The Foundation : It is Here, it is Big, It is Epic

[Dragonus45]

Just watched episode 3.

Spoiler: Epsiode 3

Show

I am confused by the idea of Salvor Hardin being "special" and the Vault letting nobody else but her approach. It seems to hint at her, specifically, being needed to resolve the First Crisis, which kind of goes against the whole idea of psychohistory.

Another thing,

Spoiler: Episode 2 & book spoilers

Show

Demerzel being part of the raid on the bomb-making facility feels off. That's a pretty blatant violation of the First Law. Even if she has, loke her book counterpart the zeroth Law installed, the books stressed how fien a line that is to tread, so I don't think her book counterpart would get away with that behaviour.

Spoiler

Show

Yea the setup for the series felt shaky to me to start with, Slavor Hardin the special chosen one feel totally on brand for the kind of stupid I half expect the show to fall into into and totally kills it for me.

Spoiler

Show

Demerzel might just be a different kind of robot and they explicitly aren't bothering with the Three Laws? I can't remember if that got made clear or not.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler

Show

Sorry I think you're misunderstanding me I'm not saying the plan is a lie, more that the first foundations idea of the plan is a lie as I said they view it as a paved path that's already been laid when really it's a living breathing thing that's constantly in flux. Sheldon even says the theory isn't fully finished. So the plan we see is true but the plan the first foundation sees is the prop, the lie.

I don't really have any interest in the morality of the plan as that's pretty much part of psychohistory.

Spoiler

Show

Okay, but then you'll forgive me for thinking you said the plan was a lie when you describe it with the word lie. The First Foundation has, by design, a poor understanding of the Plan, but that does not make it a lie, either. Seldon is being honest in his recordings, he 100% intends to deliver what he promises in the way he promises and hi heirs are sticking by it.

Spoiler

Show

Yea the setup for the series felt shaky to me to start with, Slavor Hardin the special chosen one feel totally on brand for the kind of stupid I half expect the show to fall into into and totally kills it for me.

Spoiler: Episode 3

Show

They do toy with the idea, like when she's shown the Prime radiant and goe "nope I can't make head or tails of that." so they might not go this way. I guess Episode 4, will tell us.

Spoiler

Show

Demerzel might just be a different kind of robot and they explicitly aren't bothering with the Three Laws? I can't remember if that got made clear or not.

Spoiler: Episode 2 & 3

Show

They haven't even mentioned the Three Laws and there were "Robot Wars" (although the only human casualties mentioned were killed by humans) so who knows. But adapting Asimov's works with robots that don't follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics feels wrong.

[Dragonus45]

Spoiler: Episode 3

Show

They do toy with the idea, like when she's shown the Prime radiant and goe "nope I can't make head or tails of that." so they might not go this way. I guess Episode 4, will tell us.

Spoiler: Episode 2 & 3

Show

They haven't even mentioned the Three Laws and there were "Robot Wars" (although the only human casualties mentioned were killed by humans) so who knows. But adapting Asimov's works with robots that don't follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics feels wrong.

Spoiler

Show

Even if it is just a tease it isn't going to help me feelings that the show is all flash and no substance. Don't get me wrong, the Foundation absolutely needed a little flash to go with it's frankly a lot of dry substance, but this feels too far the other direction.

Spoiler

Show

Well if there were "Robot Wars" then I'm doubting they are using Asimov's robots. Unless the bots from, "...That Thou Art Mindful of Him" got a chance to wake up and start talking it over with some other robots. I get the feeling that they are either tossing out the Daneel Olivaw twist or taking a much wider and kinder view of the 0th law issue then the books did.

[Anonymouswizard]

Spoiler

Show

Wasn't the reason Hardin appeared to be so important to fixing the crisis because by the time we meet him he was brute forcing his way into being top dog when the First Crisis hit? His actual solution is what most people would have done once they became mayor, and while it's been a while since I read it I'm not sure he even came up with the Religion of Science idea.

Hardin was sensible and who was needed, but certainly not the only person who could have done the job.

Guess it's time to pick up Foundation's Edge.

