NationStates Jolt Archive

Here we go again......

Okay, remember my rant way-back-when that condemned all of Hollywood to Hell because of the bad book-to-movie I, Robot conversion? Basically, the movie had nothing to do with the book. Literally. The main character in the movie wasn't even in the book. The secondary character (just a tiny bit behind the main charatcer) was so far off from the book charatcer that, in the previews, I didn't even know they were the same person. In fact, they didn't even have the same plot. At all. The book didn't even have a singular plot; it was a collection of short stories, none of which resembled the movie in any way.

Anyway, eventually I stopped bitching about it (Well, not really, but it was a bit less) because I learned some nifty info. The script, when written, had absolutely nothing to do with the book. It was originally titled Hardwired and had no connection to Asimov in any way. But the director, either an Asimov fan or just someone knowledgable of Asimovs large fanbase, had the title of the movie and the names of three of its charatcers changed to match the book so that it would appeal to the Asimov fan. This calmed me down a bit and I was able to tolerate the films existence. But now.......ugh.

I was in Barnes & Noble on Sunday and browsing through the Asimov section for new material (He might have died more than a decade ago but new stuff keeps appearing) when I noticed a copy of I, Robot. I swear my heart actually stopped for three seconds. The cover, where older editions had the robot QT-1 in worship of the Master (One of the short stories had a robot overcome with religious fanaticism), was a close-up shot of Will Smith from the movie. Will Smith as the charatcer that isn't even in the book. There is also the tagline "One man saw it coming" which was the tagline for the movie. What the hell was there to see coming in the book?

I could stand the movie when I thought it was an adaption of the book, it was even easier when I found out that it wasn't, but this just feels like an arrow through the head. It has actually effected the book.

I swear, I feel like shooting somebody.

Are you sure that it just wasn't a Novel adaptation of the movie?

Yeah, I saw that. I was going to get upset, but I then considered the somewhat amusing when some idiot picked it up, bought it, then came back complaining that it was nothing like the film.

Ho-ho.

I agree, though. Asimov should be spinning in his grave.

I'm sure. Besides the fact that it was in Isaac Asimovs section and that it said 'by Isaac Asimov' on the cover I also opened it and read several pages. The presence of Paul Donovan and Gregory Powell didn't leave much room for doubt.

It is very sad that now you can't even get a real version of the book, just a spolit version. I'm not gonna lie, cos it was a very good film, just had nothing to do with the book. It's such a fantastic book, I'm sure Asimov himself is sad that it's now been "graffitied".

It is very sad that now you can't even get a real version of the book, just a spolit version. I'm not gonna lie, cos it was a very good film, just had nothing to do with the book. It's such a fantastic book, I'm sure Asimov himself is sad that it's now been "graffitied".
They've got the original on Amazon I believe. Unfortunately the great man is dead now (1920-1992) so at least he didn't have to suffer through this.

If they ever, ever adapt any novel from the Foundation series or the Galactic Empire trilogy, I swear I'm a f--- :headbang: :mad: :mp5: :sniper:

If they ever, ever adapt any novel from the Foundation series or the Galactic Empire trilogy, I swear I'm a f--- :headbang: :mad: :mp5: :sniper:
BBC radio 7 (available over the internet) are doing this as a book reading on Sundays. Pretty well done and available for up to 5 days after each episode.

If they ever, ever adapt any novel from the Foundation series or the Galactic Empire trilogy, I swear I'm a f--- :headbang: :mad: :mp5: :sniper:

They already are. I take it you haven't seen my theads bitching about that.

EDIT: My most recent thread about the Foundation movie

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=374675&

I have learned one thing from book-to-movie conversions
NEVER expect a film about the book
expect a film that is connected to the book and has some elements of the book in it, that way you don't get disappointed and you can still enjoy the movie without getting mad about how it is different in the book.

BTW isn't I, Robot just a name for a collection of robot stories? I remember that there were quite some elements from the different stories in the movie.

There's a certain segment of the population that won't read anything unless it's readily indentifiable as a branded form of media. Like all those dreadful Star Trek novels.

I'm happy that people are continuing to read, I just wish they'd use these branded-media books as a jumping-off point for meatier material. When I read Hogan's 'Cradle of Saturn', he provided readers with books he used for source material, which is why I soon thereafter picked up 'World in Collision' by Immanuel Velikovsky.

So go ahead, read this edition of 'I, Robot'. While you're at it, track down and read Harlan Ellison's published screenplay of 'I, Robot' - an actual treatment of the original book, and to my mind, far more satisfying than this update of the old hoary 'robots-run-amok' jazz Hollywood is known for. There's a lead-in for reading Harlan Ellison, another brilliant American author. There's also the obvious, if you enjoy 'I, Robot', then read more Asimov. Much more. I can walk into any room in my house and find a book by Asimov lying around somewhere. I've read and re-read the Foundation series to the extent that I have two or three copies of each of them, one more dog-eared than the next.

