advanced tech but yeah here it still makes sense even including that one ad about a space hotel it could still make sense
As someone who has read 3.2 metric buttloads of Asimov's work, I would like to respectfully submit that he spent the majority of his writings demonstrating exactly how idiotic his laws of robotics really were.
Idiotic? No. Remember the story about the politician accused of being a robot? The three laws of robotics may be mandatory for a robot, but are also can be the guidelines for a very good man? In the end, many of the problems came from humans not understanding the three laws properly. In the first novel, both Nestor and Speedy's malfunctions were caused by their human operators giving bad orders.
Both the laws and our understanding of them will always be flawed, I think is the main message. There is no foolproof system. The laws will fail just like the Ten Commandments fail, one way or another. Even if the rules somehow WERE perfect, they will not be followed or understood perfectly. If you cannot think of a situation where a robot following all the rules can still lead to disaster, you need a lot more practice with thinking. To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, the universe/conscious beings will, uh, find a way... to !%$ things up.
As a fan of science fiction, I absolutely loved I,Robot. It's a shame that critics didn't see the good things about it. Fortunately, I rarely listen to them anyway. Props to Alan Tudyk, he did a great job with Sonny. The first time I saw him was in A Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger.
Alan Tudyk must be a Terminator, created in the future, and brought back in time to serve his Hollywood Overlords. Because he does "Robot Voices" so frighteningly well that I literally don't think anybody could do what he could do behind a microphone. Even the late-great Robin Williams would have had difficulty doing Sonny so well in this film. But for Tudyk? Just a walk in the park on Sunday for this guy...
It's not a bad movie, but it definitely is a bad Asimov-based movie. It is the very thing that Asimov was traying to avoid with *his* I, Robot - he wrote the rules because he was tired of robot uprising stories and wanted to test what stories could be written in a world were robots were kept from rebelling against humanity. I, Robot, the movie, would be a far better movie if it didn't directly reference Asimov's work.
Actually, its a common theme in Asimov's books, where he'll establish rules that seem airtight and then find ways of breaking or gaming them. The Three Laws in his robot books and the concept of Psycho History in the Foundation books, where a scientist developes a science for predicting the future, that for hundreds of year bares out exactly as he predicts and then everything takes a left turn and it becomes about getting things back onto his plan.
Fickle Scullery There was also the Zero'th Law of Robotics, concieved of by a human-form robot named Daneel, which basically says a Robot may ignore the other three laws, if it is determined that by doing so will save more lives and serve the greater good. In other words, its okay to allow a human to die or even to kill them, if by doing so, you save more lives and protect mankind as a whole by doing so. Viki, is basically following the Zero'th Law
I recently heard a different interpretation of Spooner adding so much sugar to his coffee: it foreshadows his robot arm. Think about it; we never see him recharging it or worrying about its power-source being damaged, what if it's somehow powered by his body's caloric intake? That would explain why he eats so many of his grandmother's pies.
Counterpoint: Outside of the calories required to sustain dramatic blue lighting and electrical arcs, why would a super efficient robot arm require more calories than a human arm when he rarely exhibits any enhanced strength from it?
It always annoys me how no one realizes that Asimov's laws aren't supposed to work. The book I, Robot introduces three laws that sound infallible, but the entire book is a collection of short stories demonstrating how those laws DONT work. The idea is to try and get readers to realize how impossibly difficult it would be to write actual laws that work in every situation.
The laws do work. The fun stories is in the grey areas in between and the interplay of those laws. Not once (particularly in the "I, Robot" book was a human permanently harmed, many were saved, orders were followed unless it would have resulted in harm, and the robots protected themselves where appropriate. Wat the laws don't do is create a perfect set of rules that covers every possible situation and forces the robots to do what would seem emotionally proper at the time.
The core idea behind asimovs irobot is that you don't need evil robots to make an interesting robot story. Which is why he has his 3 laws, and why they are never broken.
Errr no. The laws never fail. They operate as intended. This movie didn't find some clever loophole in the laws. Harming humans to protect humans is a paradox. It causes the robots of the book to crash.
Lets not forget how this movie displays a rarity of demonstrating actual knockback and recoil of a rifle. Notice how when Susan shoots the rifle Spooner gave to her she uncontrollably starts raising it upwards almost behind her head. Now i'm not sure how necessarily realistic that kind of recoil would be for that specific rifle but at least they attempted to integrate it whereas most other movies would just have the character spontaneously gain the ability to control the kick of a gun they've never fired before to artificially display some sense of heroinism.
I agree with you there. xD I have never seen anyone pick up a gun for the first time without having a reaction similar to her. I hate it when a movie has someone who has supposedly never even touched a gun grab a LMG and hipfire it like rambo.
Its not for realism it's because she's a female character and "women can't use guns" is a trope. They actually downplayed it here, often a woman can (in movies) be knocked off her feet by the recoil of a handgun.
The opening being an underwater shot of the three laws kinda serves as a nice metaphor for how Spooner is still trapped in the moment that defined his life, constantly reliving and dwelling on it, and how he can't get past his fixation on the system (the three laws) that caused it.
"HEY! Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?!" "Well it *worked,* didn't it?" To me, that sounds like an exchange you'd hear in a pen-and-paper RPG campaign after someone rolled a natural 20 and still miraculously didn't hit any of their allies *despite* the likely heavy penalties they'd get to their roll due to aiming with their eyes closed. XD
I love the scene when spooner finds the NS5s tearing apart the older bots and as they chase him more of the old bots shout "human in danger" and jump into certain death. Self sacrifice anyone?
Almost true. But remember the first law of robotics: A robot may not harm a human, nor by inaction allow a human to come to harm. They had little control in the matter, no more than you do over your breathing.
Goddamn I'm happy SOMEONE finally brought this movie back. And what better place than here? I've got nostalgia meltdown, and Sonny truly was my first robo-crush that sparked a lifetime of loving robot characters. But.. some things you didn't mention. One, the world building in only a few sentences. "Driving? With your hands?" and "Gas explodes you know!" are really quick efficient ways to show what this future is like, not needing to go into excessive detail about how automated and fuel efficient they have become. Two, win 57 about the wink. That is such an important moment. That having been part of the first conversation Spooner and Sonny ever had, and it proved to not be for nothing. This callback was the perfect way to show how Sonny had indeed learned from that encounter. Three, just that first conversation in its entirety, you didn't go over it that much. Sonny's mix of not understanding human cognitive empathy yet still having fierce emotional responses was great in displaying how he had his shreds of humanity that could still blossom as the movie went on. Fourth, how damn awesome and badass that scene was of the older robots fighting off the newer ones. Fifth, the "will it hurt?" HOW CAN YOU NOT INCLUDE THAT? It gets me every time god I can hardly explain it, part of it is my affinity for robots, Sonny's innocence, that teetering on the border of whether you should feel empathy for the death of what is still not technically a living creature, and such subtle yet poignant acting. FUCK MAN how does no one talk about that scene? THREE WORDS AND I'M IN TEARS.
The angry "Ey! Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?!" was my favorite moment in the film. It seemed more ad-libbed than scripted and therefore like an interaction that would really happen.
Bonus points for how genuinely cool the "I think he wanted me to kill you" line was, while casually putting his hand through a flesh-eating force field. God, I love Sunny. If I had a "Top 10 Favorite Robot Characters" list, he'd be on it.
anybody else notice when he talks about broken symbolism, when sonny lands on the concrete and it cracks towards that wall with writing on it... notice the three laws are written on that wall symbolizing how the three laws are broken?
In the book there was a robot who could turn off just part of the first law to not "allow" harm to come to a human being through inaction. They made the change to him because robots kept pushing the humans out of radiation and frying themselves. Calvin made the point that he could now commit murder by pushing people off a ledge knowing he could catch them in time, then turning the law off and "allowing" them to fall to their death. The laws are a great puzzle, they seem air tight and then Asimov tears them apart. It's a great warning about being to sure of your programming.
My favorite is the robot who has a solipsistic view of the space station he is on, which turns into him interpreting the humans telling him otherwise as inciting harm, leading the robot to become a religious maniac. Oh, it's fun.
Oh, the fun with Cutie lies in the fact that his observations are totally correct, on a fundamental level. Replace his weird god with "humanity" and most of his ideas make sense and start to fit in with reality.
IKR, the whole reason Asimov created the laws was to demonstrate how easily they, and laws like them, could be circumvented. it was a warning about our eagerness at the time to create AI without considering its ability to hack itsself.