[Cikomyr2]

This week in Foundation

Things escalated, the Empire was attacked head on, and we learn a big backstory of the math girl

I really, really loved Hari Sheldon's assessment of her proof. The fact that it was *True* resonated with me.

[Fyraltari]

This is a good show and I am curious to see where it goes.
But I don't think it is a faithful adaptation of Asimov's book.

[Cikomyr2]

This is a good show and I am curious to see where it goes.
But I don't think it is a faithful adaptation of Asimov's book.

Define "faithful"?

I want to see where it goes and how the "first crisis" resolves before saying it's not worthy of the original series. Salvor Hardin in the original book did took over the Foundation by a partisan coup, and then went on to create a cult with him as the supreme religious authority.

[Wintermoot]

This is a good show and I am curious to see where it goes.
But I don't think it is a faithful adaptation of Asimov's book.

well... no... if you mean faithful as "abiding by the original's plotline". In the origianal Salvor Hardin wasn't a "warden", he was the mayor, he wasn't a park-ranger want to be but a political opportunist and career administrator. In the first crisis, he protected the foundation with guile and duplicity not with... uh a gun and a mad-maxian sidekick/boyfriend.

So yeah, the series plot lines are jumbled and mixed up so its not faithful like that.

However, if "faithful" means making the same points at the series, so far its too early to tell but it seems to be on track for me.

The first "foundation" novel was a series of short stories written over a decade in the 40s. They are too sparse to provide the meal for an entire series, so I can forgive them for expanding and adding where they need to.

i can also forgive them for replacing the series of white men with a series of multi-racial women, but I know some will have a problem with that.

[Cikomyr2]

well... no... if you mean faithful as "abiding by the original's plotline". In the origianal Salvor Hardin wasn't a "warden", he was the mayor, he wasn't a park-ranger want to be but a political opportunist and career administrator. In the first crisis, he protected the foundation with guile and duplicity not with... uh a gun and a mad-maxian sidekick/boyfriend.

So yeah, the series plot lines are jumbled and mixed up so its not faithful like that.

However, if "faithful" means making the same points at the series, so far its too early to tell but it seems to be on track for me.

The first "foundation" novel was a series of short stories written over a decade in the 40s. They are too sparse to provide the meal for an entire series, so I can forgive them for expanding and adding where they need to.

i can also forgive them for replacing the series of white men with a series of multi-racial women, but I know some will have a problem with that.

They seem to somehow mingle parts of the plot of the 2nd crisis (the lost Imperial Cruiser) with the 1st.

It doesn't really matter the minutia of what job Salvor Hardin had. In the original book, he had no more actual authority - initially - as SeriesHardin has. He was a powerless figurehead who was the most grounded of the Foundation leadership. That matches what we see.

Salvor used a bit of cunning, but we never really got to see him in action. The first crisis was resolved AFTER the end of the first book, we just get to hear about how he went on a diplomatic tour to the 3 kingdoms beside Anachreon. The only other action he actually took in the first book was seizing power with a show of violence. IT was bloodless; sure. But it was still a forceful takeover.

The 2nd crisis was just him showing up and make a charismatic speech. Sure, he put all the wheels in motion, but he had years and years of preparation.

[Wintermoot]

They seem to somehow mingle parts of the plot of the 2nd crisis (the lost Imperial Cruiser) with the 1st.

It doesn't really matter the minutia of what job Salvor Hardin had. In the original book, he had no more actual authority - initially - as SeriesHardin has. He was a powerless figurehead who was the most grounded of the Foundation leadership. That matches what we see.

Salvor used a bit of cunning, but we never really got to see him in action. The first crisis was resolved AFTER the end of the first book, we just get to hear about how he went on a diplomatic tour to the 3 kingdoms beside Anachreon. The only other action he actually took in the first book was seizing power with a show of violence. IT was bloodless; sure. But it was still a forceful takeover.

The 2nd crisis was just him showing up and make a charismatic speech. Sure, he put all the wheels in motion, but he had years and years of preparation.

Oh I agree. But that leads into my point which is the book (while fantastic) was... sparse of the kind of detail you need to fill up 600 minutes of season arc runtime.

[Dragonus45]

This is a good show and I am curious to see where it goes.
But I don't think it is a faithful adaptation of Asimov's book.