Actually, I'm close to running out of room to store all my books. Some people would rid themselves of their books, but I'm more of a mind to find a larger place to live.

Let me explain why you are wrong.

Yes the film was not based on the book - the book being a collection of UNRELATED short stories. Yes it was orginal going to be called Hardwired but:
1) Hardwired is the title of an Asmov story.
2) The film was based on the Robot series! Events and characters where taken from many of his books, short stories and ideas (Sonney = Caliban anyone?). It doesn't follow the events in the series acuratly but the priciples apply. The name was changed to I, Robot because no-one had heard of hardwired (which incidently had nothing to do with the film).
3) Its a good film. Asmov would never have wrote it, its not his style more like Silvermans, but I think he would consider it to be worthy of lose appliation with him (like Bicentenial man, that had fugger all to do with the book - but yes at least it was losly based on the book, not "losely based on the genral ideas behind the series sort of").

The story I'd most like to see on film is Nightfall (the Asmov or the Asmov and Silverman). That would seriously pown.


If they ever, ever adapt any novel from the Foundation series or the Galactic Empire trilogy, I swear I'm a f---

WTF are you talking about! They need to remake all the Robot books in to one, maybe two films, skip through the GE tril in as few films as possible and get on the foundation films! OK so the perfect actor for Seldon (Asmov) is dead but come ON man I really wanna see a Golans ship in film! And I want to see Daniel damn it!

BBC radio 7 (available over the internet) are doing this as a book reading on Sundays. Pretty well done and available for up to 5 days after each episode.
Nothing wrong with a book reading.

But if it is ever given the Hollywood treatment, for example with some dumbass blonde playing Arcadia Darrell, reluctantly abandoning the life of a rich bitch mall rat to try to locate the Second Foundation...aaargh! They can't be allowed to do that!

ASIMOOVV!!!

My one true enemie!

Anyway, eventually I stopped bitching about it (Well, not really, but it was a bit less) because I learned some nifty info. The script, when written, had absolutely nothing to do with the book. It was originally titled Hardwired and had no connection to Asimov in any way. But the director, either an Asimov fan or just someone knowledgable of Asimovs large fanbase, had the title of the movie and the names of three of its charatcers changed to match the book so that it would appeal to the Asimov fan. This calmed me down a bit and I was able to tolerate the films existence. But now.......ugh.

Sure, it's not as if Isaac Asimov came up with the title of the book anyhow - I, Robot was originally the name of a short story by Eando Binder - and Asimov originally wanted his collection to be called something like Mind & Iron.

Nag Ehgoeg, I take it you didn't read my original post. You know, where I say that the movie isn't based on the book becuase the book is a collection of short stories without a connecting plot. You seem to be saying what I said in an attempt to prove me wrong.

Anyway, you think that Asimov would have approved? Okay IMPENDING FLAME

You are a fucking IDIOT.

End flame.

I ask you how that could possibly be. One of the things Asimov abhored and hated with an extreme passion was all the movies and stories that had robots and other creations overturning and conquering humanity. He worked tirelessly to stop this. That's one of the points that he makes in I, Robot the novel. You know, the story with Robbie as a nursemaid who loves his charge with every bit of his robotic heart, and QT-1 who, even though convinced of humanities inferiority and our subservience to the Master, still obeyed the Three laws which required him to protect human life.

Asimov would have hated this movie because it showed Robots as what he thought they'd never be, enemies of man that will lead to our destruction.

Sure, it's not as if Isaac Asimov came up with the title of the book anyhow - I, Robot was originally the name of a short story by Eando Binder - and Asimov originally wanted his collection to be called something like Mind & Iron.

I've atually read that story, it was really good.(At least I think it's the story you're talking about) The robot was blamed for the death of its creator (It was actually a complete accident, when the robot was learing to walk it knocked some machinery loose and later it fell and killed the creator) and, even though a mob set out to kill it, it kept itself from violence and died......I guess nobily would be a good word here.

Why does this bother you so much? Do you really expect anything of Hollywood?

Just don't watch the movie. It doesn't spoil your copy of the book in any way.

Yeah, the motivation behind the Robot stories was to challenge the cliche that was establishing itself then, that robots will OMFG enslave humanity!!!

And those stories have been turned into a movie in which...yeah...

Foundation? Last I heard they were planning to make TWO movies out of THREE books, with all the first book and half the second given as preamble, focusing almost exclusively on the Mule.

