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

361–370 of 498 posts

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

#361

Post by tshaddox »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #315
tshaddox wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a bit silly to imply that the intended market was people who like or have even heard of SF classics like the Foundation series. Th…

Sure, but in that case you can't expect to benefit from the hype produced by the fans community, and any backslash is on you. Turns that those people make a lot of noise for their small number. The screeching voices and all that.

Right, and that’s precisely what I’m saying: that it’s silly to claim that Apple’s plan was to make a mediocre show and rely on generating hype with nothing more than the name recognition of Asimov and the Foundation series.

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

#362

Post by oldgradstudent »

mordymoop wrote: post #268
light_hue_1 wrote: post #86

No one learned anything from Game of Thrones. The show was absolutely amazing when it could follow the books. The definitive show everyone talked about. The moment the books ran out it started to go downhill. And when they couldn't easily extrapolate from the books the show fell apart completely. The showrunners and writes for the show weren't good enough to make Game of Thrones on their own. No offence, but that tak…

>> The show was absolutely amazing when it could follow the books. The definitive show everyone talked about. The moment the books ran out it started to go downhill. And when they couldn't easily extrapolate from the books the show fell apart completely. The showrunners and writes for the show weren't good enough to make Game of Thrones on their own. No offence, but that takes a lot of skill and luck. They were good…

> George R.R. Martin is still underrated, even given his success. He wrote for television for a long time and structured his novels more like seasons of TV, with each chapter serving as an episode.

It was never intended for film or TV. It was almost intentionally unfilmable.

“I had worked in Hollywood myself for about 10 years, from the late ’80s to the ’90s. I’d been on the staff of The Twilight Zone and Beauty and the Beast. All of my first drafts tended to be too big or too expensive. I always hated the process of having to cut.” When he took up novel-writing afterward, he recalls: “I said, ‘I’m sick of this, I’m going to write something that’s as big as I want it to be, and it’s going to have a cast of characters that go into the thousands, and I’m going to have huge castles, and battles, and dragons.”

https://ew.com/article/2011/04/04/game-of-thrones-hbo-george...

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

#363

Post by AlbertCory »

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 read the books so long ago that I remember zero about them. So "lack of fidelity to the books" is hardly my issue.

The issue is: they're high-glitz Hollywood garbage: "We can't think of any new ideas, so we'll just make the actors more 'modern' and relatable, and spend a lot on the CGI."

It's interesting that I don't watch much sci-fi, but AppleTV is also running Invasion which I do find watchable. Even though those characters are also kinda cliched.

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

#364

Post by ashtonbaker »

brodouevencode wrote: post #242
robbiep wrote: post #168

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.

Lord of the Rings by popular consensus, surely?

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

#365

Post by nucleardog »

koheripbal wrote: post #194
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 never read Foundation, so maybe that's why I like the show so much. The ideas are all new to me and I have no idea where the story is going.

I have read the books. The entire series a few times now actually. I enjoyed them immensely both for the story and some of the ideas that are played with throughout.

They'd make terrible, boring TV.

I'm glad they've not attempted a shot-for-shot remake of the books as a TV show, and instead chosen to adapt by taking some of the core ideas and (thusfar) general gist of of the stories and turn them into something. I'm glad I get to explore those ideas further and put my head in that world a bit more. I like that they've added some other interesting ideas to play with.

I think the moaning is just the same general thing that comes up any time anything is adapted to screen. There's a huge contingent of people that, for some reason, seem to treat the source material as some holy text that's never to be changed instead of just being happy that some of the good and interesting elements are being carried over into a new story.

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

#366

Post by Twisell »

johnchristopher wrote: post #307
brodouevencode wrote: post #242

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.

Hmmm. Harry Potter movies ? ~Lord of the rings ? Dune (even though I didn't enjoy it) ?

> Harry Potter

As far as "faithful to the literary work", while the first one did a pretty fine job, it would bee an understatement to say that it didn't stay the distance especially past Azkaban. (Azkaban which is ironicaly form me is still a great movie on his own as the screenplay is in my eye a sweet wink at back to the future II)

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

#367

Post by chaostheory »

Rerarom wrote: post #173
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 make a lot of changes without pissing on its main themes. E.g. there are a lot of characters and scenes which were just sketched and the show could have filled them in instead of inventing whole new plots out of cloth. Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so, you'll see" but he could have just not made it look like it is so. Another thing would have been to…

> Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so

Almost all modern TV in the Scifi & Fantasy tropes relies on the the Hero's Journey. It is very hard not to use it especially if you want a large audience. To faithfully recreate Foundation for TV, you'd have to make a fake documentary and that just doesn't draw enough people to make the budget work

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

#368

Post by tweedledee »

dkonofalski wrote: post #291
goatlover wrote: post #257

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 enjoyed the realpolitik of Expanse but hated the trite interpersonal conflicts which seems to be a mainstay of modern drama. I find the main characters to be rather childish.

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

#369

Post by oldgradstudent »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #86

No one learned anything from Game of Thrones. The show was absolutely amazing when it could follow the books. The definitive show everyone talked about. The moment the books ran out it started to go downhill. And when they couldn't easily extrapolate from the books the show fell apart completely. The showrunners and writes for the show weren't good enough to make Game of Thrones on their own. No offence, but that tak…

> Hardin is now a "warden"!? Literally, the character with one of the most memorable sayings in all of literature "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" is now all about violence. That's nothing less than a betrayal of the source material.

They even pissed on the source material by having Hardin's father remind her of the saying and have her explicitly dismiss it.

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

#370

Post by jessaustin »

joking wrote: post #181
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'm really enjoying it, and I read the books so long ago that I almost don't remember much from them, so I don't have any problem with the story not being faithful to them.

I considered a re-read when I learned this was coming out, but now I'm glad I have three decades' distance from the books. I may re-read after the show concludes, but at this pace that could be some time yet...
Post reply on HN