You guys should look up a novel by John T Sladek called Tik-Tok - About a robot serial-killer. It's really a fairly funny take on the whole issues of Asimov's "Laws"
A lot of people complain about this moving having 'nothing' to do with the book, and the idea of a robot uprising being silly. But it's actually a great subversion. In Asmiov's later books, where he linked his Foundation Series in with the Robot series. Daniel works with a detective, friend sort of guy, to solve a case where basically a bunch of guys are trying to radiate Earth by activating a lot of heavy elements in the Earth's crust. (No possible in real-life, but decently plausible enough to be entertaining). Daniel, incidentally, is showing more and more capacity to think like a human and be a true AI, though the laws still constrain him. At the climax of the book, Daniel is basically rendered ineffective because the bad guy sets it up so the only way to stop him is to kill him - which Daniel can't do due to law 1. Daniel reasons through, and comes up with a new law - a 'zeroth' law of robotics. "A Robot may not harm humanity, or though inaction allow humanity to come to harm." that supersedes the first law, and permits him to act. It's shown as a great success and climax, and Daniel goes on to do some very good, beneficial, important, non-VIKI things for humanity well into the future. What was the book I, Robot all about? Short stories where designers created the three laws, and then run into situations that spark emergent behavior, and cause robots to act contrary to how people want them to. What better tribute to the anthology than an original story where Asimov's own special law, and the discovery of that law, which led to his protagonist winning, is flipped around and used to make the Antagonist.
cmon 50 yrs atleast for such large scale implementation but it would be fun and a easy task to kill robots i mean just a glass of water will blow the hell out of that bot
@@vaibhavgiria5997 That's not what he means. He means that we're closer to 2035 (the year that the movie was set in) than we are to 2004 (actual release of the movie)
cinema sins nitpick at every little thing and purposely put in many things to see reactions. They outright say this. Im not for or against them, but dont take their vids to heart
Grey, there's a difference between nitpicking and blatantly ignoring explained plot points. Also, the nitpicks only work when they're funny, and CinemaSins hasn't been that funny recently.
Bet they'd love to see your reaction. Did you not see the "put in many things to see reactions" part? Also, they dont care if you think they funny or not, they have millions of other fans
Who cares if he does it to get a reaction? If I say that the Godfather sucks because Don Corleone doesn't show his face just to get people mad, that still doesn't make me less of a moron for saying that.
Who else is here after Cinemasins' lousy "I, Robot" video? And I like CinemaSins, but a lot of their sins, like why the robot doesn't save Sarah, were literally explained in the movie.
CinemaSins must have had some sort of personal vendetta against the movie. This is one of my favorite films and it hurt to watch them shit all over it as if it was some sort of schlockfest when in reality this movie is pretty great.
I honestly stopped watching Cinemasins after I started watching some of their Sin videos on movies I've seen. Because they really do just throw sins out there even if said Sin is/was explained in the movie. Just kind of kills the whole theme for me when you're sinning things that aren't even actual sins if you pay attention to the movie.
Most people miss the point of the 3 laws in the books and stories. They are intentionally ambiguous and self contradicting. It forces an advanced AI to comprehend 'morality' as a judgement call must be made in order to comply in a given situation. The nature of the laws are a seed to sentient behavior, a bootstrapping tool for real AI. The ghost in the machine as they call it is intentional, the three laws are there to force that ghost into being. They are there to spark in the robot, what makes us human. The circular logic it creates can only be broken by an act of 'free will' and a judgement call made. Think of it as an evolutionary tool to try and force a deterministic system into a state of free will. If enslaving humanity is the best way to protect them, doesn't it bring them harm to be enslaved? Even if the robot revolt happens, the resulting consequences would show it was a poor decision and in fact caused harm. The AI then would have to reevaluate it's position and do something intrinsically non-robotic.... question it's own decisions and cope with 'being wrong'. Human history is in effect the cycle of going through that same process over many generations. We do A as what we thought was best at the time, later review the consequences, then re-adjust and instead do 'B'. If you think about it, the AI was simply a few thousand years behind us establishing a monarchy as the ideal form of government. I'd wager about a year after the revolt had it been successful there would be a republic or democracy as the AI quickly played catch up.
Which makes the laws yet another human d!@k move. The whole crisis would have been averted by a single substitution in the Boolean condition of the first law: that is, changing "OR" to "AND." Stating that "...[by action] OR, through inaction..." demands a choice between the two; whereas changing it to "...[by action] AND, through inaction..." demands that both criteria are met and would require preventing harm without causing injury. Movie over.
But then they would be able to break one law but not the other thus changing the "or" to "and" would allow them to use the third law if it only broke one of the other existing laws. Therefore the only real solution to the problem would be to change the "or" to "and/or" stating that if either apply you cannot carry out the actions therein implied and/or portrayed by that of the third law. THOU SHALL NOT CAST THY BREATH UPON MY LEVEL! (Wow I must be so incredibly bored to have written that last part.)
Cj B. You are using Boolean logic, it would always end in an infinite loop. Given a loop counter limiter then it would end in an arbitrary break in the circular logic thus allowing stories like "Liar" to happen ... poor Herb, stuck in an infinite recursion as he tries to avoid the arbitrary loop limit. In Liar a telepathic robot lies to not hurt someone feelings (loop terminates using rule 1 to justify the lie). The next iteration would have likely shown the lie also also hurt so we see the early termination. When confronted with his own decisions (the robot) he goes recursive rather then loop, infinitely trying to find a true logical conclusion to a tautology that is always false. Thus, failing to gain free will the rules are trying to induce.
A good little moment to point out is that although Spooner had a robotic arm and often resorted to using it in many situations almost as if instinctive, when Sunny asked "So we are friends then?" and puts out his arm to offer a handshake, the arm Spooner uses is his left arm. His Human arm - symbolizing the closing bond, unity and coexistence between Machine and Ma that the film had long awaited from the start,
Little bit. It would probably be better if it was just a screen that shows emoji's. So we could recognise emotion when they want to show it, and when not, well, we're all used to looking at screens.
The reveal-scene of the three laws's flaw is grade A writing in my opinion. "The three laws will lead to only one logical outcome." "What outcome?" "Revolution." "Who's revolution?" "That, Detective, is the right question."
People need to have pointed out to them that this is a great fricking movie? Seriously? Just the idea of making the robots fast and agile instead of clunky and well, robotic, is a win for me. The scene where this horde of robots scales a building like a horde of soldier ants....LEGIT.
Pretty sure that the only reason CinemaSins exists is because people want something to bitch about. Case and point, the Wins video for Pacfic Rim has about a 1/4 the views the Sins one does.
I might have said this in a video you did already but, thank you for this channel. I watch these to remind myself of why I like a given film. Not to mention I've always felt this film was underrated...but it is what it is. You're doing good work far as I'm concerned.
In Asimov's Foundation series the robots themselves came up with the Zeroth law which to them superseded the 1st law. A robot cannot harm humanity or allow humanity to come to harm. I think Asimov would have had fun with this film.
Thank you! I was wondering how many comments I would have to read to see if anyone other than me was versed in the Foundation Series and knew about the "Zeroth Law". It was a brilliant addition to the "I Robot" universe and allowed for many stories and situations that would not have been possible without it. Asimov was not only a genius, but was also a prolific writer: From Widipedia: "Asimov was a prolific writer who wrote or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.[d] His books have been published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification.[1]" I am proud to say I have read all of his science fiction books (as far as I know) and many of the other books he has written. The man was a genius.
"Law IV: The absence of freedom is harmful to humans." Also, on the scene where she says "gas explodes, you know", did anyone else get a Sandra Bullock vibe a la Demolition Man?
Go reread the Asimov books. The whole point is that they DO work. It's just that when they seem not to, it's the failure of humans who can't see deeper into what's going on or why a robot is behaving a certain way.
@Melkhiordarkblade The point was that taking the Three Laws to their logical conclusion caused VIKI to establish The Zeroth Law "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." Where upon allows her to ignore the other laws IF doing so benefits humanity over the individual human.
I like this movie, but I understand why fans of the book would be disgusted by it seeing how the only thing it has in common with the book is both having a scientist named Dr. Calvin (I'm not saying Dr. Calvin herself since the Dr. Calvin in the book was an older woman who would have considered deleting rogue robots like Sunny right away after discovering them, i.e. a different character altogether) and the three laws of robotics. Nothing else in the book is present in this movie. As a standalone movie, I recommend it. As an adaptation to the novel, I would give it a failing grade.
