What do you think?
Rate this book
I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay
The complete screenplay adaptation of Asimov's I, Robot represents the first successful attempt to convert the popular classic while discussing why the film script never made it onto the screen. Reprint.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
14 people are currently reading
508 people want to read
About the author
Harlan Ellison
459 books2,739 followersHarlan Jay Ellison (1934-2018) was a prolific American writer of short stories, novellas, teleplays, essays, and criticism.
His literary and television work has received many awards. He wrote for the original series of both The Outer Limits and Star Trek as well as The Alfred Hitchcock Hour; edited the multiple-award-winning short story anthology series Dangerous Visions; and served as creative consultant/writer to the science fiction TV series The New Twilight Zone and Babylon 5.
Several of his short fiction pieces have been made into movies, such as the classic "The Boy and His Dog".
His literary and television work has received many awards. He wrote for the original series of both The Outer Limits and Star Trek as well as The Alfred Hitchcock Hour; edited the multiple-award-winning short story anthology series Dangerous Visions; and served as creative consultant/writer to the science fiction TV series The New Twilight Zone and Babylon 5.
Several of his short fiction pieces have been made into movies, such as the classic "The Boy and His Dog".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
August 20, 2018
I'll go with the tag-line in the blurb: It's the greatest science fiction movie never made. Ellison adapted Asimov's classic robots with considerable wit and charm and attention to detail, and reading what coulda/shoulda been is a real treat. The volume also includes a long essay explaining what happened along the way and why the vision was never realized, told with Ellison's inimitable style, emotion, and enthusiasm.
September 13, 2012
Ellison may be a notorious jerk in the sci-fi world (see the decades of controversies over the infamously unpublished anthology The Last Dangerous Visions, or even the somewhat self-aggrandizing introduction to this volume), but his screenplay for Isaac Asimov's classic ended up being really good. He turned a somewhat loose collection of short stories into a coherent story, keeping an impressive amount of the material and characterization from the original works and even managing to emphasize Asimov's points about prejudice and morality. The points of deviation are minor and excusable, for the most part:
- The stories Reason, Catch That Rabbit, and almost everything after Little Lost Robot are omitted, which sucks from a completion standpoint but are understandable from a filmability perspective (even I wouldn't really be too interested in a movie version of stuff like Escape!)
- There are some aliens, which is unusual given their scarcity in Asimov's works, but their alienness is irrelevant and you could mentally swap them for people with no difference to the story
- There's a Citizen Kane-ish frame narrative about a reporter investigating a possible relationship between Susan Calvin and Stephen Byerley; Byerley has also been given a backstory as a John Connor-ish freedom fighter before he became President, as well as a deeper connection to Calvin
- Calvin's character is much more at the forefront; her personality has been given more detail, most notably an interest in Amazonian archaeology
Overall I thought it was a very good and spiritually faithful rendition, especially in Calvin's relationships to robots and her defense of them as being more moral than people. The screenplay does show its late-70s vintage somewhat in how there are scenes that have a Terminator or Blade Runner vibe, and it also exposes the age of the original stories. From the perspective of the year 2012, when we're nuts about self-driving cars and the like, it's tough to imagine mobs of people getting angry enough about automation to go on a robot pogrom. The idea that people would be resistant to a robot president is somewhat more understandable; Asimov wrote that idea as an allegory for anti-Semitism and it's obviously true that prejudice has been far from conquered. I also won't complain about the inclusion of stuff like teleportation or mind-reading robots, because this is science fiction.
- The stories Reason, Catch That Rabbit, and almost everything after Little Lost Robot are omitted, which sucks from a completion standpoint but are understandable from a filmability perspective (even I wouldn't really be too interested in a movie version of stuff like Escape!)
- There are some aliens, which is unusual given their scarcity in Asimov's works, but their alienness is irrelevant and you could mentally swap them for people with no difference to the story
- There's a Citizen Kane-ish frame narrative about a reporter investigating a possible relationship between Susan Calvin and Stephen Byerley; Byerley has also been given a backstory as a John Connor-ish freedom fighter before he became President, as well as a deeper connection to Calvin
- Calvin's character is much more at the forefront; her personality has been given more detail, most notably an interest in Amazonian archaeology
Overall I thought it was a very good and spiritually faithful rendition, especially in Calvin's relationships to robots and her defense of them as being more moral than people. The screenplay does show its late-70s vintage somewhat in how there are scenes that have a Terminator or Blade Runner vibe, and it also exposes the age of the original stories. From the perspective of the year 2012, when we're nuts about self-driving cars and the like, it's tough to imagine mobs of people getting angry enough about automation to go on a robot pogrom. The idea that people would be resistant to a robot president is somewhat more understandable; Asimov wrote that idea as an allegory for anti-Semitism and it's obviously true that prejudice has been far from conquered. I also won't complain about the inclusion of stuff like teleportation or mind-reading robots, because this is science fiction.
August 7, 2013
In 1977 Harlan Ellison tried to adapt Asimov's groundbreaking collection of robot stories for the silver screen. In the wake of Star Wars, science fiction was hot and studios wanted to capitalize. Unfortunately, his screenplay was never produced due to budget concerns and "creative differences". According to Harlan, though, the differences weren't so much creative as personal. By his own account, Harlan told the head of CBS Studios he had the "brains of an artichoke", and the executive swore he'd never work with him again.
To make the screenplay work, Harlan did two things that (in hindsight) were pretty darn smart--and I don't know any other author who would have thought of them.
First, he invented a framing device based on Citizen Kane. The outer story follows a reporter trying to track down details about Susan Calvin, the pioneer of robot psychology. He can't gain access to her directly, so he travels the solar system to conduct interviews with people who worked with her over the past 50 years. We (the audience) get to see this future universe created by Susan and her enigmatic robots. Each interview is then relayed as a flashback; each corresponding to a different Isaac Asimov short story, so we get to watch how society evolved over time, just as in the book.
Second, Harlan inserts Susan Calvin into each of the flashbacks making her the focus of the story. Whereas Calvin was a bit-player or bystander in most of Asimov's stories, now she takes center stage. She becomes even more important than the robots. This turns a series of cerebral locked-room puzzles into a human story of struggle, sacrifice, and vision.
Harlan doesn't always choose the best stories from the book, but instead he chose the ones that would translate best to celluloid. "Reason" was clearly the most thought-provoking of the Powell-and-Donovan stories, but it was eschewed for "Runaround" which is more visual and action-oriented. "Little Lost Robot" was a chilling look at the moral consequences of using robots as sentient slaves, but it was omitted in favor of "Liar" and "Lenny" which accentuated the emotional scars and moral choices Susan endured.
