News Ticker

I, Foundation

I, Robot screenwriter Jeff Vintar tells Sci Fi Wire that he is adapting Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy for the big screen. Sigh.

About John DeNardo (13013 Articles)
John DeNardo is the Managing Editor at SF Signal and a columnist at Kirkus Reviews. He also likes bagels. So there.

12 Comments on I, Foundation

  1. Remember, Vintar wrote I, Robot, then stole the name from Asimov to hype is work. Loser.

  2. Kill me now. Better yet, kill him now, before he spawns again.

  3. Ah, but doesn’t psychohistory dictate that if the adaptation doesn’t happen now, it will eventually?

    Yes, I am an uber-geek.

  4. Unless he’s The Mule. On the other hand, with the help of the Second Foundation, we could erase the problems he causes and shift history back so that somebody with talent does the work.

  5. The “I-robot” film wasn’t Jeff’s idea but mixed his Screen play “Hardwire” (which was an Original Script) with asimov’s 3 laws, stuck in a Asimov character names and they named it I robot so they could use Asimovs Name. Jeff wasn’t too pleased. :-S

    Even so it turned out ok, it made sense as they used the zeroth law.

    From what I’ve read from jeffs posts he seems like a real Asimov fan so I don’t think he will mess the films up as he is working from a proper source that he respects.

    Ok thats my 2 pence 😉

  6. No, it did not turn out O.K. Millions of people who have never been exposed to the excellent Asimov tales now think that piece of screen dreck is what the Good Doctor wrote. I hope the Foundation project is still born.

  7. How many adaptations are true to the book? Lord of the Rings (and, I hear, Harry Potter) comes to mind but not much else.

    And even if the movie strays a bit from the source material, is the result automatically bad? Not necessarily. Minority Report strayed a bit from the source material but I thought it was a very good film.

    And I also wonder how many people are driven to the book after seeing its adaptation anyway?

  8. True…there are many successful movies that don’t “faithfully” follow the book. But they are successful for other reasons–quality of the screen writing, quality of the directing, quality of the acting, for example.

    Let’s look at some movies that did not follow their books…Starship Troopers, I, Robot, 2010 and Contact all come to mind. None of these absolutely followed their source materials.

    In two, you had directors that did not respect the source materials. Screen writers that did not respect the source materials. And actors and actresses that didn’t give a flying leap one way or another.

    In the other two you had directors that respected the source material despite the differences, screen writers that respected the source material despite differences and actors and actresses that tried to do a good job.

    Now, as an exercise for the student, which were the two successful movies and which two can be found in the DVD remainder bins of your local supermarket?

  9. “And I also wonder how many people are driven to the book after seeing its adaptation anyway?”

    As a good and recent example, you might want to look at sales of the Tolkien books after the movies came out. They reappeared on many best seller lists.

    Harry Potter has been up there, movies or no.

  10. yeah, where does this guy live, i have to cut his balls off and tell him never to think of doing this ever agian

    PS. He made the Final Fantasy Spirits Within movie too, we must castrate him to show him the light, that every movie he touches turns to shit

  11. Anonymous // August 25, 2007 at 1:06 am //

    well, it’s not always POSSIBLE to stay with the books. 1. you have a time element.. how long before I have to go pee… 2. you have the cost to make film… 3. you have a modern (mostly illiterate) culture to tend with…

    if you consider, most people want to see a movie where stuff blows up. Hence: I, Robot.

    The LOTR series i felt did the best of staying with the books per the medium of film… and that to some cost of time.

    As for I, Robot… the film was ok… but you have to do 3 things:

    1. disassociate it with the title & asimov

    2. enjoy a story that has some vague hints of I Asimov.

    3. give a little room for our ADHD culture (squirrels do appear)

    If you watch enough early Star Trek, you’ll see lots of asomovian hints… well, he did serve as an advisor.

    Next, one must realize that there were some areas where the I, Robot debacle worked well. I believe it’s totally possible to enjoy it… just go with no expectations. don’t expect someone to tell a story to your liking… and then, look for nuggets of your imagination.

    I know i was able to enjoy Star Wars but was still quite disappointed. The 3rd matrix was HIGHLY disappointing, but i still enjoyed it barely. My little pony’s sequel was phenominal… especially when the rabid unicorn bit off the head of the… uh… wait. what movie are we talking about? oh, Foundation.

    I think it will be possible to enjoy them regardless… like watching the hobbitt if Peter Jackson doesn’t direct it… but you must go with a head full of knowledge of how it is in the book to act as guide posts, but be totally willing to go on the journey the movie takes you on… if you do that, you have the potential opportunity to enjoy a totally new story or take a new tour down an old familiar road… or a little of both… what ever the result, you’ll spend your $8.00 and you’ll watch it… if you do it my way, you’ll complain less.

  12. Anonymous // August 25, 2007 at 1:08 am //

    there’s no real comparison with how we imagine the story when reading the books. nothing will ever replace that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: