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

241–250 of 498 posts

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

#241

Post by lsjvjn »

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…

The biggest problem with the 1984 Dune is that the film becomes overburdened with clunky exposition. I think there was a deliberate decision to avoid that mistake with this adaptation.

While, as a fan of the novel, I'd have liked to see these elements given more explanation, I think on reflection that they did a commendable job deciding which elements needed exposition for audiences to follow the plot and which ones could be left as background details and texture for the world to avoid overwhelming the viewer and letting the film breathe more as a film.

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

#242

Post by brodouevencode »

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…

> how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it

What movies have you seen that have been faithful to the literary work but still were great movies? I'm struggling to come up with one.

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

#243

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

pjc50 wrote: post #193
juliangamble wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Is it? There was a lot of space opera and space adventure and space imperialism in the 1940s and 50s. Claiming to be the original is a big claim. Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight; samurai movies ( Hidden Fortress ), Westerns, war films (the trench run is from 633 Squadron ). Partly why it was so successful.

> Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight;

Cause in point, Lucas cribbed Coruscant from Trantor

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

#244

Post by nottorp »

So why is that surprising? There are few or no quality scifi/fantasy movies if you actually read scifi/fantasy books.

Villeneuve did something competent-ish with Dune. Altered Carbon season one was decent. I couldn't watch the second season because they really went off the rails with it. That's about all lately.

Funny enough, I think the best sf movies are the one that ignore the source material and do ... something else. Blade Runner for example. Or Tarkovski's Stalker. Note that they aren't named as the books that inspired them.

As for Foundation, I haven't seen it and don't intend to. But judging by people's opinions it looks to me that not only it has no connection with the book. It's also a bad movie taken as a standalone movie?

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

#245

Post by throw0101a »

nottorp wrote: post #244

So why is that surprising? There are few or no quality scifi/fantasy movies if you actually read scifi/fantasy books. Villeneuve did something competent-ish with Dune. Altered Carbon season one was decent. I couldn't watch the second season because they really went off the rails with it. That's about all lately. Funny enough, I think the best sf movies are the one that ignore the source material and do ... something…

> That's about all lately.

Checkout the The Expanse.

> ignore the source material and do ... something else. Blade Runner for example.

Blade Runner did not call itself Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Contrast that with the Will Smith movie I, Robot.

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

#246

Post by nottorp »

throw0101a wrote: post #245
nottorp wrote: post #244

So why is that surprising? There are few or no quality scifi/fantasy movies if you actually read scifi/fantasy books. Villeneuve did something competent-ish with Dune. Altered Carbon season one was decent. I couldn't watch the second season because they really went off the rails with it. That's about all lately. Funny enough, I think the best sf movies are the one that ignore the source material and do ... something…

> That's about all lately. Checkout the The Expanse . > ignore the source material and do ... something else. Blade Runner for example. Blade Runner did not call itself Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? . Contrast that with the Will Smith movie I, Robot .

> Checkout the The Expanse.

That doesn't count because the books read like a film script (the authors are professional script writers). And yes, I've read them. Before they were made into a movie even.

> Blade Runner did not call itself Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Contrast that with the Will Smith movie I, Robot.

"Note that they aren't named as the books that inspired them." i said :)

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

#247

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

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_…

>IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :)

Is it still a somewhat hard sci-fi or has it been turned into a fantasy flick?

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

#249

Post by neaden »

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #247
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_…

>IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) Is it still a somewhat hard sci-fi or has it been turned into a fantasy flick?

I would say it's as hard as the original novel, which has FTL travel and psychic powers.

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

#250

Post by ericmay »

throw0101a wrote: post #238
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_…

> So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) If you want to make an action-y television series, then choose action-y source material. There's so much good sci-fi (and fantasy) out there that can be used for that type of style. The Vorkosigan Saga for one: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga While it may b…

Maybe?

I don't get the problem with Foundation. Like why can't they take the source material and create their own interpretation? What's so wrong with that? Maybe someone will go on and create a Vorkosigan Saga interpretation too?

I read the books. Loved them. Really enjoying the show too.

Post reply on HN