Asimov loved the screenplay and was quoted as saying it would have been "the first really adult, complex, worthwhile science fiction movie ever made." He eventually serialized it for his magazine in 1987. It later appeared in book form with illustrations by Mark Zug in 1994.
The screenplay was not perfect, and a few things I disliked intensely. Ellison included aliens and teleportation in his future world; neither were consistent with Asimov's vision and they smacked a little too strongly of Star Trek. Also, Ellison's final act included a robot-saves-mankind-from-evil-computer flashback. I wish he had stuck to the facts of Asimov's short stories "Evidence" and "The Evitable Conflicts", which showed how a robot manipulated mankind to save man from himself. (I read somewhere that "Evidence" was owned by a different studio, so Ellison could not reuse that scenario).
But in the end, these are just quibbles. Ellison's script ran circles around the I, Robot move that did eventually get made. That 2004 action vehicle for Will Smith bore little resemblance to Isaac Asimov's original vision.
Ellison's movie is truly the best science fiction movie that we never got to see.
To make the screenplay work, Harlan did two things that (in hindsight) were pretty darn smart--and I don't know any other author who would have thought of them.
First, he invented a framing device based on Citizen Kane. The outer story follows a reporter trying to track down details about Susan Calvin, the pioneer of robot psychology. He can't gain access to her directly, so he travels the solar system to conduct interviews with people who worked with her over the past 50 years. We (the audience) get to see this future universe created by Susan and her enigmatic robots. Each interview is then relayed as a flashback; each corresponding to a different Isaac Asimov short story, so we get to watch how society evolved over time, just as in the book.
Second, Harlan inserts Susan Calvin into each of the flashbacks making her the focus of the story. Whereas Calvin was a bit-player or bystander in most of Asimov's stories, now she takes center stage. She becomes even more important than the robots. This turns a series of cerebral locked-room puzzles into a human story of struggle, sacrifice, and vision.
Harlan doesn't always choose the best stories from the book, but instead he chose the ones that would translate best to celluloid. "Reason" was clearly the most thought-provoking of the Powell-and-Donovan stories, but it was eschewed for "Runaround" which is more visual and action-oriented. "Little Lost Robot" was a chilling look at the moral consequences of using robots as sentient slaves, but it was omitted in favor of "Liar" and "Lenny" which accentuated the emotional scars and moral choices Susan endured.
Asimov loved the screenplay and was quoted as saying it would have been "the first really adult, complex, worthwhile science fiction movie ever made." He eventually serialized it for his magazine in 1987. It later appeared in book form with illustrations by Mark Zug in 1994.
The screenplay was not perfect, and a few things I disliked intensely. Ellison included aliens and teleportation in his future world; neither were consistent with Asimov's vision and they smacked a little too strongly of Star Trek. Also, Ellison's final act included a robot-saves-mankind-from-evil-computer flashback. I wish he had stuck to the facts of Asimov's short stories "Evidence" and "The Evitable Conflicts", which showed how a robot manipulated mankind to save man from himself. (I read somewhere that "Evidence" was owned by a different studio, so Ellison could not reuse that scenario).
But in the end, these are just quibbles. Ellison's script ran circles around the I, Robot move that did eventually get made. That 2004 action vehicle for Will Smith bore little resemblance to Isaac Asimov's original vision.
Ellison's movie is truly the best science fiction movie that we never got to see.
Read
September 17, 2017In the 70s, when Asimov was still alive, Harlan Ellison got tapped to write a screenplay for I, Robot; but the script that we have is 270 pages long and Ellison was not shy about calling executives idiots, so this version never got made. Some people consider that a great shame; for instance, Asimov was reported to have said that this was the first adult science fiction movie. Now, there are huge changes that Ellison made to the context here (more on that in a moment), but I can see why Asimov liked this as an adaptation since Ellison focused on the philosophical issue at the heart of Asimov's stories: how good can people be and how could our replacements be better? And Ellison nicely chose not to write these stories as an anthology script (Tales of Robots!), but as a Citizen Kane-style recording of remembrances with Calvin put in to all the stories. (So, Powell and Donovan tell the reporter about how Calvin saved them in the story "Runaround," though she doesn't appear in that story.) And there is an epic through-line about President Byerley and how he never seemed to age even with all the stress of stopping the war.
But all that said, eh. The frame is a little too nakedly ripped from Citizen Kane (so, good for doing something other than an anthology, bad for being so obvious about your inspiration); and some of the flash seems unnecessary and budget-bloating (another reason why this movie never got made). For instance, Ellison has all of these aliens in the story, and the Robot stories of Asimov are rather famously alien-less. (For one thing, it keeps the focus on humans and their companion robots; for another thing, I think editor John W. Campbell was going through one of his anti-alien phases when Asimov was writing this. Don't quote me on that, though.) Lastly, I'm not sad that this wasn't made into a movie because the through-line doesn't entirely make sense--Byerley was a robot, so robots are good, but then he stopped a war that was secretly fomented by other robots, so robots are bad? And all of this means that people might be good? Thematically, there's something that doesn't quite gel here.
And, as a script, this is so Ellisonian that it's hard to read as a model of scriptwriting and seems more like a "I would've done X" rewriting of Asimov's stories as a novel. For your enjoyment, here's some Ellison as a sample:
"And Herbie screams! A sound we've never heard on this Earth before. A SOUND THAT CHILLS US, that contains in it all the pain of inarticulate creatures senselessly murdered, small things crushed underfoot, seals bashed with ball bats, whales punctured by exploding harpoons, cows having their throats slit, millions going to the furnaces, memories of the rack and the boot and the Inquisition. A SOUND OF HORROR and ABSOLUTE, UTTER AGONY!"
If that sounds like fun to you, there's 270 more pages of that.
But all that said, eh. The frame is a little too nakedly ripped from Citizen Kane (so, good for doing something other than an anthology, bad for being so obvious about your inspiration); and some of the flash seems unnecessary and budget-bloating (another reason why this movie never got made). For instance, Ellison has all of these aliens in the story, and the Robot stories of Asimov are rather famously alien-less. (For one thing, it keeps the focus on humans and their companion robots; for another thing, I think editor John W. Campbell was going through one of his anti-alien phases when Asimov was writing this. Don't quote me on that, though.) Lastly, I'm not sad that this wasn't made into a movie because the through-line doesn't entirely make sense--Byerley was a robot, so robots are good, but then he stopped a war that was secretly fomented by other robots, so robots are bad? And all of this means that people might be good? Thematically, there's something that doesn't quite gel here.
