It was a great disappointment for someone who spent hours during my teenage years reading and re-reading it.
Not to mention the terrible, terrible acting.
When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
161–170 of 498 posts
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#162My greatest gripe with the show is that none of the writers seem to have any understanding of science, technology and have only a vague understanding of sociology, pretty much all of the main themes of the books. I actually liked the imperial cloning elements, as they fleshed out well an ossified society, but every other plotline seems to just happen because of pseudo-magic. I can only wish that the writer's room of…
I can usually forgive some tech contradiction details, but its really annoying when there is faster than light travel... But to create contrived suspense because no technology exists to make a flashlight strong enough to illuminate a cave for 10m ??!?!
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#163They're scraping the barrel now for literature to adapt. The studios desperately want another Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I feel like Foundation and even Dune are just not fit for being adapted. Foundation is so easy to read that people should really just read it.
It's such a shame that His Dark Materials failed as that would make an excellent adaptation and the source material is far superior to Harry Potter.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#164My greatest gripe with the show is that none of the writers seem to have any understanding of science, technology and have only a vague understanding of sociology, pretty much all of the main themes of the books. I actually liked the imperial cloning elements, as they fleshed out well an ossified society, but every other plotline seems to just happen because of pseudo-magic. I can only wish that the writer's room of…
Yeah, the Genetic Dynasty stuff is the most compelling so far. I'd happily watch a West Wing-style "how the Empire is run" show with Lee Pace.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about a marginalised community's manipulation by a cynical religious cult, which indoctrinates them to await a messiah, then provides them with that messiah in order to usurp power over their entire society for the cult's own nefarious ends.
Your forgetting the surprise twist though. The cult loses control of that very society in part due to that very indoctrination.
Who could have guessed a psychic messiah would be hard to control.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#166No one learned anything from Game of Thrones. The show was absolutely amazing when it could follow the books. The definitive show everyone talked about. The moment the books ran out it started to go downhill. And when they couldn't easily extrapolate from the books the show fell apart completely. The showrunners and writes for the show weren't good enough to make Game of Thrones on their own. No offence, but that tak…
Not to mention that the acting for Hardin is terribly awful.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#167Man, reading through this thread, I feel like such an odd man out. I'm enjoying Foundation. Sure, it's not amazingly intellectually stimulating, and it's not really based on the books, but I find it fun to watch. As it's own thing, it's entertaining to me.
I also really enjoyed The Flash (up until season 6 or so when it just got too repetitive). It seems like there's a lot of people that can't seem to enjoy things "just for the fun" that I don't get.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#168There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take: I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books. That said: the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction. It works well because they are _short_…
I agree with you. It took me a while to get my head around the approach they were taking (I re-read the whole series prior to it airing) but what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. Even just getting rid of the 1950s stereotype gender roles - which is the obvious place to start - doesn’t change the long arcs of obvious dialogue.
It’s a really grand scope for a universe - but I’m enjoying the series so far and it will be interesting to see where they go with it. Basically I’m just hungry for more space and since it’s visually very appealing and the universe is compelling, I think it deserves a chance.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, if "Foundation and Dune are almost impossible to translate to screen faithfully," why are we translating them to screen, instead of writing a new work for which screen is the natural medium? With these adaptations, the two options are "That sucks!" and "That's not Foundation!"
I would reject faithfulness as a measure of success. I'd much rather have "That's not Foundation!" I already have Foundation. I can read it whenever I make the time. It's kind of cool to see a book translated to the screen... but if it doesn't really survive the translation? That's ok too! It can just be a movie with a ton of similarities to an existing story. Blade Runner, The Shining, Starship Troopers, or hell, Ad…
Starship troopers in particular has a very curious relationship between movie and book. Where the book manages to glorify the military the movie deliberately chooses an ironic treatment of the characters and plot elements to form the book’s antithesis. The movie is best enjoyed by not trying to fit it into the mold of the book, and vice versa.
Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost
#170There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take: I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books. That said: the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction. It works well because they are _short_…
> interesting enough to watch if you’re bored
is a terribly damning critique when a show costs as much as Foundation does. It's not Netflix faff, it's Apple's flagship.