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

371–380 of 498 posts

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

#371

Post by goatlover »

dkonofalski wrote: post #321
goatlover wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, I never made it past Season 1 so you may be right. It was just so distracting that I couldn't force myself to continue. More and more people recommend it, though, so I may have to just suffer through those early seasons to get to the good stuff.

I did want to quit around episode 6 of season 1 on my first watch. Part of the problem is that it takes most of season 1 to cement the main characters and establish the story. I stuck it out and was hooked by season 2. Season 3 was fantastic. The story just keeps evolving, all the way up to book 9 and various novellas (season 6 is coming out in December).

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

#372

Post by chaostheory »

GeekyBear wrote: post #326
StrictDabbler wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's not "early Asimov" by any means He wrote the first Foundation story when he was only 21. That certainly qualifies.

His retcon from the 80's wasn't any better in terms of dialogue

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

#373

Post by dagw »

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 just couldn't find myself to care about any of the actual characters.

I felt the only actual 'character' you where supposed to care about was Civilization itself. Everybody and everything else where bit players and side characters who's fates only mattered to the extend they helped or hindered Civilization.

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

#374

Post by aspaviento »

ericmay wrote: post #250
throw0101a wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If my memory serves me right, Foundation was never about individuals but collectives. That's what psychohistory math was about. The show fails completely to transmit this idea which for me, is the core of the books. So if they don't even get that right, what's the point of making a show about it?

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

#375

Post by chaostheory »

ashtonbaker wrote: post #364
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.

Lord of the Rings by popular consensus, surely?

LOTR and Harry Potter are easy to translate to the big screen because both follow the Hero's Journey formula. The same can be said with Dune. The only difficulty with Dune is that all of its content is hard to fit in two hour snippets.

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

#376

Post by justicezyx »

yufeng66 wrote: post #218
throw0101a wrote: post #150

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of Foundation versus Dune : > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day…

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.

> So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.

This translates to an assessment of too emotionally invested?

Name calling and gas lighting seem to be the natural way of some people's narrative approach of discredit the person without offering counter point to the statement (or rather, not able to).

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

#378

Post by tootie »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #302
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_…

> No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. I would offer an even more contrarian take: the show actually is being relatively faithful to the books. At least of the most recent episode. More concretely, while obviously there are important changes (the Cleons, how Seldon dies, the Anacreons invading rather than making diplomatic threats, nobody smoking, etc.) none of these are terribly unfaithful to the story. Most…

The most recent episode lost me. I think the biggest problem with filming the books is that the cast turns over every chapter. The genetic dynasty, Hari's hologram, Gaal going into extended hibernation are perfectly viable plot devices to keep the audience interested. So is jazzing up the action Making Gaal psychic really lost me. And so is the portrayal of Hari's forecasts as being a plan that hinges on specific people. That's really contrary to the book. The whole point of psychohistory is that cultural and society trends are nearly unavoidable and the individuals and their actions are nearly irrelevant except at the crisis moments where he would pop in to give relevant advice to whoever was around to listen. Magic people whose destiny is woven into the universe is completely anathema to that theme. That's just boring Star Wars.

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

#380

Post by chaostheory »

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.

Steven King was not a fan of Kubrick's The Shining.
Post reply on HN