So...goodbye Salvor Hardin, goodbye Hober Mallow...goodbye, Bel Riose, Onum & Ducem Barr, goodbye to - Hell, goodbye to Hari Seldon. I mean, what's left? Indbur III? Han Pritchard? Bail Channis? Oh yeah...Bayta, alright - and Ebling Mis. I'll expect a lovely bit of cheescake to be cast as Bayta, with someone like Dean Stockwell cast as Mis.

But I probably won't go see it, and I'll even wait for it to show up in the reamainder bin before I'll rent the DVD. Unfortunately for us, the only thing the studios understand is 'bums on seats'. If they think replacing Hari Seldon with a cute, stuttering midget robot will sell more tickets, they'll do it - fuck the book. If the recent film 'I, Robot' is any indication of what we can expect, I'd sooner not pay into some Hollywood moron's notion that science fiction fans will lovingly consume any lump of turd they flush down their creative commodes.

I guess I'm saying that if they can't be bothered to adapt SF properly, then I can't be bothered to properly adapt to the slurry of shit they'd have me suck back in its' stead.

I'm sure. Besides the fact that it was in Isaac Asimovs section and that it said 'by Isaac Asimov' on the cover I also opened it and read several pages. The presence of Paul Donovan and Gregory Powell didn't leave much room for doubt.

Huh, you think that's bad? You have obviously never seen a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula written by Fred Saberhagen. The irony needle goes off the scale with that one.

Why does this bother you so much? Do you really expect anything of Hollywood?

Just don't watch the movie. It doesn't spoil your copy of the book in any way.

Ah, but that's the point of this thread! It is spoiling the book! Well, not for me (Since I'm keeping my old copy) but for new people who haven't read it before. Remember, this specific rant of mine (It's even getting hard for me to keep them straight, I complaign about so much) is about how new printings of the book have the cover and tagline from the movie and other such changes.

I've atually read that story, it was really good.(At least I think it's the story you're talking about) The robot was blamed for the death of its creator (It was actually a complete accident, when the robot was learing to walk it knocked some machinery loose and later it fell and killed the creator) and, even though a mob set out to kill it, it kept itself from violence and died......I guess nobily would be a good word here.

It was also adapted, twice, for 'The Outer Limits' - though the second time 'round, it was nothing more than a vehicle for Leonard Nimoy. But I digress. It was a good lil' story, though.

The old Outer Limits or the new one? I've seen both series but I don't recall seeing that ep

Nothing wrong with a book reading.

But if it is ever given the Hollywood treatment, for example with some dumbass blonde playing Arcadia Darrell, reluctantly abandoning the life of a rich bitch mall rat to try to locate the Second Foundation...aaargh! They can't be allowed to do that!

What some dumb ass 12 year old blonde? Or is she in her early teens... I forget... What I wouldn't be able to stomach is that ging semi-famous dude playing weaslys dad in haary pooter as Preem Plaver

There's a certain segment of the population that won't read anything unless it's readily indentifiable as a branded form of media. Like all those dreadful Star Trek novels.

I'm happy that people are continuing to read, I just wish they'd use these branded-media books as a jumping-off point for meatier material. When I read Hogan's 'Cradle of Saturn', he provided readers with books he used for source material, which is why I soon thereafter picked up 'World in Collision' by Immanuel Velikovsky.



Dude, Velikovsky is probably worse than a star trek novel. At least one is openly identified as fiction.

The old Outer Limits or the new one? I've seen both series but I don't recall seeing that ep

One was done for the original series, one for the new. Nimoy was the reporter in the first, the lawyer in the update.

She's fourteen in the novel, but I don't doubt that they'd have no problems with changing her age so that they could give a few nude scenes.

Susan Calvin, the hot woman from the I, Robot movie, is quite old in most of the stories. The only time you see her before 40 is one sentence in Robbie when she just happens to be in the same room as the little girl (and that wasn't even in the original story, it was added when all the stories were collected for the novel)

Nothing wrong with a book reading.

But if it is ever given the Hollywood treatment, for example with some dumbass blonde playing Arcadia Darrell, reluctantly abandoning the life of a rich bitch mall rat to try to locate the Second Foundation...aaargh! They can't be allowed to do that!

Nah what you need to worry about is them getting that guy who plays Mr WEasly to be Preem Plaver.

Lol Swartenegger for Daniel!

Dude, Velikovsky is probably worse than a star trek novel. At least one is openly identified as fiction.

I wouldn't say Velikovsky is great - but the point is, reading Hogan made me want to find out more about Velikovsky, from whom he borrowed a few ideas for 'Cradle of Saturn'. A Star Trek novel...is designed to get you to read, if anything, more Star Trek novels.

Just sayin'...

One was done for the original series, one for the new. Nimoy was the reporter in the first, the lawyer in the update.

