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

381–390 of 498 posts

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

#381

Post by goatlover »

addingnumbers wrote: post #353
goatlover wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

Speaker for the Dead and the ensuing novels in the Ender's Game series managed to tell multi-stellar stories with sub-light travel and relativistic effects. Also most of the Three-Body Problem trilogy, there is no FTL until the very end when they jump forward by aeons.

Fair enough, but if you have a galactic empire, some sort of fast travel is needed.

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

#382

Post by simonh »

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 think they're really trying, but just slightly missing the mark. They're raising a lot of ideas that aren't in the book, but are actually relevant to the concept of psychohistory. Things like the group think exhibited in various factions, many of the characters grapple with the way society constrains their freedom of action. The identical genetics of the emperor/s raises the question of the relevance and nature of individual identity.

I think they actually do quite a good job of integrating all these themes of freedom, social constraint and inertia, personhood and destiny. The first book doesn't really do any of that, so in doing so the show is diverging dramatically from the story of the first book. Nevertheless given psychohistory they're all interesting questions. Later books do explore various implications of psychohistory, but I don't think it's viable for a show to wait x-many seasons before bringing in these themes.

The problem is the actual story is a bit sluggish, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I can see what they are trying to do.

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

#383

Post by chaostheory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #290
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 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.

> characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines.

You need to re-read the books. While the overall ideas and plot is good, the details and dialogue are terrible.

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

#384

Post by jjk166 »

Foundation is the most confusing show for me. Somehow it's telling a story which is completely unrelated to the books, while also faithfully recreating certain key moments from the books pretty much exactly as I imagined them; it manages to completely ignore all of the themes and indeed the core thesis of the books, but somehow still feels respectful in how it presents the universe; I feel bad that some of my favorite parts of the original story are all but certainly written out, but I love that I have no idea where this is going.

It feels a lot like the 1997 Starship Troopers movie where it was initially supposed to be an original work, but the studio said "hmm that's kinda like this classic story, can you turn this into an adaptation?" and the writer said yes but their fingers were crossed.

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

#385

Post by mikeklaas »

ddoolin wrote: post #21
Afforess wrote: post #7

I've read the books and watched the show as far as it's aired. I agree, but I almost think it's good that Asimov's vision is getting smoothed out a bit. After "second foundation" in the book series, the books go in a very different, unscientific "woo" direction. The end of the entire series is bizarre and controversial. I'm not all that convinced I want the original ending to be preserved - it wasn't that good anyway…

I only read "Foundation and Earth" before the show began (that's what was on hand where I was, I had little choice, as much as I hate starting in the middle of a series), and that book is VERY different from what I'm reading in the first book and what's in the TV series, and would indeed make for a pretty interesting show or at least a movie. It's literally about three people's journey across the cosmos to discover t…

That's probably the worst book in the series.

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

#386

Post by aspaviento »

I don't know why people keep saying that, since the books were narrated as a documentary, it's impossible to do a decent show about it. That's lack of imagination in my opinion. It would have been easily adapted with mini stories that develop based on previous stories. Yes, you won't have a main character for people to feel attached to, but you'll have the option to tell different stories by different directors like Dr. Who and create something more unique.

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

#387

Post by handrous »

browningstreet wrote: post #298
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_…

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…

> 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?

Nah, consisting mostly of dialogue doesn't make something unfilmable. That description applies to tons of good movies. "Unfilmable" becomes a possibility when there's little way to show anything, other than having characters speak infodumps at the audience. Even dialog-heavy movies need to show you things, even if it's just the physical movement and reactions of characters during the dialogue, or items about the room.

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

#388

Post by chaostheory »

ivankirigin wrote: post #261
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 don't understand why more "unfilmable" books don't get launched as an animated series. Maybe execs think adults wouldn't watch it?

You have to see this from the big picture view as a way to draw mainstream audiences for a paid streaming service. Without major drastic changes, a faithful translation of Foundation would be unwatchable for most people (most people are not into documentaries let alone fake ones), and it doesn't serve Apple's goal of getting more subscribers.

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

#389

Post by browningstreet »

handrous wrote: post #387
browningstreet wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Nah, consisting mostly of dialogue doesn't make something unfilmable. That description applies to tons of good movies. "Unfilmable" becomes a possibility when there's little way to show anything, other than having characters speak infodump…

Not sure what we're disagreeing about -- shows like Suits and Billions are very much two people talking, one of those people talking to someone else, first two people talking again, expand...

Mandalorian has shown how little of a set is required to keep actors busy.

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

#390

Post by jeffwass »

dragonwriter wrote: post #334
Rd6n6 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> you...need to read fiction with good characters and dialogue.

Suggestions?

In my case, it’s been 20+ years since I read Foundation (IIRC only the first three books)

Post reply on HN