I Robot movie (Isaac Asimov)

[j d worthington]

No, he didn't say that about Eando Binder. He has noted that the choice of title was not his, but rather the editor for Gnome Books:

On December 28, 1949, Asimov met Martin Greenberg, publisher of Gnome Books. Greenberg wanted to publish a collection of Asimov's robot stories. Asimov agreed, and two days later signed a contract with Greenberg. The following March, Asimov began putting the collection together. He chose to include the eight Astounding stories, along with "Strange Playfellow", changing the titles of the latter story and "Paradoxical Escape" back to "Robbie" and "Escape". He also tied the stories together with a framing story, in which a reporter from the Interplanetary Press interviews Susan Calvin during her retirement from US Robots in 2057. The framing story gives dates for the other stories, mentions a World War which took place shortly before Calvin's birth in 1982, and states that the hyperdrive has been perfected and that several colonies have been established on extrasolar planets. The nine stories, combined with the framing story, brought the collection up to 70,000 words, which Asimov felt was enough. Thus, there would be no need to include "Victory Unintentional" and "Robot AL-76 Goes Astray", which he felt were inferior to the rest. He also didn't bother to include his two then-unpublished robot stories, "First Law" and "Flesh and Metal". Asimov decided to call the collection Mind and Iron. He submitted the book to Greenberg, who accepted it, but changed the title to I, Robot. It was published in December 1950.

(this is from asimovonline's "History of the Positronic Robot", pt. 3):

The History of the Positronic Robot and Foundation Stories

He has also noted that the series of Adam Link tales (of which "I, Robot" was the first) were among the best examples of the robot-with-emotion in the field. I've not had a chance to read all the tales, but the novelized form (which left at least two out, as I recall) remains a sentimental favorite of mine, as well....

By the way, for those who don't know: Eando Binder was (originally, anyway), not one but two people: Earl and Otto Binder (E and O), brothers who collaborated on sf tales. Later it was all Otto's writing, Earl acting as the agent:

Eando Binder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But yes, Asimov was quite a cut-up. The repartee between Asimov and Ellison was always... interesting. And this is one of the reasons Asimov was so often given the task of toastmaster as well as giving out the awards at Worldcons and the like....

 

[AE35Unit]

No, he didn't say that about Eando Binder. He has noted that the choice of title was not his, but rather the editor for Gnome Books:

Strange, I seem to remember reading in one of his biographies about the incident and I'm sure his editor saying 'F*** Eando Binder' and so the publication with that title went ahead.

 

[kythe]

I just saw the movie "I, Robot" and came away with mixed feelings. It's a decent sci fi action flick, but its not thought provoking enough to truly be a great film.

It does have some good scenes, like the first scene of the robot running with a purse to bring a woman her inhaler, and the backstory of the drowning accident. These subplots illustrate aspects of the 3 Laws. But I really disagree with the choice to have robots turn in on humans. With just a bit of tweeking, they could have had VIKI truly working for the good of humanity and make the "bad" robots not quite what they seem.

But instead the movie fell for the typical "machines gone wrong" theme so prevalent in sci fi, yet that Asimov himself tried so hard to avoid.

 

[scidata]

I agree that Asimov and the movie went two different ways. That's why I'm not holding out much hope for a good Foundation movie. Following the book too closely though, can lead to a confusing flurry of allusions and arcane references like with what happened to Dune.

 

[JoanDrake]

I've never seen this because my understanding is it takes the old Frankenstein view of robots and that was very definitely NOT Asimov's view of them. OTOH it does base that on a weakness in the 3 laws which even Asimov admitted to (and I never noticed until it was pointed out.)


I guess my problem is I just can't take Hollywood's smug Luddism, especially in view of the fact that they are so goddam tech crazy nowadays themselves that they make crap like Avatar which has 700 mill worth of FX on a plot most high schoolers would be ashamed of.

 

[scidata]

On the subject of Frankenstein, I imagine that Mary Shelley would be dismayed at the way her deep and poignant character was rendered as a mindless rampaging monster by Hollywood.

 

[AE35Unit]

I agree that Asimov and the movie went two different ways. That's why I'm not holding out much hope for a good Foundation movie. Following the book too closely though, can lead to a confusing flurry of allusions and arcane references like with what happened to Dune.

I actually think that the movie Dune is far better than the long winded fantasy that is the book!

 

[scidata]

I actually think that the movie Dune is far better than the long winded fantasy that is the book!

As with Shelley, I found Herbert's book much more profound and frightening than the slapstick comedies that Hollywood came up with. For example, his 'Sardaukar' would make run-of-the-mill stormtroopers blush. I once heard their movie incarnation described as "radioactive garbagemen".

 

[Michael Colton]

I thought the film did a good job not trying to use Asimov too much. Either you try to follow the author as much as possible for fans and being loyal to the originator or you do not worry about it whatsoever in order to make a mainstream film to attract people that have never heard of Asimov - any midway approach usually turns out disappointing for everyone. They went the second route and, in my opinion, did a fine job.

My primary annoyance is not with the film itself but its influence: digital art has been absolutely inundated with robots that look exactly like the robots in that film ever since.

 

[BigBadBob141]

Not too bad a film for an action romp, but the plot is a strange mix of Asimov's 3 Laws Robots and Jack Williamson's "The Humaniods".
The new Nexus robots in the film have Asimov's 3 laws but they download upgrades from a central AI which then try's to take over.
The AI in the film has the same idea about humanity having to be protected from itself as the one in Williamson's book.
I wonder if Williamson got any credit for this.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

humanity having to be protected is of course Asimov's ill-conceived retrospective Zeroth Law. For me it spoiled Foundation for it all to be a Robot plot hatched by Daneel Oliev (I'm sure that is spelled wrong).

All the "Laws" are just a literary device of course so as to have fun explaining why a "Robot" breaks them. Which is fine for the excellent earlier Robot stories.

 

[ParallaxBrew]

Wow, I thought this about a new iRobot movie coming out until I saw the reference to Will Smith. Felt like I was in a time warp.

 

[BigBadBob141]

REF: Ray McCarthy
Zeroth Law ?
Haven't heard of this one, interesting idea but not sure how this would effect the other 3 laws?

 

[BAYLOR]

If like to have sen of I Robot done by Harlan Ellison in his 1977 script. It would have been a great film.

 

[Vince W]

If like to have sen of I Robot done by Harlan Ellison in his 1977 script. It would have been a great film.

That would have been a great film.