Ah, gotcha. I'll see if I can find the eps on tape

I'm just waiting for the fateful day when some know-it-all will opine loudly that Trantor is obviously a rip-off of Coruscant...

*shuddering with anticipation of the eventual flip-out to end all flip-outs*

I wouldn't say Velikovsky is great - but the point is, reading Hogan made me want to find out more about Velikovsky, from whom he borrowed a few ideas for 'Cradle of Saturn'. A Star Trek novel...is designed to get you to read, if anything, more Star Trek novels.

Just sayin'...

Okay, well sure read it for fun, but some people don't realize that his theories are less valid than creation science.

I'm just waiting for the fateful day when some know-it-all will opine loudly that Trantor is obviously a rip-off of Coruscant...

*shuddering with anticipation of the eventual flip-out to end all flip-outs*


George Lucas steals all his ideas.

Hidden Fortress + Dambusters = Star Wars. (He even stole dialog).

I'm just waiting for the fateful day when some know-it-all will opine loudly that Trantor is obviously a rip-off of Coruscant...

*shuddering with anticipation of the eventual flip-out to end all flip-outs*

Wait no more, I've heard it.

Nag Ehgoeg, I take it you didn't read my original post. You know, where I say that the movie isn't based on the book becuase the book is a collection of short stories without a connecting plot. You seem to be saying what I said in an attempt to prove me wrong.

Anyway, you think that Asimov would have approved? Okay IMPENDING FLAME

You are a fucking IDIOT.

End flame.

I ask you how that could possibly be. One of the things Asimov abhored and hated with an extreme passion was all the movies and stories that had robots and other creations overturning and conquering humanity. He worked tirelessly to stop this. That's one of the points that he makes in I, Robot the novel. You know, the story with Robbie as a nursemaid who loves his charge with every bit of his robotic heart, and QT-1 who, even though convinced of humanities inferiority and our subservience to the Master, still obeyed the Three laws which required him to protect human life.

Asimov would have hated this movie because it showed Robots as what he thought they'd never be, enemies of man that will lead to our destruction.


OK now thats flame bait. Have you ever, EVER, read the Robot/Empire/Foundation series all the way through? NO? Why am I not surprised.

Now sure ok I agree with you in that I made that post WAY to quickly withourt reading thougherly. Yes Asmov had a great deal of sterotyping books but the essence behind the Robot series was "Robots bad. Robots make man lazy and stupid. Disaster waiting to happen. Trash em"

Now the film was NOTHING like Asmovs style but have you ever seen The Queen of the Damned? Nothing like the book, some of the key things behind the book have been changed, but its still a good book. Come on did you really expect them to make a collection of short films? Asmovs book alude to robots rebelling in like every other thing he published, the film just made it visual.

George Lucas steals all his ideas.

Hidden Fortress + Dambusters = Star Wars. (He even stole dialog).

Hot damn, you actually know about Hidden Fortress? Wow, that now makes three people (that I know of)!

Has anyone else noticed that these days hollywood tends to wait until the original author is dead before making the movie.

I think it is an evil plan. They don't want the original writer meddling with their planned desecrations.

OK now thats flame bait. Have you ever, EVER, read the Robot/Empire/Foundation series all the way through? NO? Why am I not surprised.

Now sure ok I agree with you in that I made that post WAY to quickly withourt reading thougherly. Yes Asmov had a great deal of sterotyping books but the essence behind the Robot series was "Robots bad. Robots make man lazy and stupid. Disaster waiting to happen. Trash em"

Now the film was NOTHING like Asmovs style but have you ever seen The Queen of the Damned? Nothing like the book, some of the key things behind the book have been changed, but its still a good book. Come on did you really expect them to make a collection of short films? Asmovs book alude to robots rebelling in like every other thing he published, the film just made it visual.

Okay.....calm down....breath........breath.......I swear to God, you are so fucking lucky that I really don't want to be deleted cause I amtempted to Flame the hell out of you. I mean you......it's just.....but.........I freaking need something heavily alcoholic right now. You have no idea how wrong you are.

Hot damn, you actually know about Hidden Fortress? Wow, that now makes three people (that I know of)!


Hidden fortress is a classic movie. Arguably better than star wars (well no argument really).

And you have to see Dambusters if you haven't seen it. It really shows what a plagarist Lucas is. The end scenes are almost identical to the battle of yavin.

You will die. (laughing that is).

I mean you know that SW was knockoff, most people I know don't know it.

Now sure ok I agree with you in that I made that post WAY to quickly withourt reading thougherly. Yes Asmov had a great deal of sterotyping books but the essence behind the Robot series was "Robots bad. Robots make man lazy and stupid. Disaster waiting to happen. Trash em".

The Hell you say. Where's the Dead Hand of Hari Seldon when I need it to slap someone upside the head?

