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

491–498 of 498 posts

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

#491

Post by Arrath »

GeekyBear wrote: post #339
mchusma wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would love to see someone take a stab at the Night's Dawn trilogy. The world building for the Confederation and the Adamist and Edenist societies as well as the various alien races was very well done. They might want to rethink the choice of Al Capone, which seems a bit over the top.

The gratuitous hedonism, cruelty, and torture that the returned partake in could certainly be a selling point for say HBO to pick the series up.

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

#492

Post by charlieflowers »

vntok wrote: post #104
charlieflowers wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The show is basically fan fic set in loosely the same universe. It is absolutely nothing like the books.

Which is perfectly fine.

Not to me it isn’t.

If they want to make up a story, fine. Don’t use the same name for something completely unrelated.

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

#494

Post by throw0101a »

StrictDabbler wrote: post #470
twoWhlsGud wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. I'd definitely would watch that. And seriously, I think your larger point is that if you're going mess about with some legendary original source material, doing it in a self-referential way that says, "Yes, we know the original isn't what we're doing here, and here's how we are different on purpose " is probably something you want to think about.

You're making me aware of that larger point, though it may have been implicit. And the thing is that I love Waiting for Godot, so I could make a strong pitch. I've just read an interview with the writer, David Goyer: https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/foundation-apple-adapta... It's frustrating and I'm not sure why. I think it's because Goyer didn't realize that the 80's books were fan fiction. Isaac Asimov was alw…

> The only good prequel ever made is Godfather II, right?

Casino Royale is considered a prequel because Bond just gets his double-0 in it, while all the other ones he already had it.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is a prequel as well: it is set in the US Civil War, while the others are set after it.

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

#495

Post by pbak »

watwut wrote: post #146
pbak wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying grown men keeping young boys for sexual gratification is not perversion anymore ? It seems to me that that catholic priests abusing choir boys or the "bacha bazi" practice in Afghanistan are still shocking everybody.

He is saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things. Homosexuality is specifically not being considered perversion anymore. And the adults abusing pre-pubescent boys are not necessary homosexuals.

I understood that distinction perfectly. And as OC wrote "at the time Dune was written", it is absolutely true the distinction was generaly not made.

However this movie has been made in 2021. People who fail to make the distinction today are few and far between, except maybe in the extreme Christian Right or Fundamentalist Islam. Somehow, I don't think those are the target groups for the movie or book.

IMHO the filmmakers wanted to "protect" (if you allow me such an expression) the "cause" of homosexuality by using preventative narrative censorship. However, a trope cannot be fed if next to nobody understands it in that way, under that specific context. Most of the audience would completely gloss over his homosexuality. Even homophobes are "used to it" now.

This is precisely why I think they did a disservice to the work to pander to modern virtues and little gain. The audience/readers are supposed to find the Baron to be the most execrable human-adjacent being they have ever heard about.

The author wanted to drive us to despise him. In only watching the show, you are robbed of the necessary substrate for that emotion to arise. His evil was abstracted.

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

#496

Post by concinds »

germinalphrase wrote: post #328
scotty79 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writers today seem to not understand anymore how reality works, so they aren't able to extrapolate from it. That's a quite accurate observation. Even for the largest budgets people tasked with story telling are almost always the weakest element. Who makes them? What kind of education do they undergo to be this wrong about reality and storytelling? Are they such small and in-bred group that they are all so wrong in…

How many actors can you name? Directors? Screenwriters would seem to be critically important, but writing is hard, often slow and converts much less recognition than other roles in the industry. Further, there are innumerable points in the production chain in which the (necessary!) decisions of other crew members can alter/dilute/confuse the intentions of the screenwriter.

> Screenwriters would seem to be critically important, but writing is hard, often slow and converts much less recognition than other roles in the industry

I can name Levinson and Link. Ronald D. Moore also seemed pretty great. Some writers are talented enough that they can transcend the obscurity granted by their profession, and achieve "cult status" within a small niche who cares about these things.

But frankly, it seems many writers are simply not good. Most TV show nowadays consist of central characters doing dumb things, and needing an episode or two to dig themselves out, acting as filler. Episodic formats tend to promote lazy writing and overreliance on tropes. And it seems to me that most writers watch more TV shows than they read books, given how homogeneous the average popular TV show can be.

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

#497

Post by HouseOfBagels »

Renewed my Apple TV+ subscription specifically for this show and waited for a whole year -- I'm in the camp that thinks no series or film is ever going to be better than the actual books, but in terms of what's playing and in production these days, I've been immersed in the series from the start as well as the Foundation podcast that dives deeper into every episode with some of the shows producers, it's similar to hearing the director's cut of a film.

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

#498

Post by ghshephard »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #407
ghshephard wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Expanse is one of only five science fiction productions on TV I could seriously recommend to someone. It deals with big themes in a coherent manner. And the characters get incredible depth as the seasons continue. And thematic/political elements get way more interesting. Almost every other science fiction series turns out to be mostly fluff (admittedly, very entertaining fluff) when viewed through the lens of The…

What are the other 4?

My other Four:

   o Firefly - no brainer.  Brilliant.
   o Battlestar Galactica  - Has some issues mid-late course, but still pretty end-end enthralling.
   o Dark (I keep re-watching this over and over every few months.  I have many notebook pages full of analysis.  Seriously good SciFi for the most part.)
   o Altered Carbon (mostly Season 1 - but Season 2 was okay)
Big Recommendation:

Not really science fiction (even bigger themes explored) but far superior in terms of overall quality of work/screen writing, and has a similar "concept" that a lot of supposed science fiction shows have - "The Leftovers" - Which I put on my list of the 5 most brilliant things on Television (Sopranos/The Wire/Deadwood/Breaking Bad being the other 4).

I'll give a honorable mention to stuff I loved but I can't totally recommends:

   o Travelers - I'm a sucker for a good Time Travel Show. 
   o Foundation - Pretty - I watch it, but I totally would never recommend it.
   o Fringe - Wow -  was totally into this.  Definitely an acquired taste though.
   o Raised By Wolves - Interested in where it's going.  Could entirely suck eventually I guess. 
   o Black Mirror - Hit and miss, though hits often enough that I keep coming back to it.
   o WestWorld - I mean, we all watched it.  Season 1 was *awesome* if you watched it in realtime and didn't read all the internet commentary when the aha moment hit you.  Season 2 was pretty good as well IMHO.  Season 3 was just dreck where the screen writing tanked *but* it paid an *awesome* homage to the very last of the Foundation Novels to bring it all home.
Post reply on HN