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

331–340 of 498 posts

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

#331

Post by phh »

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?

Feels way too fantasy to me. Though only the first book didn't have fantasy parts (imo. and I don't feel like it was required). And possibly, most of the fantasy parts will be explained in the tv show, and we'll end very small fantasy elements, but I'm expecting to be disappointed there.

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

#332

Post by allturtles »

StrictDabbler wrote: post #283
GeekyBear wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 char…

Asimov's first real published story was in 1939 (his high school "published" a story earlier). The Foundation stories were written in 1941-1950. In 1951 Asimov stopped writing fiction for thirty years. So it's not "early Asimov" by any means. When he came back to write Foundation sequels his characters and dialog hadn't improved. Asimov was always an author only of ideas. His best dialog was the terrible and delibera…

I agree that Asimov, late or early, lives or dies on his ideas, and never was a great writer - he doesn't do lovely prose, naturalistic dialog, or vivid, multi-dimensional characters. But I don't see anything particularly bad about the dialog you've quoted.

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

#333

Post by OnlyMortal »

I’m a big fan of the books. Probably the most well written sci-fi I’ve encountered.

The TV series is, of course, quite different. It had to be really as viewers expect continuity of characters and an obligatory love-scene. It’s a reflection of our current TV viewing.

I’m hoping they’ll take it new directions where the book doesn’t go and, after the first season, it’ll pick up like many other series have done over the years.

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

#334

Post by dragonwriter »

Rd6n6 wrote: post #330
GeekyBear wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 char…

I read the first 5ish foundation books fairly recently and they were great, especially the odd numbered ones. Asimov never did become a genius of dialogue and character, but the characters and dialogue in foundation 1 are both very good and I don’t understand why some people in this thread dismiss it. The first foundation book is one of the best

Look, Foundation has great concepts, but if you think it has even good characters and dialogue, you...need to read fiction with good characters and dialogue.

> The first foundation book is one of the best

Best of what, though?

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

#335

Post by chipotle_coyote »

542354234235 wrote: post #313
yufeng66 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I don’t think it is unreasonable for someone watching an adaptation of a book to expect that the central themes of that book to be central to the adaptation, or at least not have the main themes of the adaptation be a direct contradiction to the source material.

The central themes of the original series are certainly present in the series. I think people -- including Krugman -- are occasionally missing the forest for the trees, because the show is radically restructuring and revising the story in order to make it more compelling as TV drama (at least in the eyes of the showrunners). I'm not sure I like all of the changes, but I just don't agree with critics who say that the show is missing the thematic point of the books.

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

#336

Post by Jtsummers »

Apocryphon wrote: post #316
throw0101a wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I, Robot is significantly harder to adapt than Foundation. The former is like a book of little logic mysteries. The film turned the setting concept into one big murder mystery to appeal to modern audiences. It was a drastic tonal change, but preserves some of the concepts of Asimov, even including the Zeroth Law at the end.

The movie was an already written script paired with the title and some characters renamed. It was not made (the script) with the intention of adapting the book (which is a series of short stories with a common framing story). I, Robot, like World War Z, needs an anthology or serial format to be properly presented as a show or film.

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

#337

Post by dragonwriter »

OnlyMortal wrote: post #333

I’m a big fan of the books. Probably the most well written sci-fi I’ve encountered. The TV series is, of course, quite different. It had to be really as viewers expect continuity of characters and an obligatory love-scene. It’s a reflection of our current TV viewing. I’m hoping they’ll take it new directions where the book doesn’t go and, after the first season, it’ll pick up like many other series have done over the…

> viewers expect continuity of characters and an obligatory love-scene

I mean, I am not in the target audience as I am committed to remain outside the Apple ecosystem but, if there was a Foundation series somewhere where I might consider watching it, pretty high on my list of things that would interest me in it as opposed to any random dime-a-dozen indistinguishable brain rot available in every streaming service is that it would not feature those things.

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

#338

Post by criddell »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #278
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_…

You can't have your cake and eat it. Apple made a ton of buzz around the TV show, and it took _because_ they use the Asimov work. Apple did the Apple thing, they overhyped a product that they then designed according to their own rules, expecting everybody to just eat their crap and smile as usual. But it turns out people liking classic SF books are not your average fanboy, and they don't like being lied to. It's not…

The series has generally positive reviews (70% on Rotten Tomatoes). It was recently renewed for a second season already. I think it's a success for them.

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

#339

Post by GeekyBear »

mchusma wrote: post #327
GeekyBear wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 char…

Agree as well. I loved the premise of the books, but I just couldn't find myself to care about any of the actual characters. I think the same story, but where at least some of the characters are truly immortal (reasonable for far future sci-fi), would be better. Basically a mashup between Peter Hamilton and Foundation would be cool, his work does a good job of showing "far future technologies".

I would love to see someone take a stab at the Night's Dawn trilogy.

The world building for the Confederation and the Adamist and Edenist societies as well as the various alien races was very well done.

They might want to rethink the choice of Al Capone, which seems a bit over the top.

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

#340

Post by mdtancsa »

goatlover wrote: post #269
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 ??!?!

>> but its really annoying when there is faster than light travel. Almost all space scifi has FTL, wormholes, warp drive or jump drive out of necessity, otherwise you're rather limited in travel. Even the Expanse allows for it at some point, after allowing for the super high efficiency fusion drive just to make travel around the Solar System reasonably fast enough. It's a necessary plot device, unless you're doing a…

I am totally fine with FTL. My point is, if you have FTL travel, but the tech at the time cant invent a flashlight to illuminate a cave for more than 10m, or even have tech that allow them to see every imaginable detail etc... Dont create lazy tension points that are built on fumbling around in the dark due to inadequate lighting.
Post reply on HN