Issac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Welcome to another edition of How Not to Make a Movie 101: the segment of TheNorm’s blog where we examine the lessons to be learned from horrendous and egregious injustices of cinema.
Some of my beautiful readers may recall some time ago, I posted an entry on my blog discussing my distain for a handful of clichés and Hollywood business practices, that rubbed me the wrong way (to put it mildly), and the most rage-inducing is what I refer to as The In-Name-Only Movie: films that feature a title, plot elements, and/or characters from a recognizable I.P., but deviate from the source material so substantially and offensively that it could qualify as fraud. This kind of disrespectful manipulation of the material and the audience is, sadly, far too commonplace in Hollywood, and it has been prevalent even before the modern era of corporate buyouts, mergers, and political appeasements!
Todays subject, the “adaptation” of Issac Asimov’s science-fiction anthology novel, I, Robot, starring Will Smith from 2004, is indubitably the worst offender of this cinematic crime! Not only does it insult a massive fan base of a beloved work of classic sci-fi literature, but it spits in the face of genuine efforts made my talented screenwriters to make something different and original, or at least not directly based on a pre-existing work. If there was ever a case in point for the early signs of Hollywoods inevitable implosion, this was it!
And today, we’re going to be dissecting this monstrosity to better learn what makes it so unworthy of existence, and how to avoid such a devastation ever again.
Class is now in session!
Lesson 1:
Believe in the Script
Back in the 1990s, an up-and-coming screenwriter by the name of Jeff Vintar, penned a script called Hardwired: an Agatha Christy style murder mystery in which the suspects were all robots, and one human detective is on the case to find the robot who committed the crime. If that sounds like an interesting and potentially engaging idea, that’s because it is, and Jeff Vintar went about trying to get it produced. He pitched the script to 20th Century Fox (now 20th Century Studios), who had recently acquired the rights to Asimov’s works, including his anthology novel I, Robot. In an eager push to make a profit off their recent acquisition of such a beloved I.P., 20th Century Fox accepted Vintar’s script, under the condition that he change the title and insert a few elements from Asimov’s novel. 20th Century Fox then got Will Smith to play the lead, prompting them to hire another screenwriter, who was tasked with making the script more action oriented and “Will Smith friendly,” i.e. make everything in the film revolve around what Will Smith does best rather than ask him to actually act.
This kind of filmmaking by accountants is already sinister and disgusting in and of itself, but what makes it especially egregious in this case is the blatant apathy toward both Jeff Vintar’s original script and Issac Asimov’s novel. Why? Because in all of the short stories that comprise the novel, none, I repeat, NONE of them feature a story about a robot killing a human being, strictly because of the aforementioned Three Laws of Robotics. Also, did I mention that the book was a collection of short stories? Because I don’t think I’ve driven that fact hard enough!
If the studio truly wanted to make an adaptation of Asimov’s novel, they should have made it an anthology film in the vain of Wild Tales, The Animatrix, and Memories. Instead, they chose to shoehorn a handful of unrelated narrative elements and a familiar title onto a script that had absolutely nothing to do with Asimov’s stories and concepts!
Now, those who have seen the generic Will Smith robot action film pretending to be I, Robot will inevitably point to the twist near the end, where the highly advanced super computer known as VIKI, which has been tasked with the safety of the entire human race, comes to the conclusion that if humans continued to govern themselves, they would inevitably continue to harm each other and their futures, with no possibility of learning their lessons. Therefore, in order to fulfill her duties as humanities guardian, VIKI had to overthrow the human race for their own safety and the greater good.
This argument is, I’m sorry to say, completely invalid and narratively unsatisfactory. Because, according to the Three Laws of Robotics, which are the first things shown at the beginning of the film, if VIKI discovered that humans would come to greater harm if she did nothing (an automatic violation of the First law), but also realized that in order to do something, it would mean harming humans (an automatic violation of the First Law), she would have instantly spiraled into a paradox and shut down entirely! This actually happens to some of the robots in Asimov’s novel, including a super computer just like VIKI. Therefore, no, they did not discover some clever loophole in the Three Laws; they disregarded the narrative rules entirely so they could end the movie with Will Smith in a machine gun fight against an army of humanoid iPods!
