Posted on 07/20/2004 9:43:06 AM PDT by jalisco555
Isaac Asimov was the steak-and-buffet restaurant of American authors: What he lacked in quality, he made up for in volume. If you didn't like what he was serving, you could wait a few minutes for him to bring out something else. By the time he died in 1992, at the age of 72, Asimov had published more than 470 books, ranging from science-fiction classics to annotated guides of great literature to limerick collections to The Sensuous Dirty Old Man, a defense and celebration of lechery. "His first 100 books took him 237 months, or almost 20 years, until October 1969, to write," his New York Times obituary observed. "His second 100, a milestone he reached in March 1979, took 113 months, or about 9 ½ years—a rate of more than 10 books a year. His third 100 took only 69 months, until December 1984, or less than 6 years." By the end, Asimov achieved the Grand Slam of book writing, turning out at least one volume for each of the 10 classifications in the Dewey Decimal System.
The thread that connected this prodigious output was Asimov's role as a teacher, "the greatest explainer of the age," as Carl Sagan called him. Whether the subject was science, Shakespeare, or the Bible, Asimov was a popularizer who wrote with clarity and concision. Even in his science fiction, the work for which he will be most remembered, Asimov was as much an explainer as a storyteller, an advocate for science and reason over mysticism. In fact, the rap on Asimov the fiction writer is that his stories are too simple, too obvious, too easy to be the stuff of great literature. In Wired, the science-fiction writer Cory Doctorow recently described Asimov's work as "proto-fiction … from a time before the field shed its gills and developed lungs, feet, and believable characters." True. But if Asimov is so easy, why do so many people—including Alex Proyas, the director of I, Robot, and the movie's screenwriters, Akiva Goldsman and Jeff Vintar—keep getting him so wrong?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
I'm hoping someone makes a Stainless Steel Rat movie some day.
Maybe Gibson can do it... and film it in Esperanto. ;)
I loved Asimov and I'm not a middle-aged Kerry supporter (middle-aged, maybe, but not a Kerry supporter). Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
As someone who really loved the book, but hadn't read it in about 20 years when I saw the movie, I remember saying (out loud, in the theater), "What the hell is this?!"
Once I got over the fact that while the producers used some of the same character names, and a few of the same concepts (but not many), I found it to be a fun movie to watch. This is one of those movies that, as movies go, is NOT a terrific movie. Much like "The Fifth Element," it's just fun to turn off the brain, and watch the movie for the fun of it.
Mark
.
If you loved the story than avoid the movie. It was an abomination.
I also heard him speak at college and he was very respectful of his audience. One questioner asked him how he could support science and technology since they rape the earth, destroy the environment, etc. and Asimov very eloquently but gently put him in his place.
Can someone explain why "Nightfall" is classified as one of the great pieces of SF? I'd take 3/4 of Heinlein's short stories over that piece. It's not drivel, I just don't "get it".
Agreed. Asimov's stories did not connect well. I actually thought the movie was very good, and did its best to weave the fundamental ideas that Asimov had into the plot. The three laws were there. Asimov had a new twist on the three laws for each story, and this movie has its own updated twist on the laws, but it fit very well with Asimov's.
I shall now commit unpardonable heresy: I found Asimov boring, pedantic, and simplistic.
His Fundamental Laws of Robotics have always struck me as assinine, impractical, and unlikely to ever be implemented.
I am wearing my asbestos armor, so feel free to ignite the barbie.
in the credits after the movie i, robot, it read that the movie was only just a suggestion of isaac asimov's i, robot... not based on it, but was slightly influenced by it./..
t
"Slippery Jim" PING!
I'd love to see some of those. I also loved Harrison's "Deathworld" series.
Actually, another book I'd love to see made into a movie (although some of the later books in the series really weren't as good) is Piers Anthony's "On a Pale Horse," although it looks like the cable show "Dead Like Me" borrows heavily from it.
Mark
I wouldn't say that "all" who miss him are sad, pathetic, middle-aged Flipperphiles, no... ;)
Oh, you liked the movie? Great, I want to see it but it's gotten very so-so reviews.
Still I wonder about violating Isaac's First Law of Robotics... or does it?
Never mind, don't tell me.
I loved Firefly. NOw that I finally have a DVD player, will purchase.
What happened to the talk of a movie ??
And what happened to the talk of reviving the series on the sci fi channel.
The Buffy guy keeps getting the cast members work. I really liked the guy who played the Captain and Adam Baldwin (no relation) has always been a favorite of mine.
"...Verhoeven knew exactly what Heinlein was talking about and deliberately set out to discredit it..."
I Agree, all Hollywood does is produce movies that reinforces the left's agenda and it's movies are mere propaganda designed to support it. Thus any novels or series of books (sci-fi or not) that it acquires the rights to it can change the content without much resistance.
There's no end of decent Heinlein material for movies.
I would like them to do "Starman Jones", or "Have Spacesuit-Will travel", or "Red Planet" actually. A simpler project than "Starship Troopers", and full of Heinleinian wisdom nontheless.
What do you mean "violate"? It has its twist on the laws that is very interesting--not out of keeping with Asimov. I'm not sure if you could say "violate". There is always a gray area. I'd see it again.
Now that's a malapropism for the ages!
I think you meant "aesthetics". An ascetic is one who abstains from pleasure or comfort for religious or philosophical reasons.
Fwiw, I agree with the rest of your post.
From what I understand, Asimov was an A-hole, knew it and was proud of it.
I still love his books, though.
Sometimes it's best not to know too much about poets, writers, and (especially) movie stars.
I learned that lesson when I actually worked for and got to know a fairly well-known poet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.