****HOW I FIGURED OUT THE ENDING TO "I, ROBOT" AND OTHER AMAZING FEATS, BY WAVY G.****
Wavy G
I, Robots. I had heard nothing but bad reviews, so I wasn't really
expecting much from this going into it. However, the reviews I read
were mostly from science-fiction geeks on the Internet, so disregarding
their bullshit ("Asimov will be spinning in his grave!!!") opinions, I
decided to give it the "old college try."
My review: I was not all that disappointed. Actually, I thought it was
pretty good. Sure, it was totally Hollywood and formulaic, but what
else would you expect from a "Will Smith is a detective in a
robot-future-world" picture? There was little build-up to the action;
it just sort of came out of nowhere towards the end. It was as if all
the robots were programmed to go, "Well, it's the third act. I guess
we're supposed to attack now." But all that aside, it was a pretty
decent picture.
Well, now let's get to the point: How smart I am. About two-thirds of
the way into it, I figured out the ending. Now, I am not an avid movie
"buff" or anything, so if you think this was easy, then forgive me. I,
however, totally impressed myself when the end came and I found that I
was right. How did I figure it out, you ask? First, I'll have to
explain the details of the picture.
Will Smith is a detective who hates robots, and future technology
altogether. He revels in living in the past, (see, this is a device
used by moviemakers to relate the lead character to the audience), so
when a scientist is murdered, he instantly suspects it was robot, and
not man. Will Smith tracks down the robot who seems to behave different
from the rest, and brings him in. During an interrogation scene, we get
to see the tender, "human" side of this robot. As a viewer, I am
thinking, "he can't be a murderer--he's nice." Then we are introduced
to another character: Robertson, the owner of the robot company. Of
course, he is this stiff, "business man" type guy, and right away, we
get this "I don't like this guy snooping around" feel to him. Well,
Smith and his sexy lady scientist friend set about to figure out who
killed the dead guy. Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
Okay. Now that's the "gist" of the story, and from that I figured out
how the ending would turn out (see, I have investigative skills, just
like Will Smith). At first, the moviemakers try to make you believe
that because Smith suspects the robot, the robot is the obvious choice.
But, because they are showing us that the robot is a "nice guy," we know
it can't be him. The moviemakers then think, "the audience is going to
know it isn't the robot--because that's the obvious suspect, so we will
introduce this 'Robertson' guy, who is an asshole, and people with think
he did it. I think I am smart because I am a moviemaker, and I can
outsmart my audience." But I know better. I knew that the moviemakers
were *trying* to make us think that. How do I know? BECAUSE THIS IS
THE PLOT TO EVERY FUCKING SUSPENSE DRAMA EVER WRITTEN, FROM "MURDER SHE
WROTE" TO "SCOOBY *FUCKING* DOO"!!!
With that, I deduced that it isn't the robot, and it isn't Robertson,
and we know it isn't won of the main characters (Smith, or his lady
friend scientist), so it has to be won of the tertiary characters.
Somewon the audience wouldn't suspect, because their role is so minute,
we don't even think about them, come the end of the picture. And it's
obviously not the "Grandma" character, or the little fucking brat kid
who shows up for two pointless scenes, (I guess in an attempt to draw in
younger viewers?), and I highly doubt it's the police chief guy. Who
does that leave then? I'll tell you: VIKI, the computer who runs the
whole robot company.
That's right! It was VIKI!!! Not Robertson, like they wanted us to
think! HA HA HA HA. You see, she wants to wipe out the humans in order
to *save* the human race, (don't ask me), so she programs the robots to
attack. And I knew it all along! I FIGURED IT OUT. (Also, the idea of
the computer turning out to be the "bad guy" is a new premise, never
before used in movies.) I AM SMARTER THAN THE MAKERS OF I, ROBOTS!!!
I'm glad you all enjoyed reading my post. Have a pleasant evening.
Love,
Wavy G.
T
<snip>
> Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
> all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
>
That is the whole 'spinning in his grave' in a nutshell, right there.
No way, No. Way. the people of the future would have allowed Robots in
the common areas access to humans if they didn't have the Three Laws to
act as a restraint.
The whole Army of Evil Robots BS makes it impossible to hinge this as an
Asimov derived story.
Why couldn't they just ignore Asimov's works and make a Killer Robot film?
TBerk
wow, xposting. lookey
Wavy G
>Wavy G wrote:
><snip>
> > Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
>> all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
>>
>
>
>
>That is the whole 'spinning in his grave' in a nutshell, right there.
>
>No way, No. Way. the people of the future would have allowed Robots in
>the common areas access to humans if they didn't have the Three Laws to
>act as a restraint.
>
>The whole Army of Evil Robots BS makes it impossible to hinge this as an
>Asimov derived story.
>
It's not impossible. Robots are more powerful than we are. They just
have to be programmed to do so, and they will do it. It would be very
easy for them to take over, (as the picture shows us).
>
>Why couldn't they just ignore Asimov's works and make a Killer Robot film?
>
Umm, hell-O??? The "three laws"? Asimov came up with that idea. You
wanted the moviemakers to just take credit for his work?
