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

421–430 of 498 posts

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

#421

Post by goatlover »

lsjvjn wrote: post #414
goatlover wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The lack of computing tech in a space empire does need explaining.

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

#422

Post by johnchristopher »

Twisell wrote: post #366
johnchristopher wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

My memories are fuzzy and I admit I don't remember how faithful they were.

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

#423

Post by ASalazarMX »

treis wrote: post #267
wccrawford wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even remember the original books, other than that I liked them. I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment , but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. The only thing I like is the mysteries. I'm not very far in, but they're few and far between, and wading through all the crap to learn about them is tiring. I keep trying to force myself to watch the next episode, but it doesn't happen.

>I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. IMHO, that matches the books.

The books at least advanced at a constant pace. Foundation seems stuck since three episodes ago. I'm surprised how an hour-long show can consist of mostly stalling. It will need a few seasons per book at that pace.

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

#424

Post by BiteCode_dev »

tshaddox wrote: post #361
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple TV is at this point, the underdog that most people don't know about. Probably 1 out 50 persons even know it exists around me.

So I wager they wanted very hard that the name of Asimov created a fan base that would carry their own PR.

Otherwise, why chose the book at all ? After all, as you said, it's almost impossible to adapt, so they didn't buy the rights for the writing.

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

#425

Post by TheTrotters »

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…

Exactly. There’s a lot of wishful thinking that the show is criticized because it deviates from the books.

No, the show simply isn’t good. It suffers from the Netflix Disease. High production quality, painfully mediocre writing.

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

#426

Post by PuercoPop »

jeffwass wrote: post #390
dragonwriter wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Literally anything? Never let me go? The wizard of Earthsea? I have a hard time seeing how can anyone not agree with the parent's assessment. Foundation is interesting because of the idea/plot it presents. But the characters themselves bring little to the table. In a way the Foundation series is a good piece of conceptual art, but sci-fi novels.

I would argue that 1Q84 (don't read it!, it sucks) is the exact opposite. Interesting characters but lacking an overarching setting/plot.

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

#427

Post by TheTrotters »

chaostheory wrote: post #367
Rerarom wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if you want your show to be a success you have to take chances.

If they make just another derivative show they can’t be surprised by the poor reception.

(Besides I’m not sure I agree with the premise. Game of Thrones was a big success and it was much more complex than a simple Hero’s Journey.)

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

#428

Post by ASalazarMX »

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.

If they had named the show anything but "Foundation", I think it would be a decent lure for Apple TV. Loosely basing it on the Foundation series, and naming it "Foundation" was more to generate hype than a love letter to fans of Asimov's work.

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

#429

Post by TheTrotters »

robbiep wrote: post #168
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 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…

Few people are criticizing the show from deviating from books per se. It isn’t good on its own merits.

Of course they had to make some changes and flesh out some characters to adapt it for TV. They just made poor choices. Instead of going with chosen ones, heroes, and battles, they should have gone for politics in space.

Something like the political manouvering in A Song of Ice and Fire but in space.

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

#430

Post by ASalazarMX »

nucleardog wrote: post #365
koheripbal wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Counterpoint: maybe people are getting jaded by the constant nostalgia baits Hollywood keeps producing. Personally, I'd prefer less remakes/prequels/lazy adaptations and more epics like LOTR, for example. LOTR also had adaptations, but they were well-thought and respectful to the source material.
Post reply on HN