If you don’t believe in the script, don’t agree to make the movie. If you have the rights to a preexisting property, find a way to genuinely adapt it to the silver screen. And if you come across an idea that has as much potential as Jeff Vintar’s script once did, either have the courage to take on the challenge yourself or hand it to someone else. Part of creating great works of art is recognizing when someone is more skilled and talented than yourself, and trusting them to handle your property with the care and respect it deserves.
Lesson 2:
Balance Story and Action
Another problem with the film is the insulting lack of proper balance between the story and action set pieces. As I mentioned before, another screenwriter was hired by the studio to add some action to the script. However, said writer failed to justify any of his choices or succeed in making his action concepts flow within the narrative naturally or justifiably.
Consider one of the greatest martial-arts epics ever produced (and one of my personal favorites), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Based on the book by Du Lu Wang, starring Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, and directed by Academy Award Winner Ang Lee, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is one of the most memorable and nuanced martial-arts films ever crafted for many reasons; the most prominent (and relevant to this blog entry) being it has a sensational sense of balance between the narrative and the action/fight scenes.
During the film, there is an established sense of flow that feels natural and justifiable. Whenever the film transitions into an action scene, breaking away from the main narrative, it never feels abrupt or out of place. Every action scene in the film is carefully weaved into the narrative, allowing the story to create a greater sense of impact and nuance not often scene in many other films of the genre.
The action scenes in the Will Smith vehicle masquerading as an adaptation of I, robot never feels like that, because the script never had action scenes in mind, or at least not to the level as presented in the film. Because the original script was written as a murder mystery first, it didn’t have much in the way of wiggle room for action scenes as abrupt and massive as say, a giant construction robot tasked with demolishing the house of a murder victim during an on-going investigation in the middle of the night, before police and other interested parties had the chance to study all that was there. Oh wait, that actually happened in the film!
The movie so desperately wants to be a visceral action vehicle for the biggest star of the time, that it treats the mystery aspect of the original script less like an integral part of the story, and more like a begrudged obligation. It could not be more obvious that the producers of the film didn’t care about crafting something engaging and only wanted something to replicate a roller coaster experience. While there may have been plenty of scripts and concepts lying around that would have lended themselves to such an idea, Venter’s script and the works of Issac Asimov did not lend themselves to such ideas!
Know where your ideas may best fit the story; narrative dictates what is best suited for its execution.
Lesson 3:
Never Underestimate the Audience
The studio was under the delusion that it was producing a safe product that would, theoretically, provide maximum success purely by the virtue of a popular performers presence, unjustified high octane action, and, dare I say, dumbed down versions of complex themes. They attempted to secure themselves in the knowledge that they could put out a bland, unchallenging, and un-engaging thing that would appeal to more audiences and deliver a “sure” profit. In short, the studio committed the one transgression against audiences that has repeatedly proven to be a sure way to guarantee a total loss in every possible way: they assumed the audience was stupid!
The Will Smith vehicle calling itself I, Robot is not only insulting as a failed “adaptation,” it is insulting as a film on its own merits. Even if the attempted connection to Issac Asimov’s works weren’t present, the film itself would still be an overly simplified mess that has no tangible emotional resonance, offers nothing substantial either in concept or nuance, and talks down to the audience in the most egregious and immature ways imaginable. This is not a film; it is a product intended for mass consumption that ultimately delivers nothing of meaning or value. It is a collection of things that accountants said were popular and insisted upon including in the presentation, but offered no ideas of how to make them functional or properly entertaining.
Conclusion:
The works of Issac Asimov offer a wide variety of possibilities for cinematic presentations. They are intelligent, engaging, and highly nuanced stories that offer a different way of thinking about technology, humanity, and how our choices can effect our future in many ways. These things are worthy and deserving of exploration in the world of cinematic storytelling, provided they are handled by the right kinds of artists. The robot movie with the title I, Robot plastered onto its face is nothing more than a tragic reminder of how much Hollywood continues to fail. Let this train wreck serve as a reminder of what happens when apathy and greed demands too much undeserving control; real creators aren’t afraid to take risks!
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment