Author Topic: I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.  (Read 6829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
The (possibly apocryphal) origin of Scientology was a bet between Hubbard and another writer over lunch that he could come up with and make people believe in a religion with just one book. Thus was born Dianetics and its erupting volcano cover and the commercials.
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Dark_4ce

  • GTVA comedy relief
  • 27
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Oh yeah... What was it?... There was something about having leverage is good. The also starting a revolt with a 1000 year old harrier jet flown by cavemen. Yeah! Thats it!
I have returned... Again...

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
the realy scary thing is when I was a little kid (3-6) I wanted to read those books. thank Xenu I don't have stupid/overly rich parents
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Carl

  • Render artist
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
see? here we are with another religion thread :D
"Gunnery control, fry that ****er!" - nuclear1

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Yeah, I think this all's my bad. My presence just seems to make people think of Jesus.


And from there I guess it's just a short associative jump to Scientology and so on...

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Mik, if you want the ultimate example of the regurgitated story, read the Belgariad by David Eddings and then read any other series by David Eddings ;)

Actually Magician, Silverthorn and Darkness at Sethanon were brilliant books, it's just that was where the whole ordeal should have stopped. The later, poorer, books have ruined the original, brilliant ones :( Same goes to a lesser degree to the DragonRider books, the first few were innovative, but then Anne Mcaffrey has sort of turned it into a Mills & Boon kind of thing :(

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
When I think of all the poor trees that are wasted daily to keep putting out that crap, my eyes and ears bleed.


They are called series, so yes they are going to have similar themes.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Oh, hell, yeah, Flipside! I can't read Eddings at all. Someone needs to jab him in the head with an icepick. There's a chance they'll kill all the braincells associated with Sparhawc.

You know, there's a difference between a "series" (say, George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Fire and Ice') and shamelessly trotting out an old whore in new makeup (anything by Lackey, McCafferey, etc).

If I can reduce your story to a formula, you're doing something horribly wrong. Pern and most Mercedes Lackey and a few others:

$angsty_teen meets and bonds with $strange_animal with [magical|scientifically-enchanged] powers. $angsty_teen learns error of [his|her] ways and goes on to became critical to the survival of [his|her] $geopolitical_unit. In many cases, $angsty_teen is recast as $powerful_and_dangerous_but_really_kind_hero before all is said and done.

There. That's most Pern and most Valdemar books. There's fomula for urban fantasy (that evil cult contributed to by Lackey, Hamilton, and their ilk).

I challenge you to find that sort of formula for ANY well written series.  Lets take a look at the top of one of my bookshelves. We'll use just the top, front row of my book shelf. Each shelf is stacked two high and two deep and there's eight shelves, plus several large boxes of books. Here's a very short list of good, non-formulaic SERIES:
 the Lord of the Rings, Chronicals of Narnia, His Dark Materials, The Crown of Stars, The Coldfire Trilogy, The Mageworlds books, the Kushiel series, The Bench novels, Memory Sorrow and Thorn, the Chung Kuo books, the Heritege Universe books, the Manifold series, the Xeelee Sequence, the Heechee saga, the Expendable books, Otherland, or the the Neuromancer trilogy.

If that many authors can manage to write that many stories without descending into formulaic drudgering, I contend that Lackey and McCaffery and their ilk are doing something horribly, painfully wrong.
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
You would grant that most of their is aimed at a younger age group that you or I occupy though, correct?

If so that explains why they are so formulaic, and you are just being intellectually pinheaded.  

I, and millions of others, happen to enjoy most of Pern, up until "All the Weyrs of Pern", it should've end there.  I haven't read enough Lackey to tell the difference
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
McCaffery may be aimed at teenagers, but teenagers aren't intellectual midgets. They're capable of reading series books that share a world without rehashing the same plots over and over and insult their intelligence and critical capacities.

Take, for example, The Chronicles of Narnia and His Dark Materials. Both of them are aimed at younger readers, but both are absolutely brilliant. Each of them manages to tell several smaller stories (7 for Narnia and 3 for Materials) that fit into an overarching story arc. The plots don't get rehashed, though characters and places and idea return from book to book. Take a look at the Prydain Chronicles for another perfect example.

Contrast that to stuff like Lackey and McCaffery and Anthony, all of whom manage to rewrite the same story fifteen or twenty times, doing a search and replace on proper nouns. Same old whore, just fresh paint.
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Oh, Prydain Chronicles..! *wipes off a tear*

Though it was quite a clichésoup from time to time. But in a good way.
lol wtf

 

Offline Su-tehp

  • Devil in the Deep Blue
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Wow, this thread has gone WAY off-topic; people are talking more about allegedly mediocre fantasy books instead of the I, Robot movie.

