HBO: Foundation

[pendell]

Evidently Isaac Asimov's Foundation is being made into an HBO series (http://dariopecarov.com/2015/04/18/asimovs-foundation-to-become-an-hbo-series/).

I will be .. fascinated.. to see how this turns out. I enjoyed the series as a teen. And I must admit some curiosity as to how they're going to work in all the sex scenes into what is a fairly cerebral work.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamlet]

This will either turn out fantastically, or terribly. Not sure which. It might actually convince me to buy HBO again.

But now I'm curious as to what happened to the supposed American Gods adapatation that was supposedly in the works.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Awesome! That gives me about 5 years to read the series before the show premieres. :smallbiggrin:

<still waiting on Monster>

[Eldan]

Huh. How?
I only read the first book, Foundation, but there is not actually... that much story? Like, big things and developments get described, but there's not a lot of strong characters, I feel. Or characters that do much.

[Reddish Mage]

Huh. How?
I only read the first book, Foundation, but there is not actually... that much story? Like, big things and developments get described, but there's not a lot of strong characters, I feel. Or characters that do much.

I agree. It was good for the pulp sci-fi era when it was a bunch of short stories that ran as self-contained stories years apart in magazines but it ages horribly. The "Prelude to The Foundation" when Asimov is much older and already has the Robot Novels under his belt, is much better.

[Dragonus45]

If nothing else it gives the writers at HBO a ton of space to develop the characters on their own.

[Thrudd]

I agree. It was good for the pulp sci-fi era when it was a bunch of short stories that ran as self-contained stories years apart in magazines but it ages horribly. The "Prelude to The Foundation" when Asimov is much older and already has the Robot Novels under his belt, is much better.

The two sequel books were also a more traditional narrative format following a single character. I would guess the series would need to do the prequels with Hari Seldon and Daneel Olivaw, and then eventually get to the sequels where Daneel is rediscovered in the end. Each season will jump forward centuries and tell a story about the state of the Galaxy at that time, with a new cast of characters.

[Reddish Mage]

The two sequel books were also a more traditional narrative format following a single character. I would guess the series would need to do the prequels with Hari Seldon and Daneel Olivaw, and then eventually get to the sequels where Daneel is rediscovered in the end. Each season will jump forward centuries and tell a story about the state of the Galaxy at that time, with a new cast of characters.

No way. If they got a great dynamic with great characters, they should stick with it, rather than do 3 seperate shows with three seperate seasons.

Also the name "Olivaw" is a Robot novel character, not really used in Foundation proper, and shouldn't be used in foundation discussion outside spoiler text.

I think "Prelude" and "Forward" are by far the best novels of the series and best material for a series, but I don't know if we'll get a Trantor/Young Hari Seldon series as...well "I Robot" doesn't give me hope that this guy even can read Asimov...

Heck "I Robots" mostly positive reception, as opposed to vomiting at a vicious undoing of the author's intended legacy, tells me that no one really got Asimov...

[pendell]

Huh. How?
I only read the first book, Foundation, but there is not actually... that much story? Like, big things and developments get described, but there's not a lot of strong characters, I feel. Or characters that do much.

There isn't. Which means there's some great heaping huge gaps to put in characters, subplots, sex scenes, and buckets of violence.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Thrudd]

No way. If they got a great dynamic with great characters, they should stick with it, rather than do 3 seperate shows with three seperate seasons.

Also the name "Olivaw" is a Robot novel character, not really used in Foundation proper, and shouldn't be used in foundation discussion outside spoiler text.

I think "Prelude" and "Forward" are by far the best novels of the series and best material for a series, but I don't know if we'll get a Trantor/Young Hari Seldon series as...well "I Robot" doesn't give me hope that this guy even can read Asimov...

Heck "I Robots" mostly positive reception, as opposed to vomiting at a vicious undoing of the author's intended legacy, tells me that no one really got Asimov...

Do we really need to worry about spoiling 30 year old books? Is it not known that the prequels and sequels joined the robot novels to the foundation setting with that character?

Christopher Nolan's brother, who co-wrote interstellar, is the one attached to this project. He doesn't have anything to do with the "I Robot" movie as far as I know.

if they are doing only the original trilogy, it will have to be only very loosely adapted, selecting a specific time period and following those characters and expanding their stories far beyond the books.
It could be a serial show, with many stand alone episodes gradually telling the story of the fate of Human civilization in the Galaxy (that's what the books are about, after all, rather than specific characters). they could get lots of good actors to commit to one or two or three episodes, and roughly follow the format of the books, jumping forward through time after each episode or story arc. If they did the prequel books, I think it would be one full season or two at the most. The same with the sequel books, probably one whole season following Goran to find Earth. It would be probably four-six seasons total.

A show with great characters and good dynamic set in one specific corner of the foundation timeline would be fine, too. Or more likely condensing the timeline so that a single set of characters can face the empire, uncover secrets of Hari Seldon's past, the second foundation, maybe even Gaia and hunt for earth as well.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Heck "I Robots" mostly positive reception, as opposed to vomiting at a vicious undoing of the author's intended legacy, tells me that no one really got Asimov...

Except every Asimov fan hated it before they watched it.

No screen writer ever 'got the point' of the Philip K **** story they adapted either, and the film I, Robot is far better than the worst PKD movie and no way near as good as the best ones.

[runeghost]

Foundation, hm? :smallconfused:

I know its a classic, but I'm not really sure how it'll go as a TV series.

I'd been hoping they'd do Julian May's "Saga of Pliocene Exile".

[Thrudd]

This will either turn out fantastically, or terribly. Not sure which. It might actually convince me to buy HBO again.

But now I'm curious as to what happened to the supposed American Gods adapatation that was supposedly in the works.

They werent able to come up with a script HBO was happy with, I guess, after rewriting a few times. I read that Starz has since bought the rights and different people are working on a pilot.

[Eldan]

Except every Asimov fan hated it before they watched it.

No screen writer ever 'got the point' of the Philip K **** story they adapted either, and the film I, Robot is far better than the worst PKD movie and no way near as good as the best ones.

A Scanner Darkly wasn't bad.

[The Glyphstone]

Seems an odd choice for HBO to pick up, considering the niche that they occupy in terms of programming content. Asimov's work was never known for its copious quantities of naked people and/or blood-soaked fight scenes.

Maybe it was cheap? Sci-fi is becoming cool and trendy again, so it might just be an experiment they can afford to lose money on if it fails to work out.

[Derthric]

Seems an odd choice for HBO to pick up, considering the niche that they occupy in terms of programming content. Asimov's work was never known for its copious quantities of naked people and/or blood-soaked fight scenes.

Maybe it was cheap? Sci-fi is becoming cool and trendy again, so it might just be an experiment they can afford to lose money on if it fails to work out.

Ah yes but neither was all that prevalent in Newsroom*, Big Love, Earth to the Moon, John Adams, or most of their comedies.

HBO tends to be willing to take risks on random genre shifts in its programming, I can't think of a fantasy series it did before Game of Thrones and who knew if an audience reared on crime shows would gel to it?

I am willing to check it out.


*Though I might have enjoyed newsroom more if they did something other than talk.

[Lethologica]

Game of Thrones is mostly people standing around and talking. They had to (re)invent sexposition just to keep people interested in all that talking. I doubt the amount of talking in the Foundation series is an insurmountable barrier.

[Reddish Mage]

Except every Asimov fan hated it before they watched it.

No screen writer ever 'got the point' of the Philip K **** story they adapted either, and the film I, Robot is far better than the worst PKD movie and no way near as good as the best ones.


Ah yes but neither was all that prevalent in Newsroom*, Big Love, Earth to the Moon, John Adams, or most of their comedies.

HBO tends to be willing to take risks on random genre shifts in its programming, I can't think of a fantasy series it did before Game of Thrones and who knew if an audience reared on crime shows would gel to it?

I am willing to check it out.

See these comments show how little people know about Asimov and his works. The whole point of Asimov's "I Robot" (and almost everything else Asimov wrote about robots) was that robots weren't "Frankenstein" monsters and there was no need to fear a robot uprising. Robots were tools (or, more disturbingly accurate but rarely the point, humans with a sort of slave chip) that would go wrong and could be fixed. That evolved into "robots were more moral than humans and will become our saviors."

The guy who wrote I Robot, the same guy doing Foundation, claims "I Robot" was mutable and Foundation is not and that his generic robot uprising script worked perfectly with Asimov. That already speaks volumes.

Foundation, like I Robot, has no real "plot" and even fewer characters across the collection of short stories, which spans centuries rather than a single lifetime. Foundation does have a point, however, and it's a point I'm sure the world will never know...

[Dragonus45]

See these comments show how little people know about Asimov and his works. The whole point of Asimov's "I Robot" (and almost everything else Asimov wrote about robots) was that robots weren't "Frankenstein" monsters and there was no need to fear a robot uprising. Robots were tools (or, more disturbingly accurate but rarely the point, humans with a sort of slave chip) that would go wrong and could be fixed. That evolved into "robots were more moral than humans and will become our saviors."

The guy who wrote I Robot, the same guy doing Foundation, claims "I Robot" was mutable and Foundation is not and that his generic robot uprising script worked perfectly with Asimov. That already speaks volumes.

Foundation, like I Robot, has no real "plot" and even fewer characters across the collection of short stories, which spans centuries rather than a single lifetime. Foundation does have a point, however, and it's a point I'm sure the world will never know...

In his defense the plot of the I robot movie could very well have happened in a society where robots didn't have the sheer societal power they had in the books. The 0th law would easily allow it. Now it totally violates the Themes of Asimov and I hated the movie for that reason but within the rules it worked.

[Thrudd]

See these comments show how little people know about Asimov and his works. The whole point of Asimov's "I Robot" (and almost everything else Asimov wrote about robots) was that robots weren't "Frankenstein" monsters and there was no need to fear a robot uprising. Robots were tools (or, more disturbingly accurate but rarely the point, humans with a sort of slave chip) that would go wrong and could be fixed. That evolved into "robots were more moral than humans and will become our saviors."

The guy who wrote I Robot, the same guy doing Foundation, claims "I Robot" was mutable and Foundation is not and that his generic robot uprising script worked perfectly with Asimov. That already speaks volumes.

Foundation, like I Robot, has no real "plot" and even fewer characters across the collection of short stories, which spans centuries rather than a single lifetime. Foundation does have a point, however, and it's a point I'm sure the world will never know...

Where are you getting that the same person who wrote I Robot movie is writing the HBO show? The only name I've seen mentioned regarding Foundation is that Jonathan Nolan is adapting it and show running it. He wrote Interstellar (and Memento, Dark Knight, etc.) with his brother, had nothing to do with I Robot.

Yes, it could be bad. But HBO has a good track record, and Nolan is a good writer.

[Closet_Skeleton]

See these comments show how little people know about Asimov and his works.

No, I just find high and mighty fan rage dull after seeing it be the only argument that ever pops up in an Asimov thread.

Anyone who attacks a movie on faithfulness to the source material just shows a complete ignorance of film making, or is at least incapable of criticising a movie coherently.


In his defense the plot of the I robot movie could very well have happened in a society where robots didn't have the sheer societal power they had in the books. The 0th law would easily allow it. Now it totally violates the Themes of Asimov and I hated the movie for that reason but within the rules it worked.

Asimov knew it worked within the laws and lays it out as a possibility in (I think) Robots of Dawn. He just had no interest in actually writing it as a story.

The three laws originally basically just being a handwave for why the robots weren't rebelling that never really hung together that well.

[The Glyphstone]

Anyone who attacks a movie solely on faithfulness to the source material just shows a complete ignorance of film making, or is at least incapable of criticising a movie coherently.



Added in one word that I think makes your statement much more accurate. If someone isn't even going to be tangentially faithful to the source material, then you can't even honestly call it 'source material' to begin with, and criticizing a movie based on that dishonesty is valid. The problem comes when you judge a movie only on its fidelity to the source, with ignorance of how some things can't be translated into a visual medium effectively.

Example: Starship Troopers. The director is on record as having never read the novel, and the end result is a direct polar opposite thematically to said novel - not just an unrelated story, but one that goes directly against the supposed source material's message. Now, Starship Troopers isn't exactly a good movie even on its own merits, but a great deal of the deserved criticism comes from how it stomps all over Heinlein's original story.

[Eldan]

Where are you getting that the same person who wrote I Robot movie is writing the HBO show? The only name I've seen mentioned regarding Foundation is that Jonathan Nolan is adapting it and show running it. He wrote Interstellar (and Memento, Dark Knight, etc.) with his brother, had nothing to do with I Robot.

Yes, it could be bad. But HBO has a good track record, and Nolan is a good writer.

Well, there goes my curiosity, then. The writting on "Interstellar" was terrible.

[Talya]

Well, there goes my curiosity, then. The writting on "Interstellar" was terrible.

You're kindof in the minority there. I can't argue the point, because Interstellar is still on my "to watch" list, but based on critics and audiences alike, I think you're on the unpopular end of a subjective opinion.

With that said, Jonathan Nolan gets my nod as being one of the best TV writers currently working thanks to Person of Interest, which is bloody fantastic.

[Yora]

A Scanner Darkly wasn't bad.

I hear Philip **** quite liked Blade Runner.

[Archonic Energy]

Example: Starship Troopers. The director is on record as having never read the novel, and the end result is a direct polar opposite thematically to said novel - not just an unrelated story, but one that goes directly against the supposed source material's message. Now, Starship Troopers isn't exactly a good movie even on its own merits, but a great deal of the deserved criticism comes from how it stomps all over Heinlein's original story.

I... kinda liked Starship Troopers. it was hammy switch your brain off fun.

anyway:
i've always said Foundation would make a better series than a movie. the question is do they do the flash back thing and tell Hari's background in the... background. jumping from the current Crisis to where he was solving it and planning his trial and such.

there's no accounting for the fact that this is spread over hundreds of years and they are going to need a rotating cast it'll be jarring if Mallow was the same actor as Hardin

[Closet_Skeleton]

Now, Starship Troopers isn't exactly a good movie even on its own merits, but a great deal of the deserved criticism comes from how it stomps all over Heinlein's original story.

