Rating: 
Summary: An Incredible Read
Review: Although I'm not much of a fan of Science Fiction this book really appealed to me. It has everything, emotional struggle, action, romance, and an ending that ranks among some of the best of all time. It is quite possibly my favourite book even though it's a screenplay. If you can't find it here get it anywhere. It deserves, and needs to be read by as many people as possible.
Rating:
Summary: Good, old-fashioned entertainment.
Review: Cyber-trivia: if you want to find out how the modem manufacturer U.S. Robotics got the name, read this adaptation, or the original science fiction classic: I, Robot
Rating: 
Summary: A book still in search of a screenplay
Review: Despite the many complaints that I, Robot was never filmed, I think this screenplay attempt shows why it wasn't. It doesn't have the punch needed for a high budget flick to bring in the crowds, sorry. The idea of robots is trite to audiences, and the 'surprise' that the leader of their govt. is a robot in disguise... which Star Trek episode WAS that? :) The main character, Ms. Calvin, is as sexless as a marble statue, and audiences could get more sex in 5 minutes of Dallas or Days of Our Lives. In short, the screenplay's Asimov roots really hurts it, Asimov can't handle sex and real human emotions and himself thinks like a robot, and this screenplay can't get around it. I could see Martin Sheen as the reporter, but I already saw that one :) Who would play Dr. Susan? Meryl Streep? :) Sorry, this movie would bomb like Blade Runner. If it were rewritten yet again, by a screenwriter who knows how to please crowds, it might still fly, but then, Asimov purists might wrinkle up their noses. So there you go :)
Rating:
Summary: An unfilmed screenplay superior to many finished SF films.
Review: Harlan Ellison's adaptation of Isaac Asimov's classic
"I, Robot" stories for the screen answers many questions posed by science fiction readers for years; most notably, why nobody has ever made Asimov's trademark Robot stories into a film. The answer, as well as how Ellison came to write the screenplay, is recanted in the book's Introduction and is a fascinating story unto itself, filled
with all of the elements of one of Ellison's dangerous visions--hope, fear, rage, and retribution.
But "I, Robot" is not about Ellison's angst, it's about Asimov's shining vision of the future, in which human
want is alleviated by sophisticated robots powered by intricate positronic brains (it was Asimov and not "Star
Trek" who gave us that term). In Asimov's tomorrow,
robots are capable of performing every kind of menial task and quite a few complex intellectual tasks as well--which often manifest themselves unexpectedly and with surprising consequences for their human masters.
Asimov was not the first science fiction writer to conceive such a future, but he was the first to give it viability in
the shape of the famous Three Laws of Robotics, which imposed a humanitarian discipline upon all of his creations.
More importantly, the limits of the Three Laws (as they are
affectionately known) imposed an unbreakable literary discipline upon the author himself, which served to hone his imagination and talents.
Ellison's screenplay opens with an on-screen incantation of
the Three Laws, which were recited like a mantra at the opening of every Asimov Robot tale. From this familiar
introduction, guaranteed to endear him to Asimov loyalists
everywhere, Ellison launches into a taut, deftly plotted,
and wholly original science fiction yarn of considerably
greater depth than most of today's Spielberg-style
blockbusters.
Ellison has a daunting task--how to interweave several of
Asimov's short stories into a cohesive whole without resorting to episodic cliches. He does this by building
his movie around the central figure of most of the Robot
stories, Dr. Susan Calvin. Calvin is a robopsychologist, a
specialist in the arcane thought processes of positronic brains, a woman who can explain all facets of robot behavior but is unable to come to grips with her own human frailities.
Asimov's stories in this vein focused on Calvin at various stages of her life and career. Ellison takes his cue from
Asimov and goes him one better; he ties the Calvin chronology together with the story of investigative reporter Robert Bratenahl's search for Calvin after a passing glimpse of the aging, reclusive scientist at the funeral of a celebrated colleague, Stephen Byerley. Bratenahl's chance encounter sends him on an odyssey around
the world and across space in search of surviving sources who can shed some light on Susan Calvin's life story. This familiar narrative technique, first used by Orson Welles to cement "Citizen Kane" together, loses none of its
grip when judiciously applied by Ellison.
When it comes to retelling Asimov's stories, Ellison gives
the Good Doctor center stage. Plot changes, where they were made, are usually done to maintain continuity and speed the progression of the film. With a strong female
protagonist, Ellison avoids the obvious temptation to inject sex into the story and preserves Asimov's original
characterization of Calvin as plain-looking, rigid, and unmistakably brilliant. The robots, too, are visualized in
much the same manner as in the stories--large, imposing machines designed for purpose and practicality, primarily humanoid, but largely devoid of any humanizing physical characteristics. The colorful illustrations by Mark Zug
help the reader visualize the plot line and keep track of what's going on.