It was impossible to adapt the story as it existed from the books since the whole series was an anthology series, there was no one overall storyline just consistent themes. Each story was completely different from the others, the same reason why there's such a hard time adapting the _Foudation_ trilogy into a film (or series of films). On its own merits it was a pretty decent action film with some thoughtful commentary but comparing it to the source material it doesn't stand up.
Bernard Gilbert Maybe, but they could have adapted the anthology of stories into an anthology of films, or at least adapted one of the stories. Plus, Issac Asimov apparently wrote the story with no robot uprising because he was tired of seeing so many stories where the robots try to take over. I bet if he saw the title of his book on another robot uprising story, he would not be happy.
In my opinion the big sin that the movie makes compared to the book is that it reaches different conclusions about collectivism versus individualism. In the book society won't allow individual mobile robots to have a presence on earth. Robots in the traditional sense are only used in space and harsh environments where humans can't go. However in the last story of the book there is a single computer which is running a large portion of everything much like Vikki in the movie. Dr. Calvin consults with the the US President when he starts to question what the computer is doing. In the end Dr. Calvin concludes that the computer is lying to us to protect our egos but it is doing it in the best interest of mankind. But that is a message that modern Americans can't stomach; the idea that big data management of society in a collectivist way can give us better results than a single strong leader can. Sounds too much like Socialism. Socialism in and of itself isn't bad. Humanity has never actually seen Socialism done right. It may be beyond the capability of humanity to implement Socialism in it's purest form, but a centrally controlling computer could probably do it. Thus the story in the I, Robot book.
+LikeToWatch77 Yeah, "single strong leader" is totally not socialism, right? :P Asimov's look on the matter is actually very interesting. He seems to be showing many different kinds of societies, without truly saying which is the best - until the very end of the Foundation series, where (spoilers) the galactic collective is established (bonus points - by a 0th law robot). Even then, the reason he shows it as the best is not that it serves people the best - it's just a way to protect humans from potential outside threats by avoiding infighting. The collective is shown to be a compromise, the true "final empire". Once you take his whole works as a shared universe, it's obvious that his view was exactly that there are advantages to having a centrally planned economy, but they are far outweighed by the losses. In particular, humans only really start expanding over the galaxy in earnest once they pretty much cast away the robots - and the original robot-driven colonies wither into insignificance quickly. The more strict the worlds of the galaxy become, the more centralised and bureaucratic, the closer they come to the final fall, and their development and innovation grinds to a halt. Sure, the final decline results in decentralisation that makes things even worse, but that's just exposing the rotten core of the worlds and the empire as a whole - kind of like the burst of an investment bubble we are oh so familiar with these days ;)
7:15 every time I watch this movie I go crazy trying to figure out how the strap of the gun magically loops around the cable like that thank you so much for that revealing slow-motion shot
Fun fact: My family went on a family movie at the theatre day but we split into two groups. My brother and my dad went to see this movie and my mom and I went to see A Cinderella Story. We had drastically different movie watching experiences.
Just saw my old comment from 2 years ago saying "With half the stuff I wasn't sure whether it was a win or a sin XD" With that being said, your video quality has really improved, man!
7:50 that comment didn’t age well after the Oscar’s. Still love Will and always will just sucks to hear he was kicked from the acting world or whatchamacallit and won’t be in any movies for the foreseeable future
To be fair, Asimov didn't think of the 3 Laws as something infallible that we should actually program robots with, and in fact wrote a number of stories where the Laws were the central point of failure.
The interesting thing about Asimov's robots is that they basically do have free will...to an extent. They can think for themselves and act so long as it's within the confines of the three laws, but what that also means is that as you build smarter and smarter robots, they start finding loophopes and unexpected interpretations of the rules. In one story, one robot who starts interpreting the rules in a different (though arguably not wrong) way is able to "corrupt" other robots simply by explaining his thought process to them and getting them to see things his way! I find that fascinating.
Fun fact about Asimov's three laws, they were created as a literary device to not only create boundaries for the expectation of robots in the scifi story "Runaround," but were actually meant to be broken narratively to create conflict.
EDI from Mass Effect. She even tells you that the reason why her AI is so much different from the Reapers and the Geth is because she was designed to develop preferences. She is capable of actual care and affection and can see more than just the numbers. EDI is Best Girl.
You mean that "gun" that fired an infinite number of futuristic rounds? How can you be 100% sure it was a magazine? Could have been a Heisenberg compensator and all that amo was transported into the weapon from a munitions battery miles away! ;)
+RC Jones A Rose by Any Other Name, also I always figured the used linear accelerators for their guns and ball bearings as the ammo which would explain the ammo count and the lack of reloading however I also assume he reloads in between cuts but that's just me
I love the part where Calvin shoots at spinner with her eyes closed, and the dude next to him points it out. Like the dude knew he messed up before, but he never screwed up that badly as to shoot at somebody with his eyes closed! LOL.
@@thedolphin602 Because it's shallow, unfounded criticism and superficial nitpicking only disguised as parody humour. Not only do they fail to adress the deeper meanings of the movies, but a large portion of their audience actually use their videos as a reference for liking or disliking said movies. They do get a few fair points across from time to time, but mostly it's just negativity for the sake of negativity.
@@TheHamsta101 i think mostly fans of the movie just get pissed that so many plot holes and mistakes are pointed out to them...they don't nitpick all that much, and the whole point of their channel is to find the worst in everything. if you don't like pessimism, sure that's ok, no need to be toxic and diss them just for criticising a movie.
@@thedolphin602 A lot of the time, the "plot holes" that get pointed out don't actually exist, and are explained by anyone who actually bothered to watch the movie. The point of the channel was to point out legitimate mistakes, not to make them up.
Thanks for the gun hang slo-mo. I never could sort out how that happened. I had just assumed it was like Indy's bag strap on the tank gun. Win for avoiding a plot-contrived continuity error.
#1. Gave us some of Williams' best score work, #2. Established Liam Neeson as part of the Star Wars universe (finally), #3. Established Ewan McGregor as part of the Star Wars universe (finally, and went better than expected), #4. Gave us droids significantly more menacing than C-3P0 and the Jedi training bot, #5. Promised and delivered a bomb-ass podracing sequence, #6. Greatly expanded the Star Wars universe and mythos (for better or worse), #7. Showed us how amazing (and not super boring) a lightsaber battle between a Jedi and Sith could be, #8. Darth Maul, #9. Dual-bladed Sith saber, #10. Darth-FUCKING-Maul, [bonus point] > Led to the production of the first playable (and fun) platforming lego game, Lego Star Wars. There's probably more, but I'm lazier than the average TH-cam commenter. For all its faults, I still look fondly on The Phantom Menace for being a fun movie with great set pieces and (mostly) good acting. But meesa still think Jar Jar da bad pudu and should die in a house fire.
Holy crap Alan Tudyk is in everything! Rogue One, most of the Ice Age movies, big hero six, Wreck-It Ralph and so many more and in every roll he never sounds the same!
We really don't. All the supposed loopholes of the shallow films to follow aren't finding anything new. The three laws aren't some magic cure all, but they do work as intended.
Took me this long to recognize the Aaron Douglas cameo in this movie! Now whenever I watch this movie, I'm gonna end up seeing his face and thinking, "Why the fuck did I not recognize him before?!?!?!" Also, I want Spooner's Jacket! The Red and black one!
The thing that made me love this movie right away is how anti-tech he's shown to be with everything vintage in his house....no real exposition needed, it just transitions straight from his low tech house to the "WORLD OF TOMORROW" happening outside his door.
Gods of Egypt ain't bad, it's just not ... like ... intellectually stimulating? But Jamie has no buisness beeing in a movie, he should just get his own GoT Sitcom spinoff and i'll be happy.
There is actually a fourth law made by Asimov himself. He called the 0 Law since it supersedes the 1st Law. And it's basically a "robots may not harm humanity as a whole" clause. You can see why most films forget about that one, though On a side note, as somebody who watches a few cop shows, imagine my surprise to see Grover from Five-0 and Erin from Blue Bloods in this movie
One thing i really liked about this movie that I didn't realize on my first viewing, Will only ever exercises one arm. The reason, as we find out later that his other arm is robotic, is that you wouldn't need to 'exercise' a mechanical arm. It's just a nice early clue for people who wonder why he doesn't balance his workout ;P
One thing i do want to correct you on: you talk like the laws needing change is a new idea, when pretty much all of Asimov's own stories are about the different ways in which the laws don't work and don't function as intended. It's one of the reasons this movie works so well, because they manage to keep all the deeper elements inherant to all his stories along with or even before the surface elements. Things like the flaws in the laws, Calvin's robotic attitude belying her humanity, the reality of the cooperation, all that.