Hard agree, it seems to have have just missed the point for what the source material was trying to do so far.

[JadedDM]

I'm mostly just confused so far. Does psychohistory predict the future of large masses of people or individuals? Because the show keeps telling me it's the first one, but it keeps showing me the second.

[Cikomyr2]

I'm mostly just confused so far. Does psychohistory predict the future of large masses of people or individuals? Because the show keeps telling me it's the first one, but it keeps showing me the second.

Thats probably the thing that annoys me the most.

I get Seldon seeing his part in The Plan, and why he believed he had to die. It was important to preserve the Mystique of the plan, keep his status as a prophetic figure and not "Hari down the street".

But da fuq is Sardin supposed to be important? Unless they decided to do something around psychic powers and it being central aspect of the Foundation.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, granted, the season isn't over yet, so maybe there's another explanation and this is some kind of fake-out, but so far it really seems like the show is strongly implying that Hari predicted that Salvor would be born and would have special powers and would play a key role in averting the first crisis.

[Cikomyr2]

Yeah, granted, the season isn't over yet, so maybe there's another explanation and this is some kind of fake-out, but so far it really seems like the show is strongly implying that Hari predicted that Salvor would be born and would have special powers and would play a key role in averting the first crisis.

Exactly.

But then again. Let's say for a minute that they go with that. They never confirm that was Seldon plan, but everyone in the Foundation keeps repeating that it was. And it becomes a hardened belief.

That belief can still turn out erroneous in the end. We learn 2-3 season down the line that it could have been anyone, it would have been anyone 98% of the time, and there was nothing special about Hardin except she was the one who stepped up and was willing to push beyond the boundaries.

I am still utterly baffled at the whole Seldon Vault alien tech

Also wondering if they won't tie together the Spacers special mind-comprehension thingy with the psychic powers and the Math Comprehension thingy

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm mostly just confused so far. Does psychohistory predict the future of large masses of people or individuals? Because the show keeps telling me it's the first one, but it keeps showing me the second.

To be fair, in the earliest story it seems to be both, although notably three couple of times it is shown to work on individuals could either be showmanship or a case of 'the dynamics of Trantor mean this is the most likely outcome'. In later stories it's very much the first, and the fact that individual actions can, in rare circumstances, dramatically alter historic forces is important.

As for book Hardin, give him some credit. He'd spent years not only getting his way into power, he also had spent years actively working to undermine the existing leaders.

Honestly though, you could fill a series with a faithful adaptation. You'd have to give up on one series per book, but it's possible.

Series 1 would go up until The General, Series 2 would cover the rest of Foundation & Empire and Second Foundation, Series 3 and 4 would probably be Foundation's Edge and Foundation & Earth. Six one hour episodes each, and then maybe you go back and do the prequels.

[jayem]

I'm mostly just confused so far. Does psychohistory predict the future of large masses of people or individuals? Because the show keeps telling me it's the first one, but it keeps showing me the second.

Bookwise I think that's definitely the case. For obvious Equity/Filming based reason it makes sense that the Movies are similar. It would be different to see a film that was entirely told through large scale diagrams.
The principle is definitely that Physchohistory is the equivalent of Statistical Mechanics to Kinematics
The different parts vary into how much they live up to that, and I'm sure you could do some analysis as to why.

The first two part of Foundation is probably on the 'individual side' compared to average.

My guess for the Watsonian reasons for this:
Hari is trying to manipulate the future and the masses, using his understanding of Psychohistory as the lever. Because this is the crunch point, he also does have to take gambles on how significant individuals would react. The flip side of course is that he's dealing with the state he can see people as individuals in, he knows when Cleon's birthday was and...

The next part, Hari is still the significant individual. Gale has probably been doing some management (notably making sure he doesn't teach anyone). Hardin is too some extent possibly partially groomed for his opportunity. However to some extent the story of the part is Hardin anticipating what is happening and exploiting it for his own benefit.

Spoiler: partially mentioned and all based on the book

Show

Nothing Harding does at this point makes a difference to the evolution of the crisis, it just means the reader is informed of what's going on. Asimov could have told it from the point of view of someone blindsided, and it would have been a very different story ("you fool, your life work was for nothing").
And as mentioned we don't actually see the resolution (I think it's later implied Seldon confirms that what Hardin did was right, and in a way that if there was no-one on the ball something would be done).

