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

61–70 of 498 posts

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

#61

Post by megablast »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #46
KennyBlanken wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't get why the stories are intertwined and so stretched out. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RotatingArcs It's a pretty standard technique to have multiple arcs going on in an episode. The most ready example that comes to mind is Battlestar Galactica.

Yes, but why? I'm familiar with the concept and it can work well (see Robert Altman films), but why was it necessary for this show? I think the straightforward single story single episode would allow for continuity, narrative depth and emphasize the theme that these books span centuries and multiple lifetimes. One of the better aspects of the book is seeing Salvor Hardin go from young upstart to elder statesman to my…

You are familiar with the concept that is used in almost every single television show?? In fact, I can’t think of one it isn’t in.

Ok.

Why did they use it?? Hmm....

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

#62

Post by andreime »

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…

One can make the case you can get away with more deviancy in tv shows than in movies. The changes you listed to Dune did not felt to me like they fundamentaly altered the story.

Jessica should be a terrific fighter since she is a Bene Gesserit https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#Powers_and_Abilit....

I don't agree with this take that it was modified to satisfy PC morality. There were a lot of criticism that Dune is white mesiah for arabs in space. Imagine a change where black Paula together with her partner Chani and Fremen overthrow the male dominated Landsraad.

The movie is basically in line with the books in terms of story: it's not about a hero saving the world; Paul is not an-Aragorn like figure, he is manipulating and taking advantage of prophecies put in place in the collective mind by the Bene Gesserit, in order to further his own goals.

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

#63

Post by megablast »

malermeister wrote: post #3

This sums up my feelings about the show pretty well. Loved the books, hated the show. It gets rid of everything that was interesting about the books - the high level narrative about civilization and power projection mechanisms and replaces it with generic Hollywood sci-fi tropes, with cringy romance subplots thrown in. The second episode was so bad I stopped watching.

Did you love all the books??

Because the books he wrote in the 80s were very different to the ones in the 50s. Completely different. And awful imho.

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

#64

Post by KennyBlanken »

malermeister wrote: post #3

This sums up my feelings about the show pretty well. Loved the books, hated the show. It gets rid of everything that was interesting about the books - the high level narrative about civilization and power projection mechanisms and replaces it with generic Hollywood sci-fi tropes, with cringy romance subplots thrown in. The second episode was so bad I stopped watching.

Did you consider that with such a complex story and large cast the show might take more than one and a half episodes to show you everything?

The show has indeed been about power projection mechanisms, once it set up the universe and cast enough.

It's one thing to watch an episode and a half and say "eh, not for me." It's another entirely to declare you know "the show" and speak authoritatively about it as a whole when you haven't seen four fifths of the material.

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

#65

Post by geenew »

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.

Iain Banks was famous for (tongue-in-cheek I think) saying he'd wouldn't mind changes Hollywood wanted in order to get a movie made.[1]

The machine-machine conversations, virtual hell, etc. parts of his books would probably not translate well no matter who was directing.

Otherwise, the material seems as well suited for adaptation as anything else. Consider Phlebas could be fantastic in a ~2hr movie with special effects worthy of the images he paints, a tone weighed towards realism, and an Aphex Twin / Caustic Window -like soundtrack.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090715133026/http://www.sffwor...

"How would you like to see your science fiction books filmed, if at all?"

"With a very, very, very big budget indeed. The one I'd most like to see done is Consider Phlebas; if they kept in the sequence where the megaship hits the giant tabular icceberg, the fist-fight under the giant hovercraft, the bit where the Clear Air Turbulence escapes from the GSV, and the final train wreck, I wouldn't even mind if they changed it to a happy ending!"

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

#66

Post by light_hue_1 »

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…

Literally nowhere does the book say what Kynes' skin color is. You might have imagined the character as white, but that's on you. It's not a "change" made for "PC" reasons. And if it was, well, that would be awesome!

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

#67

Post by charlieflowers »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #52
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!"

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…

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

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

#68

Post by edgyquant »

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.

Culture would actually be cool, though it’d either have to be an anthology or an original story taking place in that universe. I’d love to see Player of Games adapted as an 8 episode season.

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

#69

Post by malermeister »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #64
malermeister wrote: post #3

This sums up my feelings about the show pretty well. Loved the books, hated the show. It gets rid of everything that was interesting about the books - the high level narrative about civilization and power projection mechanisms and replaces it with generic Hollywood sci-fi tropes, with cringy romance subplots thrown in. The second episode was so bad I stopped watching.

Did you consider that with such a complex story and large cast the show might take more than one and a half episodes to show you everything? The show has indeed been about power projection mechanisms, once it set up the universe and cast enough. It's one thing to watch an episode and a half and say "eh, not for me." It's another entirely to declare you know "the show" and speak authoritatively about it as a whole whe…

Those two (not sure where you're getting 1.5 from) episodes have been completely incompatible with the source material already. There's no reason to go any further, in the same way you don't need to see the derailed train come to a complete stop to know it's not gonna make it to the station.

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

#70

Post by droopyEyelids »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #46
KennyBlanken wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't get why the stories are intertwined and so stretched out. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RotatingArcs It's a pretty standard technique to have multiple arcs going on in an episode. The most ready example that comes to mind is Battlestar Galactica.

Yes, but why? I'm familiar with the concept and it can work well (see Robert Altman films), but why was it necessary for this show? I think the straightforward single story single episode would allow for continuity, narrative depth and emphasize the theme that these books span centuries and multiple lifetimes. One of the better aspects of the book is seeing Salvor Hardin go from young upstart to elder statesman to my…

They can serve as a sort of self-narrating story, where a past arc provides context for the present or future.

Rotating arcs also add complexity that excuses weakness in character or plot writing- the viewer's effort to keep arcs organized makes it easier to overlook those faults.

Post reply on HN