And, as a script, this is so Ellisonian that it's hard to read as a model of scriptwriting and seems more like a "I would've done X" rewriting of Asimov's stories as a novel. For your enjoyment, here's some Ellison as a sample:
"And Herbie screams! A sound we've never heard on this Earth before. A SOUND THAT CHILLS US, that contains in it all the pain of inarticulate creatures senselessly murdered, small things crushed underfoot, seals bashed with ball bats, whales punctured by exploding harpoons, cows having their throats slit, millions going to the furnaces, memories of the rack and the boot and the Inquisition. A SOUND OF HORROR and ABSOLUTE, UTTER AGONY!"
If that sounds like fun to you, there's 270 more pages of that.
July 17, 2013
Harlan Ellison's I, ROBOT is an interesting (if flawed) read that manages simultaneously to surpass the awfulness that is Proyas's film and fall short of Asimov's original text.
While Ellison's screenplay holds much truer to Asimov's vision than the aforementioned film, in many ways it still wouldn't make a great film. Ellison crafts his screenplay by expanding and focusing upon two of the characters from Asimov's book: Susan Calvin and Robert Bratenahl (who?). Calvin is a logical choice for a central character, and Ellison's expansion of her story is mostly good (sometimes her inclusion in the stories from I, ROBOT is odd, as in the Speedy story, but it adds cohesion to the narrative). However, Bratenahl (the reporter who loosely ties together the stories in Asimov's book) is simply not an interesting or likable enough character to play a lead role. Perhaps this is due to the lack of source material (Asimov doesn't spend much time telling us about the character), but it is still an enormous flaw in Ellison's adaptation.
There are other flaws as well (e.g., Ellison's somewhat patronizing tone in some sections, the disjointed ending), and while it is still interesting to see an intelligent take on Asimov's classic tale, I am unconvinced that I, ROBOT would make a good movie -- which is only partially Ellison's fault. At its core, I, ROBOT is a collection of short stories which explore the dynamics of the Three Laws of Robotics. The cast of characters changes in each story (Calvin is mostly, but not completely, constant) and only the theme of the laws truly ties the tales together (much like Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, which was also a great book adapted into an abysmal film). This type of book simply does not translate well to film, which becomes clear after reading Ellison's script.
As a side-note, Mark Zug (the illustrator) does some excellent work, and the volume itself is quiet beautiful and worth having simply to look through.
While Ellison's screenplay holds much truer to Asimov's vision than the aforementioned film, in many ways it still wouldn't make a great film. Ellison crafts his screenplay by expanding and focusing upon two of the characters from Asimov's book: Susan Calvin and Robert Bratenahl (who?). Calvin is a logical choice for a central character, and Ellison's expansion of her story is mostly good (sometimes her inclusion in the stories from I, ROBOT is odd, as in the Speedy story, but it adds cohesion to the narrative). However, Bratenahl (the reporter who loosely ties together the stories in Asimov's book) is simply not an interesting or likable enough character to play a lead role. Perhaps this is due to the lack of source material (Asimov doesn't spend much time telling us about the character), but it is still an enormous flaw in Ellison's adaptation.
There are other flaws as well (e.g., Ellison's somewhat patronizing tone in some sections, the disjointed ending), and while it is still interesting to see an intelligent take on Asimov's classic tale, I am unconvinced that I, ROBOT would make a good movie -- which is only partially Ellison's fault. At its core, I, ROBOT is a collection of short stories which explore the dynamics of the Three Laws of Robotics. The cast of characters changes in each story (Calvin is mostly, but not completely, constant) and only the theme of the laws truly ties the tales together (much like Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, which was also a great book adapted into an abysmal film). This type of book simply does not translate well to film, which becomes clear after reading Ellison's script.
As a side-note, Mark Zug (the illustrator) does some excellent work, and the volume itself is quiet beautiful and worth having simply to look through.
July 6, 2023
Synopsis (from the back of the book): The Greatest Science Fiction Movie Never Made! For more than 25 years numerous attempts were made to adapt Isaac Asimov's classic story-cycle, I, Robot, to the motion picture medium. all efforts failed. The magical, memorable tales of mechanized servitors with positronic brains, and the ways in which such amazing creations would forever alter human society through the justly famous Three Laws of Robotics, defied the most cunning efforts of scenarists and filmmakers. In 1977, producers approached multiple-award-winning author Harlan Ellison to take a crack at this "impossible" project. He accepted the challenge, and produced an astonishing screenplay that Asimov felt would be "The first really adult, complex, worthwhile science fiction movie ever made."
But it wasn't...made that is. Due to creative differences...or, as Ellison tells it, because he told a producer at Warner Brothers that he had "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke" after said producer proved he hadn't even read the screenplay he was attempting to make "suggestions" about...the plan was scrapped. The result? This incredible screenplay moldered for a while, then was published in Asimov's SF Magazine, and, finally, was brought to the public in this edition. The movie Ellison envisioned and Asimov approved is what science fiction fans deserved to see...not the movie we got with Will Smith.
Ellison frames the collection of separate stories with a story of Robert Bratenahl, a reporter, seeking the truth behind the connection between Dr. Susan Calvin, a famous robopsychologist, and Stephen Byerly, the recently deceased first President of the Galactic Federation. In doing so, he brings Calvin and her story very much to forefront--something not apparent in the Asimov stories, but which the author approved. We follow Bratenahl on his journey as seeks an interview with the reclusive Calvin...a journey that ends in an ancient structure in the Amazon jungle.
The book itself is beautiful with lavish illustrations by Mark Zug. It had been awhile since I had read a screenplay, so it took me a bit to get into the rhythm of reading work that was meant to filmed. But once I settled in, I thoroughly enjoyed Ellison's vision of Asimov's world. Now I have a sudden urge to reread all of Asimov's robot stories and novels again....
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block.
But it wasn't...made that is. Due to creative differences...or, as Ellison tells it, because he told a producer at Warner Brothers that he had "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke" after said producer proved he hadn't even read the screenplay he was attempting to make "suggestions" about...the plan was scrapped. The result? This incredible screenplay moldered for a while, then was published in Asimov's SF Magazine, and, finally, was brought to the public in this edition. The movie Ellison envisioned and Asimov approved is what science fiction fans deserved to see...not the movie we got with Will Smith.
Ellison frames the collection of separate stories with a story of Robert Bratenahl, a reporter, seeking the truth behind the connection between Dr. Susan Calvin, a famous robopsychologist, and Stephen Byerly, the recently deceased first President of the Galactic Federation. In doing so, he brings Calvin and her story very much to forefront--something not apparent in the Asimov stories, but which the author approved. We follow Bratenahl on his journey as seeks an interview with the reclusive Calvin...a journey that ends in an ancient structure in the Amazon jungle.