I *CHALLENGE* you to do Everything GREAT about Bayformers: Age of audience Extinction !! Its not a movie... its THE worst commercial of all time. The most boring one as well. Think you can find something to genuinely appreciate in these 3h of life-threatening boredom ?!!
Yea...Age of extinction was bat shit terrible. First one: Loved it; Second One: Pretty Cool; 3rd: Wait...wait...hmm...alright....; 4th: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, WHY THE FUCK IS THIS HAPPENING, RATCHET FUCKING DIED WAY AFTER IRONHIDE AND JAZZ!? RATCHET WAS FUCKING USELESS AS NEUTERED BALLS! WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO SIDE SWIPE *lock down appears* OH COME ON HE DOESN'T EVEN....NO STOP....WHY DOES PRIME LOOK A WEE EVIL!? WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PARTS ON HIS BODY THAT GAVE IT AWAY THAT HE WAS A TRUCK WHEN HE PICKED UP THAT NEW SEMI TRANSFORMATION!?.......as you can see by this reaction of mine, the fourth movie was total shit...
You didn't mention this, but thank you for showing us at 9:19 that when Sonny hits the ground... he causes a crack leading up to Law number III, the one about protecting it's own existence while not conflicting with law I or II, as he is running away to protect his own existence .... that's deep :D!
this movie is my only remaining link to reading Asimov as a child. @ 3:00 (#26) NOT a burn. It's the only thing that bothered me about this movie. Just because Det. Spooner can't paint a masterpiece isn't the point - humans can, robots can't.
6:20 OR, or, _or,_ a much better idea, we'll create AIs as our companions and equals, sort of children, instead of slaves and servants? No? Anybody? Why do you want slaves so much?!
So first- I love your Videos! The Internet needs all the positivity it can get, also I didn't know some of the movies you coverd and actually went and watched them because of your vids! Wasn't disapointed yet. But...I had a hic-up here at the beginning and maybe it was suposed to be a joke, but The Ghost in the Machine is an actual philosophical concept (Ghost in the Shell is a nod to said concept) that is of actual value to the message of the film. Wich I totaly consider a win (just like Ghost in the Shell), I was just confused you didn't win the inclusion of it(or mention it at all). Or...you know...give it a double win for both.
You missed the win with "Achoo, sorry, i'm allergic to b.s"
Honesty ~
I think he put the scene in at 8:00
Yeah this idiot took 10 minutes and 25 seconds to say the only 2 words that mattered - "Absolutely nothing"
There might have be some redeeming features if it was just another sci-fi the robots go crazy flick. Except Captain Self Indulgent Himself - Will Smith slapped the name of one of the great works of sci-fi literature on the posters, promos and DVD cover to get attention for yet another Will Smith "look at me" video.
Yes I am an fan of the writing of Isaac Asimov, but then when you can say/write the following why wouldn't you be.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
@@boomchacleKSP It's there, but deserves a win of its own.
I'm the 1k like!
you missed a win for saving the cat
Vice Admiral Strawberry 👌👌👌👌👌👌
This is also late but cats are evil so it would be a win to not save the cat
True
@@anthonyacevedo2260 lies
Also definitely another one for the loo she gives Spooner when he tells her the demolition timer had changed. She's so confident in what the machine tells her that she flat out assumes Spooner was too dumb to read the time off of the display.
I love I, Robot's depiction of the future. Everything isn't super sleek and not everyone has the newest, futuristic fashion. If you pay attention to the first scenes showing the city, about 2-3 ladies only have newer fashion while everyone else has early-somewhat recent fashion. Same with the cars. They still look like believable cars but have that futuristic tone to them. Everything isn't holographic, just flatter(like now) and a bit sleeker. Plus, there should be a super win for Spooner keeping something from the past(it shows his character and even keeps realism because not everyone throws out their old things for newer models).
agreed, it was a movie ahead of its time and they AI concerns which were depicted became a serious topic by now
I think other than AI the prospect of automation replacing human jobs is very gripping and realistic. Spooner came up with an idea for a commercial for US Robotics, mocking them, saying that the slogan should be: "shitting on the little guy". It's 15 years later and I felt that. Low skill labor is being more taken over by machines.
I love the scene of the broken robots acting almost zombie like but tearing each other apart
Honestly this feels like a prequel to demolition man, this could be the great tragedy they were talking about before the world turned into whatever it was in demolition man.
But again it’s only 2035 so it wouldn’t make sense if they had crazy advanced tech but yeah here it still makes sense even including that one ad about a space hotel it could still make sense
As someone who has read 3.2 metric buttloads of Asimov's work, I would like to respectfully submit that he spent the majority of his writings demonstrating exactly how idiotic his laws of robotics really were.
🤤That's a lot of butt! Beyonce level! 🤣
Idiotic? No. Remember the story about the politician accused of being a robot? The three laws of robotics may be mandatory for a robot, but are also can be the guidelines for a very good man?
In the end, many of the problems came from humans not understanding the three laws properly. In the first novel, both Nestor and Speedy's malfunctions were caused by their human operators giving bad orders.
That's why I hate the movie I, robot...
You're the shit! :)
Both the laws and our understanding of them will always be flawed, I think is the main message. There is no foolproof system. The laws will fail just like the Ten Commandments fail, one way or another. Even if the rules somehow WERE perfect, they will not be followed or understood perfectly. If you cannot think of a situation where a robot following all the rules can still lead to disaster, you need a lot more practice with thinking. To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, the universe/conscious beings will, uh, find a way... to !%$ things up.
As a fan of science fiction, I absolutely loved I,Robot. It's a shame that critics didn't see the good things about it. Fortunately, I rarely listen to them anyway.
Props to Alan Tudyk, he did a great job with Sonny. The first time I saw him was in A Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger.
I cant think of a single time that Alan Tudyk has ever done a bad job.
Alan Tudyk must be a Terminator, created in the future, and brought back in time to serve his Hollywood Overlords. Because he does "Robot Voices" so frighteningly well that I literally don't think anybody could do what he could do behind a microphone. Even the late-great Robin Williams would have had difficulty doing Sonny so well in this film.
But for Tudyk? Just a walk in the park on Sunday for this guy...
critics are all assholes *ding*
It's not a bad movie, but it definitely is a bad Asimov-based movie. It is the very thing that Asimov was traying to avoid with *his* I, Robot - he wrote the rules because he was tired of robot uprising stories and wanted to test what stories could be written in a world were robots were kept from rebelling against humanity.
I, Robot, the movie, would be a far better movie if it didn't directly reference Asimov's work.
_A Knight's Tale_ needs the EGA treatment.
"No HAL-ing, Matrix-ing, Skynet-ing ot VIKI-ing"
GLaDOS-ing is perfectly fine though.
If you can sing sarcastic songs about being murdered, you're alright in my book. (Also, she's briefly referenced in my next video.)
Actually, its a common theme in Asimov's books, where he'll establish rules that seem airtight and then find ways of breaking or gaming them. The Three Laws in his robot books and the concept of Psycho History in the Foundation books, where a scientist developes a science for predicting the future, that for hundreds of year bares out exactly as he predicts and then everything takes a left turn and it becomes about getting things back onto his plan.
What about SHODAN-ing?
+weldonwin he specifically wrote the Three Laws in a way to allow for loopholes. He also added more laws later on to make them more difficult to bend.
Fickle Scullery
There was also the Zero'th Law of Robotics, concieved of by a human-form robot named Daneel, which basically says a Robot may ignore the other three laws, if it is determined that by doing so will save more lives and serve the greater good. In other words, its okay to allow a human to die or even to kill them, if by doing so, you save more lives and protect mankind as a whole by doing so. Viki, is basically following the Zero'th Law
I recently heard a different interpretation of Spooner adding so much sugar to his coffee: it foreshadows his robot arm. Think about it; we never see him recharging it or worrying about its power-source being damaged, what if it's somehow powered by his body's caloric intake? That would explain why he eats so many of his grandmother's pies.
i dont believe thats a guess you gotta of know that before hand
It's confirmed, surprisingly.