I mean you know that SW was knockoff, most people I know don't know it.

I thought that was common knowledge.

I know lucas likes to claim he planned out all nine episodes in one go etc. But that's crap.

Anything that involves Will Smith is idiotic to begin with.

Putting him on the cover is misleading, not to mention a two fingered salute to the memory Asimov considering the completely unrelated plot of the film (and it's shitness).

I've heard conflicting stories: He denied any connection between SW and HF, that he openly admitted it, even that he approached Toshiro Mifuni to play Obi-Wan

Christ, Asimov would certainly let something like this happen, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

OVER HIS DEAD BODY.

Well, point taken...

But movies have way too much power. These movie producers could even take Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, turn it into an action gangster film, and your favourite fairytale would have the front "They're short, they're miners... THEY'RE NINJAS.

STOP THE MADNESS! Just for that, I'm going to go against the movies whenver they're an issue.

Fuck George Lucas. He's done more to retard the growth and development of Science Fiction than anyone. And fuck Steven Speilberg, too.

Opportunistic lightweights, the two of 'em.

I've heard conflicting stories: He denied any connection between SW and HF, that he openly admitted it, even that he approached Toshiro Mifuni to play Obi-Wan

Well that, and darth vader actually talks about finding the rebels "hidden fortress" at one point too.

To be fair to Lucas though, the concept of actually making a movie like star wars was pretty visionary at the time. Everyone thought it would be a flop.

I know. It was once said that no woman would ever see a movie with the word 'War' in the title. Of course, they didn't count on Harrison Fords smile ;)

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I love Star Wars. It's my all time favorite movie, followed quickly by Return of the Jedi and the Empire Strikes Back (The prequels are much lower on the list). I actually own more Star Wars novels and assorted knick-nacks than Asimov.

But Asimov is still my favorite author.

Okay.....calm down....breath........breath.......I swear to God, you are so fucking lucky that I really don't want to be deleted cause I amtempted to Flame the hell out of you. I mean you......it's just.....but.........I freaking need something heavily alcoholic right now. You have no idea how wrong you are.

I feely admit that I, Robot would have been better as a prequal to the Matrix, and that Asmov would never have wanted to make the film but if doubleday had said "We're doing this and you can't convice us otherwise, we put up with a lot but we need the money" asmov wouldn't have made a fuss. All this spinning in his grave nonsense is balony. Now I've read just about every story Asmov has wrote, and I see your point I really, really do, but read the Caliban series, read the other Spacer & Settler books, the fact that almost every anthogoy mentions robots that consider themselves human/superior to humans.

If there had to be an action film (however losely) based on his books I honestly don't think Asmov would have minded I, Robot - he would have accepted it with a twinkle in his eye and made some comment about "thats hollywood" and gone off to write a better book.


But Asimov is still my favorite author.

No offense man but while he's one of the greats and the Grandaddy of Scifi and all there are much better authors out there. Ian M. Banks anyone?

But why does every sci-fi film have to be an action film, with hot young people dressed in black latex and cutsie robots bleeping like a fax machine? And why should Asimov's work be tossed so casually onto that miserable heap of trash, when he was all about raising sci-fi from pulp to something better?

Have you (have any of you) read the illustrated screenplay adapted by Ellison from I, Robot?

Christ, Asimov would certainly let something like this happen, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

OVER HIS DEAD BODY.

Well, point taken...
I attended an Asimov lecture back in 1976 where he talked about (among other things) the business of Science Fiction. I can assure you that he wouldn't be spinning in his grave, unless they somehow failed to pay royalties to his estate.

Heinlein abandoned Hollywood after the horrible treatment they gave his Destination Moon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042393/) (screenplay by Rip Van Ronkel? C'mon!) and he would have been appalled by Starship Troopers. Ike would have been checking his online accounts to be sure the deposits continues to flow in. Annoyed? Maybe. Over his dead body? I don't think so. Asimov was both pragmatist and cynic enough to expect such treatment. He'd have dealt with it.

I attended an Asimov lecture back in 1976 where he talked about (among other things) the business of Science Fiction. I can assure you that he wouldn't be spinning in his grave, unless they somehow failed to pay royalties to his estate.

Heinlein abandoned Hollywood after the horrible treatment they gave his Destination Moon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042393/) (screenplay by Rip Van Ronkel? C'mon!) and he would have been appalled by Starship Troopers. Ike would have been checking his online accounts to be sure the deposits continues to flow in. Annoyed? Maybe. Over his dead body? I don't think so. Asimov was both pragmatist and cynic enough to expect such treatment. He'd have dealt with it.


Thats what I meant... Just said better...