The book itself is beautiful with lavish illustrations by Mark Zug. It had been awhile since I had read a screenplay, so it took me a bit to get into the rhythm of reading work that was meant to filmed. But once I settled in, I thoroughly enjoyed Ellison's vision of Asimov's world. Now I have a sudden urge to reread all of Asimov's robot stories and novels again....
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block.
August 22, 2018
One of the most charming aspects of an Ellison oeuvre is the author's sanguine riposts in which he coolly roasts the bastions of mediocrity that assail his written work. Ellison's rants are the stuff of legend with such complete screw ups such as a the low budget Canadian produced Starlost among one of the many works pinned with his odourific pseudonym Cordwainder Bird. In this Hollywood studio executive Bob Shapiro is the target, who's intellect is compared unfavourably first to an artichoke, then to a lima bean. And in that Harlan Jay Ellison is being generous.
The Script is an enjoyable read, lavish in terms of its diverse scenery which at the time would have cost over 37 million. The Story is an homage, both to Asimov, who praised the result, and in to Citizen Kane. The lead character Robert Bratenahl (Ellison's dream casting of Martin Sheen deserves a nod to Sheen's roles in Apocalypse Now and Gandhi) plays the part of Kane's reporter/biographer Jerry Walker, and Joanne Woodward was his choice to play Susan Calvin. Covering the funeral of Stephen Byerly, the first President of the Galactic Federation, Bratenahl spies the reclusive robopsychologist Calvin and tries to pin her down for an interview in order to explore rumours that she was once Byerly's lover. Ellison uses the 4 Asimov shorts (Robbie, Lennie, Liar and Speedy) in flashback sequences in order to uncover parts of Calvin/Kane's life, taking an acceptable small licence in the first case replacing "Gloria Westerbrook" in Robbie with a young Calvin herself as the little girl with a robot playmate. In the process a near century of rapid change is unveiled during which mankind fought luddite fundamentalism, massive wars but also reached for the stars and colonized their planets. Perhaps too rapid a change but he needs to fit events into Calvin's lifetime. In the hands of the right director it could have been quite good.
Most of the loose ends are tied up by the end, with the exception of Cosmo publisher Rowe's connections and motivations. The battle fought between Byerly and the World Computer fought with equations doesn't work well as drama, though the use of the Uncertainty Principle does make sense. Quite frankly it is a Deus ex Machina moment that could use an expository dialog - and re-involving the Rev. Soldash or at least elements of the Church of the Mortal Flesh introduced earlier in the Robbie fragment IMV would have improved continuity. Another quibble is the ending. At heart like much science fiction, I Robot is a morality play with a message that appears in the denouement that illuminates the whole, and whereas I liked it, it was more Ellison than Asimov, because in the end an Asimov robot story is about the 3 Laws, and how the three laws are really better versions of ourselves. This wasn't quite it.
However I love both authors and Susan Calvin was one of my fictive role models growing up. Ellison's gift was to bring that world back to life. Recommended.
The Script is an enjoyable read, lavish in terms of its diverse scenery which at the time would have cost over 37 million. The Story is an homage, both to Asimov, who praised the result, and in to Citizen Kane. The lead character Robert Bratenahl (Ellison's dream casting of Martin Sheen deserves a nod to Sheen's roles in Apocalypse Now and Gandhi) plays the part of Kane's reporter/biographer Jerry Walker, and Joanne Woodward was his choice to play Susan Calvin. Covering the funeral of Stephen Byerly, the first President of the Galactic Federation, Bratenahl spies the reclusive robopsychologist Calvin and tries to pin her down for an interview in order to explore rumours that she was once Byerly's lover. Ellison uses the 4 Asimov shorts (Robbie, Lennie, Liar and Speedy) in flashback sequences in order to uncover parts of Calvin/Kane's life, taking an acceptable small licence in the first case replacing "Gloria Westerbrook" in Robbie with a young Calvin herself as the little girl with a robot playmate. In the process a near century of rapid change is unveiled during which mankind fought luddite fundamentalism, massive wars but also reached for the stars and colonized their planets. Perhaps too rapid a change but he needs to fit events into Calvin's lifetime. In the hands of the right director it could have been quite good.
Most of the loose ends are tied up by the end, with the exception of Cosmo publisher Rowe's connections and motivations. The battle fought between Byerly and the World Computer fought with equations doesn't work well as drama, though the use of the Uncertainty Principle does make sense. Quite frankly it is a Deus ex Machina moment that could use an expository dialog - and re-involving the Rev. Soldash or at least elements of the Church of the Mortal Flesh introduced earlier in the Robbie fragment IMV would have improved continuity. Another quibble is the ending. At heart like much science fiction, I Robot is a morality play with a message that appears in the denouement that illuminates the whole, and whereas I liked it, it was more Ellison than Asimov, because in the end an Asimov robot story is about the 3 Laws, and how the three laws are really better versions of ourselves. This wasn't quite it.
However I love both authors and Susan Calvin was one of my fictive role models growing up. Ellison's gift was to bring that world back to life. Recommended.
Read
May 18, 2023I think it’s telling that the “greatest Sci-Fi movie never made” or whatever it was marketed as was invented by Ellison who, one could tell based off of his short essay before the script, that he was very much up his own ass. I’m far from a stickler of sticking to the source material when it comes to adaptations but he could have at least added some of the more interesting storylines from the book. While I do like “Robbie” and “Liar!” I really felt he chose the most boring of the Donovan and Powell stories and then added the Lenny story that wasn’t even from the book instead of the two Byerley stories which were so much more relevant to the plot he created. The plotting is just a mess and Ellison focuses way too heavily on details that just don’t matter, writing massive paragraphs detailing things that really don’t need to be detailed in a screenplay. On top of that the dialogue is just straight up bad. Don’t waste your time, I wish I didn’t.
November 15, 2018
This is the screenplay Ellison wrote in 1978 for Warners. It never made it to the screen, of course. It was probably not helpful that Ellison compared the intellectual capacity of the producer to that of an artichoke.
It is a very faithful adaption and Asimov loved it. It would have made a great film. Probably. Well, maybe not. I am not sure about the climax where the humanoid Robot and later President fights a duel with the world governing computer by citing formulas and “winning” with Heisenberg. This sounds corny on paper and would be next to impossible to transform to the medium of film. The liar episode is excellent. And Joanne Woodward as Susan Calvin would have been great.
It is a very faithful adaption and Asimov loved it. It would have made a great film. Probably. Well, maybe not. I am not sure about the climax where the humanoid Robot and later President fights a duel with the world governing computer by citing formulas and “winning” with Heisenberg. This sounds corny on paper and would be next to impossible to transform to the medium of film. The liar episode is excellent. And Joanne Woodward as Susan Calvin would have been great.
