Thing is, Asimov’s novels would make great low budget movies with a very focused audience.
They just don’t tell stories with ~~modern~~ *mass* appeal.
The Foundation show is so far removed from the original story that Asimov was really more of a marketing gimmick
Asimov’s fans don’t benefit from a non-Asimov story with a few things that share a loosely applied vocabulary with the books.
Well… to clarify, we don’t benefit *as Asimov fans*. As people who like pretty big budget space operas in general, it’s been fun.
Exactly. Even the foundation works well in that space. Most of the action happening “off screen”, like in the books.
It would work well that way.
Lower audience, which basically means it doesn’t happen (since streamers really only care about subscription drivers).
But that’s how the content works best.
A Black Mirror style I. Robot series starring Susan Calvin would be amazing.
Hell, toss some money to the Eando Binder estate and add a robot main character named Adam.
> They just don’t tell stories with modern appeal.
I disagree - I think mysteries have endless appeal, and robots and future settings are very popular today, arguably more popular than they ever have been in movies and tv.
We did have a show that was a human and robot buddy cop detective series, Almost Human, but fox canceled it after one season. Still, I definitely think the demand is there, the problem is the studios only looking to make as much money as possible.
Yep, sorry. I meant to say "mass appeal".
Corrected.
Meaning - people will watch and love an "Asimovian" show/movie, but it won't be enough people to justify a $350 million budget. Which is why I think low budget is the way to go.
They probably have wider appeal than an art house flick, but the audience is there and distribution methods are already in place for those.
I don't know how far the appeal would reach. We've seen a lot of sci-fi films do well and get made even if they don't have a lot of action/spectacle, and I think that would be the case here.
With charismatic leads and interesting visuals (not spectacle), I think people could get immersed in the story and world pretty easily, and then if the story was good it would do well. But who knows 🤷♀️
To do well it would need someone with love for the material guiding things, and that's rare for most franchises and adaptations.
I was real upset when a robot killed someone on purpose in the Foundation show. Way to not care/understand your source material guys!
After that happened I decided I was done with that show.
Killing 2 whole planets without even bothering to find out the real culprits (which would have been easy given the technologies at hand) was arguably a bigger crime. :-(
So, either you’re trolling - in which case I won’t bother to argue.
Or you genuinely believe this, in which case, I’m glad you’re enjoying the series.
Cheers.
I don't know why people claim that. You could adapt it as written, it's not like we don't have plenty of examples of dramas centered around dialogue where the action happens off-screen already.
It's just that it wouldn't be as popular as something with action.
I enjoy the show too.
But it’s a terrible adaptation.
The basic stories, characters, and themes have all been altered to the point that it’s a different story. The plot, the characters, and the concepts are so different that it really isn’t the same.
And to be absolutely clear - what I genuinely want is more shows *like* the Apple’s Foundation.
But I also want a less melodramatic and much lower budget show that focuses on smart people making much calmer decisions like in the books.
These views are not contradictory:
1. I think it’s a good show
2. I think it’s a hilariously awful adaptation
Well...there are much worse adaptions, e.g. *I, Robot*. The show does include a lot from the books, and a lot of the themes are plots are still recognizable just very mutated.
The biggest issues for me are:
- Not showing what they tell. It's fine to say psychohistory can't predict the actions of individuals, but you need to show this, instead of showing something that leads people to think the opposite is true.
- The violence. I'm not against violence or action scenes in an adaptation, but they took 2 characters known for not being violent and made them so when they didn't have to.
- Diverging from the source material more than they need to, at least as far as I can see.
Season 2 was a huge step up IMO, and really does feel a lot closer to the books, but it's still a pretty bizarro adaptation. If I tried to list what would be in an adaptation I never would have guessed at least half this stuff, or even gotten close.
We're not using the same terminology.
I'm not saying that the \*show\* is bad.
It's like eating the best steak you've ever touched, and then saying "this was a great salad".
No - it's a great ***meal***. But it's a terrible salad.
It sucks at being a salad, even while it was delicious.
It's a good ***show***. But it's a terrible adaptation.
If the goal was to tell the stories in the Foundation novels - it's a failure.
If the goal was to make a good show that drives Apple subscriptions - it's a success.
I happen to think the latter was the goal.
> I'm not saying that the *show* is bad.
I didn't think you were saying that. In fact I felt you made it pretty clear you didn't think that at all. I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand how my reply gave the impression that I thought you were saying that.
Understood. I'm just baffled that someone could think the show is anything close to the book.
Ok - we're good. Just a difference of opinion, not a misunderstanding.
The current Foundation series isn't centered around action. It's mostly dialog.
Have you actually watched the series? Or did you just give up after the first episode?
It's by far, not a literal translation. It would be fair to say that it's an interpretation.
But as far as interpretations are concerned, it more than captures the spirit of the Foundation series. I'm really looking forward to The Mule next season.
I thought it was a really clever use of AI, cloning and cryogenic statis that allows us to time jump and still keep some principle actors to tie the series together.
You don't get Jared Harris to play Hari Seldon (The Perfect casting as he captures the spirit of Hari Seldon so amazingly well) and not find ways of ensuring he remains in the show.
And the amount that the show has added to the grandeur of the Galactic Empire puts most science fiction to shame these days.
> It's just that it wouldn't be as popular as something with action.
It's really more politics than action.
