When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost • Hacker News Board

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#171

Post by pharke » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:23 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #70

hardwaregeek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but why? I'm familiar with the concept and it can work well (see Robert Altman films), but why was it necessary for this show? I think the straightforward single story single episode would allow for continuity, narrative depth and emphasize the theme that these books span centuries and multiple lifetimes. One of the better aspects of the book is seeing Salvor Hardin go from young upstart to elder statesman to my…

They can serve as a sort of self-narrating story, where a past arc provides context for the present or future. Rotating arcs also add complexity that excuses weakness in character or plot writing- the viewer's effort to keep arcs organized makes it easier to overlook those faults.

> Rotating arcs also add complexity that excuses weakness in character or plot writing...

In other words, it's a gimmick.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#172

Post by elzbardico » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:25 PM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #43

01100011 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can just feed books to a DL network and have it spit out a rendered movie. I'd love to train it on the LotR movies and spit out a book-accurate rendition of the story with those graphics.

I don't think that's the way art I value would ever work. It sounds more like algorithmic factory production with no intention. "The algorithm thinks this will be like that other thing people like" is not a way to make novel and valuable new things, to me.

>It sounds more like algorithmic factory production with no intention.

You just described modern Hollywood.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#173

Post by Rerarom » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:25 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #159

There 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_…

You can make a lot of changes without pissing on its main themes. E.g. there are a lot of characters and scenes which were just sketched and the show could have filled them in instead of inventing whole new plots out of cloth. Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so, you'll see" but he could have just not made it look like it is so. Another thing would have been to compress everything until Bel Riose in the 1st season, since it's only afterwards that Asimov really matures as a writer.

It's not like I don't enjoy anything (the Empire plot is solid even though it's not at all from the books, proof that I'm not a purist or anything), but everything just shows a lack of interest in being faithful to the main ideas of the books.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#174

Post by Joeri » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #155

klodolph wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Annihilation did that rather well, I think—the source material is about imperfect clones, that had the same structure as the original but weren't the same inside. And then they released a movie that had the structure of the book, but wasn't the same inside. I thought that was quite clever.

The three books of the southern reach trilogy were the most creepy read I’ve ever had. Because of the dense and meandering writing style I felt like I was slowly losing my sanity together with the main characters of the books, trying to hold onto details and losing the fight.

The movie was ok to watch if taken by itself, but indeed not the same thing.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#175

Post by ddoran » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:28 PM UTC

I'm sticking with the show but as a huge Foundation fan, it's bitterly disappointing so far. For me the reason comes clear in the accompanying (official) podcasts. The writers are so enamored with their own smarts, that the story takes second place to literary navel gazing. Rock bottom for me was when Brother Day - a supposedly omnipotent figure - travels across the galaxy to quell a religious uprising but just stands silent as a new leader takes up the mantle with an overwrought speech, one of many in the show. The taking of terminus was another example of characters that speak with great intelligence and then act dumb. Ugh. I'm only hoping the writers take the feedback from Season 1 and change course.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#176

Post by jccalhoun » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:28 PM UTC

I read the first Foundation book years ago. Some good ideas but meh on it overall. I haven't seen the latest episode of the tv show but the best parts of the show by far as the parts about the empire and the most boring are the parts about the foundation.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#177

Post by lucraft » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #43

01100011 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can just feed books to a DL network and have it spit out a rendered movie. I'd love to train it on the LotR movies and spit out a book-accurate rendition of the story with those graphics.

I don't think that's the way art I value would ever work. It sounds more like algorithmic factory production with no intention. "The algorithm thinks this will be like that other thing people like" is not a way to make novel and valuable new things, to me.

I don't think that's what 01100011 is saying though.. he's saying he'd love to see a movie that didn't adapt the material in any way, it just completely faithfully translated every line of dialogue and action to the screen.

Presumably that would lead to a 42 hour Lord of the Rings movie with horrendous pacing issues etc. Which would make it a terrible business proposition for the movie industry now (literally: why?) but if an AI could spit it out cheaply a whole lot of LoTR fans would watch it avidly.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#178

Post by pantulis » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #164

mihaic wrote: post #143

My 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.

Brother Darkness' "ascension" scene was pretty good imho and of course it was not in the books.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#179

Post by pharke » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:30 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #124

klodolph wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who or what's getting exploited? The material itself? Or the audience? I think few people who read the SF classics will be duped just by the name.

The IP... I really don't understand why having some relatively well known name is so important when it ends up being something entirely different. I think culturally that really shouldn't fly. Why not at that point just come up with new IP? If you want take the elements needed from existing work as influences...

They should be brave enough to do their own take on the concept without using the title and clout of the original author. It would allow them more freedom in rewriting the parts that they need to and would transform the whiplash felt by readers of the previous work into possible delight at seeing a new story with new characters riffing on the original concept.

Re: When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost

#180

Post by wccrawford » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:32 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #159

There 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 don't even remember the original books, other than that I liked them.

I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO.

The only thing I like is the mysteries. I'm not very far in, but they're few and far between, and wading through all the crap to learn about them is tiring. I keep trying to force myself to watch the next episode, but it doesn't happen.