June 7, 2013
While there seems to be a lot of potential in Harlan Ellison's treatment of the classic Isaac Asimov Robot stories, I think a few more drafts would be in order, if not a complete rethinking of the concept, before it would be ready for production. In his interesting and informative introductory essay, Ellison states that he constructed the framing device of reporter Robert Bratenahl's search for robot guru Susan Calvin as a means of avoiding an episodic structure, but since this story frame itself is rather episodic, he compounds the problem rather than defeating it. I haven't read the original stories yet, so I don't know whether this is a viable alternative, but I found myself wondering whether some of them could have been combined or opened up to provide a more organic, smoother story arc.
Having said this, I also want to acknowledge that this is a script for a true SCIENCE FICTION film, not one of the the horror films and action films dressed up with androids and aliens that we usually get from Hollywood. That alone is this script's greatest stength.
Having said this, I also want to acknowledge that this is a script for a true SCIENCE FICTION film, not one of the the horror films and action films dressed up with androids and aliens that we usually get from Hollywood. That alone is this script's greatest stength.
December 13, 2016
This is amazing. Ellison does what Asimov did not: write a compelling story centered on a character. Susan Calvin is connected to every robot of Asimov's stories. Her childhood mirrors Ellison's own (I've read an Ellison bio) in spots which gives it the ability to emotionally resonate.
Plus, there's a great battle at the end where characters use physics like magic. Uncertainty principle for the win! Brilliant.
Plus, there's a great battle at the end where characters use physics like magic. Uncertainty principle for the win! Brilliant.
September 21, 2012
Wow! At first, I was caught up in the script format. I didn't like it. Then, as I read on. I fell in love & couldn't put it down. I wish I had Asimov's I, Robot for comparison.
October 18, 2025
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov adapted for BBC Radio by Richard Kurti
A different version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... and http://realini.blogspot.ro/
Science fiction is not my preferred genre.
Not anymore…when I was a teenager I used to enjoy it, but changed the preference to classic novels, positive psychology and other subjects
Nevertheless, there would be some classics that take place in the future and are worth reading, like the book that I am reading now:
- Blindness by Jose Saramago
The themes of Robots, singularity and Artificial Intelligence are extremely important in the world of today.
We are ever more dependent on Artificial Intelligence, which is with us not only most of the time, but All the Time.
Without the smart phone, which has the computing power of super, heavy and immense machines of just decades ago, we are lost.
The personal intelligent assistant that is associated or not with these phones plays the role of a robot…
- Alexa or Siri: order pizza for me, regulate the temperature, change the channels and so much more
One of the most important themes in the play is the relationship between robots and humans, which are governed by three major rules.
In a classic book on the future- Singularity, it is estimated that in about twenty years’ time we would have AI that would surpass human intelligence beyond our imagination, with a single supercomputer knowing All There Is To Know
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
These would be the laws that robots must obey, but the question is what happens when humans interfere and change the game.
What about psychological harm? And situations when humans place robots in “impossible situations” like telling them:
- Get lost you useless piece of machinery…or words to that effect
In that particular case, the AI knew that it is “superior” but obeyed the rule, making itself- or is it herself or himself? - Impossible to find…for some time at least.
At times, the awkward and improbable situations can be funny and if one is optimistic, one can rest assured that we will not confront AI.
But luminaries like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have expressed more than concern regarding the future of robots.
At one point, a “naughty” robot is asking its handler some difficult questions and answering with insolence, humor or both:
- Who created me?
- I did
- You?! Hahaha is not heard, but the robot says: a superior being creates an inferior one and not the other way around…
- Look at the inefficient way you use energy and the nearly 100% wield that we obtain from energy sources…
And it all starts with a robot baby sitter and the baby that gets too attached to it –her or him? - And makes the mother switch off this nanny…
The baby grows and becomes a lawyer who has to travel to Siberia to deal with some problems...the commentary is:
- Why do we always have issues in places like Siberia and not The Bahamas…or something similar
We later find out about a robot is not just able to read minds, but he/she/it can start talking or joining a conversation in…someone’s head.
Alhamdulillah, we are not there yet…
Even if, technology is rapidly advancing and the moods can be read and there is a lot that AI can already tell by looking at the face, the eyes and movements of people…
I would like to have one or a few robots, provided they respect the three rules.
A different version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... and http://realini.blogspot.ro/
Science fiction is not my preferred genre.
Not anymore…when I was a teenager I used to enjoy it, but changed the preference to classic novels, positive psychology and other subjects
Nevertheless, there would be some classics that take place in the future and are worth reading, like the book that I am reading now:
- Blindness by Jose Saramago
The themes of Robots, singularity and Artificial Intelligence are extremely important in the world of today.
We are ever more dependent on Artificial Intelligence, which is with us not only most of the time, but All the Time.
Without the smart phone, which has the computing power of super, heavy and immense machines of just decades ago, we are lost.
The personal intelligent assistant that is associated or not with these phones plays the role of a robot…
- Alexa or Siri: order pizza for me, regulate the temperature, change the channels and so much more
One of the most important themes in the play is the relationship between robots and humans, which are governed by three major rules.
In a classic book on the future- Singularity, it is estimated that in about twenty years’ time we would have AI that would surpass human intelligence beyond our imagination, with a single supercomputer knowing All There Is To Know
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
These would be the laws that robots must obey, but the question is what happens when humans interfere and change the game.
What about psychological harm? And situations when humans place robots in “impossible situations” like telling them:
- Get lost you useless piece of machinery…or words to that effect
In that particular case, the AI knew that it is “superior” but obeyed the rule, making itself- or is it herself or himself? - Impossible to find…for some time at least.
At times, the awkward and improbable situations can be funny and if one is optimistic, one can rest assured that we will not confront AI.
But luminaries like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have expressed more than concern regarding the future of robots.
At one point, a “naughty” robot is asking its handler some difficult questions and answering with insolence, humor or both:
- Who created me?
- I did
- You?! Hahaha is not heard, but the robot says: a superior being creates an inferior one and not the other way around…
- Look at the inefficient way you use energy and the nearly 100% wield that we obtain from energy sources…
And it all starts with a robot baby sitter and the baby that gets too attached to it –her or him? - And makes the mother switch off this nanny…
The baby grows and becomes a lawyer who has to travel to Siberia to deal with some problems...the commentary is:
- Why do we always have issues in places like Siberia and not The Bahamas…or something similar
We later find out about a robot is not just able to read minds, but he/she/it can start talking or joining a conversation in…someone’s head.
