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

51–60 of 498 posts

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

#51

Post by canjobear »

jlawson wrote: post #26
kaczordon wrote: post #6

This is also what happens when you re-write the core story to match a Political Correctness agenda. The producers should’ve taken a note from Denis Villeneuve’s treatment of Dune, the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it.

Dune explicitly was adapted to satisfy PC morality. Villneuve said so (using other words of course). They made Jessica into a physical fighter, converted Liet Kynes into a black lady, excised the distinctive word 'jihad' to refer to Paul's vision of war. They removed the Baron's homosexuality and sexual perversion and changed his servant boys into (bald) servant girls, etc. The damage wasn't too bad all things consid…

The Liet Kynes gender swap was obviously for PC reasons but the other things you point out have plausible other justifications. For the lack of "jihad", consider that the connotations of the word are very different for 2021 audiences that lived through the War on Terror, as compared to 1965 readers who might only have been vaguely familiar with the word. Also, Jessica (and the other Bene Gesserit) are clearly strong physical fighters in the books.

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

#52

Post by KennyBlanken »

JasonFruit wrote: post #33
samplatt wrote: post #24

"Asimov's Vision". The guy himself has said in interviews that it was entirely inspired by gas/fluid dynamics theory, where you could predict the motion of the whole but individual molecules would be random, and then "what if that could be applied to people". Everything else is just exploring and extrapolating. It's far from perfect but I feel that if it was a new IP work the reaction to it would be very different. A…

Alternatively, if "Foundation and Dune are almost impossible to translate to screen faithfully," why are we translating them to screen, instead of writing a new work for which screen is the natural medium? With these adaptations, the two options are "That sucks!" and "That's not Foundation!"

Because a story can be re-imagined for a different medium and enjoyed by people? Who may in turn check out the original story and enjoy that, as well?

Others are just as entitled to enjoy an adaptation as you are to not enjoy it.

Some people enjoy seeing how a writer, director, cinematographer, cast, set and costume designers, etc present a written work.

Lots of people watch an adaptation and find bits they enjoy and bits they don't.

If you go through life only demanding or expecting experiences you will enjoy, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I ended up reading The Expanse series because I loved the pilot TV episode so much. I've never read Foundation and I think I likely will in the near future.

> With these adaptations, the two options are "That sucks!" and "That's not Foundation!"

Others are entitled to opinions other than your own...

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

#53

Post by klodolph »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #39
JasonFruit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, if "Foundation and Dune are almost impossible to translate to screen faithfully," why are we translating them to screen, instead of writing a new work for which screen is the natural medium? With these adaptations, the two options are "That sucks!" and "That's not Foundation!"

I think this really gets at the issue. Calling it Foundation, but not keeping the spirit of the novel, is just basically exploitative.

Who or what's getting exploited? The material itself? Or the audience? I think few people who read the SF classics will be duped just by the name.

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

#54

Post by chrisfosterelli »

jlawson wrote: post #26
kaczordon wrote: post #6

This is also what happens when you re-write the core story to match a Political Correctness agenda. The producers should’ve taken a note from Denis Villeneuve’s treatment of Dune, the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it.

Dune explicitly was adapted to satisfy PC morality. Villneuve said so (using other words of course). They made Jessica into a physical fighter, converted Liet Kynes into a black lady, excised the distinctive word 'jihad' to refer to Paul's vision of war. They removed the Baron's homosexuality and sexual perversion and changed his servant boys into (bald) servant girls, etc. The damage wasn't too bad all things consid…

I can understand some of it. I read Dune earlier this year and some components notably stuck out of their time, like the book's reference to the Jihad. While I can understand it in the context of a book from 1965, a modern cinematic release doesn't get the same leeway from audiences I'd imagine.

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

#55

Post by lostmsu »

m0zg wrote: post #32

I'm now glad Amazon decided not to do a show based on the Culture series by Iain Banks. I can only imagine how horrible that'd be, since they have even less taste than Apple or Netflix. Sci-fi is better for it, just read the books, they're excellent.

