251–260 of 498 posts
>The books that came to be called the original Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written as novels; they're the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950.
Asimov wrote the first Foundation story when he was 21.
https://gizmodo.com/isaac-asimovs-foundation-the-little-idea...
Man, reading through this thread, I feel like such an odd man out. I'm enjoying Foundation. Sure, it's not amazingly intellectually stimulating, and it's not really based on the books, but I find it fun to watch. As it's own thing, it's entertaining to me. I also really enjoyed The Flash (up until season 6 or so when it just got too repetitive). It seems like there's a lot of people that can't seem to enjoy things "j…
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_…
Then what is the point of using a license if you're just "inspired by"? The producers could just say it's inspired by sci-fi classics and do whatever they want, including not respecting the spirit of the original work, which should the primary goal in an adaptation.
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.
The LotR movies aren't book-accurate. But they are great!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The narrative frame and structure for the screenplay is quite different than the novel, but more suitable for a visual medium. I'll leave it to you to decide if it is a great movie, but the proposition that slavishly transliterating a novel into a movie is usually a bad idea seems reasonable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 r…
In 10000 years we should all be some (light?) shade of brown. If we get rid of the racism at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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'm mostly quite enjoying it, but I think they could have been a _bit_ more restrained with their rewriting and lost nothing.
> everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women
Also, newspapers! The original novels had paper newspapers, transmitted across the stars. At a certain age, science fiction tends to become accidentally a bit steampunk.
"Asimov's Vision". The guy himself has said in interviews that it was entirely inspired by gas/fluid dynamics theory, where you could predict the motion of the whole but individual molecules would be random, and then "what if that could be applied to people". Everything else is just exploring and extrapolating. It's far from perfect but I feel that if it was a new IP work the reaction to it would be very different. A…
Now that I think of it, Emperor "Cleon" is a nice wordplay on "cliodynamics".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.