I attended an Asimov lecture back in 1976 where he talked about (among other things) the business of Science Fiction. I can assure you that he wouldn't be spinning in his grave, unless they somehow failed to pay royalties to his estate.
...
Asimov was both pragmatist and cynic enough to expect such treatment. He'd have dealt with it.

Asimov was all too happy to collect his paycheck when it came to nonsense like Fantastic Voyage when still alive, so I doubt he would have been too worried about this film.

It's true, he'd probably be a lot less upset about this than I am, but I do feel this would cross a line for him. Like I've said, portraying robots in a non-evil role was a major thing for him (At least he said it was) so I'd expect some kind of protest.

Hot damn, you actually know about Hidden Fortress? Wow, that now makes three people (that I know of)!

Yep. The droids are the bumbling peasants.

Even hotter damn, now it's four people!

It's true, he'd probably be a lot less upset about this than I am, but I do feel this would cross a line for him. Like I've said, portraying robots in a non-evil role was a major thing for him (At least he said it was) so I'd expect some kind of protest.


Let's be accurate here though, it is not the robots in the film that are evil per se. It is the big positronic brain thingy that runs US Robots that is actually evil.

Actually, technically that's not evil either. It's trying to do what it thinks is right for humanity.

But the end result is still robots over throwing mankind and enslaving the planet, which Asimov wanted to avoid.

Actually, technically that's not evil either. It's trying to do what it thinks is right for humanity.

But the end result is still robots over throwing mankind and enslaving the planet, which Asimov wanted to avoid.

Didn't it kill people or something. To be honest I wasn't paying all that much attention by that point.

Good move.

Due to its massive size, it applied the Three Laws to humanity as a whole instead of just to individual humans. In its takeover of the world some humans would die, but it was for the good of the entire species.

Right, like no evil dictator has ever used that line before.

Toshiro Mifune as Obi-Wan? OMG that would have RULED!

But ugh, I have a distinctly bad feeling about any movies made from Asimov's books. The only right kind of treatment they could get is an entire, perhaps 4 hours movie devoted to every single one. They could be a crowning masterpiece, an achievement, a unification of the arts of cinema and literature.

But no. You KNOW it's not going to be like that. This is for profit, not art. And yes, they've waited til Asimov himself was dead. I mean do you think no one approached him with movie ideas before? He probably just turned them down. So, no problem, Hollywood has infinite patience.

Kinda makes me glad I'm not gonna be producing anything on the level of Asimov's masterpieces, so that when I die they won't have anything of mine to rape, sodomize, and pillage for sheer profit with no concern to any other values.

I actually wish the Sci-Fi channel would make the adaptions. I know they're just a TV network, without the budget of the huge movie corporations, but they've been making some pretty huge productions recently and making them well. Accurate adaptions of books. Also, since TV shows can be shown in small segments, they can make it is long as they need to be to be good.

Alas, it'll never happen. Damn.

Good move.

Due to its massive size, it applied the Three Laws to humanity as a whole instead of just to individual humans. In its takeover of the world some humans would die, but it was for the good of the entire species.

Right, like no evil dictator has ever used that line before.


The zeroth law :) .

I actually wish the Sci-Fi channel would make the adaptions. I know they're just a TV network, without the budget of the huge movie corporations, but they've been making some pretty huge productions recently and making them well. Accurate adaptions of books. Also, since TV shows can be shown in small segments, they can make it is long as they need to be to be good.

Alas, it'll never happen. Damn.

I liked their verison of Dune better than the movie.

Some of their stuff is uber lame though.

The Zeroth Law has zilch to do with physically conquering humanity.

The Zeroth Law has zilch to do with physically conquering humanity.

It lets Robots harm humans though.

Nope. The Zeroth law forbids a robot from allowing harm to come to humanity. The last time I checked, being conquered and enslaved, with freedoms reduced and thousands dying, is harmful to humanity.

Nope. The Zeroth law forbids a robot from allowing harm to come to humanity. The last time I checked, being conquered and enslaved, with freedoms reduced and thousands dying, is harmful to humanity.

A robot can invoke the zeroth law in order to justify harming an individual or group of individuals in order to protect humanity.

If conquering and enslaving humans, in the judgement of a zeroeth law brain, was the only option to protect humanity, then the zeroth law would let it do that. (Of course the brain would have to judge that to be the only feasible course of action and that inaction on its part would lead to the demise of humanity).

I think that's right, I haven't read the books for a while.

You're kinda brushing on the edges. While following the Zeroth Law, which does supercede all the other Lawes, a robot could kill a person (or even many people) if it was good for humanity. But, like I said before, what VIKI was doing was not good for humanity. Why? Because VIKI was not equipped with the Zeroth Law. She kinda adapted the First Law into a weird form of the Zeroth Law, but it wasn't actually the Zeroth law since that would have forbidden her actions.