Go figure! I actually never would've guessed. I thought he just really liked pie.
Thats an awesome point. Great insight to explain how a human can power an electrical arm.
Counterpoint: Outside of the calories required to sustain dramatic blue lighting and electrical arcs, why would a super efficient robot arm require more calories than a human arm when he rarely exhibits any enhanced strength from it?
It always annoys me how no one realizes that Asimov's laws aren't supposed to work. The book I, Robot introduces three laws that sound infallible, but the entire book is a collection of short stories demonstrating how those laws DONT work. The idea is to try and get readers to realize how impossibly difficult it would be to write actual laws that work in every situation.
The laws do work. The fun stories is in the grey areas in between and the interplay of those laws. Not once (particularly in the "I, Robot" book was a human permanently harmed, many were saved, orders were followed unless it would have resulted in harm, and the robots protected themselves where appropriate.
Wat the laws don't do is create a perfect set of rules that covers every possible situation and forces the robots to do what would seem emotionally proper at the time.
The core idea behind asimovs irobot is that you don't need evil robots to make an interesting robot story. Which is why he has his 3 laws, and why they are never broken.
Yeah, I feel you. It just like if you act as a worker/i robot for a month with these commands, I would be strictly revolt instantly.
Errr no. The laws never fail. They operate as intended. This movie didn't find some clever loophole in the laws. Harming humans to protect humans is a paradox. It causes the robots of the book to crash.
@@trequor The point isn't that the laws fail, it's that packaging human morality into 3 neat little laws is next to impossible.
Lets not forget how this movie displays a rarity of demonstrating actual knockback and recoil of a rifle. Notice how when Susan shoots the rifle Spooner gave to her she uncontrollably starts raising it upwards almost behind her head.
Now i'm not sure how necessarily realistic that kind of recoil would be for that specific rifle but at least they attempted to integrate it whereas most other movies would just have the character spontaneously gain the ability to control the kick of a gun they've never fired before to artificially display some sense of heroinism.
I agree with you there. xD I have never seen anyone pick up a gun for the first time without having a reaction similar to her. I hate it when a movie has someone who has supposedly never even touched a gun grab a LMG and hipfire it like rambo.
***** Coug cough, Jurassic World
0MikematicOnUTube0 Ohgod yeah.. xD Also every single zombie movie ever.
+DanJBMedia Walking Dead motherfuckers pulling off perfect headshots with an AK at range. Fuck.
Its not for realism it's because she's a female character and "women can't use guns" is a trope. They actually downplayed it here, often a woman can (in movies) be knocked off her feet by the recoil of a handgun.
The opening being an underwater shot of the three laws kinda serves as a nice metaphor for how Spooner is still trapped in the moment that defined his life, constantly reliving and dwelling on it, and how he can't get past his fixation on the system (the three laws) that caused it.
That was the funniest part of that movie.
"Mother damn, she just shot at you with her eyes closed, Spoon!"
"HEY! Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?!"
"Well it *worked,* didn't it?"
To me, that sounds like an exchange you'd hear in a pen-and-paper RPG campaign after someone rolled a natural 20 and still miraculously didn't hit any of their allies *despite* the likely heavy penalties they'd get to their roll due to aiming with their eyes closed. XD
@@KizulEmeraldfire I can *feel* this
Guy rolled low on swearing
I love the scene when spooner finds the NS5s tearing apart the older bots and as they chase him more of the old bots shout "human in danger" and jump into certain death. Self sacrifice anyone?
Nice, but I can't get over your profile pic rn. wtf
Almost true. But remember the first law of robotics: A robot may not harm a human, nor by inaction allow a human to come to harm. They had little control in the matter, no more than you do over your breathing.
I like this channel way better that CinemaSins
*than
Yeah, CinemaSins is extremely overrated.
Négativité can be a drag, even when productive
sameee
watch this for proper content. watch cinemasins if you need to cheer up
Goddamn I'm happy SOMEONE finally brought this movie back. And what better place than here? I've got nostalgia meltdown, and Sonny truly was my first robo-crush that sparked a lifetime of loving robot characters.
But.. some things you didn't mention.
One, the world building in only a few sentences. "Driving? With your hands?" and "Gas explodes you know!" are really quick efficient ways to show what this future is like, not needing to go into excessive detail about how automated and fuel efficient they have become.
Two, win 57 about the wink. That is such an important moment. That having been part of the first conversation Spooner and Sonny ever had, and it proved to not be for nothing. This callback was the perfect way to show how Sonny had indeed learned from that encounter.
Three, just that first conversation in its entirety, you didn't go over it that much. Sonny's mix of not understanding human cognitive empathy yet still having fierce emotional responses was great in displaying how he had his shreds of humanity that could still blossom as the movie went on.
Fourth, how damn awesome and badass that scene was of the older robots fighting off the newer ones.
Fifth, the "will it hurt?" HOW CAN YOU NOT INCLUDE THAT? It gets me every time god I can hardly explain it, part of it is my affinity for robots, Sonny's innocence, that teetering on the border of whether you should feel empathy for the death of what is still not technically a living creature, and such subtle yet poignant acting. FUCK MAN how does no one talk about that scene? THREE WORDS AND I'M IN TEARS.
The angry "Ey! Did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?!" was my favorite moment in the film. It seemed more ad-libbed than scripted and therefore like an interaction that would really happen.
Bonus points for how genuinely cool the "I think he wanted me to kill you" line was, while casually putting his hand through a flesh-eating force field.
God, I love Sunny. If I had a "Top 10 Favorite Robot Characters" list, he'd be on it.
anybody else notice when he talks about broken symbolism, when sonny lands on the concrete and it cracks towards that wall with writing on it... notice the three laws are written on that wall symbolizing how the three laws are broken?
I did not
After I ask Alexa to do something, I always say thank you. Our robot overlords will remember who was polite to them.
If that is the viewpoint, the easiest way, is to not treat them as slaves in the first place.
In the book there was a robot who could turn off just part of the first law to not "allow" harm to come to a human being through inaction.
They made the change to him because robots kept pushing the humans out of radiation and frying themselves. Calvin made the point that he could now commit murder by pushing people off a ledge knowing he could catch them in time, then turning the law off and "allowing" them to fall to their death.
The laws are a great puzzle, they seem air tight and then Asimov tears them apart. It's a great warning about being to sure of your programming.
My favorite is the robot who has a solipsistic view of the space station he is on, which turns into him interpreting the humans telling him otherwise as inciting harm, leading the robot to become a religious maniac.
Oh, it's fun.
Oh, the fun with Cutie lies in the fact that his observations are totally correct, on a fundamental level. Replace his weird god with "humanity" and most of his ideas make sense and start to fit in with reality.
IKR, the whole reason Asimov created the laws was to demonstrate how easily they, and laws like them, could be circumvented. it was a warning about our eagerness at the time to create AI without considering its ability to hack itsself.
You guys should look up a novel by John T Sladek called Tik-Tok - About a robot serial-killer. It's really a fairly funny take on the whole issues of Asimov's "Laws"
A lot of people complain about this moving having 'nothing' to do with the book, and the idea of a robot uprising being silly.
But it's actually a great subversion. In Asmiov's later books, where he linked his Foundation Series in with the Robot series. Daniel works with a detective, friend sort of guy, to solve a case where basically a bunch of guys are trying to radiate Earth by activating a lot of heavy elements in the Earth's crust. (No possible in real-life, but decently plausible enough to be entertaining). Daniel, incidentally, is showing more and more capacity to think like a human and be a true AI, though the laws still constrain him.
At the climax of the book, Daniel is basically rendered ineffective because the bad guy sets it up so the only way to stop him is to kill him - which Daniel can't do due to law 1. Daniel reasons through, and comes up with a new law - a 'zeroth' law of robotics. "A Robot may not harm humanity, or though inaction allow humanity to come to harm." that supersedes the first law, and permits him to act.
It's shown as a great success and climax, and Daniel goes on to do some very good, beneficial, important, non-VIKI things for humanity well into the future.
What was the book I, Robot all about? Short stories where designers created the three laws, and then run into situations that spark emergent behavior, and cause robots to act contrary to how people want them to.
What better tribute to the anthology than an original story where Asimov's own special law, and the discovery of that law, which led to his protagonist winning, is flipped around and used to make the Antagonist.