Alhamdulillah, we are not there yet…
Even if, technology is rapidly advancing and the moods can be read and there is a lot that AI can already tell by looking at the face, the eyes and movements of people…
I would like to have one or a few robots, provided they respect the three rules.
April 19, 2020
And with this book, the Asimov project wraps up . . .
Before the execrable Will Smith movie of the same name, multiple attempts had been made to bring Isaac Asimov's I, Robot collection to the big screen. All failed for one reason or another. One of the last attempts included a screenplay by the great science fiction writer Harlan Ellison, which had the full blessing and participation of Asimov himself. Completed in 1978, it landed in development hell. It was published as a serial in a science fiction magazine in the late 1980's.
The version here collects the screenplay into a single volume for the first time, and includes illustrations and conceptual art by Mark Zug. It was published posthumously for Asimov, but while Ellison was still alive. Some called it the "greatest science fiction movie never made." The claim may have some merit.
Rather than crafting an anthology of robot stories, Ellison gives the movie a framing device that involves a mystery. Famed robo-psychologist Susan Calvin, who has long been a recluse, is seen at the funeral of Galactic Federation President Stephen Byerley and investigative reporter Robert Bratenahl wants to know why. As he chases down leads to try to find Calvin (who is old but still believed to be alive) he encounters numerous acquaintances who tell him stories of her younger days, allowing the tales in the original I, Robot book to come to life as flashbacks.
But honestly, the appeal here is not the old Asimov stories (which are great, of course) but the Ellison framework. Ellison does a credible job of creating an air of otherness in his science fiction, which makes the story of Bratenahl and Calvin feel like a true alternate future. The Zug images, tinged with surrealism, also help. The character-driven nature of the piece also feels refreshing. Had this been filmed, it would not have been a pulse-pounding actioner, but rather a slow-burn psychological thriller, not unlike Gattaca or Solaris.
As a bookend to Asimov's science fiction career, which really took off with his robot stories, this feels like a suitable tribute. I recommend it to fans of both Asimov and Ellison.
Before the execrable Will Smith movie of the same name, multiple attempts had been made to bring Isaac Asimov's I, Robot collection to the big screen. All failed for one reason or another. One of the last attempts included a screenplay by the great science fiction writer Harlan Ellison, which had the full blessing and participation of Asimov himself. Completed in 1978, it landed in development hell. It was published as a serial in a science fiction magazine in the late 1980's.
The version here collects the screenplay into a single volume for the first time, and includes illustrations and conceptual art by Mark Zug. It was published posthumously for Asimov, but while Ellison was still alive. Some called it the "greatest science fiction movie never made." The claim may have some merit.
Rather than crafting an anthology of robot stories, Ellison gives the movie a framing device that involves a mystery. Famed robo-psychologist Susan Calvin, who has long been a recluse, is seen at the funeral of Galactic Federation President Stephen Byerley and investigative reporter Robert Bratenahl wants to know why. As he chases down leads to try to find Calvin (who is old but still believed to be alive) he encounters numerous acquaintances who tell him stories of her younger days, allowing the tales in the original I, Robot book to come to life as flashbacks.
But honestly, the appeal here is not the old Asimov stories (which are great, of course) but the Ellison framework. Ellison does a credible job of creating an air of otherness in his science fiction, which makes the story of Bratenahl and Calvin feel like a true alternate future. The Zug images, tinged with surrealism, also help. The character-driven nature of the piece also feels refreshing. Had this been filmed, it would not have been a pulse-pounding actioner, but rather a slow-burn psychological thriller, not unlike Gattaca or Solaris.
As a bookend to Asimov's science fiction career, which really took off with his robot stories, this feels like a suitable tribute. I recommend it to fans of both Asimov and Ellison.
April 28, 2024
This is NOT the screenplay for the 2004 Will Smith movie, which apparently has very little to do with the original Isaac Asimov novel. This is a screenplay written by Harlan Ellison that was meant to be truer to the original text but, sadly, was never made for a variety of reasons. Though I haven't read the I, Robot novel yet (something I hope to rectify soon), I read the screenplay out of curiosity... and I dearly wish we would have gotten this film. It's not an action-packed screenplay, but it's a fascinating character study that could have been a masterpiece.
I, Robot is a short story collection, which automatically makes it tricky to adapt to film. Rather than make it an anthology film, however, Ellison opts to give the story a Citizen Kane feel, with a reporter investigating the life of Susan Calvin, who revolutionized robotics. This makes for a much more introspective story that can feel a little fragmented at times, but also provides a narrative arc to tie together elements that might otherwise have been entirely disconnected.
The technology in this story can feel a little dated at times, but that's to be expected of any science fiction story that's more than a few years old. And while I haven't read the original novel, I've been told that this adaptation does omit certain stories. Which is fair -- any adaptation of a work is ultimately going to leave something on the cutting room floor, and it's possible Harlan simply chose the stories that best fit his narrative device or wouldn't be difficult to adapt to film.
I can only imagine what Asimov would have thought of the version of I, Robot we ultimately got -- a brainless action film that mostly served as a vehicle to make Will Smith look awesome. But I do hope that, someday, this version of his novel makes it to the big screen.
I, Robot is a short story collection, which automatically makes it tricky to adapt to film. Rather than make it an anthology film, however, Ellison opts to give the story a Citizen Kane feel, with a reporter investigating the life of Susan Calvin, who revolutionized robotics. This makes for a much more introspective story that can feel a little fragmented at times, but also provides a narrative arc to tie together elements that might otherwise have been entirely disconnected.
The technology in this story can feel a little dated at times, but that's to be expected of any science fiction story that's more than a few years old. And while I haven't read the original novel, I've been told that this adaptation does omit certain stories. Which is fair -- any adaptation of a work is ultimately going to leave something on the cutting room floor, and it's possible Harlan simply chose the stories that best fit his narrative device or wouldn't be difficult to adapt to film.
I can only imagine what Asimov would have thought of the version of I, Robot we ultimately got -- a brainless action film that mostly served as a vehicle to make Will Smith look awesome. But I do hope that, someday, this version of his novel makes it to the big screen.
January 9, 2023
Okay, so I was not expecting to read this. Found it for $3.00 at the local second hand store and was intrigued. I'd never heard about this work, but having read the source material by Isaac Asimov years ago I was intrigued. Yes, I saw the 2004 Will Smith version of the film. I'm probably in the minority of Asimov fans who enjoyed that popcorn flick. Was it even remotely faithful to the source material? Absolutely not, but it was a fun, big budget sci-fi romp, and I will never fault a film for that. I digress.
