Apple TV+ Shares Trailer for Sci-Fi Series 'Foundation' Ahead of September 24 Premiere

[IllinoisCorn]

I stand by my comment that the Foundation books would not translate well to screen without significant changes. I didn't explain very well though, especially what I mean by action (see next paragraph). People have been trying to make the Foundation series into movies or shows for years without being greenlit. That doesn't necessarily mean anything but there's a reason so few shows have been based on works by writers like Asimov or Heinlein. They are difficult to translate to the screen (which means they don't make good shows without many changes).

I really like the books (I've read them several times and re-read them within the past 2 years) but they read like philosophy and psychology textbooks. There's little to no characterization or character development. There is also little plot. That's what has to be added and expanded upon. That will inherently introduce "action" in the sense that something will have to happen on screen. To make the screenplays good, writers will have to create character for the various book characters. They will have them do things. What little action or development there is in the Foundation books usually happens off the page. Action does not only mean Michael Bay -- explosions and fighting or chases. Action also includes character development and plot progression.

The closest sci fi movie to the Foundation books, at least in substance and style (e.g., cerebral), is Arrival. That is a great movie but it has more character development and other action than any Foundation book. The same is true for any Aaron Sorkin work, including the West Wing. The same is true for the classic Twelve Angry Men, which is mainly talking.

Even a book like Dune has been hard to translate for screen and that has much more action, character development, and world building than the Foundation series. What Foundation has is idea-building -- psychohistory, mathematics, etc. What they are missing is story building and character development. Both of those are things Aaron Sorkin does and generally does well. Anyway, that's what I mean the books will need significant changes and more action. People who want 60 hours of psychology or philosophy can take a university course.

You said "I stand by my comment that the Foundation books would not translate well to screen without significant changes. "

You are 100% correct.

 

[theluggage]

The closest sci fi movie to the Foundation books, at least in substance and style (e.g., cerebral), is Arrival.

You might want to check out The Man From Earth for the ultimate in no-action SF/Fantasy.

One challenge to Foundation as "hard SF" is that the whole "Psychohistory" thesis is, at least superficially (and since Asimov didn't have space in the margin to actually include his proof that's all you can really say) been debunked by chaos theory.

Another problem - which is showing up in this discussion - is that Asimov wrote the Foundation trilogy (and a few stand-alone stories set in the same Galactic Empire) and then many years later tried to retcon virtually everything he'd ever written into the same continuity, resulting in the whole canon being full of plot holes patched with retrospective duct tape, and suddenly you find that some of the characters in Foundation are now

Spoiler: Spoiler

millennias-old telepathic robots who reasoned themselves out of the three laws

although that wasn't true when the original book was written. So it's not entirely clear what "faithful to the original" means, and the full canon is so huge and self-contradictory that it is almost impossible to write to (...and what about subsequent ghost-written books?)

 

[louistrevino]

I'm not a betting man, but I suspect an understanding of the source material is probably not needed for this show. I kinda feel like there's even odds that it may make the show less entertaining.

I'd rather not risk it. haha. I read the Expanse before the show, and I've still enjoyed the show despite the typical "that's not what happens in the book!!" moments that I was able to calm myself down about.

 

[quatermass]

Please for the love of God don'e Poz/F-Up this adaption. The Foundation is too important to be sacrificed of the alter of wokeness, like so many others.

Too late! They've already gone and done it!

 

[hellopupy]

Finally a real sci-fi, not that "for all man kind" fake sci-fi.

Foundation will be this generation's Star Trek/Battlestar Galactica.

 

[StyxMaker]

No.
Every time they release a trailer, it's obvious they've taken the name 'Foundation', some character names and... that's it. The very basis of what they show here is most definitely not the story in the books. The Empire does NOT try to kill Seldon and his followers! The Empire is manipulated into supporting Seldon and installs his project on Terminus, using that as a cover for the implementation of the Seldon Plan. That's a much better story. Instead, they've made a SF TV series, with all the things SF TV series must have - giant spacecraft, epic battles, exploding things and weird alien worlds, a super inclusive cast that ticks all the boxes (for no other reason than box-ticking) and all the money spent on it up there on screen in the form of CGI imagery. It shows a total failure of creativity and imagination not to realise that the story in the books is much better than anything they could come up with, so why not make that?

"Oh, but Asimovs story's are just people talking" say the defenders of this tripe. As if TV series with people talking have never and could never be made. Watched any legal/crime shows lately? It's mostly people in rooms, talking, and they seem to be reasonably popular. They had a golden opportunity to produce something truly different, groundbreaking and memorable, but instead we get more of the same. Well, what do you expect from people who's background is super hero movies.

Anyway, Asimov himself knew all about it well in advance, and so it has come to pass - again.
From his 1983 book "Asimov on Science Fiction":

Chapter 54. HOLLYWOOD AND I

"I have hitherto firmly resisted the lure of Hollywood. I have refused to write screenplays even when invited to do so and even when my own stories were in question.

There are two basic reasons for this resistance. First, I am not visual enough to write dialogue and events that are to be interpreted primarily in the form of moving images on a screen. I’m just a word-man, and though it is a wise person who knows his powers, it is an even wiser person who knows his limitations.

Second, I am reasonably confident that in magazines and books my fiction will appear very much as I have written it. Anything I write for the visual media, however, I am certain will be tampered with by producers, directors, actors, office boys, and the relatives of any or all of these."

Back in the late 1960’s, when I was in high school, I took a writing class from a man who had worked as a writer for television (The Rifleman being the best known of the shows for which he wrote). He told us that, if we ever write for television, be prepared to never hear anything you wrote on the screen.

The first time one of his scripts got accepted for an episode of the show, he watched the night it was broadcast and only heard one line of dialog he recognized as being something he actually wrote. As mentioned above, everyone through who’s hands the script passes makes changes to anything they don’t like.

The upside, he said, was being payed quite well for writing things that never appear on screen the way you wrote them.

 

[StyxMaker]

So to sum it up. When I read a book, I want to read a good book. When I watch a movie, I want to watch a good movie and when I watch a series I want to watch a good series. Different times, different medias, different audiences, all versions can and should be different. Perhaps that is why I have never heard a review of any book, series of books converted to different medias that ever said. Accurate depiction of the books. Nuff said

Nothing longer than a novella can be directly turned into a movie. The difference between a good adaptation and a bad adaptation is what they chose to leave out. What makes the difference between a mediocre movie and a great movie can be found on the cutting room floor.

 

[N1noodle]

When i was reading the books it was a lot of head scratching until they released the prolog that came after the first 3-4 book if i remember correctly?

Not read them since late 80s so prob have to reread them agasin

 

[scottsol]

Uh, Daneel was in there? Where? I didn't see anything that made me go "oh that's definitely robots" but I did only watch the trailer once. And yeah, the effects and costumes look pretty amazing, but I don't know that there was enough detail in there to draw really any actual conclusions.

Also, there was a female humanform robot in Seldon's life so at worst you seem to be suggesting they combined two characters. Which is far from the worst thing a book adaptation has ever done. Given how little face-time Daneel has in the Foundation books, it might actually be a really good idea.

There is a character named Demerzel, played by Laura Birn.

 

[zephonic]

There is a character named Demerzel, played by Laura Birn.

Yes, Eto Demerzel appeared in the later “prequels”, Prelude to the Foundation and Forward the Foundation. Daneel Olivaw appeared in Foundation and Earth, the conclusion of the series.