Of course it does make a difference to Terminus's political dynamic. Had it been someone from the Encyclopedia would it be the Proctor and Trader's at issues later... ?
Although Hari arguably destabilises the encyclopedia side on purpose.

[JadedDM]

See, if you've seen the most recent episode, this is exactly what I am talking about:

Spoiler: S1E7 - Mysteries and Martyrs

Show

Hari claims that Gaal and Raych had to be separated, or else it would ruin the Plan. But how would he know that, if psychohistory can only be used to predict the actions of large groups of people, and not individuals?

Further, it's revealed that Gaal is psychic. "This is why you couldn't predict my actions, I can feel the future," she says. But...why would that matter? Psychic or not, she's still an individual, so psychohistory should not have been able to predict her actions either way.

The show keeps telling us one thing and showing us another. Which is it?

[Cikomyr2]

See, if you've seen the most recent episode, this is exactly what I am talking about:

Spoiler: S1E7 - Mysteries and Martyrs

Show

Hari claims that Gaal and Raych had to be separated, or else it would ruin the Plan. But how would he know that, if psychohistory can only be used to predict the actions of large groups of people, and not individuals?

Further, it's revealed that Gaal is psychic. "This is why you couldn't predict my actions, I can feel the future," she says. But...why would that matter? Psychic or not, she's still an individual, so psychohistory should not have been able to predict her actions either way.

The show keeps telling us one thing and showing us another. Which is it?

Well...

Spoiler: One thing I noticed

Show

Is the amount of character who have as motivation/inspiration just a "feeling"

The religious leader just "knows" the Emperor is inherently corrupt
the warleader just "knew" where to find the warship

I think they are already creating hints all over that psychic powers are a thing and that someone is pushing minds from the shadow

[Spacewolf]

So just managed to see the series and it's a decent series but honestly it's almost an anathema to the foundation books. The characters are all driven by randomness and luck there's very little of the thoughtful characters of the book and every main character has to be special in some way which is abit of an issue with most modern sci-fi to be honest.

The Cleon stuff is interesting but obviously nothing to do with the books. I don't know what's going on with stars end now. And apparently they are separating completely from the books for next season with an all new plot. 😒

I really wish they'd made it it's own thing instead of a foundation series because now I'll probably never get to see that, while it negatively effects my view of this series as I keep going why are they doing this like that. It also screws with this show because they keep realising oh crap we supposed to be adapting a book and go back to badly adapting plot points.

[VampiricLongbow]

I have not read any of the books prior to watching the show.

I really enjoyed the show. It was ambitious and daring in a way few other scifi shows are these days. It tried to do something very different and, for me, it worked out really well! Was it perfect? No but name a TV show that is this ambitious that is perfect. Does not exist.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have not read any of the books prior to watching the show.

I really enjoyed the show. It was ambitious and daring in a way few other scifi shows are these days. It tried to do something very different and, for me, it worked out really well! Was it perfect? No but name a TV show that is this ambitious that is perfect. Does not exist.

The issue is that it's based on a very ambitious and distinctive set of books, and throws away the bits that made those books distinctive to become more generic.

[Cikomyr2]

The issue is that it's based on a very ambitious and distinctive set of books, and throws away the bits that made those books distinctive to become more generic.

Id argue its the opposite. The original Foundation novels were very high concept science fiction applied on top of a very generic and bland sci fi setting, and the series worked to give the world more of a personality.

In the books, there was nothing particular about The Emperor except that he was in charge and unable to prevent the fall. In the books, Smyrhia and Anachreon were just two generic barbarian rebel kingdoms on the edge of the Empire. Nobody had any personality - which was fine because the story wasnt about personalities, the entire theme made clear that it was about big movement of people.

[Fyraltari]

Honestly, I find that the parts that were the least related to the books, namely everything to with the Cleons were the most interesting. I kind of wish this had been an original show vaguely inspired by Foundation (like most space-operas are anyway) rather than an adaptation.

