Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 498 posts

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

#201

Post by _ph_ »

k__ wrote: post #160
simonh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on. Atreides, Haleck, Hawat, Yueh, Idaho, Mattai. No hints of ethnic diversity there in the book at all? Really? I thought Sharon did a fantastic job as Kynes, one of the more naturalistic performances in the whole movie.

The descriptions of Atreides in the book didn't strike me as particularly western. Dark hair, olive skin, etc.

But they trace their line to the ancient greek Adreides which fought in the siege of Troy. So their origin would be Greek, whatever mixed in over the millenia.

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

#202

Post by RegBarclay »

rbanffy wrote: post #127

Unpopular opinion: Foundation, as written, would probably be very niche TV. A straightforward adaptation would be terrible, albeit interesting if seasons were launched in the order of the books the way Asimov fused his Robots, Empire, and Foundation series. Even then, you can get away with a lot less detail in a book than you can with a TV series - you need to flesh out cultures and characters that, in a book, you ca…

I completely agree. The robot novels would be much easier stories to adapt with little deviation from the novels. It's been decades since I've read the whole canon of Asimov robot and Foundation novels, but I recall the Foundation novels being very dry and academic - I loved them, but they're just not high adventure action stories that translate well to the screen.

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

#203

Post by baq »

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 completely agree. it isn't bad sci-fi tv. nowhere near the expanse, but that doesn't say much, since for me nothing really comes close to the expanse.

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

#204

Post by jerf »

globular-toast wrote: post #156
sersi wrote: post #113

I've been rather impressed with Villeneuve's Dune. It's not perfect, I feel that there's not enough backstory and context for those not familiar with the novel (not explaining CHOAM and the landsraad makes the emperor's actions confusing), Jessica is a bit too wimpy for a Bene Geserit who is supposed to be in control and I reserve judgement about the changes with Lyet Kynes. That said as someone who loved the books,…

I felt that Dune didn't leave enough time to actually think about what was going on. Concepts from the book like the Missionaria Protectiva and Butlerian Jihad were given minimal lip service or not mentioned at all. But these are the best bits of Dune for me. These are what make it science-fiction rather than space opera. As a space opera Dune is good. As science-fiction it's great. I haven't seen Foundation (and won…

Dune in its full glory is simply unfilmable. Between the exposition that can be naturally woven into a novel that simply can not be naturally woven into a movie and the amount of the book that takes place as character's thoughts, to even the little things like the chapter headings being used for flavor text from a future encyclopedia, there's just no way to capture the whole thing on film.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I liked the sci-fi miniseries well enough. (As I've said before on HN, watch it as a very well-produced theater production and not a somewhat poorly-funded movie and it's really quite good.) So I'm not saying it's impossible to film something Dune and for it to at least be good. But it'll never be able to stand in for the novels.

I would be amused to see some series get far enough to try to film Chapterhouse Dune, though, which in my opinion is even more complicated than the original Dune in the ways that would matter for a film. Books 2 and 3 would be generally simpler, you can tell they didn't get as much love. God Emperor of Dune I believe holds up better than 2 & 3, but it is still narratively simpler than the original Dune. The final truncated trilogy is quite complex, though.

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

#205

Post by nonesuchluck »

rockemsockem wrote: post #144
light_hue_1 wrote: post #86

No 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…

So glad I wasn't the only one to catch the contradiction with Hardin. Also we seem to be saying that Hardin and other individuals (e.g. the woman who was tossed off the colony ship who narrates sometimes) are very special, which is also totally counter to the most important themes of the book.

Now I've only watched to the 2nd episode. But there are _some_ very special people in Asimov's universe. I'm withholding judgement on who that pregnant woman might be, or who her child might become... it's a detail left mostly unsketched in Foundation & Empire, and might turn into an interesting tale.

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

#206

Post by _ph_ »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #66
jlawson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dune explicitly was adapted to satisfy PC morality. Villneuve said so (using other words of course). They made Jessica into a physical fighter, converted Liet Kynes into a black lady, excised the distinctive word 'jihad' to refer to Paul's vision of war. They removed the Baron's homosexuality and sexual perversion and changed his servant boys into (bald) servant girls, etc. The damage wasn't too bad all things consid…

Literally nowhere does the book say what Kynes' skin color is. You might have imagined the character as white, but that's on you. It's not a "change" made for "PC" reasons. And if it was, well, that would be awesome!

It is kind of hilarious to argue about the skin color of people millennia from now as if they would be static. Considering the amount of globalization, I would expect humanity to look quite different in a couple of hundred years already. If there are major visible differences between people 10k years in the future, they probably are along planet boundaries, and in which way they express is difficult to estimate. UV radiation might still play a huge role in skin coloring, but there could be many other differentiators being common.

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

#207

Post by allturtles »

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_…

Talk about damning with faint praise.

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

#208

Post by Lochleg »

throw0101a wrote: post #150

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of Foundation versus Dune : > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day…

I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. Apple's Foundation is awkward at times and its writers seem to believe that they needed to correct and reinvigorate books that were outmoded, but, apparently, the production itself is said to lack real faults. It's really easy to kill a franchise these days because you want it to speak to your audience, but it is seen as much less aspirational with its mixed messages. Of course, that's just my general impression, and I could be talking about any franchise that starts with "Star".

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

#209

Post by shoto_io »

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_…

Exactly. I really like the show. I haven't read the books, so I couldn't be offended in the first place.

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

#210

Post by scotty79 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #151

After giving up 2.5 episodes in, the only thing I can compare this show to is Battlefield Earth. It's incredibly, spectacularly bad!

I actually enjoyed Battlefield Earth. I enjoyed the movie because I immensely enjoyed the book. I almost always like SF that in large part written from the point of view of aliens. And some scenes in the movie were quite additionally surprising in showing the character of alien protagonist.

I know native speakers can't not cringe on this movie. And there's an issue with who the author of the book was and what he did. And people can't get out of human perspective while watching this movie and can't believe how aliens can be this stupid to underestimate humans. In the book it's way better shown that aliens have as little respect for and interest in humans as workers do for the monkeys when the go out to clear the jungle with bulldozers and quibble between themselves over pay and job security.

Book have many detailes way more flashed out, so knowing stuff from the book, movie looked way less stupid to me than to average viewer.

Post reply on HN