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

211–220 of 498 posts

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

#211

Post by TeMPOraL »

jerf wrote: post #199
mdtancsa wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ??!?!

The humble flashlight must be one of the most abused pieces of modern technology in fiction. According to video games, it doesn't matter what century you're in, it is impossible to create a flashlight that lasts for more than a few minutes, and only provides a feeble cone of barely-light for that time. According to science fiction, despite the fact ~98%+ of the people reading this literally have a flashlight in their…

> a flashlight that lasts for more than a few minutes (...) despite the fact ~98%+ of the people reading this literally have a flashlight in their pocket or equally available right now

A tangent: it dawned on me only a few years ago just how little power LED lights use compared to most other things we do with energy. I never had a good intuition for this, so I was surprised when I noticed that keeping my smartphone's flashlight active at full power doesn't noticeably drain its battery - in stark contrast to even keeping the screen on (and thus the phone's CPU awake).

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

#213

Post by nabla9 »

There are many good sci-fi books that transfer into good TV-series. Only reason Foudation was used was because you can use famous name to trick people into watching it. It's a dark patter of entertainment industry.

Another problem is that the ideas in the book are completely opposite to what the mainstream viewers want to see and are used to consume. The writers killed those ideas and tell the more familiar story of a prophet and chosen ones, where individuals are making the difference.

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

#214

Post by ianai »

robbiep wrote: post #168
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 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 univ…

It's been a while, but I remember Asimov leaving a lot out of the books. i.e. Stories would start after the violence or some clever twist would side step it altogether. He left a lot for a visual medium to add-in. The core is there so far: psychohistory, robots, huge Trantor, planning to 'save' a galaxy amount of culture and info for a galactic reboot, etc.

It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's the first live action adaptation beyond the robot movie. Kind of always have to be forgiving with a first attempt. Even Star Trek TNG didn't get into a grove until 2nd or 3rd season.

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

#215

Post by pxue »

serverholic wrote: post #183
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_…

The emperor storyline is really the only thing worth watching. The rest is just boring, low-quality sci-fi.

Feels like they started writing Cleo's arc and hastily added Hardin's because it didn't check all the boxes.

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

#216

Post by scrumper »

tarsinge wrote: post #188
hardwaregeek wrote: post #13

The show feels like the creators read the back of the book and nothing else. Adaptation is never a one-to-one translation but you need to keep the spirit of the show. Also the whole emperor lineage stuff feels like an attempt to add a Game of Thrones type plot to the show. I'm not far into the show, so perhaps they address this, but I'd love a more modern commentary on how the whole ideology of the Foundation is basi…

> The show feels like the creators read the back of the book and nothing else. To me it looks like the creators have a pretty deep understanding of the book. I have a good memory of the book and there are a lot of subtle references. What is frustrating is the choices and twist they make. Like presenting everything as pseudo magical and religious. My hope is that they are bold in the narration and mixing elements from…

> Like presenting everything as pseudo magical and religious

I'm not sure they're so wrong with that. In the books, Hari Seldon understands his math and so does Gaal, but nobody else can. Same in the show.

His line in the colony ship in the show, something about "following me on what's little more than a prayer", is spot on. I think the show has done a fairly good job of playing with the discomfort I felt reading Foundation: that so much has to be taken on faith by so many people. It doesn't really matter whether your prophet got his revelation through a dream, pulling some rocks from a bag, or a few nights of multidimensional calculus; it's all opaque to the followers who just have to believe.

The rest of the additions and changes seem to make sense given the medium. Clone emperors: super great, and helped by the best acting in the show. I'd bet Asimov had something similar in mind (he named them "Cleon" in the books too, surely a clue in that anagram.) Even the time-jump with the cryo pod helps to ameliorate one of the issues I had with the books, which was the brief time we got to hang out with some interesting characters before a few centuries passed. The plot with Dornick's boyfriend on the colony ship was a good addition too, albeit quite well telegraphed. Space 9/11 was totally necessary for a TV adaptation, you can't show a couple of potholes in the highway roads and expect anyone to get "society collapses" from it.

I'm with the consensus on Hardin though. Space marine chosen one was not where I thought that character would end up. The actor playing her mom would've been better as Salvor, with her daughter being a destabilizing influence for her to try and keep leashed up (and maybe ultimately use, reluctantly, as her "last resort.")

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

#217

Post by rkk3 »

juliangamble wrote: post #185
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 love that Paul Krugman implies that Foundation copied Star Wars. (Ie Foundation was the original Empire Space Opera from which many Sci Fi authors cribbed including George Lucas)

No, he is implying they "Star Wars"-ified it; that they made it a show that is 'good vs evil' and all problems are solved by laser guns.

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

#218

Post by yufeng66 »

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…

Krugman is just too emotionally invested in the book, so nothing comparable to the book. If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it.

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

#219

Post by scotty79 »

ddoolin wrote: post #21
Afforess wrote: post #7

I've read the books and watched the show as far as it's aired. I agree, but I almost think it's good that Asimov's vision is getting smoothed out a bit. After "second foundation" in the book series, the books go in a very different, unscientific "woo" direction. The end of the entire series is bizarre and controversial. I'm not all that convinced I want the original ending to be preserved - it wasn't that good anyway…

I only read "Foundation and Earth" before the show began (that's what was on hand where I was, I had little choice, as much as I hate starting in the middle of a series), and that book is VERY different from what I'm reading in the first book and what's in the TV series, and would indeed make for a pretty interesting show or at least a movie. It's literally about three people's journey across the cosmos to discover t…

In between there's a "Second Foundation" which is similar and would make a great TV show, but I think that ship has sailed with this mediocre show.

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

#220

Post by ConceptJunkie »

Apocryphon wrote: post #95
Jtsummers wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, A Scanner Darkly was a remarkably faithful adaptation of the book, and because of PKD's daughters involvement (they recognized the book's importance to him and it weighed heavily in the creation of the movie).

Christopher Tolkien also seems to be a pretty good steward of his father's estate.

He was, until he passed away. I don't know if he had any say-so in the Hobbit trilogy, though. I suspect not. He was in his 90s at the time and might not have been actively working. Now that he's gone, all bets appear to be off.
Post reply on HN