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

411–420 of 498 posts

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

#411

Post by bmh100 »

tweedledee wrote: post #368
dkonofalski wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are written in a childish manner: the white knight, the highly assertive love interest, the sociopath who wishes he could be a good guy, and the cowboy. Their personalities are unrealistic in ways that I would attribute to a young teenager. That said, the quirks of these trope-like characters is sometimes amusing. I enjoy the series mainly for the protomolecule plot, despite the characters.

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

#412

Post by bmh100 »

throw0101a wrote: post #238
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_…

> 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…

The entire subgenre of military scifi or military space opera is full of stories that would translate well into a visual medium, with plenty of action. I've read many but haven't seen any adapted yet.

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

#414

Post by lsjvjn »

goatlover wrote: post #279
lsjvjn wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with the 1984 Dune is that the film becomes overburdened with clunky exposition. I think there was a deliberate decision to avoid that mistake with this adaptation. While, as a fan of the novel, I'd have liked to see these elements given more explanation, I think on reflection that they did a commendable job deciding which elements needed exposition for audiences to follow the plot and which ones…

I mostly agree with that, but I don't recall seeing any explanation for the necessity of Mentats and the lack of robots/AIs/computer screens 10,000+ years into the future, or that the date wasn't actually our calendar date, but from the start of the current empire. And it would have still been interesting to show a Guild Navigator plotting a path. The Guild are barely mentioned. It's easy to overlook exactly why the…

Is the fact that the story is set 20,000 years into the future instead of 10,000 really "necessary"? After discussing the film with friends who have no exposure to the books, I think the constrained scope helped make the film easier to digest. We still have a ~3 hour Part Two to introduce the Emperor and The Guild.

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

#415

Post by ASalazarMX »

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…

> my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue

I'm still surprised about how slow they can make an hour-long episode. Between fistfights, face closeups and gratuitous sex scenes and drama, barely anything advances. It's following the Star Trek Discovery formula but in slow motion.

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

#416

Post by ASalazarMX »

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_…

It has some brilliant adaptations, like the Cleon clones, and some abysmal ones like the psychic supergenius self-taught mathematician from a backwards anti-intellectual hyper-religious civilization, that is destined to lead the Foundation. Way to pile on plot devices and clichés on a single character, a clear sign of weak writing.

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

#417

Post by ASalazarMX »

chaostheory wrote: post #380
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.

Steven King was not a fan of Kubrick's The Shining.

And it still was a much more faithful adaptation than Foundation. Foundation is like a boomerang that was thrown three episodes ago, and hasn't come back yet to its source.

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

#418

Post by throw0101a »

AniseAbyss wrote: post #406
tootie wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krugman has stated in the past that the entire reason he became an economist is because it was the closest real world profession to being a psychohistorian.

Amusing considering economists care more about their precious numbers than sociology, psychology and history.

In the ad for his MasterClass, Paul Krugman says (~25s):

> Doing economics requires stepping back from all of the details to say "What is the essential here? What is the story?". It's about people. It's not about money. It's ends up about what people do.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJEszZK54dw

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

#419

Post by pinewurst »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #404
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…

> setting out to shorten the Dark Ages after the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is great. If you haven’t already, I recommend reading “A Canticle for Leibowitz”

An awesome book but can you imagine what it would get turned into these days?!

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

#420

Post by ASalazarMX »

justicezyx wrote: post #358
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…

> what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. For God's sake. It's screenplay writers work to adapt. One did a good job if they create a nice screen play. If that work is simplified by a solid foundation (pun intended), we'd expect at least not worse off from starting from scratch. Look at what we get in this visual carnage of garbage.

It's very good visually, but mediocre plot-wise. The last few episodes look relatively low budget, so my guess is that they're preparing to end the season with more fistfights, a elaborate space war and the Invictus exploding like a Death Star.

If they had forgo the Foundation name and made their own universe, the fanbase would be more or less the same.

Post reply on HN