This work is incredibly faithful to Asimov. I mean, it had his blessing way back in 1978. Shame it didn't get made, but I can't imagine that this film would have made a ton of money. I'm sure though that it would have been a cult classic. (Although, who knows if Irvin Kershner as director, hot off The Empire Strikes Back, had been given the green light, maybe?)
I will say this was the first time I've ever read a screenplay. I didn't find that aspect of this book very easy. I love reading plays, but this was much more difficult. I had no idea that screenplay writers actually wrote in so much detail about how certain scenes were to be filmed. I always just assumed that was the director's job. Personally, I found this a bit distracting. If you can get past that, it's an intriguing and thought provoking read. I recommend it, especially if you are familiar with the original short story collection.
My rating: 3.5 Stars
This work is incredibly faithful to Asimov. I mean, it had his blessing way back in 1978. Shame it didn't get made, but I can't imagine that this film would have made a ton of money. I'm sure though that it would have been a cult classic. (Although, who knows if Irvin Kershner as director, hot off The Empire Strikes Back, had been given the green light, maybe?)
I will say this was the first time I've ever read a screenplay. I didn't find that aspect of this book very easy. I love reading plays, but this was much more difficult. I had no idea that screenplay writers actually wrote in so much detail about how certain scenes were to be filmed. I always just assumed that was the director's job. Personally, I found this a bit distracting. If you can get past that, it's an intriguing and thought provoking read. I recommend it, especially if you are familiar with the original short story collection.
My rating: 3.5 Stars
September 16, 2017
DO NOT BUY if you are looking for a really illustrated screenplay. This book is 270 pages long and only has 15 full page illustrations. 15!!! That's one every 18 pages! And they are not even good, some of them are extremely dull scenes (you have one with two dudes having a drink at a bar LOL, dude, I want to see the robots or Susan Calvin FFS!). Other than these full color pages, it has some few tiny black-and-white drawings of the characters scattered all over which I think don't add much. Since I am a man of numbers, I can tell you that, adding it all up, the full color images and the tiny ones, you will get at most 17 pages of illustrated material. In other words only 6% of the total area of this book is actually illustration.
I am very disappointed with this. It says ILLUSTRATED! And while I understand there can't be illustrations like in a graphic novel/comic book, I expected to see much more about the robots and the characters. I feel scammed.
*I haven't read it yet, the screenplay might actually be really good like most people say. But I'm giving it 1 star for what I consider is false advertising.
** The back cover actually says "With 16 pages of full color art by Mark Zug" but maybe they should've added "... but that's about it"
I am very disappointed with this. It says ILLUSTRATED! And while I understand there can't be illustrations like in a graphic novel/comic book, I expected to see much more about the robots and the characters. I feel scammed.
*I haven't read it yet, the screenplay might actually be really good like most people say. But I'm giving it 1 star for what I consider is false advertising.
** The back cover actually says "With 16 pages of full color art by Mark Zug" but maybe they should've added "... but that's about it"
September 18, 2017
The screenplay takes quite a while to really get to the more recognizable Asimov storylines, about the first half of the book is setup for the audience. Once you get to those parts, it goes quicker (since they also are a bit more interesting that the basic reporter investigating something they shouldn't trope). One part/reveal of the ending felt a lot less impactful due to not actually be given much context throughout the rest of the book, but the rest was pretty good. It did take some getting used to the fact that this is a screenplay, and thus there are a lot of notes on what the camera should be doing at any given moment, and similar directorial choices.
November 18, 2022
I haven't read the original book yet, but from what I can tell, this script adds a CITIZEN KANE-esque plot that ties the various stories into a cohesive narrative. While I think an anthology series may be a better format for adapting a book like I, ROBOT , Ellison does an admirable job of fitting the stories into a single story. I would have loved to see this as an actual film, but the gorgeous illustrations almost make up for it.
August 4, 2021
A must-read for anyone wanting DEPTH in a story. For beginning students in the art of screenwriting this is the BEST example of a sci-fi screenplay made from a book. WARNING! It will break your heart to compare this magnificent work with the atrocious Will Smith vehicle that was made a few years ago.
October 27, 2018
Several stories from the "I, Robot" story collection strung together, with Susan Calvin put even more into them. Not bad. I don't think I'll bother seeing the movie that ended up getting made with a later different script.
February 22, 2020
I am not used to reading screenplay's so that took a little getting used to, but what an incredible adaptation of the original. Well worth the read. I only wish this would have been made into a movie.
May 16, 2017
Very intriguing screenplay that would have made a hell of a film. Greatly combines Asimov's short stories into a mostly coherent narrative that is both thrilling and compelling. Good read!
March 31, 2019
read in the forest next to kimmy. best film never made. bring asimov n ellison back
May 6, 2019
Great screenplay based on Isaac Asimov's novel.
August 27, 2019
I, Robot by way of Citizen Kane. Makes me wonder what would have happened to Blade Runner had this movie ever been made.
December 18, 2020
Why, of why, didn't they film this screenplay instead of the drivel with Will Smith?
Read
March 3, 2022Really bad. Sorry! I wish I could log this book on LetterBoxd so more of my friends could see me shit on it. But alas... it was never made into a movie.
February 4, 2014
Warner Bros., Inc., 1978
Intended Audience: Adult
Sexual content: Mild
Ace/Genderqueer characters: Yes (Robots)
Rating: PG-13 for nudity and language
Writing style: 3/5
Likable characters: 3/5
Plot/Concepts: 3/5
Robert Bratenahl is a reporter for Cosmos magazine. When handed an opportunity to uncover the truth about the famous robopsychologist Susan Calvin and her relationship with Mayor Stephen Byerley, how could he resist? But getting Susan Calvin alone is no easy feat, and the truth may not be something the world is ready to hear.
I, Robot is perhaps the most well-known of Asimov’s works apart from the Foundation trilogy. Part of its current presence in the general consciousness is due to the fact that a movie by the same name took some of Asimov’s ideas from the short stories in I, Robot and tried to mash them together into a much more Hollywood-style action flick. The original spirit of the short stories was not very well preserved in that film, but I had heard that Asimov endorsed this screenplay, so I was excited to check it out. Indeed, the understanding of robot psychology as determined by the Three Laws of Robotics shines through whenever robots are present in this adaptation, although there was not as much of a focus on the robot characters as I would have liked.
