Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's wrong with the foundation btw?
It's jarringly different from the books. Names are the same and a very few elements are similar but it's really something completely different. In Asimov's work, psychohistory is not about specific heroes or great people changing things but more about the inexorable trend leading to certain outcomes. The repeated sci-fi action scenes don't really match with the original work. That said, it's not a bad show if you wat…
The book has an interesting philosophical idea (psychohistory), but just doesn't work as a story. It feels too much like a disjointed sequence of deus ex machinas. (To be fair, I've read some other stuff from Asimov's Foundation series that did work as a story.)
The TV series tells a pretty compelling story and mostly does so quite well. Of course, by far the best aspect (the genetic dynasty) isn't even part of the book at all. So yeah, it's not a faithful adaptation, but it is a better story. The only thing I'm doubtful of is whether they can keep it up. Spanning millenia in this format feels sort of impossible (except perhaps as an anthology series). How often is somebody just going to cryo-sleep for centuries and ending up in just the right place without it getting the same feeling of contrived deus ex machina as in the original book?