This is especially important when one considers that this book--like all screenplays--was never really meant to be read, but seen. The screenplay format, calling for camera
shots and transitions in the middle of scenes, can be distracting at times, but readers who stick with it
are not only in for a fine story but also for some rare instruction on screen writing. Here is a chance to see for
yourself what a real, feature-length movie blueprint looks and reads like. If nothing else, you should come away from the experience with new respect for actors. The difficulties of memorizing hundreds of pages of dialogue
will be made quite apparent after reading "I, Robot."
The only disappointing thing about this book is that we have to get the story in book form, and not on the screen as it was meant to be. Ellison spits venom at Tinseltown for abandoning the script; it was completed, in fact, in 1978! But if you're a science fiction reader, a film buff,
an aspiring writer, or just curious about how scripts are written, then Hollywood's loss will be your gain. Who knows? In book form, "I, Robot" could prove so popular that
Hollywood might option the rights to it--for real this time.
Rating:
Summary: An unfilmed screenplay superior to many finished SF films.
Review: Harlan Ellison's adaptation of Isaac Asimov's classic"I, Robot" stories for the screen answers many questions posed by science fiction readers for years; most notably, why nobody has ever made Asimov's trademark Robot stories into a film. The answer, as well as how Ellison came to write the screenplay, is recanted in the book's Introduction and is a fascinating story unto itself, filled with all of the elements of one of Ellison's dangerous visions--hope, fear, rage, and retribution. But "I, Robot" is not about Ellison's angst, it's about Asimov's shining vision of the future, in which human want is alleviated by sophisticated robots powered by intricate positronic brains (it was Asimov and not "Star Trek" who gave us that term). In Asimov's tomorrow, robots are capable of performing every kind of menial task and quite a few complex intellectual tasks as well--which often manifest themselves unexpectedly and with surprising consequences for their human masters. Asimov was not the first science fiction writer to conceive such a future, but he was the first to give it viability in the shape of the famous Three Laws of Robotics, which imposed a humanitarian discipline upon all of his creations. More importantly, the limits of the Three Laws (as they are affectionately known) imposed an unbreakable literary discipline upon the author himself, which served to hone his imagination and talents. Ellison's screenplay opens with an on-screen incantation of the Three Laws, which were recited like a mantra at the opening of every Asimov Robot tale. From this familiar introduction, guaranteed to endear him to Asimov loyalists everywhere, Ellison launches into a taut, deftly plotted, and wholly original science fiction yarn of considerably greater depth than most of today's Spielberg-style blockbusters. Ellison has a daunting task--how to interweave several of Asimov's short stories into a cohesive whole without resorting to episodic cliches. He does this by building his movie around the central figure of most of the Robot stories, Dr. Susan Calvin. Calvin is a robopsychologist, a specialist in the arcane thought processes of positronic brains, a woman who can explain all facets of robot behavior but is unable to come to grips with her own human frailities. Asimov's stories in this vein focused on Calvin at various stages of her life and career. Ellison takes his cue from Asimov and goes him one better; he ties the Calvin chronology together with the story of investigative reporter Robert Bratenahl's search for Calvin after a passing glimpse of the aging, reclusive scientist at the funeral of a celebrated colleague, Stephen Byerley. Bratenahl's chance encounter sends him on an odyssey around the world and across space in search of surviving sources who can shed some light on Susan Calvin's life story. This familiar narrative technique, first used by Orson Welles to cement "Citizen Kane" together, loses none of its grip when judiciously applied by Ellison. When it comes to retelling Asimov's stories, Ellison gives the Good Doctor center stage. Plot changes, where they were made, are usually done to maintain continuity and speed the progression of the film. With a strong female protagonist, Ellison avoids the obvious temptation to inject sex into the story and preserves Asimov's original characterization of Calvin as plain-looking, rigid, and unmistakably brilliant. The robots, too, are visualized in much the same manner as in the stories--large, imposing machines designed for purpose and practicality, primarily humanoid, but largely devoid of any humanizing physical characteristics. The colorful illustrations by Mark Zug help the reader visualize the plot line and keep track of what's going on. This is especially important when one considers that this book--like all screenplays--was never really meant to be read, but seen. The screenplay format, calling for camera shots and transitions in the middle of scenes, can be distracting at times, but readers who stick with it are not only in for a fine story but also for some rare instruction on screen writing. Here is a chance to see for yourself what a real, feature-length movie blueprint looks and reads like. If nothing else, you should come away from the experience with new respect for actors. The difficulties of memorizing hundreds of pages of dialogue will be made quite apparent after reading "I, Robot." The only disappointing thing about this book is that we have to get the story in book form, and not on the screen as it was meant to be. Ellison spits venom at Tinseltown for abandoning the script; it was completed, in fact, in 1978! But if you're a science fiction reader, a film buff, an aspiring writer, or just curious about how scripts are written, then Hollywood's loss will be your gain. Who knows? In book form, "I, Robot" could prove so popular that Hollywood might option the rights to it--for real this time.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating read, yet has serious structural problems
Review: I hate to rain on the parade of some other readers, but, from a screenwriter's standpoint, I found some serious problems that would have to be remedied, before the screenplay could be filmed.