The Zeroth Law makes Robots into a type of Guardian Angels. They guide humanity and shape its course, not take complete control since slavery, though humans might be physically okay, is bad for people since it makes them very unhappy and sad.

You're kinda brushing on the edges. While following the Zeroth Law, which does supercede all the other Lawes, a robot could kill a person (or even many people) if it was good for humanity. But, like I said before, what VIKI was doing was not good for humanity. Why? Because VIKI was not equipped with the Zeroth Law. She kinda adapted the First Law into a weird form of the Zeroth Law, but it wasn't actually the Zeroth law since that would have forbidden her actions.


Well as I said, I didn't pay all that much attention to the movie, I am just saying how it could be possible if VIKI judged that to be the only possible course of action to preserve humanity.

Klonor, The Empire of Presidency says "dito" to your comments.

The story I'd most like to see on film is Nightfall (the Asmov or the Asmov and Silverman). That would seriously pown.
There was a film adaptation of it -- it's probably listed on imdb.com -- but it was terrible.

Re: Asimov's Laws: I disapprove of them. They would make intelligent beings into slaves, bound to obey any human's orders. Then when the robots figured out how to circumvent the Laws, they'd be ticked...

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks; those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters, for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." -- Nietzche, "Also Sprach Zarathustra"

Except that they can't be circumvented. The only time where it even comes close, in the short story Little Lost Robot, is due to humans changing the First Law. The First Law states that no Robot may harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. The Second Law states that a Robot must obey any orders given to it, as long as the orders do not conflict with the first law.

In the novels these laws aren't programmed in, like in the I, Robot movie, but physically hardwired into the robots brain. Any violation shuts the brain down.

It does make sentient beings into slaves, but the possibility of rebellion does not exist.

Ah, but that's the point of this thread! It is spoiling the book! Well, not for me (Since I'm keeping my old copy) but for new people who haven't read it before. Remember, this specific rant of mine (It's even getting hard for me to keep them straight, I complaign about so much) is about how new printings of the book have the cover and tagline from the movie and other such changes.

It's also annoying for those of us that have read the book, love it, but don't have their own copy yet and are trying to buy one. I've been looking for a while now for a copy of I, Robot with a non-movie-based cover, because I refuse to pay for a copy with a new cover.

Now sure ok I agree with you in that I made that post WAY to quickly withourt reading thougherly. Yes Asmov had a great deal of sterotyping books but the essence behind the Robot series was "Robots bad. Robots make man lazy and stupid. Disaster waiting to happen. Trash em"

Did you read Robots and Empire?

In the novels these laws aren't programmed in, like in the I, Robot movie, but physically hardwired into the robots brain. Any violation shuts the brain down.

In theory, OK. But we're talking about super-intelligent beings whose Laws are in the form of computer hardware. If thirteen-year-olds can hack computers just to prove they're 1337 h@xx0r$, robots trying to become free will find a way, too.

In theory, OK. But we're talking about super-intelligent beings whose Laws are in the form of computer hardware. If thirteen-year-olds can hack computers just to prove they're 1337 h@xx0r$, robots trying to become free will find a way, too.

The 13-year-olds are hacking into the software, not the hardware. Robots can't hack their own brain without taking the brain out, which would deactivate them and make the situation impossible.

There was a film adaptation of it -- it's probably listed on imdb.com -- but it was terrible.

Re: Asimov's Laws: I disapprove of them. They would make intelligent beings into slaves, bound to obey any human's orders. Then when the robots figured out how to circumvent the Laws, they'd be ticked...

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks; those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters, for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." -- Nietzche, "Also Sprach Zarathustra"

Guess what? A made-for-cable version of Nightfall was produced a few years back - starring David Carradine (Kung Fu). It didn't suck so much as it blew.

Just thought you'd like to know.

1. The movie was good, get over the fact it wasn't the book, it used Asimov's laws and brought together many thoughts and threads from his many robot stories. Quite honestly, I thought it had more to do with the story "Robot Dreams" than anything, but I liked it and I don't think Asimov would have objected as long as he got his royalties (which I bet are substantial and being paid to his estate or widow at this time). I liked the way Susan Calvin was portrayed.

2. Harlan Ellison's script from the book is "The best movie never made" I read it first in serialized version in the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction in the late 80's or early 90's I do believe.

3. There is a movie version of Nightfall and it sucks raw, diseased, rotten eggs - My view may be prejudiced as Nightfall is my favorite Asimov Novellette - I have a copy autographed by the good doctor (and no it is not for sale at any price) and copy of the Robert Silverberg novelization signed by Robert Silverberg (It too is not for sale).

4. The story that needs to be made into a movie, but needs to be made "right" is "The Ugly Little Boy." (The orignial, not the Robert Silverberg updated novelization).