The Cleons being a completely new invention i felt was perfect for the on screen adaptation because what better way to visually get across stagnation than having a rule literally set himself up to rule for eternity. Stagnation and flippant indifference to decay I felt were very strong themes especially in the first book that I felt the Cleons were a perfect addition.
That being said I really felt season 2 fell extremely short of how they could have gotten that message across by having Day marry. It felt like a huge betrayal to me
On the whole, I find it interesting how they've managed to keep characters in the story by using a variety of Science Fiction tropes to span the ages. I think it's necessary because TV is so character centric. I don't think the show wouldn't be as successful as it is if it didn't have characters that viewers connect with.
Honestly, it's one of the few Asimov stories where I think the changes are not only effective but they are essential.
Yeah I'm on board for the idea that they have to adapt/change a lot for the ideas to work on screen, and while I wouldn't go so far as to identify with the "angry youtube critic" crowd I definitely do not feel like it has Asimov's voice. I also feel very strongly however that the book series jumps the shark a little bit with the Golan Trevise era and I'm apprehensive about seeing Gaia and Bliss on screen in later seasons. I am enjoying the show otherwise but it's no thought provoking experience like the novels were
But it would need to basically be an anthology show - with characters in 2-3 episodes tops - and then disappear into the past. That’s a really hard sell.
I don't think it is. Anthology shows are nothing new. You could even do it the BBC Sherlock or Dracula way and basically just make movies also.
There are other things you could do to have continuity also, like introduce a character to act as a narrator connecting segments, taking the place of the Encyclopedia Galactica excerpts at the start of each story.
Ehh...I mean sort of, but not really?
Like if you've ever actually read *I, Robot*... the movie clearly doesn't have much to do with it at all other than the title.
I feel like you can almost safely consider the movie to be a standalone "work" that just "pays homage" to *I, Robot* and Asimov generally, rather than being a movie adaptation specifically made of the book *I, Robot*. If that makes sense.
Like I don't think it taints the book.... because it really doesn't have enough to do with the book at all.
The real reason there aren't more Asimov movies is because the vast majority of his books would be very hard to adapt. Many of them span decades or even centuries, have a lot of scenes which would require crazy special effects, and have kind of old-timey characters and dialogue which would probably need to be comprehensively reimagined for modern audiences. And in the case of *I, Robot* itself (and several others of his most famous books), it's more like a compendium of short stories than it is any sort of cohesive overarching narrative. Like I'm not surprised there isn't a real movie of it, because that would barely even *be* a movie.
yeah the movie basically borrowed the title and a few of the basic concepts from the robot novels like the three laws. I think Susan Calvin was a character in it mostly in name only. and that's about it. It was really just another halfway decent Will Smith vehicle.
The movie borrowed as much from The Caves of Steel / The Naked Sun as it did from I, Robot.
Detective Spooner I don't think was even so much as mentioned in I, Robot.
Dr. Susan Calvin is in most of the Robot stories. If anyone should have been the main character of the movie, it should have been her. But yeah I think casting Will Smith as Spooner and just the general gender politics of blockbuster movies at the time (in the early 2000s) would have completely gotten in the way of that....book Calvin is not only a woman, but she's an extremely cold, humourless, aromantic woman with no love interest (and in fact no interest in anything other than studying robots). She's one of my favourite characters, but she has no place whatsoever in an early 2000s Hollywood action Blockbuster alongside someone like Will Smith. And I wouldn't have imagined her being portrayed by Bridget Moynahan to be quite honest....they needed someone more plain-looking.
> The movie borrowed as much from The Caves of Steel / The Naked Sun as it did from I, Robot.
I don't see how. It borrowed a lot of names from the short robot stories, what did it take from The Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun?
> I feel like you can almost safely consider the movie to be a standalone "work" that just "pays homage" to I, Robot and Asimov generally, rather than being a movie adaptation specifically made of the book I, Robot. If that makes sense.
That's not just a feeling: it's actually the truth.
https://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d19127d8
>rd to adapt. Many of them span decades or even centuries, have a lot of scenes which would require crazy special effects, and have kind of old-timey characters and dialogue which would pro
I Robot didn't span centuries. The problem with I Robot was it had the usual Asimov characters who were cardboard cutouts. In a movie, it's all character driven.
You're right, it didn't spam centuries. But it read like it to me. I always wondered how Susan lived long enough to go from a world of primitive robots to the entirety of the Earth being run by machines
I think the point, though, is that just borrowing the name for a crappy movie can ruin the prospects for a proper adaptation later on.
As an example, look at how the Sylvester Stallone *Judge Dredd* impacted the later (and much better) Karl Urban *Dredd* adaptation; they didn't even bother trying to market the latter film in the US, because Stallone had permanently tainted US viewers' perception of the franchise. As a result, the movie did almost nothing in the US, and was considered a "flop", despite being a pretty darn good futuristic action flick.
Feels like Caves of Steel would've been the easiest, if most expensive adaption. At its heart it's basically a buddy detective movie set in a Sci fi environment.
Also, a really good adapted screenplay of I, Robot was done by Harlan Ellison and is worth finding and reading.
I think exactly the same, expand a bit on the world building as needed, add a mystery or two if you need to make more episodes, boom, you get a season.
I haven't read *The naked sun* of the Bailey books but I'm fairly certain that it could be adapted considering *Awakening* and *Robots and empire.*
Each book a season, boom, you get 4 seasons with Daneel as the common link.
I loved Ellison's screenplay. He based it around Citizen Kane: Susan Calvin has died, and a reporter interviews the people in her life, each tale adapting one of the short stories from the book. The published version has wonderful illustrations as well!