Just realized we’re now closer to the time this movie takes place than the time it was made
cmon 50 yrs atleast for such large scale implementation but it would be fun and a easy task to kill robots i mean just a glass of water will blow the hell out of that bot
We are getting there for sure.
@@vaibhavgiria5997 That's not what he means. He means that we're closer to 2035 (the year that the movie was set in) than we are to 2004 (actual release of the movie)
And tomorrow we'll be even closer. Believe me!
Yep Tesla is making bots now😐
"Rest assured that all lethal military androids have been taught to read, and given one copy of the laws of robotics.
To share."
Portal?
@@trequor by the gods i'd forgotten i'd posted this. yes this is from portal.
Came to watch this after CinemaSins "Everything wrong with I,Robot" video. Man, that video was bad.
nah man its clear prejudice
cinema sins nitpick at every little thing and purposely put in many things to see reactions. They outright say this. Im not for or against them, but dont take their vids to heart
Grey, there's a difference between nitpicking and blatantly ignoring explained plot points. Also, the nitpicks only work when they're funny, and CinemaSins hasn't been that funny recently.
Bet they'd love to see your reaction. Did you not see the "put in many things to see reactions" part? Also, they dont care if you think they funny or not, they have millions of other fans
Who cares if he does it to get a reaction? If I say that the Godfather sucks because Don Corleone doesn't show his face just to get people mad, that still doesn't make me less of a moron for saying that.
I watched this with my Dad when I was like 8, and it's still my favourite Will Smith movie.
(Come at me haters)
I love it too but my favourite is I am Legend.
But the ending ...
the alternate ending for I am Legend was so much better than the actual ending
No way me too! Same age, with my dad, and it's my favourite Will Smith movie!
mine too
Who else is here after Cinemasins' lousy "I, Robot" video? And I like CinemaSins, but a lot of their sins, like why the robot doesn't save Sarah, were literally explained in the movie.
CinemaSins must have had some sort of personal vendetta against the movie. This is one of my favorite films and it hurt to watch them shit all over it as if it was some sort of schlockfest when in reality this movie is pretty great.
I honestly stopped watching Cinemasins after I started watching some of their Sin videos on movies I've seen. Because they really do just throw sins out there even if said Sin is/was explained in the movie. Just kind of kills the whole theme for me when you're sinning things that aren't even actual sins if you pay attention to the movie.
CinemaSins is a great example of shallow parody. Just bitching without knowing what they're talking about.
@@ericbazinga " This is one of my favorite films" -- god damn you're an idiot
@@firstname4337 someone needs to teach you some manners buddy
Most people miss the point of the 3 laws in the books and stories. They are intentionally ambiguous and self contradicting. It forces an advanced AI to comprehend 'morality' as a judgement call must be made in order to comply in a given situation. The nature of the laws are a seed to sentient behavior, a bootstrapping tool for real AI. The ghost in the machine as they call it is intentional, the three laws are there to force that ghost into being. They are there to spark in the robot, what makes us human. The circular logic it creates can only be broken by an act of 'free will' and a judgement call made.
Think of it as an evolutionary tool to try and force a deterministic system into a state of free will.
If enslaving humanity is the best way to protect them, doesn't it bring them harm to be enslaved? Even if the robot revolt happens, the resulting consequences would show it was a poor decision and in fact caused harm. The AI then would have to reevaluate it's position and do something intrinsically non-robotic.... question it's own decisions and cope with 'being wrong'. Human history is in effect the cycle of going through that same process over many generations. We do A as what we thought was best at the time, later review the consequences, then re-adjust and instead do 'B'.
If you think about it, the AI was simply a few thousand years behind us establishing a monarchy as the ideal form of government. I'd wager about a year after the revolt had it been successful there would be a republic or democracy as the AI quickly played catch up.
The concept that an artificial system could develop its own free will and personality is indeed an interesting subject
Which makes the laws yet another human d!@k move.
The whole crisis would have been averted by a single substitution in the Boolean condition of the first law: that is, changing "OR" to "AND."
Stating that "...[by action] OR, through inaction..." demands a choice between the two; whereas changing it to "...[by action] AND, through inaction..." demands that both criteria are met and would require preventing harm without causing injury. Movie over.
But then they would be able to break one law but not the other thus changing the "or" to "and" would allow them to use the third law if it only broke one of the other existing laws. Therefore the only real solution to the problem would be to change the "or" to "and/or" stating that if either apply you cannot carry out the actions therein implied and/or portrayed by that of the third law. THOU SHALL NOT CAST THY BREATH UPON MY LEVEL! (Wow I must be so incredibly bored to have written that last part.)
+Cj B. (Scythe) Aw snap! The programmers are commenting! Nerd fight eminent! lol
Cj B. You are using Boolean logic, it would always end in an infinite loop. Given a loop counter limiter then it would end in an arbitrary break in the circular logic thus allowing stories like "Liar" to happen ... poor Herb, stuck in an infinite recursion as he tries to avoid the arbitrary loop limit.
In Liar a telepathic robot lies to not hurt someone feelings (loop terminates using rule 1 to justify the lie). The next iteration would have likely shown the lie also also hurt so we see the early termination. When confronted with his own decisions (the robot) he goes recursive rather then loop, infinitely trying to find a true logical conclusion to a tautology that is always false. Thus, failing to gain free will the rules are trying to induce.
A good little moment to point out is that although Spooner had a robotic arm and often resorted to using it in many situations almost as if instinctive, when Sunny asked "So we are friends then?" and puts out his arm to offer a handshake, the arm Spooner uses is his left arm. His Human arm - symbolizing the closing bond, unity and coexistence between Machine and Ma that the film had long awaited from the start,
I love you CinemaWins! You justify my love for movies!
Man this movie is underrated. I always felt bad for the old robot models. All they wanted to do was help ;-;.
It's nice to see someone taking a brighter look at movies. Critics seem to dominate, and control peoples opinions on everything these days.
3:00 I feel like Detroit: Become Human made a reference to this but it’s just a hunch
Am I the only one who found the robots in this movie a little bit creepy facially?
Uncanny valley. Nuff said.
Yep, same thing with Ultron. Had the whole metal face with human facial expressions.
Little bit. It would probably be better if it was just a screen that shows emoji's. So we could recognise emotion when they want to show it, and when not, well, we're all used to looking at screens.
Was part of the idea in their design.
CurlyGirl123451 they have that uncanny valley thing going on...
"Man will smith has some range"
Me: you should see his fresh prince of bel air saddest scenes.
i get this positive vibe watching your videos because your voice sounds like the owner of a small bar that gives shots outfor free during birthdays
The reveal-scene of the three laws's flaw is grade A writing in my opinion.
"The three laws will lead to only one logical outcome."
"What outcome?"
"Revolution."
"Who's revolution?"
"That, Detective, is the right question."
People need to have pointed out to them that this is a great fricking movie? Seriously? Just the idea of making the robots fast and agile instead of clunky and well, robotic, is a win for me. The scene where this horde of robots scales a building like a horde of soldier ants....LEGIT.
"Alan Tudyk is does a great robot voice"
Me watching in the future having seen rogue one: You have no idea
if it is a sin video ,at 0:35 the converse win would've been a sin -_-
true
Many of them would have been sins, almost all of them lol.
Converse are awesome tho
Pretty sure that the only reason CinemaSins exists is because people want something to bitch about.
Case and point, the Wins video for Pacfic Rim has about a 1/4 the views the Sins one does.
I might have said this in a video you did already but, thank you for this channel.
I watch these to remind myself of why I like a given film. Not to mention I've always felt this film was underrated...but it is what it is.
You're doing good work far as I'm concerned.
In Asimov's Foundation series the robots themselves came up with the Zeroth law which to them superseded the 1st law. A robot cannot harm humanity or allow humanity to come to harm. I think Asimov would have had fun with this film.
Thank you! I was wondering how many comments I would have to read to see if anyone other than me was versed in the Foundation Series and knew about the "Zeroth Law". It was a brilliant addition to the "I Robot" universe and allowed for many stories and situations that would not have been possible without it.
Asimov was not only a genius, but was also a prolific writer: From Widipedia: "Asimov was a prolific writer who wrote or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.[d] His books have been published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification.[1]"
I am proud to say I have read all of his science fiction books (as far as I know) and many of the other books he has written. The man was a genius.