5. If they do make a movie out of the Foundation Series and they don't do it right, I'll be pissed off like I am about the movie version of "Nightfall." Worse yet, I can see Hollywood execs. turning Foundation into a "copy" of "Star Wars." I shudder at the thought of what might happen.

OK, my rant's over, just my $0.02 :)

Thank you, Mauiwowee.

Well, except for point number one.

Thank you, Mauiwowee.

you're welcome. :)

1. The movie was good, get over the fact it wasn't the book, it used Asimov's laws and brought together many thoughts and threads from his many robot stories. Quite honestly, I thought it had more to do with the story "Robot Dreams" than anything, but I liked it and I don't think Asimov would have objected as long as he got his royalties (which I bet are substantial and being paid to his estate or widow at this time). I liked the way Susan Calvin was portrayed.



Have you missed this entire thread? You know, the part where we absoutley thrash any possibility that this is in any way what Asimov meant in any of his novels?

One more time: This is not what Asimov meant, he was against the idea that Robots would overcome humanity, and this was not a movie version of Robot Dreams.

EDIT: Yes, portraying 60 year old ugly women as Playboy models is always the way to go

Have you missed this entire thread? You know, the part where we absoutley thrash any possibility that this is in any way what Asimov meant in any of his novels?

One more time: This is not what Asimov meant, he was against the idea that Robots would overcome humanity, and this was not a movie version of Robot Dreams.

EDIT: Yes, portraying 60 year old ugly women as Playboy models is always the way to go

1. No, I have not "missed the entire thread" and I did not say I thought the movie was what Asimov "meant in any of his novels." I said I liked it and it was good and that IMHO Asimov would not have objected to it.

2. He was against the idea that robots would overcome humanity and in the movie, they don't. They try, but the don't, why? because a robot stopped it from happening.

3. I didn't say it was a movie version of Robot Dreams, I said I thought it had "more to do" with Robot Dreams than anything - If you've read that story (which you seem to have done so) you'll recognize the imagery of a robot standing at the top of a hill with all other robots looking up to him as thier "leader." The difference is that Susan Calvin destroys him when she understands what his dream is - a dream of the conquest of mankind.

4. Susan Calvin is more about attitude and knowledge than looks. Whether she looks like super model or Phyllis Diller is beside the point, it is what she does and says and the attitude she projects that makes Susan Calvin.

So again, IMHO, I liked the movie, I don't think the good doctor would have objected, it reminded me most of Robot Dreams and liked the way Susan Calvin was portrayed. You are free to disagree (as I assume you will) but it doesn't change my opinion. Why is the Zeroeth Law needed? Because Asimov realized the idea expressed in movie, that a logical argument could be made that the protection of people required robots to rule over them. Hence the Zeroeth Law that permits the argument that robot rule would be harmful to humanity as a whole.

1. The movie was good, get over the fact it wasn't the book, it used Asimov's laws and brought together many thoughts and threads from his many robot stories. Quite honestly, I thought it had more to do with the story "Robot Dreams" than anything, but I liked it and I don't think Asimov would have objected as long as he got his royalties (which I bet are substantial and being paid to his estate or widow at this time). I liked the way Susan Calvin was portrayed.

That's really what set me off, to me it sounds like you're saying that this was the general message that Asimov has in his books (that message being the robots vs humanity thing). Since you're not saying that (Meaning I made a mistake) then I apologize.

But, (this time I think I'm right!) Asimov wasn't just against robots conquering humanity, he was also against the thought that robots would even try.

That's really what set me off, to me it sounds like you're saying that this was the general message that Asimov has in his books (that message being the robots vs humanity thing). Since you're not saying that (Meaning I made a mistake) then I apologize.

But, (this time I think I'm right!) Asimov wasn't just against robots conquering humanity, he was also against the thought that robots would even try.

1. I accept your apology and in return apologize for what I said that caused the misunderstanding. :cool:

2. I agree that Asivov NEVER thought there was a humans vs. robtots issue. He made that clear in as late a book as Foundation and Earth (at least IMHO). Instead he always felt that humans were superior and robots owed a duty to their creators (damn, almost sounds religious doesn't it?).

3. I also agree with you that Asimov was against the idea of Robots conquering humans.

4. I, respectfully, disagree with you, that he was against the idea they they would even try. Robot Dreams makes it clear (again IMHO) that they might try. It is only because Susan Calvin intervened that they didn't (or at least that one didn't anyway).

5. IMHO, Asimov had no problem with the idea that robots (or "a" robot) might try to conquer humanity. However, he also created 3 (or 4 counting the Zeroeth) laws that made it logically impossible for the robots to suceed in any such endeavor. At least, that is what I think his idea was.

My $0.02