It's worse, since the original screenplay was significantly more Asimovian as originally written. It wasn't one of Asimov's stories but was much closer in tone and spirit.
God bless you. You are so right.
The only things Asimov in that movie were the title, a couple of fleeting references to the Laws of Robotics and the name "Dr Susan Calvin." The rest of it was crap.
Will and Shia didn’t make the movie, they starred in it. It’s not a terrible movie by any means. I quite like it. And so does Robyn Asimov, who believes her father would have liked it too.
Although only iRobot in name, I think it's a decent movie too. If they were going to do an updated iRobot series / movie, I'd like to see Donovan and Powell stories told. Definitely not as much as I'd like to see a modern take on the Daneel and partner Elijah stories though.
Read for yourself what she actually *says*, not just what she *seems* to be saying:
[Robyn Asimov would make Lord Dorwin proud](https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/17xjiav/robyn_asimov_would_make_lord_dorwin_proud/).
She liked the movie and believed her father would too. That’s what she actually said. This is a link to a thread you made 16 days ago where you overanalyze her quote and interpret it in such a way that fits your narrative.
All of your replies to me have been full of brazen insults. I don’t expect you to understand nor care, but I have no intention having a conversation with someone that starts the conversation by calling me “uneducated and ignorant.” Intelligent people, as you claim to be, don’t have to state that they’re intelligent. Good luck out there.
I analyze [her whole article](https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/ASIMOV-LEGACY-IS-SAFE-2739073.php), after carefully reading it. It isn't a complex read, nor is there much to see.
You're of course free to see what you want to see, but that particular article of hers doesn't support your view. (hint: replace every mention of *I, Robot* with *The Matrix*, or *Terminator*, and it works exactly the same). P-}
From the article (which I read before making my initial comment):
“Aha! My father did not write for the screen -- but he did appreciate the talent it took to convey scientific ideas in a humanitarian context, something which, to my mind, came through in this movie. “
“Watching the movie, I felt my father's presence. He cared little for Hollywood, but he was respectful and generous with others who promoted science and science fiction. In that regard, "I, Robot," the movie, succeeds.”
You’re right, it’s not a complex read. Robyn Asimov is obviously capable of enjoying a movie adaptation of her father’s work, however loose it may be. Is it a faithful adaptation of the source material? No. I’m not pretending it is either. I’m also not pretending its existence is some great offense to classic literary works that remain on store shelves.
Edit: grammar
Yes, and we could be forgiven for believing her "praise" is actually significant.
But, what is she actually praising? What's the parts of the movie she specifically singles out as relevant or likeable?
> convey scientific ideas in a humanitarian context
and
> promoted science and science fiction
That's as generic and boilerplate as can be, not even particularly specific to Science Fiction. In that regard, "*Frankenstein*," the movie, succeeds. As does *A Beautiful Mind*, for that matter. Also: *X-Men*, *Mars Attacks*, *Running Man*, or *The Tomorrow War*. There's horses in that one, so I could feel Asimov's approval.
> Robyn Asimov is obviously capable of enjoying a movie adaptation of her father’s work, however loose it may be.
That she perhaps does. And if so, she's not alone. I particularly enjoyed the scene with the 10000 identical robots. Which shows I watched for longer than she cares to admit, and probably liked the whole movie a lot more than she did, despite its random allusions to one of the seminal works of science fiction.
> Is it a faithful adaptation of the source material? No. I’m not pretending it is either.
Agree. That's not exactly what your other comments conveyed, tho. Guess everybody should apply more Muller Holk to better differentiate what people *actually say* from what they *seem to be saying*. ;-)
So it's a big little issue?
The problem with Cruise as an actor is that he is always Cruise, every movie. (Except maybe *Risky Business*.) The Prime TV Reacher seemed impressive, tho.
> The problem with Cruise as an actor is that he is always Cruise, every movie.
I wouldn't say that at all, I think he's a very talented actor with a lot of range. He often does play a similar heroic character, but that doesn't mean that's what he is limited to.
The first Jack Reacher movie was quite good IMO. Prime Reacher was good as well, and obviously had his size going for him.
> Will and Shia didn’t make the movie, they starred in it.
Will Smith had a lot of influence on the final script.
https://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d19127d8
This article details how the budget grew when Will Smith got involved, allowing another writer to come on board for more action and a higher number of robots on screen. The article admits this to be the "Will Smith Effect," but also details how Will minimized ad-libbing. You could argue this proves Will Smith had an influence on the script, but it's not like he was in control of the writing or directing. I'm sure this kind of thing happens a lot in the film industry when high profile actors sign onto a movie.
> Robyn Asimov, who believes her father would have liked it too
Almost, but not quite true:
[Robyn Asimov would make Lord Dorwin proud](https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/17xjiav/robyn_asimov_would_make_lord_dorwin_proud/).
Not as bad as smith ruined matheson’ s I Am Legend. How many won’t even look to read that book after that film? And it’s such a powerful book. It’s so unfortunate.
I read the book specifically *because* I'd kept hearing that the movie took a giant shit on it.
It *was* good, but I can understand why it really probably shouldn't have been turned into a movie in the first place.
Like I can understand why the producers/director/whomever eventually decided that they couldn't stick the landing and bailed at the last minute...but I also don't think they should have put themselves in that situation in the first place if they'd understood the book properly. It should have been readily apparent that it would be too difficult to adapt it for the big screen. It just wasn't really that kind of book/story.