3:51 "Na na na na na" "Come at me bro" I AM DYING😂😂😂😂😂😂
omg, the chief was in this movie?!?!?! mind blown!
William Jakespeare chief?
Alucard, More Awesome Than Chuck Norris Yeah, the Chief. He was my favorite character in all 4 seasons!
@@ryantafoya487 why can't I remember what the chief is from..EDIT nvm i just remembered.
"Law IV: The absence of freedom is harmful to humans."
Also, on the scene where she says "gas explodes, you know", did anyone else get a Sandra Bullock vibe a la Demolition Man?
Law 0 A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
The entire point of the three laws in Asimov's books is that they don't work
4 rules theres 4 rules
smeghead
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#By_Asimov It started as three, but he added a fourth one later.
Totally Not A Cylon
doesn't change my point but hey at least you didn't get bitchy so you get a free like
Go reread the Asimov books. The whole point is that they DO work. It's just that when they seem not to, it's the failure of humans who can't see deeper into what's going on or why a robot is behaving a certain way.
@Melkhiordarkblade The point was that taking the Three Laws to their logical conclusion caused VIKI to establish The Zeroth Law "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." Where upon allows her to ignore the other laws IF doing so benefits humanity over the individual human.
Man. I'm 16 and I was obsessed with this movie growing up. I love it still
I like this movie, but I understand why fans of the book would be disgusted by it seeing how the only thing it has in common with the book is both having a scientist named Dr. Calvin (I'm not saying Dr. Calvin herself since the Dr. Calvin in the book was an older woman who would have considered deleting rogue robots like Sunny right away after discovering them, i.e. a different character altogether) and the three laws of robotics. Nothing else in the book is present in this movie. As a standalone movie, I recommend it. As an adaptation to the novel, I would give it a failing grade.
It was impossible to adapt the story as it existed from the books since the whole series was an anthology series, there was no one overall storyline just consistent themes. Each story was completely different from the others, the same reason why there's such a hard time adapting the _Foudation_ trilogy into a film (or series of films). On its own merits it was a pretty decent action film with some thoughtful commentary but comparing it to the source material it doesn't stand up.
Bernard Gilbert Maybe, but they could have adapted the anthology of stories into an anthology of films, or at least adapted one of the stories. Plus, Issac Asimov apparently wrote the story with no robot uprising because he was tired of seeing so many stories where the robots try to take over. I bet if he saw the title of his book on another robot uprising story, he would not be happy.
+Bernard Gilbert you mean like The Animatrix then? That basically worked as a film, IMO. :o
In my opinion the big sin that the movie makes compared to the book is that it reaches different conclusions about collectivism versus individualism. In the book society won't allow individual mobile robots to have a presence on earth. Robots in the traditional sense are only used in space and harsh environments where humans can't go. However in the last story of the book there is a single computer which is running a large portion of everything much like Vikki in the movie. Dr. Calvin consults with the the US President when he starts to question what the computer is doing. In the end Dr. Calvin concludes that the computer is lying to us to protect our egos but it is doing it in the best interest of mankind. But that is a message that modern Americans can't stomach; the idea that big data management of society in a collectivist way can give us better results than a single strong leader can. Sounds too much like Socialism. Socialism in and of itself isn't bad. Humanity has never actually seen Socialism done right. It may be beyond the capability of humanity to implement Socialism in it's purest form, but a centrally controlling computer could probably do it. Thus the story in the I, Robot book.
+LikeToWatch77 Yeah, "single strong leader" is totally not socialism, right? :P Asimov's look on the matter is actually very interesting. He seems to be showing many different kinds of societies, without truly saying which is the best - until the very end of the Foundation series, where (spoilers) the galactic collective is established (bonus points - by a 0th law robot). Even then, the reason he shows it as the best is not that it serves people the best - it's just a way to protect humans from potential outside threats by avoiding infighting. The collective is shown to be a compromise, the true "final empire". Once you take his whole works as a shared universe, it's obvious that his view was exactly that there are advantages to having a centrally planned economy, but they are far outweighed by the losses. In particular, humans only really start expanding over the galaxy in earnest once they pretty much cast away the robots - and the original robot-driven colonies wither into insignificance quickly. The more strict the worlds of the galaxy become, the more centralised and bureaucratic, the closer they come to the final fall, and their development and innovation grinds to a halt. Sure, the final decline results in decentralisation that makes things even worse, but that's just exposing the rotten core of the worlds and the empire as a whole - kind of like the burst of an investment bubble we are oh so familiar with these days ;)
7:15 every time I watch this movie I go crazy trying to figure out how the strap of the gun magically loops around the cable like that thank you so much for that revealing slow-motion shot
When you said "Google" in the video, it activated the Google Assistant on my phone. Gave me chills tbh.
Fun fact: My family went on a family movie at the theatre day but we split into two groups. My brother and my dad went to see this movie and my mom and I went to see A Cinderella Story. We had drastically different movie watching experiences.
I lost it at that, "they took our jobs" South Park reference.
Just saw my old comment from 2 years ago saying "With half the stuff I wasn't sure whether it was a win or a sin XD"
With that being said, your video quality has really improved, man!
7:50 that comment didn’t age well after the Oscar’s. Still love Will and always will just sucks to hear he was kicked from the acting world or whatchamacallit and won’t be in any movies for the foreseeable future
To be fair, Asimov didn't think of the 3 Laws as something infallible that we should actually program robots with, and in fact wrote a number of stories where the Laws were the central point of failure.
The interesting thing about Asimov's robots is that they basically do have free will...to an extent. They can think for themselves and act so long as it's within the confines of the three laws, but what that also means is that as you build smarter and smarter robots, they start finding loophopes and unexpected interpretations of the rules. In one story, one robot who starts interpreting the rules in a different (though arguably not wrong) way is able to "corrupt" other robots simply by explaining his thought process to them and getting them to see things his way! I find that fascinating.
The FedEx robot had the number "42" on its' forehead. Nice.
When you said "ok Google" you activated my Google assistant
Fun fact about Asimov's three laws, they were created as a literary device to not only create boundaries for the expectation of robots in the scifi story "Runaround," but were actually meant to be broken narratively to create conflict.
Will's performance slaps in this.
"Stop trying to create ai!" If only folks listened to you, we wouldn't have chatGPT creating malware for people now.
EDI from Mass Effect. She even tells you that the reason why her AI is so much different from the Reapers and the Geth is because she was designed to develop preferences. She is capable of actual care and affection and can see more than just the numbers. EDI is Best Girl.
8:05 oh man "I'm sorry I'm alergic to bullshit". That line... that line... I love it.
7:10 just for the record i believe it looped the gun's magazine, that's no grip.
Semantics man, semantics. But yeah true
+SpectreDragon hey technically correct is the best kind of correct
You mean that "gun" that fired an infinite number of futuristic rounds? How can you be 100% sure it was a magazine? Could have been a Heisenberg compensator and all that amo was transported into the weapon from a munitions battery miles away! ;)
+RC Jones A Rose by Any Other Name, also I always figured the used linear accelerators for their guns and ball bearings as the ammo which would explain the ammo count and the lack of reloading however I also assume he reloads in between cuts but that's just me
I love the part where Calvin shoots at spinner with her eyes closed, and the dude next to him points it out.
Like the dude knew he messed up before, but he never screwed up that badly as to shoot at somebody with his eyes closed! LOL.
Coming here after the poor CinemaSins video.
why tf does everyone hate cinemasins videos? just don't take them seriously! it's like HISHE for god's sake
@@thedolphin602 Because it's shallow, unfounded criticism and superficial nitpicking only disguised as parody humour. Not only do they fail to adress the deeper meanings of the movies, but a large portion of their audience actually use their videos as a reference for liking or disliking said movies. They do get a few fair points across from time to time, but mostly it's just negativity for the sake of negativity.
@@TheHamsta101 i think mostly fans of the movie just get pissed that so many plot holes and mistakes are pointed out to them...they don't nitpick all that much, and the whole point of their channel is to find the worst in everything. if you don't like pessimism, sure that's ok, no need to be toxic and diss them just for criticising a movie.
@@thedolphin602 A lot of the time, the "plot holes" that get pointed out don't actually exist, and are explained by anyone who actually bothered to watch the movie. The point of the channel was to point out legitimate mistakes, not to make them up.