I'm going to reserve judgment on the movie, but I want to ask a couple of questions about the book. What was the plot of I, Robot? I'm familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics since I read the Foundation Series; the 3 laws were mentioned in "Foundation and Earth." (And, no, I did NOT read the "Prequel to Foundation" series, in case you wanted to know. I HATE prequels.)

And IIRC, a FOURTH (secret?) Law of Robotics was mentioned in "Foundation and Earth" that said something to the effect of "A robot must do all it can to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it conflicts with the previous three Laws." Could it be that the robots in the new "I, Robot" movie are rebelling "for humanity's own good?" God, how formulaic would THAT be? Not to mention that it would destroy the logic circle... but then again using just the three original laws, I can forsee LOTS of instances where the logic circle Asimov envisioned would break down...

Thoughts and comments? (And don't forget to summarize the plot of the I, Robot book, please.) :)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2004, 11:52:27 am by 387 »
REPUBLICANO FACTIO DELENDA EST

Creator of the Devil and the Deep Blue campaign - Current Story Editor of the Exile campaign

"Let my people handle this, we're trained professionals. Well, we're semi-trained, quasi-professionals, at any rate." --Roy Greenhilt,
The Order of the Stick

"Let´s face it, we Freespace players may not be the most sophisticated of gaming freaks, but we do know enough to recognize a heap of steaming crap when it´s right in front of us."
--Su-tehp, while posting on the DatDB internal forum

"The meaning of life is that in the end you always get screwed."
--The Catch 42 Expression, The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Steadfast

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
In several of Asimov's stories, he explored the consequences of a robot having to deal with situations where two of the three laws came into conflict.
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
I, Robot, at least the copy I have, is an anthology of approx. 12-15 short stories that Asimov wrote to both show the infallibility of the 3 Laws of Robotics and what happened given certain circumstances that caused a conflict between the laws.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
It's been years, but I think the laws were :-

1: A robot may not, by action or inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2: A robot will take all actions possible to preserve it's own existence as long as it does not contravene the first law.
3: There is no exception to the first law of Robotics.

Zeroth Law : A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind. This law was added to the programming later by the robots themselves.

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
They should've done Robots and Murder, that's got everything.

Murder, Mystery, Dystopic future Earth, even sex in the second part.

Sorry for the double post.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
It's been years, but I think the laws were :-

1: A robot may not, by action or inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2: A robot will take all actions possible to preserve it's own existence as long as it does not contravene the first law.
3: There is no exception to the first law of Robotics.

Zeroth Law : A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind. This law was added to the programming later by the robots themselves.


Why would you need the 0th law? Surely the first law covers that. (Can't think of a situation where mankind would come to harm with individual humans coming to harm too).

Oh and your second law is actually the third one. 2nd law is that a robot must always obey a human's orders unless it contravenes the 1st law.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
That was it, and the Zeroth law does still stand, the first law was very very difficult to define when it came to the Robots abilities to alter emotions in humans, it was practically impossible for them to act on any problem because they had to look at the possible repurcussions in the first law, even when they were acting to alter on persons attitude to save billions of lives (e.g. Making Bin Laden feel the love) because this could be an infringement on the first law, they had no way of telling whether altering a person would at some point in the future cause them harm. In Bin Ladens case, he would be caught and shot, so under the first law, they wouldn't be able to do this, despite the fact that their inaction has caused human suffering. The Zeroth law was the only loophole they had available.

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
And the Zeroth Law was only available for some advanced robots, such as Daneel, because of it's complexity, as Flipside said.
lol wtf

 

Offline Su-tehp

  • Devil in the Deep Blue
  • 210
I, Robot Trailer. No, just no.
Quote
Originally posted by Janos
And the Zeroth Law was only available for some advanced robots, such as Daneel, because of it's complexity, as Flipside said.


I remember Daneel; he appeared at the end of "Foundation and Earth." I know there are other Asimov stories involving him, but I never got to read them yet.
REPUBLICANO FACTIO DELENDA EST

Creator of the Devil and the Deep Blue campaign - Current Story Editor of the Exile campaign

"Let my people handle this, we're trained professionals. Well, we're semi-trained, quasi-professionals, at any rate." --Roy Greenhilt,
The Order of the Stick

"Let´s face it, we Freespace players may not be the most sophisticated of gaming freaks, but we do know enough to recognize a heap of steaming crap when it´s right in front of us."
--Su-tehp, while posting on the DatDB internal forum

"The meaning of life is that in the end you always get screwed."
--The Catch 42 Expression, The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Steadfast