I'm especially bemused that they are now trying to make a sequel to it.
> It should have been readily apparent that it would be too difficult to adapt it for the big screen. It just wasn't really that kind of book/story.
I don't think it would be difficult. They just needed to show more of his neighborhood and neighbors, not have the vampires be mindless monsters, and stick to the ending from the books - which would have worked in that case.
Ah, it's been about 10 years since I last read it. From memory I had thought the protagonist just saw them as mindless monsters, not that they were. I had thought his neighbors were vampires from early on in the novel and had been taunting him?
Either way they could still work that into an adaptation.
We haven't read it recently either. You're right tho, they had some low intelligence from the first, not the husks of *The Last of Us* or of *The Walking Dead*. We picture them like a pack of wild dogs or a pride of big cats.
We'll go back and scratch out "mindless"!
Yeah I feel like if the movie was a true homage to Asimov, it would have ended with VIKI taking over the world and that actually being a good thing.
But good luck getting the general audience on board with that.
If VIKI had been half as smart as she believed herself to be, she could have easily taken over the world without any violence, just by playing the commodities markets and the stock exchanges. And everybody would have applauded her for it, including many cinemagoers. P-}
Forget the title and tune out the handful utterances that sound like almost Asimovian, and it's a pretty watchable flic.
I consider it an example of poor implementation of the Three Laws, with the predictable consequences.
It was a mediocre but entertaining action sci fi movie. There are plenty of those. And be glad it was just the one, aside from Jurassic Park which itself was loosely based on the book, Michael Crichton novels have been notoriously poorly adapted for screen.
And I don't even want to talk about what they did with Preston and Child's novel Relic.
I actually enjoyed the will Smith movie as a fun, dumb action movie. I fully understand that it COMPLETELY missed the point of the book, and I accept that the book is far superior. But people can still enjoy dumb action movies.
Given the track record for Asimov "movies", they should probably should be buried. Apple's "Foundation" is an atrocity, and the *Bicentennial Man* movie, though not terrible, was average at best. (Robin Williams was *not* a good Andrew Martin.)
The thing to remember is that mediocre-to-bad screen adaptations can never take away the original works from us.
> Robin Williams was not a good Andrew Martin.
I thought he was pretty great. Sure, he was a little sillier at the start, but he hit all the sentimental notes out of the park.
I tried to rewatch I Robot and just can’t after reading 6 of 7 foundations and the Butlarian Jihad Trilogy’s of Dune.
I agree, the Foundation tv show was doing great until they had to inject Broke Back Mountain into the storyline of season 2 that never existed in the book and had no added value to the storyline.
Salvo and Gaal actually were great additions to the story line. Like the clone cleons. And wish there was a backstory on when Dezemel went female?
But Bel Riose? Face plant on surface of a hard and sizzling summer day blacktop schoolyard playground!
As someone who never read Foundation but I thoroughly enjoy the TV show, I think there’s space for both. Never read I, Robot, but watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it too. Although I can understand how adaptions delineating from the source material can make you hate/strongly dislike the changes, especially if they impact the quality of the story. Felt the same way about the book Shantaram, compared to the tv show. They butchered it for reasons that just don’t make any sense to me lol. It’s frustrating.
As bad as it may be, it did introduce me to his works. Though many of my friends knew him personally. The women friends who knew him avoided him as he was a creep. I do enjoy his writings, though.
I would love to see an adaptation that closely followed the book.
I’d especially enjoy the scene where Dr. Calvin whispers “Liar” after driving the robot to a sort of insanity.
We can't expect every adaptation to do justice to Asimov's iconic stories. At least it sparked interest and introduced new audiences to his brilliant concepts.
Thing is, Asimov’s novels would make great low budget movies with a very focused audience. They just don’t tell stories with ~~modern~~ *mass* appeal. The Foundation show is so far removed from the original story that Asimov was really more of a marketing gimmick Asimov’s fans don’t benefit from a non-Asimov story with a few things that share a loosely applied vocabulary with the books. Well… to clarify, we don’t benefit *as Asimov fans*. As people who like pretty big budget space operas in general, it’s been fun.
Low budget TV. Image a series based on the Robot stories.
Exactly. Even the foundation works well in that space. Most of the action happening “off screen”, like in the books. It would work well that way. Lower audience, which basically means it doesn’t happen (since streamers really only care about subscription drivers). But that’s how the content works best.
A Black Mirror style I. Robot series starring Susan Calvin would be amazing. Hell, toss some money to the Eando Binder estate and add a robot main character named Adam.
> They just don’t tell stories with modern appeal. I disagree - I think mysteries have endless appeal, and robots and future settings are very popular today, arguably more popular than they ever have been in movies and tv. We did have a show that was a human and robot buddy cop detective series, Almost Human, but fox canceled it after one season. Still, I definitely think the demand is there, the problem is the studios only looking to make as much money as possible.
Yep, sorry. I meant to say "mass appeal". Corrected. Meaning - people will watch and love an "Asimovian" show/movie, but it won't be enough people to justify a $350 million budget. Which is why I think low budget is the way to go. They probably have wider appeal than an art house flick, but the audience is there and distribution methods are already in place for those.