>
>TBerk
>wow, xposting. lookey
James
> Jane <Ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>>Wavy G <Wa...@imsexy.com> wrote in
>>news:e8hd11p2vqf8kh9jo...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Henry <He...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wavy G <Wa...@imsexy.com> wrote in alt.tv.real-world:
>>>>
>>>>> Henry <He...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Wavy G <Wa...@imsexy.com> wrote in alt.tv.real-world:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, I am not an avid movie "buff" or anything,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you do play a mean skin flute.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POST!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, but it has everything to do with your skin flute playing ability.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Henry"? At "Earthlink"? Who the hell are you???
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think it was "Henry" At "Earthlink". He is the guy that says you
suck
>>a mean dick.
>
>
> But why? I don't even kow him. Where did this rumour come from? Who
> is saying this about me?
>
Henry is saying it about you. Didn't you blow him from time to time in
the recent past?
T
> T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wavy G wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
>>>all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>That is the whole 'spinning in his grave' in a nutshell, right there.
>>
>>No way, No. Way. the people of the future would have allowed Robots in
>>the common areas access to humans if they didn't have the Three Laws to
>>act as a restraint.
>>
>>The whole Army of Evil Robots BS makes it impossible to hinge this as an
>>Asimov derived story.
>>
>
>
> It's not impossible. Robots are more powerful than we are. They just
> have to be programmed to do so, and they will do it. It would be very
> easy for them to take over, (as the picture shows us).
>
>
You haven't actually READ the original stories, have you?
I submit you should go away and study 'the Three laws of Robotics' and
return better informed.
>
>>Why couldn't they just ignore Asimov's works and make a Killer Robot film?
>>
>
>
> Umm, hell-O??? The "three laws"? Asimov came up with that idea. You
> wanted the moviemakers to just take credit for his work?
>
>
>
>>TBerk
>>wow, xposting. lookey
>
No, I want them to give him credit and instead of stealing THE TITLE
make a proper film. Been drinking long?
TBerk
Wavy G
Adieu
> That's right! It was VIKI!!!
Gee thanks, I was going to watch that movie tonight with my three adorable
children, and know youve ruined it for EVRYONE, asshole!
Spanky The Thunder Chicken
which was named
"news:AQWRd.3381$Pz7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com":
> Wavy G wrote:
>> T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wavy G wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
>>>>all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That is the whole 'spinning in his grave' in a nutshell, right
>>>there.
>>>
>>>No way, No. Way. the people of the future would have allowed
>>>Robots in the common areas access to humans if they didn't have
>>>the Three Laws to act as a restraint.
>>>
>>>The whole Army of Evil Robots BS makes it impossible to hinge
>>>this as an Asimov derived story.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's not impossible. Robots are more powerful than we are. They
>> just have to be programmed to do so, and they will do it. It
>> would be very easy for them to take over, (as the picture shows
>> us).
>>
>>
>
> You haven't actually READ the original stories, have you?
>
> I submit you should go away and study 'the Three laws of Robotics'
> and return better informed.
However, Asimov himself circumvented the laws at least twice, once by
having the robots formulate a "0th" law (protecting the human RACE
allowed them to avoid the other three laws), and once by having the
humans program the robots to recognize humans based on speech
patterns, thereby letting the robots kill any human from another
planet.
>>>Why couldn't they just ignore Asimov's works and make a Killer
>>>Robot film?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Umm, hell-O??? The "three laws"? Asimov came up with that idea.
>> You wanted the moviemakers to just take credit for his work?
>>
>>
>>
>>>TBerk
>>>wow, xposting. lookey
>>
>
> No, I want them to give him credit and instead of stealing THE
> TITLE make a proper film. Been drinking long?
>
>
> TBerk
--
Father Uncle Antny (mhm 11x10)
an...@meow.org
Visit the Flonk Image Server! http://www.meow.org/flonk
Wavy G
Uhh...yeah. That thing.
Wavy G
Yeah, well I was going to try to figure out how many children you had,
and the appropriate, collective description of them, and you've ruined
it for ME. Thanks alot, BITCH!!!@
Wavy G
Rodney
... Oh, and Wavy G is COMPLETE dicksucker
Adieu
He isn't a great actor, but I wouldn't be that harh on him, asshole!
Wavy G
I thought the robot's performance was rather "stiff," as well,
HAHAHAHAHA.
netuse...@yahoo.com
Then why read a thread about the movie with the header, "****HOW I
FIGURED OUT THE ENDING TO "I, ROBOT" AND OTHER AMAZING FEATS, BY WAVY
G.****" ?
Wavy G
Adieu
Well the jokes on you coz I didn't read it, I closed my eyes just in time.
Hah!
Wavy G
What about the three children? I doubt you had enough hands to sheild
all their eyes at wonce.
Adieu
Ah, but they have their own hands, smert erse!
netuse...@yahoo.com
It just takes one finger on the monitor power button to kill the whole
display. *Click* - No problem.
Tim Bruening
T wrote:
> Wavy G wrote:
> <snip>
> > Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
> > all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
> >
>
> That is the whole 'spinning in his grave' in a nutshell, right there.
