
rjsprague
Posts 407
|
8/6/2008 11:38 AM
posted awhile ago
Isaac Asimov
Probably one of the most prolific writers of science fiction I know of, Isaac Asimov is a fascinating person. I just recently read Bicentennial Man, which was made into a movie a few years back. I was wondering, aside from the Asimov pieces that have already been translated to film, what works by him would you like to see on the silver screen? Who would you choose as the cast?
|
|

unclefestering
Posts 145
|
8/20/2008 10:23 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Isaac Asimov
rjsprague:
Probably one of the most prolific writers of science fiction I know of, Isaac Asimov is a fascinating person. I just recently read Bicentennial Man, which was made into a movie a few years back. I was wondering, aside from the Asimov pieces that have already been translated to film, what works by him would you like to see on the silver screen? Who would you choose as the cast?
I would really love to see his Foundation series get the epic treatment it deserves, but I almost think that it would have to be more of a television series like the new Battlestar Galactica series to really explore it.
As a movie, Caves of Steel would make a great adaptation. I think that sombody who is rumpled and worn like Paul Giamatti would play detective Elijah Baley well and Dennis Haysbert would be perfect for his new partner, Robot Daneel Olivaw.
|
|

SkyPilot
Posts 576
|
8/28/2008 11:04 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Isaac Asimov
Then so far a great movie has not been made from his stories. Hm. I wonder if that has something to do with his writing style?
I'm reminded of an article that came out when the Library of America released a volume of H. P. Lovecraft stories. The reviewer was a long-time fan of Lovecraft's writing, but he noted that every movie based on his stories have disappointed him. He said this was no coincidence, that Lovecraft's horror was very "bookish," ideally experienced as literature. Its suggestive quality usually forces the mind's eye to do most of the work, and when Lovecraft describes what monsters looked like, they usually sounded more absurd than frightening. (The writer gave an example description, it was of a pyramid-shaped monster with a sphere on top, or something, like the monster was made out of a baby's building blocks.)
I feel the same about Kurt Vonnegut's sci-fi. Anyone disagree and think these authors just haven't gotten an A-grade film treatment yet? What stories do you think would make the best movies?
|
|

rjsprague
Posts 407
|
11/25/2008 2:00 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Isaac Asimov
SkyPilot:
Then so far a great movie has not been made from his stories. Hm. I wonder if that has something to do with his writing style?
I'm reminded of an article that came out when the Library of America released a volume of H. P. Lovecraft stories. The reviewer was a long-time fan of Lovecraft's writing, but he noted that every movie based on his stories have disappointed him. He said this was no coincidence, that Lovecraft's horror was very "bookish," ideally experienced as literature. Its suggestive quality usually forces the mind's eye to do most of the work, and when Lovecraft describes what monsters looked like, they usually sounded more absurd than frightening. (The writer gave an example description, it was of a pyramid-shaped monster with a sphere on top, or something, like the monster was made out of a baby's building blocks.)
I feel the same about Kurt Vonnegut's sci-fi. Anyone disagree and think these authors just haven't gotten an A-grade film treatment yet? What stories do you think would make the best movies?
One of the chief issues for science fiction films adapted from novels has always been the technological ability to create something that is "true" to the writing. The other thing would be budget. I would guess that both of these issues have come into play for writers like Lovecraft, Vonnegut, and Asimov, because their stories were written quite some time ago, generally speaking. Lovecraft's work was done predominantly in the 20s and 30s if I remember correctly, or maybe I don't.
I think the fact that they were writing from the social contexts of past generations, and that films which would seek to adapt them would naturally fall short of the task of rendering, in exquisite form, the worlds these men fashioned for their readers. Perhaps it is also true, that the interpretation a literary work, which exists decades before the film is made, is bound to the time period in, which it was written. Therefore, a pyramid with a sphere on top might not seem frightening to us, but at the time it may have seemed quite formidable. Or, perhaps the translation from text to film is kept "pure", thus rendering the work as being almost comical instead of awe-inspiring, or terrifying. I think when this is the case the director and producer(s) should attempt to bring the story into the social context that we live in.
I thought the newer version of The War of the Worlds did this quite well.
|
|

mciocco
Posts 44
|
11/28/2008 10:15 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Isaac Asimov
As I mentioned in the "introduce yourself" thread, Asimov is one of my favorite authors. I've read a ton of his books.
SkyPilot and Risselada, His most popular stories have yet to be made into movies, but there are plenty of influences abound. Risselada mentioned Nightfall and the two awful adaptations of it (I've only seen one, but the IMDB rating of below 3 is spot-on), but there is another movie that was inspired by the same story Pitch Black - it doesn't resemble the original much, but it does take some elements from the story (notably the idea of multiple suns setting at the same time). Asimov also wrote Fantastic Voyage, though I think he wrote it after the movie, not the other way around.
Asimov was also highly influential to Star Trek, especially TNG. The character of Data is basically R. Daneel Olivaw from Asimov's robot novels, right down to the mention of his "positronic" brain (and his visual appearance is similar to that described in the novels).
Come to think of it, just about any SF after Asimov that contains friendly robots was influenced by Asimov, particularly with respect to his 3 laws of robotics. For instance, in Aliens, Bishop quotes the first law almost verbatim. Lots of other movies use it: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
Anywho, I agree with unclefestering about The Caves of Steel. I think it would make a great movie, despite the fact that it was written in the 1940s/1950s. Yes, the social and cultural context was different, but thematically it's still very relevant. The idea of technology making humans obsolete and taking their jobs is something that still resonates deeply. Plus, it's a good old fashioned police procedural/mystery and it has sequels that are pretty good too.
Later in his career, Asimov even went about tying together a bunch of his series, for instance tying his robot novels into his Foundation novels. The Foundation series would be interesting movies, as they're really just a series of longer short stories (novellas)? Actually, I believe Foundation has been lurking in development hell for, uh, decades? No one's been able to get it off the ground.
He's got some other good standalone novels that could make for good movies. I'm thinking of The Stars, Like Dust (good ol-fashioned space opera-ey action story) and maybe even The End of Eternity (fantastic time travel story and a very short book - ideal for the movies) .
|
|