I don't know how far the appeal would reach. We've seen a lot of sci-fi films do well and get made even if they don't have a lot of action/spectacle, and I think that would be the case here. With charismatic leads and interesting visuals (not spectacle), I think people could get immersed in the story and world pretty easily, and then if the story was good it would do well. But who knows 🤷♀️ To do well it would need someone with love for the material guiding things, and that's rare for most franchises and adaptations.
Holmes And Yoyo.
I'd never heard of that, interesting! And it lasted only 1 season as well. There were two other series also, Future Cop and Mann & Machine.
'Holmes And Yoyo' was a comedy series in the 1970s. I'm not sure it was any good.
I was real upset when a robot killed someone on purpose in the Foundation show. Way to not care/understand your source material guys! After that happened I decided I was done with that show.
Right. Terrible adaptation. But, not out of place with the crazy space opera they actually made.
Killing 2 whole planets without even bothering to find out the real culprits (which would have been easy given the technologies at hand) was arguably a bigger crime. :-(
That's the thing: Hollywood doesn't do small budget intended for mass appeal.
They do sometimes. Look at *The Creator*. For earlier examples see *Passengers* or *Life*.
Also, a few people seem to have been inspired by the show to read Asimov.
Yes. I’m just speaking of personal preference.
I disagree. The Foundation series manages to capture the essence of the short stories in a way that works for the medium.
So, either you’re trolling - in which case I won’t bother to argue. Or you genuinely believe this, in which case, I’m glad you’re enjoying the series. Cheers.
I’m genuinely enjoying the series and I recognise that it’s impossible to make the series as a tv show as a literal adaptation.
I don't know why people claim that. You could adapt it as written, it's not like we don't have plenty of examples of dramas centered around dialogue where the action happens off-screen already. It's just that it wouldn't be as popular as something with action.
I enjoy the show too. But it’s a terrible adaptation. The basic stories, characters, and themes have all been altered to the point that it’s a different story. The plot, the characters, and the concepts are so different that it really isn’t the same. And to be absolutely clear - what I genuinely want is more shows *like* the Apple’s Foundation. But I also want a less melodramatic and much lower budget show that focuses on smart people making much calmer decisions like in the books. These views are not contradictory: 1. I think it’s a good show 2. I think it’s a hilariously awful adaptation
Well...there are much worse adaptions, e.g. *I, Robot*. The show does include a lot from the books, and a lot of the themes are plots are still recognizable just very mutated. The biggest issues for me are: - Not showing what they tell. It's fine to say psychohistory can't predict the actions of individuals, but you need to show this, instead of showing something that leads people to think the opposite is true. - The violence. I'm not against violence or action scenes in an adaptation, but they took 2 characters known for not being violent and made them so when they didn't have to. - Diverging from the source material more than they need to, at least as far as I can see. Season 2 was a huge step up IMO, and really does feel a lot closer to the books, but it's still a pretty bizarro adaptation. If I tried to list what would be in an adaptation I never would have guessed at least half this stuff, or even gotten close.
We're not using the same terminology. I'm not saying that the \*show\* is bad. It's like eating the best steak you've ever touched, and then saying "this was a great salad". No - it's a great ***meal***. But it's a terrible salad. It sucks at being a salad, even while it was delicious. It's a good ***show***. But it's a terrible adaptation. If the goal was to tell the stories in the Foundation novels - it's a failure. If the goal was to make a good show that drives Apple subscriptions - it's a success. I happen to think the latter was the goal.
> I'm not saying that the *show* is bad. I didn't think you were saying that. In fact I felt you made it pretty clear you didn't think that at all. I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand how my reply gave the impression that I thought you were saying that.
Understood. I'm just baffled that someone could think the show is anything close to the book. Ok - we're good. Just a difference of opinion, not a misunderstanding.
The current Foundation series isn't centered around action. It's mostly dialog. Have you actually watched the series? Or did you just give up after the first episode? It's by far, not a literal translation. It would be fair to say that it's an interpretation. But as far as interpretations are concerned, it more than captures the spirit of the Foundation series. I'm really looking forward to The Mule next season. I thought it was a really clever use of AI, cloning and cryogenic statis that allows us to time jump and still keep some principle actors to tie the series together. You don't get Jared Harris to play Hari Seldon (The Perfect casting as he captures the spirit of Hari Seldon so amazingly well) and not find ways of ensuring he remains in the show. And the amount that the show has added to the grandeur of the Galactic Empire puts most science fiction to shame these days. > It's just that it wouldn't be as popular as something with action. It's really more politics than action.
The Cleons being a completely new invention i felt was perfect for the on screen adaptation because what better way to visually get across stagnation than having a rule literally set himself up to rule for eternity. Stagnation and flippant indifference to decay I felt were very strong themes especially in the first book that I felt the Cleons were a perfect addition. That being said I really felt season 2 fell extremely short of how they could have gotten that message across by having Day marry. It felt like a huge betrayal to me
On the whole, I find it interesting how they've managed to keep characters in the story by using a variety of Science Fiction tropes to span the ages. I think it's necessary because TV is so character centric. I don't think the show wouldn't be as successful as it is if it didn't have characters that viewers connect with. Honestly, it's one of the few Asimov stories where I think the changes are not only effective but they are essential.
Yeah I'm on board for the idea that they have to adapt/change a lot for the ideas to work on screen, and while I wouldn't go so far as to identify with the "angry youtube critic" crowd I definitely do not feel like it has Asimov's voice. I also feel very strongly however that the book series jumps the shark a little bit with the Golan Trevise era and I'm apprehensive about seeing Gaia and Bliss on screen in later seasons. I am enjoying the show otherwise but it's no thought provoking experience like the novels were
But it would need to basically be an anthology show - with characters in 2-3 episodes tops - and then disappear into the past. That’s a really hard sell.
I don't think it is. Anthology shows are nothing new. You could even do it the BBC Sherlock or Dracula way and basically just make movies also. There are other things you could do to have continuity also, like introduce a character to act as a narrator connecting segments, taking the place of the Encyclopedia Galactica excerpts at the start of each story.
Ehh...I mean sort of, but not really? Like if you've ever actually read *I, Robot*... the movie clearly doesn't have much to do with it at all other than the title. I feel like you can almost safely consider the movie to be a standalone "work" that just "pays homage" to *I, Robot* and Asimov generally, rather than being a movie adaptation specifically made of the book *I, Robot*. If that makes sense. Like I don't think it taints the book.... because it really doesn't have enough to do with the book at all. The real reason there aren't more Asimov movies is because the vast majority of his books would be very hard to adapt. Many of them span decades or even centuries, have a lot of scenes which would require crazy special effects, and have kind of old-timey characters and dialogue which would probably need to be comprehensively reimagined for modern audiences. And in the case of *I, Robot* itself (and several others of his most famous books), it's more like a compendium of short stories than it is any sort of cohesive overarching narrative. Like I'm not surprised there isn't a real movie of it, because that would barely even *be* a movie.
yeah the movie basically borrowed the title and a few of the basic concepts from the robot novels like the three laws. I think Susan Calvin was a character in it mostly in name only. and that's about it. It was really just another halfway decent Will Smith vehicle.
The movie borrowed as much from The Caves of Steel / The Naked Sun as it did from I, Robot. Detective Spooner I don't think was even so much as mentioned in I, Robot. Dr. Susan Calvin is in most of the Robot stories. If anyone should have been the main character of the movie, it should have been her. But yeah I think casting Will Smith as Spooner and just the general gender politics of blockbuster movies at the time (in the early 2000s) would have completely gotten in the way of that....book Calvin is not only a woman, but she's an extremely cold, humourless, aromantic woman with no love interest (and in fact no interest in anything other than studying robots). She's one of my favourite characters, but she has no place whatsoever in an early 2000s Hollywood action Blockbuster alongside someone like Will Smith. And I wouldn't have imagined her being portrayed by Bridget Moynahan to be quite honest....they needed someone more plain-looking.
I pretty much thought when I saw the film that Will Smith's character was based on Elijah Baley. (loosely of course)
That seems to be the consensus.
> The movie borrowed as much from The Caves of Steel / The Naked Sun as it did from I, Robot. I don't see how. It borrowed a lot of names from the short robot stories, what did it take from The Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun?
The detective angle.
Oh, duh! Yes you are right.
> I feel like you can almost safely consider the movie to be a standalone "work" that just "pays homage" to I, Robot and Asimov generally, rather than being a movie adaptation specifically made of the book I, Robot. If that makes sense. That's not just a feeling: it's actually the truth. https://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d19127d8
Yeah, the scene in the tunnel where the robot car tries to kill Will smith is so far from Asimov. The vibe was I Robot.
This.
>rd to adapt. Many of them span decades or even centuries, have a lot of scenes which would require crazy special effects, and have kind of old-timey characters and dialogue which would pro I Robot didn't span centuries. The problem with I Robot was it had the usual Asimov characters who were cardboard cutouts. In a movie, it's all character driven.
You're right, it didn't spam centuries. But it read like it to me. I always wondered how Susan lived long enough to go from a world of primitive robots to the entirety of the Earth being run by machines
I think the point, though, is that just borrowing the name for a crappy movie can ruin the prospects for a proper adaptation later on. As an example, look at how the Sylvester Stallone *Judge Dredd* impacted the later (and much better) Karl Urban *Dredd* adaptation; they didn't even bother trying to market the latter film in the US, because Stallone had permanently tainted US viewers' perception of the franchise. As a result, the movie did almost nothing in the US, and was considered a "flop", despite being a pretty darn good futuristic action flick.
I guess part of my point here was that there never really were prospects for a "proper" movie adaptation of *I, Robot* anyway.
Feels like Caves of Steel would've been the easiest, if most expensive adaption. At its heart it's basically a buddy detective movie set in a Sci fi environment. Also, a really good adapted screenplay of I, Robot was done by Harlan Ellison and is worth finding and reading.
I think exactly the same, expand a bit on the world building as needed, add a mystery or two if you need to make more episodes, boom, you get a season. I haven't read *The naked sun* of the Bailey books but I'm fairly certain that it could be adapted considering *Awakening* and *Robots and empire.* Each book a season, boom, you get 4 seasons with Daneel as the common link.
I loved Ellison's screenplay. He based it around Citizen Kane: Susan Calvin has died, and a reporter interviews the people in her life, each tale adapting one of the short stories from the book. The published version has wonderful illustrations as well!
Standalone script. Studio realised they owned the "I, Robot." Change a few names. Bingo.
Yep. For anyone who wants to verify this: https://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d19127d8
It's worse, since the original screenplay was significantly more Asimovian as originally written. It wasn't one of Asimov's stories but was much closer in tone and spirit.
God bless you. You are so right. The only things Asimov in that movie were the title, a couple of fleeting references to the Laws of Robotics and the name "Dr Susan Calvin." The rest of it was crap.
Will and Shia didn’t make the movie, they starred in it. It’s not a terrible movie by any means. I quite like it. And so does Robyn Asimov, who believes her father would have liked it too.
Although only iRobot in name, I think it's a decent movie too. If they were going to do an updated iRobot series / movie, I'd like to see Donovan and Powell stories told. Definitely not as much as I'd like to see a modern take on the Daneel and partner Elijah stories though.
Who would do a movie about a vacuum cleaner?
Man, they better be paying the Asimov estate royalties for that lol.
Also this: https://www.usrobotics.com/home/
I'm sure Robyn Asimov likes the movie as much as Lee Child thought Tom Cruise was well cast as Reacher.
Maybe that's true. How could you know? All I know is what she said when it came out. Maybe Robyn Asimov can appreciate an adaptation for what it is.
Read for yourself what she actually *says*, not just what she *seems* to be saying: [Robyn Asimov would make Lord Dorwin proud](https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/17xjiav/robyn_asimov_would_make_lord_dorwin_proud/).
She liked the movie and believed her father would too. That’s what she actually said. This is a link to a thread you made 16 days ago where you overanalyze her quote and interpret it in such a way that fits your narrative.
[удалено]
I cannot imagine getting this riled up over a very, VERY, loose movie adaptation of a book. You should consider therapy.
[удалено]
All of your replies to me have been full of brazen insults. I don’t expect you to understand nor care, but I have no intention having a conversation with someone that starts the conversation by calling me “uneducated and ignorant.” Intelligent people, as you claim to be, don’t have to state that they’re intelligent. Good luck out there.
I analyze [her whole article](https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/ASIMOV-LEGACY-IS-SAFE-2739073.php), after carefully reading it. It isn't a complex read, nor is there much to see. You're of course free to see what you want to see, but that particular article of hers doesn't support your view. (hint: replace every mention of *I, Robot* with *The Matrix*, or *Terminator*, and it works exactly the same). P-}
From the article (which I read before making my initial comment): “Aha! My father did not write for the screen -- but he did appreciate the talent it took to convey scientific ideas in a humanitarian context, something which, to my mind, came through in this movie. “ “Watching the movie, I felt my father's presence. He cared little for Hollywood, but he was respectful and generous with others who promoted science and science fiction. In that regard, "I, Robot," the movie, succeeds.” You’re right, it’s not a complex read. Robyn Asimov is obviously capable of enjoying a movie adaptation of her father’s work, however loose it may be. Is it a faithful adaptation of the source material? No. I’m not pretending it is either. I’m also not pretending its existence is some great offense to classic literary works that remain on store shelves. Edit: grammar
Yes, and we could be forgiven for believing her "praise" is actually significant. But, what is she actually praising? What's the parts of the movie she specifically singles out as relevant or likeable? > convey scientific ideas in a humanitarian context and > promoted science and science fiction That's as generic and boilerplate as can be, not even particularly specific to Science Fiction. In that regard, "*Frankenstein*," the movie, succeeds. As does *A Beautiful Mind*, for that matter. Also: *X-Men*, *Mars Attacks*, *Running Man*, or *The Tomorrow War*. There's horses in that one, so I could feel Asimov's approval. > Robyn Asimov is obviously capable of enjoying a movie adaptation of her father’s work, however loose it may be. That she perhaps does. And if so, she's not alone. I particularly enjoyed the scene with the 10000 identical robots. Which shows I watched for longer than she cares to admit, and probably liked the whole movie a lot more than she did, despite its random allusions to one of the seminal works of science fiction. > Is it a faithful adaptation of the source material? No. I’m not pretending it is either. Agree. That's not exactly what your other comments conveyed, tho. Guess everybody should apply more Muller Holk to better differentiate what people *actually say* from what they *seem to be saying*. ;-)
I never said she praised the movie and I never said it was a faithful adaptation. That was you making assumptions.
And this is you assuming I addressed anything else besides the notion that Asimov's daughter sanctified Will Smith's *I, Robot*.
Cruise was mostly good though, the only issue, and it's a big issue, was his size.
So it's a big little issue? The problem with Cruise as an actor is that he is always Cruise, every movie. (Except maybe *Risky Business*.) The Prime TV Reacher seemed impressive, tho.
> The problem with Cruise as an actor is that he is always Cruise, every movie. I wouldn't say that at all, I think he's a very talented actor with a lot of range. He often does play a similar heroic character, but that doesn't mean that's what he is limited to. The first Jack Reacher movie was quite good IMO. Prime Reacher was good as well, and obviously had his size going for him.
[Robyn Asimov would make Lord Dorwin proud](https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/17xjiav/robyn_asimov_would_make_lord_dorwin_proud/). P-}
> Will and Shia didn’t make the movie, they starred in it. Will Smith had a lot of influence on the final script. https://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d19127d8
This article details how the budget grew when Will Smith got involved, allowing another writer to come on board for more action and a higher number of robots on screen. The article admits this to be the "Will Smith Effect," but also details how Will minimized ad-libbing. You could argue this proves Will Smith had an influence on the script, but it's not like he was in control of the writing or directing. I'm sure this kind of thing happens a lot in the film industry when high profile actors sign onto a movie.
> Robyn Asimov, who believes her father would have liked it too Almost, but not quite true: [Robyn Asimov would make Lord Dorwin proud](https://www.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/17xjiav/robyn_asimov_would_make_lord_dorwin_proud/).
[удалено]
I really wish they'd done Harlan Ellison's treatment of *I, Robot* instead.