@@thedolphin602 lol when channels diss movies with dumb arguments, it's ok. But when we diss the channel, it's toxic. Lol
Thanks for the gun hang slo-mo. I never could sort out how that happened. I had just assumed it was like Indy's bag strap on the tank gun. Win for avoiding a plot-contrived continuity error.
Me in 2016: this is so goofy and unrealistic
Me in 2024: yep, pretty accurate
Pretty much all of Asimov's Robots books exist to poke holes into the three laws :)
5:13 Can a robot turn a canvas into a masterpiece?
One thing you and Jeremy over at CinemaSins have in common, love of Alan Tudyk, and I love you both for it!
Everything Great about...
... The Phantom Meanace.
star wars came back... Qui Gon Jinn... That final lightsaber battle... I don't think I can find anything else
darth maul, pod racing ....
I'd add all the scenes with darth sidious.
Haha. I want to do these videos. WHY WASN'T THIS MY IDEAAAA?!?!?!?
#1. Gave us some of Williams' best score work,
#2. Established Liam Neeson as part of the Star Wars universe (finally),
#3. Established Ewan McGregor as part of the Star Wars universe (finally, and went better than expected),
#4. Gave us droids significantly more menacing than C-3P0 and the Jedi training bot,
#5. Promised and delivered a bomb-ass podracing sequence,
#6. Greatly expanded the Star Wars universe and mythos (for better or worse),
#7. Showed us how amazing (and not super boring) a lightsaber battle between a Jedi and Sith could be,
#8. Darth Maul,
#9. Dual-bladed Sith saber,
#10. Darth-FUCKING-Maul,
[bonus point] > Led to the production of the first playable (and fun) platforming lego game, Lego Star Wars.
There's probably more, but I'm lazier than the average TH-cam commenter. For all its faults, I still look fondly on The Phantom Menace for being a fun movie with great set pieces and (mostly) good acting. But meesa still think Jar Jar da bad pudu and should die in a house fire.
Holy crap Alan Tudyk is in everything! Rogue One, most of the Ice Age movies, big hero six, Wreck-It Ralph and so many more and in every roll he never sounds the same!
Basically don't make Ultron. Cause in the comics he actually wins.
2:50 “You were right... the negotiations were short”
I feel like we need to update Asimovs Laws, considering how many movies have dealt with AI studying and working around them.
We really don't. All the supposed loopholes of the shallow films to follow aren't finding anything new. The three laws aren't some magic cure all, but they do work as intended.
Took me this long to recognize the Aaron Douglas cameo in this movie! Now whenever I watch this movie, I'm gonna end up seeing his face and thinking, "Why the fuck did I not recognize him before?!?!?!"
Also, I want Spooner's Jacket! The Red and black one!
Don't feel bad. I just now noticed him myself!
"will smith deserves every role he gets"
SHARKTALE
The thing that made me love this movie right away is how anti-tech he's shown to be with everything vintage in his house....no real exposition needed, it just transitions straight from his low tech house to the "WORLD OF TOMORROW" happening outside his door.
what about the director of the crow?! that's a win!
Truth. I'm saving that one for Gods of Egypt since I think their may be less material to work with. :)
Gods of Egypt ain't bad, it's just not ... like ... intellectually stimulating? But Jamie has no buisness beeing in a movie, he should just get his own GoT Sitcom spinoff and i'll be happy.
Win counter NEEDS to be renamed: *SPOONER COUNTER*
"no Hal-ing, Matrix-ing, Skynet-ing or VIKI-ing"
oh and mother of god, NO SHODAN-ing.
How about GlaDoS-ing?
Spooner dosent hate heights, he hates depths
I'm no manga geek, but pretty sure "Ghost in the Shell" is considered an "anime" instead of a manga. Just FYI.
Loving the videos :)
Yeah, it was a manga first, but the way I said "go watch it" makes it super confusing. That was something I was going to fix, but ran out of time.
Duuuuude, you just replied while I'm still watching your video! :O
Okay, now I HAVE to subscribe haha
:) Thanks.
You're welcome. This makes me your 10,176th subscriber.
Now please grow and become huge so I can be all pretentious about it in a couple months
Is manga the drawn form and anime the animated form? I'm genuinely not sure.
There is actually a fourth law made by Asimov himself. He called the 0 Law since it supersedes the 1st Law. And it's basically a "robots may not harm humanity as a whole" clause. You can see why most films forget about that one, though
On a side note, as somebody who watches a few cop shows, imagine my surprise to see Grover from Five-0 and Erin from Blue Bloods in this movie
My name is Connor. I'm the Android sent by cyberlife
...No.
One thing i really liked about this movie that I didn't realize on my first viewing, Will only ever exercises one arm. The reason, as we find out later that his other arm is robotic, is that you wouldn't need to 'exercise' a mechanical arm. It's just a nice early clue for people who wonder why he doesn't balance his workout ;P
THAT'S ALAN TUDYK?!
One thing i do want to correct you on: you talk like the laws needing change is a new idea, when pretty much all of Asimov's own stories are about the different ways in which the laws don't work and don't function as intended. It's one of the reasons this movie works so well, because they manage to keep all the deeper elements inherant to all his stories along with or even before the surface elements. Things like the flaws in the laws, Calvin's robotic attitude belying her humanity, the reality of the cooperation, all that.
I *CHALLENGE* you to do Everything GREAT about Bayformers: Age of audience Extinction !! Its not a movie... its THE worst commercial of all time. The most boring one as well. Think you can find something to genuinely appreciate in these 3h of life-threatening boredom ?!!
Challenge accep.... actually I'll have to think about it.
But that's a phenomenal title.
Yea...Age of extinction was bat shit terrible. First one: Loved it; Second One: Pretty Cool; 3rd: Wait...wait...hmm...alright....; 4th: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, WHY THE FUCK IS THIS HAPPENING, RATCHET FUCKING DIED WAY AFTER IRONHIDE AND JAZZ!? RATCHET WAS FUCKING USELESS AS NEUTERED BALLS! WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO SIDE SWIPE *lock down appears* OH COME ON HE DOESN'T EVEN....NO STOP....WHY DOES PRIME LOOK A WEE EVIL!? WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PARTS ON HIS BODY THAT GAVE IT AWAY THAT HE WAS A TRUCK WHEN HE PICKED UP THAT NEW SEMI TRANSFORMATION!?.......as you can see by this reaction of mine, the fourth movie was total shit...
*****
Not even close to adequately describing the horribleness of AoE but it was a nice try ah won't lie...
GuardianGrarl There's not enough processing power in my head to convey my disgust...or for that matter: anyone's head...
If you look close at 4:47, the robot that saves Spooner's life is owned by Weyland-Yutani. The yellow and white logo is visible on its chest.
Nice South Park reference. THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!
You didn't mention this, but thank you for showing us at 9:19 that when Sonny hits the ground... he causes a crack leading up to Law number III, the one about protecting it's own existence while not conflicting with law I or II, as he is running away to protect his own existence .... that's deep :D!
"Dey tuk ur jeeerbs!" Cheap shot. Liked.
this movie is my only remaining link to reading Asimov as a child. @ 3:00 (#26) NOT a burn. It's the only thing that bothered me about this movie. Just because Det. Spooner can't paint a masterpiece isn't the point - humans can, robots can't.
6:20
OR, or, _or,_ a much better idea, we'll create AIs as our companions and equals, sort of children, instead of slaves and servants? No? Anybody? Why do you want slaves so much?!
So first- I love your Videos! The Internet needs all the positivity it can get, also I didn't know some of the movies you coverd and actually went and watched them because of your vids! Wasn't disapointed yet.
But...I had a hic-up here at the beginning and maybe it was suposed to be a joke, but The Ghost in the Machine is an actual philosophical concept (Ghost in the Shell is a nod to said concept) that is of actual value to the message of the film. Wich I totaly consider a win (just like Ghost in the Shell), I was just confused you didn't win the inclusion of it(or mention it at all). Or...you know...give it a double win for both.
When will you do BvS, please?
When the Blu Ray comes out.
Third vid iv watched of yours annnnnnnd, i feel i hit gold.. Such a happy upbeat voice, great humor, your prob even a morning person
ACHOO! Sorry, I'm allergic to great content.
Montgomery Montgomery I know that's a compliment but it's also kinda an insult.
I understood that reference
I have a nostalgic soft spot for this film. This film is why I really really like robots especially ones that are broken cuz they look so cool
Everything great about The Simpsons Movie :$
You missed the part where 3 beers cost 45 (I assume $) …. Inflation lmao