Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

291–300 of 498 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Contact and Dune 2021, mostly. For tv, the Expanse books are adapted very well.

The Expanse has its own problems, though. Namely, that a lot of the acting is terrible. Foundation at least, to me, has some strong acting and interesting character relationships.

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

#292

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.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The movie is a scene-by-scene rendering of the novel, but it's also fantastic.

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

#293

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 could handle a reinterpreted Foundation story for TV. Easily. The problem is that this is sooo bad. Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. That's what I saw until falling asleep halfway through Episode 3. Perhaps it got better. Perhaps it's not "for me". But that's what I saw.

> Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines.

That seems...faithful.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Huh. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if they're deliberately choosing the most difficult-to-adapt sci-fi. I can't see this working, at all.

Hasn’t Dune been a success so far? If so then between that and the OP we’re 0.5 to 1. Wheel of Time will tell.

Well, Dune has been a success, after 40 years, on about the fifth try. So we should expect the _good_ Hyperion adaptation around 2060, then :)

(Though, I think Hyperion is actually a _much_ harder one to adapt than Dune, certainly into a movie. There's far too much in it.)

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

#295

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_…

[deleted]

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contact and Dune 2021, mostly. For tv, the Expanse books are adapted very well.

The Expanse has its own problems, though. Namely, that a lot of the acting is terrible . Foundation at least, to me, has some strong acting and interesting character relationships.

I think the acting gets much better over the seasons. And when I rewatched seasons 1-3 recently, I didn't notice it. But maybe I'm so into the characters and stories that it just doesn't register anymore. And the Expanse certainly does have interesting character relations as the story progresses.

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

#297

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'd agree that they needed a lot of reworking to make a TV series out of it, but some of it feels slightly gratuitous; the clone emperor thing feels like a pointless overcomplication, and I'm pretty sure they're going for some sort of Dune-esque guild navigator thing with the imperial starships. I'm mostly quite enjoying it, but I think they could have been a _bit_ more restrained with their rewriting and lost nothin…

That's interesting to me because the brothers are one of my favorite parts of the show because of the new ideas they bring up in relation to the Empire. It gives the writers some really clever and interesting ways to discuss the problems with a long-standing continuity of ideas while giving those internal inconsistencies human faces to stand-in for something that would be much more nebulous and vague otherwise.

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

#298

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_…

Ignoring the lack of faith to the source material:

It's bad.. the dialogue, conflict, etc., are far below the levels we've come to expect in sci-fi shows like Expanse.

This is a complete waste of Jared Harris' talents. In the last episode, the resolution of his incomplete download was dramatized by a bit more screaming, then he was all good.

It doesn't feel elevated or sophisticated at all... it does look very pretty.

But it's not even representative of itself -- they keep talking about "trillions" of people here and there, and the new Book of Boba Fett does a better job of selling large population centers than Foundation ever does.

Also, my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue: aren't most cop and lawyer shows mostly a lot of talk, usually in just a few common settings?

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn’t Dune been a success so far? If so then between that and the OP we’re 0.5 to 1. Wheel of Time will tell.

Well, Dune has been a success, after 40 years, on about the fifth try. So we should expect the _good_ Hyperion adaptation around 2060, then :) (Though, I think Hyperion is actually a _much_ harder one to adapt than Dune, certainly into a movie. There's far too much in it.)

If this feature film idea fails they can make a series.

If they’re adapting neofeudal space dark ages sci-fi now, it’s time for someone to dip into games inspired by these works. Fading Suns and Traveller, and once the studio suits get the gumption for it, Warhammer 40,000

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

#300
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…

Given some of the podcast interviews, it appears the show-runners don’t actually care about the consistency of the scope of the world they’ve made. They have multi-orders-of-magnitude inconsistencies about the size of the empire in both number of people, number of worlds, and distances. Which can really crash the sense of conflict back into a pure fantasy-land, Star Wars style. Which, generally, Asimov really avoided. And which can undercut the themes that are driven by the grand scope.
Post reply on HN