This story is really about Susan Calvin, the only female character of Asimov’s I have ever liked. I was afraid that Ellison’s extrapolations of her past and future beyond Asimov’s original stories would feel warped or out of character. But for the most part, he stuck with the original strength and balance of her traits. She was not uncharacteristically softened nor was she portrayed as wholly inhuman. Her adherence (or lack thereof) to gender roles and expectations matched the portrayal in the original stories, and most importantly, her intolerance of humanity’s foibles (and those of malfunctioning robots) is simultaneously explained and accepted as a necessary part of her character. This was a pleasant surprise. Susan has always been easy for me to read as asexual, and that holds true here as well. I have mixed feelings about some particular elements of her back-story, but I don’t consider those misgivings to be a matter of good or bad writing. Besides the absence of good female characters other than Susan Calvin, the only potentially problematic thing I noticed was the presence (and absence) of Indians (supposedly actual American Indians?) in certain settings, and how they came off to me as being either silly/obsolete or romanticized, but I’m not qualified to say whether this would be the perspective of an actual American Indian reading (or watching) this story.
The universe, however, is quite different from Asimov’s in many key points, the most noticeable being the presence of alien races. This alternate universe Ellison is writing in doesn’t make much sense when approached from any understanding of Asimov’s timeline, which sets Susan Calvin as living before humanity had really colonized other worlds at all. In Ellison’s universe, Earth is already Old Earth, and Stephen Byerley was instrumental in creating harmony between humans and the rest of the galaxy. There is a lot of political maneuvering that is referenced but never explained, but I suppose that’s understandable because the world Ellison is showing us glimpses of is so big, both in literal terms and in terms of his vision for humanity and technology. Since this was written for the screen, it is much more visual than Asimov’s works, and a lot of care is taken to describe the various futuristic effects right down to the way doors open or baths work.
Some of the dialogue choices or scenes seem a bit corny in written form, although I imagine whether or not they would carry themselves with power on screen depends a great deal on the director and the actors involved. There is a definite overarching message and moral that Ellison is driving for, and there is no danger of missing his hints about which elements of the story are key to this. I can’t say I was blown away by the ending, but I wasn’t wholly baffled or bored either. I was never attached to Bratenahl or his girlfriend (she didn’t have much personality), but in true Asimov fashion, Ellison’s added robots were instantly likeable for me. The plot was fairly straightforward but clever in trying to tie up some of the loose ends left in the original book, and the answer to these questions fits with the conclusions Asimov draws in some of his other stories.
Ellison’s screenplay was not offensive to my sensibilities as a fan of Asimov’s robot stories, and was mostly a pleasure to read. It wasn’t enormously exciting, but I enjoyed the imaginative take on Asimov’s universe, and especially the included illustrations, which come as intermittent pencil sketches as well as full color pages inserted in the middle as a group. I certainly consider it a necessary addition to my Asimov collection.
Intended Audience: Adult
Sexual content: Mild
Ace/Genderqueer characters: Yes (Robots)
Rating: PG-13 for nudity and language
Writing style: 3/5
Likable characters: 3/5
Plot/Concepts: 3/5
Robert Bratenahl is a reporter for Cosmos magazine. When handed an opportunity to uncover the truth about the famous robopsychologist Susan Calvin and her relationship with Mayor Stephen Byerley, how could he resist? But getting Susan Calvin alone is no easy feat, and the truth may not be something the world is ready to hear.
I, Robot is perhaps the most well-known of Asimov’s works apart from the Foundation trilogy. Part of its current presence in the general consciousness is due to the fact that a movie by the same name took some of Asimov’s ideas from the short stories in I, Robot and tried to mash them together into a much more Hollywood-style action flick. The original spirit of the short stories was not very well preserved in that film, but I had heard that Asimov endorsed this screenplay, so I was excited to check it out. Indeed, the understanding of robot psychology as determined by the Three Laws of Robotics shines through whenever robots are present in this adaptation, although there was not as much of a focus on the robot characters as I would have liked.
This story is really about Susan Calvin, the only female character of Asimov’s I have ever liked. I was afraid that Ellison’s extrapolations of her past and future beyond Asimov’s original stories would feel warped or out of character. But for the most part, he stuck with the original strength and balance of her traits. She was not uncharacteristically softened nor was she portrayed as wholly inhuman. Her adherence (or lack thereof) to gender roles and expectations matched the portrayal in the original stories, and most importantly, her intolerance of humanity’s foibles (and those of malfunctioning robots) is simultaneously explained and accepted as a necessary part of her character. This was a pleasant surprise. Susan has always been easy for me to read as asexual, and that holds true here as well. I have mixed feelings about some particular elements of her back-story, but I don’t consider those misgivings to be a matter of good or bad writing. Besides the absence of good female characters other than Susan Calvin, the only potentially problematic thing I noticed was the presence (and absence) of Indians (supposedly actual American Indians?) in certain settings, and how they came off to me as being either silly/obsolete or romanticized, but I’m not qualified to say whether this would be the perspective of an actual American Indian reading (or watching) this story.
The universe, however, is quite different from Asimov’s in many key points, the most noticeable being the presence of alien races. This alternate universe Ellison is writing in doesn’t make much sense when approached from any understanding of Asimov’s timeline, which sets Susan Calvin as living before humanity had really colonized other worlds at all. In Ellison’s universe, Earth is already Old Earth, and Stephen Byerley was instrumental in creating harmony between humans and the rest of the galaxy. There is a lot of political maneuvering that is referenced but never explained, but I suppose that’s understandable because the world Ellison is showing us glimpses of is so big, both in literal terms and in terms of his vision for humanity and technology. Since this was written for the screen, it is much more visual than Asimov’s works, and a lot of care is taken to describe the various futuristic effects right down to the way doors open or baths work.
Some of the dialogue choices or scenes seem a bit corny in written form, although I imagine whether or not they would carry themselves with power on screen depends a great deal on the director and the actors involved. There is a definite overarching message and moral that Ellison is driving for, and there is no danger of missing his hints about which elements of the story are key to this. I can’t say I was blown away by the ending, but I wasn’t wholly baffled or bored either. I was never attached to Bratenahl or his girlfriend (she didn’t have much personality), but in true Asimov fashion, Ellison’s added robots were instantly likeable for me. The plot was fairly straightforward but clever in trying to tie up some of the loose ends left in the original book, and the answer to these questions fits with the conclusions Asimov draws in some of his other stories.
Ellison’s screenplay was not offensive to my sensibilities as a fan of Asimov’s robot stories, and was mostly a pleasure to read. It wasn’t enormously exciting, but I enjoyed the imaginative take on Asimov’s universe, and especially the included illustrations, which come as intermittent pencil sketches as well as full color pages inserted in the middle as a group. I certainly consider it a necessary addition to my Asimov collection.
June 12, 2020
Completion! This was a very good read. Difficult to get into at first since it is written as a screenplay, but I very much enjoyed it. It's more of a sprawling mystery story, but one that takes you on a journey through different planets told mostly through flashbacks. I would totally pay full price to see a faithful movie adaptation of this screenplay.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews