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

221–230 of 498 posts

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

#221

Post by yufeng66 »

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.

The first reaction I got watching genetic dynasty stuff is Elon Musk probably has something like that planned. The technology is more or less ready. And he is that reckless

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

#222

Post by sersi »

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…

I would say that Dune would be better as a limited serie vs being a movie. It would give more time to expand on the background information and yes I agree as it is, I feel that it's a movie that just works better for people who have read the book but at least it's accurate. I can feel watching it that the director actually cares for the books.

Foundation is more like David Lynch's Dune. It calls itself Foundation but it doesn't even give lip service to the material, it actively betrays a lot of the story. While overall TNG was good, there were a few terrible and mediocre episodes. I feel that the Foundation TV show is more akin to those mediocre episodes but with very good production value and a passing resemblance only in name to the book. It doesn't feel like the writers actually cared for the books at all.

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

#223

Post by GeekyBear »

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…

>what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it

Agreed.

The inspiration behind the Foundation series, setting out to shorten the Dark Ages after the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is great.

However, if you try reading those short stories again today, you're quickly reminded that early in his career, Asimov was already great at world building, but terrible with characters and dialog.

Add in the mismatch between the cultural norms of the 1940's (when the early Foundation stories were written) and the cultural norms today, and a rewrite was always going to be required.

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

#224

Post by Lochleg »

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…

Even when LED flashlights were first popularized (more than a decade ago), it was believable that batteries always seemed to be on their last legs, especially in the wilderness. It's probably not supposed to be a thing on Terminus unless there's a missing plot point that explains why they couldn't use or were preserving their pocket nuclear reactors / batteries that can power force fields among other things.

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

#225

Post by ConceptJunkie »

smnrchrds wrote: post #9
kaczordon wrote: post #6

This is also what happens when you re-write the core story to match a Political Correctness agenda. The producers should’ve taken a note from Denis Villeneuve’s treatment of Dune, the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it.

Foundation, as written, does not lend itself to any medium other than text. Dune had already been adapted to films, TV shows, and games multiple times before Villeneuve's film. Yet, despite its popularity, Foundation had never been adapted into another medium before the current TV show. I agree that the Apple TV series does not capture the essence of the books, but no series or film possibly can. Best we can hope is…

> Yet, despite its popularity, Foundation had never been adapted into another medium before the current TV show.

I believe there was a radio show adaptation done by the BBC.

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

#226

Post by tenuousemphasis »

Lochleg wrote: post #208
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 y…

There's also the fact that one of the authors of the Expanse series is closely involved with the creation of the show (and the reworking of characters/arcs to fit the medium better).

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

#227

Post by throw0101a »

yufeng66 wrote: post #218
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.

> If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it.

It wasn't about Foundation, then why call it "Foundation"?

It's like that Will Smith movie called I, Robot: why did they bother calling it that?

You can create a new sci-fi show or movie without the 'false marketing' of referencing previous source material: that's what the original Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars did in the 1970s. Or you can try to faithfully use the source material as much as possible as The Expanse show has done, and what Villeneuve has generally done with his Dune.

There are plenty of both sci-fi and fantasy works available for adaptation into shows and movies. And if (general) audiences expect action-y stuff in their sci-fi/fantasy, then pick one in which the source material is more action-y.

Don't try adapting Waiting for Godot into the next Die Hard.

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

#228

Post by jonnycomputer »

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...

Think about Why do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, an amazing sci-fi novel, and Bladerunner, an amazing sci-fi movie loosely based on it. Now, granted, maybe the book title was rejected for the movie based on marketing concerns, but it also established distinct identities for the two.

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

#229

Post by throw0101a »

Lochleg wrote: post #208
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 y…

> I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times.

As per a sibling comment: the original authors were involved. But:

It depends on style of the show material and the style of the new medium. If the original is cerebral and low-action, can you make a commercially successful adaptation with the same qualities?

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

#230

Post by nottorp »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #226
Lochleg wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

There's also the fact that one of the authors of the Expanse series is closely involved with the creation of the show (and the reworking of characters/arcs to fit the medium better).

There's also the fact that the authors of the Expanse were professional movie script writers before writing a book series :)
Post reply on HN