>
> No way, No. Way. the people of the future would have allowed Robots in
> the common areas access to humans if they didn't have the Three Laws to
> act as a restraint.
>
> The whole Army of Evil Robots BS makes it impossible to hinge this as an
> Asimov derived story.
Evidently, the Robot Company's computer was able to delete the Three Laws from
the robots!
Tim Bruening
In another story, he had the robots redefine themselves as human!
Tim Bruening
Wavy G wrote:
> Well, the other day I watched the new classic "sci-fi" moving picture,
> I, Robots. I had heard nothing but bad reviews, so I wasn't really
> expecting much from this going into it. However, the reviews I read
> were mostly from science-fiction geeks on the Internet, so disregarding
> their bullshit ("Asimov will be spinning in his grave!!!") opinions, I
> decided to give it the "old college try."
>
> My review: I was not all that disappointed. Actually, I thought it was
> pretty good. Sure, it was totally Hollywood and formulaic, but what
> else would you expect from a "Will Smith is a detective in a
> robot-future-world" picture? There was little build-up to the action;
> it just sort of came out of nowhere towards the end. It was as if all
> the robots were programmed to go, "Well, it's the third act. I guess
> we're supposed to attack now." But all that aside, it was a pretty
> decent picture.
>
> Well, now let's get to the point: How smart I am. About two-thirds of
> the way into it, I figured out the ending. Now, I am not an avid movie
> "buff" or anything, so if you think this was easy, then forgive me. I,
> however, totally impressed myself when the end came and I found that I
> was right. How did I figure it out, you ask? First, I'll have to
> explain the details of the picture.
>
> Will Smith is a detective who hates robots, and future technology
> altogether. He revels in living in the past, (see, this is a device
> used by moviemakers to relate the lead character to the audience), so
> when a scientist is murdered, he instantly suspects it was robot, and
> not man. Will Smith tracks down the robot who seems to behave different
> from the rest, and brings him in. During an interrogation scene, we get
> to see the tender, "human" side of this robot. As a viewer, I am
> thinking, "he can't be a murderer--he's nice." Then we are introduced
> to another character: Robertson, the owner of the robot company. Of
> course, he is this stiff, "business man" type guy, and right away, we
> get this "I don't like this guy snooping around" feel to him. Well,
> Smith and his sexy lady scientist friend set about to figure out who
> killed the dead guy. Plots thicken, action ensues, and then at the end,
> all the robots turn on the humans and try to kill them.
>
> Okay. Now that's the "gist" of the story, and from that I figured out
> how the ending would turn out (see, I have investigative skills, just
> like Will Smith). At first, the moviemakers try to make you believe
> that because Smith suspects the robot, the robot is the obvious choice.
> But, because they are showing us that the robot is a "nice guy," we know
> it can't be him. The moviemakers then think, "the audience is going to
> know it isn't the robot--because that's the obvious suspect, so we will
> introduce this 'Robertson' guy, who is an asshole, and people with think
> he did it. I think I am smart because I am a moviemaker, and I can
> outsmart my audience." But I know better. I knew that the moviemakers
> were *trying* to make us think that. How do I know? BECAUSE THIS IS
> THE PLOT TO EVERY FUCKING SUSPENSE DRAMA EVER WRITTEN, FROM "MURDER SHE
> WROTE" TO "SCOOBY *FUCKING* DOO"!!!
>
> With that, I deduced that it isn't the robot, and it isn't Robertson,
> and we know it isn't won of the main characters (Smith, or his lady
> friend scientist), so it has to be won of the tertiary characters.
> Somewon the audience wouldn't suspect, because their role is so minute,
> we don't even think about them, come the end of the picture. And it's
> obviously not the "Grandma" character, or the little fucking brat kid
> who shows up for two pointless scenes, (I guess in an attempt to draw in
> younger viewers?), and I highly doubt it's the police chief guy. Who
> does that leave then? I'll tell you: VIKI, the computer who runs the
> whole robot company.
>
> That's right! It was VIKI!!! Not Robertson, like they wanted us to
> think! HA HA HA HA. You see, she wants to wipe out the humans in order
> to *save* the human race, (don't ask me), so she programs the robots to
> attack. And I knew it all along! I FIGURED IT OUT. (Also, the idea of
> the computer turning out to be the "bad guy" is a new premise, never
> before used in movies.) I AM SMARTER THAN THE MAKERS OF I, ROBOTS!!!
> I'm glad you all enjoyed reading my post. Have a pleasant evening.
Kudos for outwitting the film makers!
Wavy "Double Nagative" G
"Tim Bruening" actually had to say:
Thanks!!! I knew I was smarter than--HEY, wait a sec. Where the hell
did you dig THIS thing up from??? Didn't I write this, like, four years
ago?
--
[None]
Tim McGaughy
Being smarter than the film makers is not the same as outwitting them.
Outwitting them would have meant tricking them into never making that
piece of crap movie in the first place.
Tim Bruening
My computer lists posts in alt.books.isaac asimove dating back to 2003!