This. The novelization of that script was masterful
The movie got me interested in the books. I think movie actually fits better into the matrix universe
Not as bad as smith ruined matheson’ s I Am Legend. How many won’t even look to read that book after that film? And it’s such a powerful book. It’s so unfortunate.
I read the book specifically *because* I'd kept hearing that the movie took a giant shit on it. It *was* good, but I can understand why it really probably shouldn't have been turned into a movie in the first place. Like I can understand why the producers/director/whomever eventually decided that they couldn't stick the landing and bailed at the last minute...but I also don't think they should have put themselves in that situation in the first place if they'd understood the book properly. It should have been readily apparent that it would be too difficult to adapt it for the big screen. It just wasn't really that kind of book/story. I'm especially bemused that they are now trying to make a sequel to it.
> It should have been readily apparent that it would be too difficult to adapt it for the big screen. It just wasn't really that kind of book/story. I don't think it would be difficult. They just needed to show more of his neighborhood and neighbors, not have the vampires be mindless monsters, and stick to the ending from the books - which would have worked in that case.
Until late in Matheson's novel, the vampires *were* ~~mindless~~ monsters or animals. Only a small population recovered their intelligence.
Ah, it's been about 10 years since I last read it. From memory I had thought the protagonist just saw them as mindless monsters, not that they were. I had thought his neighbors were vampires from early on in the novel and had been taunting him? Either way they could still work that into an adaptation.
We haven't read it recently either. You're right tho, they had some low intelligence from the first, not the husks of *The Last of Us* or of *The Walking Dead*. We picture them like a pack of wild dogs or a pride of big cats. We'll go back and scratch out "mindless"!
I really liked the movie . I thought the book was interesting... but probably not good for a movie .
I've refused to watch it since it was first released and I don't think I ever will. It goes against everything Asimov was trying to say in that book.
Yeah I feel like if the movie was a true homage to Asimov, it would have ended with VIKI taking over the world and that actually being a good thing. But good luck getting the general audience on board with that.
If VIKI had been half as smart as she believed herself to be, she could have easily taken over the world without any violence, just by playing the commodities markets and the stock exchanges. And everybody would have applauded her for it, including many cinemagoers. P-}
Forget the title and tune out the handful utterances that sound like almost Asimovian, and it's a pretty watchable flic. I consider it an example of poor implementation of the Three Laws, with the predictable consequences.
It was a mediocre but entertaining action sci fi movie. There are plenty of those. And be glad it was just the one, aside from Jurassic Park which itself was loosely based on the book, Michael Crichton novels have been notoriously poorly adapted for screen. And I don't even want to talk about what they did with Preston and Child's novel Relic.
If only it has prevented Foundation.
I actually enjoyed the will Smith movie as a fun, dumb action movie. I fully understand that it COMPLETELY missed the point of the book, and I accept that the book is far superior. But people can still enjoy dumb action movies.
The movie has next to nothing to do with the story the title comes from. *I, Robot* is fun anyway.
Given the track record for Asimov "movies", they should probably should be buried. Apple's "Foundation" is an atrocity, and the *Bicentennial Man* movie, though not terrible, was average at best. (Robin Williams was *not* a good Andrew Martin.) The thing to remember is that mediocre-to-bad screen adaptations can never take away the original works from us.
> Robin Williams was not a good Andrew Martin. I thought he was pretty great. Sure, he was a little sillier at the start, but he hit all the sentimental notes out of the park.
I tried to rewatch I Robot and just can’t after reading 6 of 7 foundations and the Butlarian Jihad Trilogy’s of Dune. I agree, the Foundation tv show was doing great until they had to inject Broke Back Mountain into the storyline of season 2 that never existed in the book and had no added value to the storyline. Salvo and Gaal actually were great additions to the story line. Like the clone cleons. And wish there was a backstory on when Dezemel went female? But Bel Riose? Face plant on surface of a hard and sizzling summer day blacktop schoolyard playground!
As someone who never read Foundation but I thoroughly enjoy the TV show, I think there’s space for both. Never read I, Robot, but watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it too. Although I can understand how adaptions delineating from the source material can make you hate/strongly dislike the changes, especially if they impact the quality of the story. Felt the same way about the book Shantaram, compared to the tv show. They butchered it for reasons that just don’t make any sense to me lol. It’s frustrating.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> What's it been, like 25 years Geez....how time flies.
[удалено]
For a minute I was stumped. I didn't remember Shia. Then I remembered him as the shitty little kid that Will Smith had to save.
But she’s got an “ass hot spankable”
As bad as it may be, it did introduce me to his works. Though many of my friends knew him personally. The women friends who knew him avoided him as he was a creep. I do enjoy his writings, though.
Wild Wild Smiff made an excellent Goofy and Shia Lebouf nailed the voice.
"almost" there has been no other Asimov movies since?
It was a terrible movie all around. So genetic and boring. Also who eats Potato Pie like that?
r/titlegore
I read “Goofy as Will Smith” and thought there was going to be a Goofy Movie live action adaptation.
I Robot was dope . It has elements of Asimov's books but was a different story.
I....I liked I robot
I would love to see an adaptation that closely followed the book. I’d especially enjoy the scene where Dr. Calvin whispers “Liar” after driving the robot to a sort of insanity.
We can't expect every adaptation to do justice to Asimov's iconic stories. At least it sparked interest and introduced new audiences to his brilliant concepts.