First, however, I'll praise it for its fascinating ideas and visual richness, and for having a woman protagonist at a time (1978) when it was not yet common in the science fiction film genre. I agree that the "Citizen Kane" like approach has merit, and, in one sense, works better than "Kane," becuase the subject of the reporter's investigation is still alive, and that adds to the suspense. I also detected some "Apocalypse Now" influence, even though the controversial Vietnam War film had not yet been released. Susan Calvin has similarities to Kane, but also to Kurtz, and I don't think it's just a coincidence that Harlan Ellison says he pictured Martin Sheen as the man sent to find her. The probable three hour plus length of the resulting film did not bother me, although I imagine how it must have bothered the studio executives. Today, with special effects costs no longer the issue they once were, it could be done as a Sci Fi Channel miniseries.
My problem with the script has to do with the relative contributions of the four Asimov stories to the plot, and with how that plot is resolved. Even though I have not read the original Asimov works, I guessed the big surprise at the end almost from the very beginning. (I also made an early guess about Susan Calvin's bodyguards, but the screenplay neither confirms nor denies it.)
The first story (Robbie), works well and contributes its share to the overall story. The two stories in the middle (Speedy and Herbie), although they stand on their own very well, contribute little to the overall story, in relation to the amount of time spent on them. Also, the Herbie story sets something up, which has the potential to pay off big later on, but never does. The fourth story (Lenny/Steven Byerley), which ultimately resolves the plot, is given the least thorough treatment. One part of it is very detailed, but the rest is glossed over and/or told second hand. The result is a disappointingly awkward and abrupt ending, which leaves gaping holes. (There's also the matter of something similar to "Colossus: The Forbin Project" being dropped in very late with no foreshadowing.)
That last and most important of the stories needs fleshing out, while some of the earlier, less relevant, material could be shortened or cut. Alternatively, I would suggest building on developments in the second and third stories, following the example of the first, so that the fourth story follows their lead and fulfills the character arcs in a more satsifying way.
I imagine Harlan Ellison never received this kind of advice. If he's right that the "studio vegetable" never bothered to read the script, then the studio never gave him the constructive criticism that was needed to save the project. I agree with Ellison that it is a tragedy that one studio executive, for no other reason than a personal vendetta over a remark, was able to block any version of this script from ever being filmed. Now, instead, we have a dumbed down action picture, which lifts Issac Asimov's title, a couple of his characters, and his Three Laws, but, otherwise, has nothing to do with his stories.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD BOOK!!
Review: I have read that book twice and still find it very interesting. It's one of those books that you can't but down and when you wake up in the middle of the night, it calls to you to read it some more.
Rating:
Summary: Two words that I have never used before.
Review: I never used these two words before in describing a book - "one sitting". Turn of the T.V. and put the phone of the hook for an evening. If you ever wondered what the basic nature of man was, you won't put this book down.
Rating:
Summary: THIS SCREENPLAY MUST BE PRODUCED!
Review: If produced as written, this would be (barring 2001) the greatest science fiction film ever made. Harlan Ellison has created a mature, thought-provoking, intelligent screenplay. I finished it today, on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the final words (and major theme of the story)--"are people basically good?"--haunted me long after I put it away. Only the greatest art can do that. This is a film that must be made.
Rating:
Summary: The most infamous unproduced science fiction screenplay
Review: Many, many years ago I happened to hear an audio tape of Harlan Ellison reading the first part of his "I, Robot" script for a Science-Fiction convention, so I was very happy to see that what may well be the most infamous unproduced script in Hollywood history is available in print. The artwork in this illustrated screenplay is by Mark Zug, and consists of both color paintings and black & white character sketches that help to flesh out your mental images. Ellison takes several of Isaac Asimov's classic Robot short stories and weaves them into the life story of Susan Calvin, told in flashbacks to a reporter at the funeral for Stephen Byerley, First President of the Galactic Federation. Consequently, Ellison avoids the traditional pitfall of omnibus movies, such as "Tales from the Crypt," "The Twilight Zone" or "Creepshow," where whatever is used to link the segments together is of no importance to the overall film. Ellison's introductory essay is certainly not as vitriolic as his story about what happened to his Star Trek script "The City on the Edge of Forever," but it does recount the bizzaro world of movie making. Both the essay and the script are testaments to Ellison's affection for Asimov. A special treat is Ellison's revelation as to the casting he had in mind when he wrote the script: Joanne Woodward as Susan Calvin, George C. Scott as Reverend Soldah, Martin Sheen as Robert Bratenahl, and Keenan Wynn and Ernest Borgnine as Donovan and Powell. You may come to this book as a fan of Ellison or of Asimov or of both. Regardless of your point of origin I think it is important that you have read the original Asimov Robot stories before you read the script. The stories are Asimov's but the adaptation is Ellison's, and you have to know the original tales to appreciate the inspired organization of this script.
|