Don't roll a barrel on Amazon. They kept The Expanse alive (which is certainly better than Dune 2021).

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

#56

Post by pathxs »

The first few episodes were a bit slow, but I like the Robot enamoured with Religion concept and the out of their depth Cleons.

It reminds me of our present day leaders and the way they react with their subservient robot underlings to all events.

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

#57

Post by edgyquant »

samplatt wrote: post #24

"Asimov's Vision". The guy himself has said in interviews that it was entirely inspired by gas/fluid dynamics theory, where you could predict the motion of the whole but individual molecules would be random, and then "what if that could be applied to people". Everything else is just exploring and extrapolating. It's far from perfect but I feel that if it was a new IP work the reaction to it would be very different. A…

Having read both, I don’t think Dune is impossible to bring to the screen. I think it needs to be a TV show because as a film it will need to be super long (and will be exposition heavy and/or kinda boring.)

But Foundation is like the Silmarillion. It’s supposed to be detailed over centuries/millennia and definitely is hard or impossible to get right on the screen.

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

#58

Post by wyager »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #41
wyager wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dune wasn't exactly untouched by Hollywood politics. They completely eliminated the themes of European/Arabic cultural conflict (replacing everyone except the bad guys with a generic box-ticking multi-ethnic cast) and they completely nuked Kynes' character to replace him with a forgettable "generic strong woman" character.

While Dune (The Movie) is not exactly a treatise on colonialism with a specific focus on European/Arabic cultural conflict, it has several sections in which characters from both Fremen and Atreides camps describe and discuss colonialism directly and indirectly. If the portrayal of Kynes was "a forgetabble "generic strong woman"", didn't that apply to (at the very least) both Gurney and Duncan also? It seems that you…

> didn't that apply to (at the very least) both Gurney and Duncan also?

Yes, although to a lesser degree for Duncan.

> It seems that you wanted to see a different film than the one Villeneuve wanted to make.

I’m not talking about how the film did or didn’t match what I wanted, I’m simply refuting that “the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it” applies to Villeneuve’s Dune.

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

#59

Post by edgyquant »

sandworm101 wrote: post #5

They lost me in the trailer. Foundation is a story across centuries about elderly and ossified leadership structures, not attractive young people in spandex. It is about one faction rebelling against another, not kids trying to get out from under their parents. And I really don't mind changing the genders of characters but please don't do so just to create eye candy. Dune did this too. I think making Kynes female was…

Yeah. Dune can be (but I don’t think has been) done right as it’s still the story of one character and his ascension to the throne. Foundation can’t be done as a typical show due to the time span in which it takes place.

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

#60

Post by Jtsummers »

jrmg wrote: post #29
Jtsummers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The powerful bit about foundation was always the ability to predict larger events better than smaller ones, as well as criticism of empire and overdependence on interconnectedness. In that, the TV show preserves the themes very well. I can't see how you'd think this, with respect to the show. Seldon literally tells another character that that character's decision (on that day, apparently) will shape the fate of the…

Disclaimer: though I think they _would_ be something I’d enjoy, I’ve for some reason never read the books. I’m pretty sure Seldon being wrong about the smaller things is going to be a recurring thing in the series. People just _think_ he can predict them. He seems to too, despite knowing rationally that he cannot (he’s stated that numerous times). The theme of the Seldon plot seems to be: is Seldon predicting things,…

All of those themes are in the books, it's why he sets the Foundation up to make an encyclopedia. They aren't supposed to know, because (too much) knowledge of the future leads to potentially massive change (a variation on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So they can't know their real purpose (or one of their purposes) without changing the results.

And the series subverts that from the start, why? What does it do to make it better?

That last question is the key for me. A show or movie is never the same as the book (or very rarely). There are a lot of things that can or should be changed for adaptation. But why would you subvert one of the key themes that defined the book series?

Post reply on HN