If it was a good movie, that would not matter. If it was a bad movie but a perfect adaptation, it would not matter except to those with ridiculously long attention spans.

Though in this example the only person I know who's seen the film read the book first and doesn't think it was that off message but her interpretation of the book is apparently not the mainstream one. Its mostly a tone issue.

Nerd rage can infinitely attack details in even a reasonably good adaptation.

The thing is, changing the message of a story to be relevant to current events is just how story telling works. Most stories with famous messages were recycled from other stories that had different messages. The Crucible is about 50s Red Scare despite that not really making any sense regarding the Salem Witch Trials. A adaptation of The Crucible made today could not be about 50s Red Scare and have any resonance. Making a film version of The Crucible about some modern witch hunt wouldn't be an insult to the author, it would just be making use of the plasticity of the metaphor in the same way the author did.

[Douglas]

there's no accounting for the fact that this is spread over hundreds of years and they are going to need a rotating cast it'll be jarring if Mallow was the same actor as Hardin
They could focus the show on a single period somewhere in the thousand-year interval, dealing with a single Seldon Crisis and the leadup to and fallout of that Crisis. Asimov's grand concept for the series was great, but most of the Crises ended up being extremely short and simple so they could fit into short stories. Fleshing one out into something more complex could be a workable basis for a good show without requiring multi-generational time skips.

If they do try to cover the whole time span of the book series, then yes they'll need either a rotating cast or a really good makeup department. Seldon is the only character that appears throughout, and his appearances outside the prologue are rare, limited to short speeches in the Time Vault at the height of each Crisis.

[The Glyphstone]

I... kinda liked Starship Troopers. it was hammy switch your brain off fun.


I didn't say it wasn't fun, I said it wasn't good. It is delightfully hammy.

[BannedInSchool]

I didn't say it wasn't fun, I said it wasn't good. It is delightfully hammy.
Dougie Houser, Evil Space Nazi. But if you want to cross a satire of war movies and propaganda with a message about the evilness of Nazis then okay, but it has nothing to do with Starship Troopers (and I'd heard the movie started as just "Bug Hunt"). I'd imagine Verhoeven chokes a bit at it being a popular fun movie for the armed forces. There's too much of it I choke on to enjoy as a bunch of idiots getting violently killed. :smalltongue:

[JCarter426]

Yeah, I'm fairly excited about this. Asimov practically invented space opera. So many series have drawn from his works, but there's never been an adaptation of the original. And I always thought it would work best as a TV series. Back when it was supposed to be movies, they were going to turn it into a bunch of action movies and probably only cover the parts with the Mule. Bleh.

I would do it as an anthology series. Each short story is a season. Each season covers a different period of the Foundation's history, with a different cast of characters. The only recurring character would be Hari Seldon, when his hologram shows up to relay his instructions. Granted, some of the short stories are shorter than others. I don't know if they could each fill out a full season. And the stuff with the Mule is twice as long as anything else. But that's the general idea.

I suspect they'll pad it out by using the prequels as flashback material. That's not what I'd do, because I really dislike flashbacks, but I could see why one would do so.

[russdm]

This is my humble opinion, but I don't think that Foundation works that well. There are issues with making it interesting and there are problems with how slow things move. It takes a few books before anything really interesting is going on.

1) Foundation: All three problems can appear and be solved in individual episodes. The problems and solutions barely have enough in the chapters to warrant filling an entire episode, especially if it is an hour long. More like 30 minutes tops.

2) Foundation and Empire: This book would require anywhere from 3-5 episodes to tell it completely. It could even be worked into a two-part pair of episodes.

3) Second Foundation: I think this book falls into 2-3 episodes based on what little I can remember that happened.

4) Foundation's Edge: I'm looking at 3-5 episodes for this book max. Mostly travel, considerable amount of talking, and so short.

5) Foundation and Earth: Looking at 3-5 episodes with the travel, talking, and action. Maybe you could stretch out the planet happenings, but that is pushing.

6) Prelude to Foundation/Forward the Foundation: Doing the prequels would explain why we should care so much about the plan. 3-5 episodes for each book at most, and you are prepped for Foundation. Ought to go first in the list.

The big issue is that the bulk of the story told in the Foundation novels are based in talking, travel, and discussions. Those can be trimmed down, which cuts the length of events happening significantly. The stories really don't convert well to movies or TV series without modification and the books simply don't translate well with the talking, travel, discussions that comprise something like 85% of the books. Plus, we need to get background on why the plan matters.

Another simple point is that frankly, the entire Foundation is really dull compared to other science fiction stories. I think maybe converting the RAMA stories or doing the Elijay Bailey stuff would work better. Even doing the 2001 and sequels would offer more material for HBO to use. Which leads to a main point; HBO needs enough material to do more than a few episodes, and the Foundation books simply don't have that much.