[Willie the Duck]

I am about 50-50 on this show, and have serious qualms about adaptations of works that change, reframe, or potentially negate major parts of the original work (on one side, I don't mind what PJ did to LotR; on the other, that Zack Snyder seems to have completely missed the point of Watchmen makes me think less of his version; and in the middle I think Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is just plain a completely different story using characters with the same names and basic 'what happens').

That said, we weren't going to get a faithful Foundation series*. Ever. It's too... expository. I mean, movie and tv shows can end up with a lot of standing around and talking and explaining what is going on, but there's a limit. Honestly, even in book form the series (certainly the original 3) are hugely people standing around explaining to each other how this grand plan over the course of a millennium is unfolding, with only occasionally someone actually doing a specific thing that impacts the outcome.
*or movie

I really wish they'd made it it's own thing instead of a foundation series because now I'll probably never get to see that

[Cikomyr2]

I personally cant wait for a next season. We dont have Grand Epic Space Opera as a popular genre in pop culture at the moment.

The show is the show, and i refuse to rate it based on how closely it adapts the books. Meanwhile, I'll rate it devoid of expectation except those it puts on itself. And at the moment, i am gluttonous for season 2.

[Dragonus45]

I personally cant wait for a next season. We dont have Grand Epic Space Opera as a popular genre in pop culture at the moment.

The show is the show, and i refuse to rate it based on how closely it adapts the books. Meanwhile, I'll rate it devoid of expectation except those it puts on itself. And at the moment, i am gluttonous for season 2.

The show is using the name of another series and purports to be an adaptation of said material and I refuse to not hold it accountable for it's inability to grasp the themes and ideas of said source material.

[Anonymouswizard]

That said, we weren't going to get a faithful Foundation series*. Ever. It's too... expository. I mean, movie and tv shows can end up with a lot of standing around and talking and explaining what is going on, but there's a limit. Honestly, even in book form the series (certainly the original 3) are hugely people standing around explaining to each other how this grand plan over the course of a millennium is unfolding, with only occasionally someone actually doing a specific thing that impacts the outcome.
*or movie

Eh, you could still be significantly more faithful, or rework scenes to include more active elements.

But that was what made it distinctive. The original trilogy is telling a story that is far larger in scale than any of the people in it, even Sheldon. If you can't make a Foundation TV series with that limitation then you shouldn't make a Foundation TV series.

But hey, at least we do have a faithful adaptation of great quality. Radio dramas thrive in that kind of structure, and Foundation has one

The show is using the name of another series and purports to be an adaptation of said material and I refuse to not hold it accountable for it's inability to grasp the themes and ideas of said source material.

This. So much this. If the show wasn't trying to say it's telling the story of Foundation I wouldn't hold the fact that it isn't telling the story of Foundation against it.

I do not want a season 2, but I wouldn't mind these people making a new series and telling the story they clearly want to tell.

[Cikomyr2]

This. So much this. If the show wasn't trying to say it's telling the story of Foundation I wouldn't hold the fact that it isn't telling the story of Foundation against it.

I do not want a season 2, but I wouldn't mind these people making a new series and telling the story they clearly want to tell.

On the other hand, if the writers wanted to make a story about a mathematician who projected the collapse of galactic civilization and makes a plan meant to prepare for this and sets everything into motions, and you didnt call it Foundation, you would be buried in lawsuit and criticism of "ripping off Foundation".

Theres no winning that game, so i say **** that metric. The Hobbit did not fail because they were a poor adaptation, but because they were poor movies. Movies and series have to stand on their own regardless of source material. Just like you cant redeem a ****ty movie/series by telling me "oh this makes sense in the book", you cant bring it down by telling me "oh its different from the book".

Adaptators have to make concessions to the medium they are adapting it as. If you want a perfectly faithful adaptation of the novel, then YOU convince Apple to trust you with dozens of millions of dollars.

[Anonymouswizard]

On the other hand, if the writers wanted to make a story about a mathematician who projected the collapse of galactic civilization and makes a plan meant to prepare for this and sets everything into motions, and you didnt call it Foundation, you would be buried in lawsuit and criticism of "ripping off Foundation".

Theres no winning that game, so i say **** that metric. The Hobbit did not fail because they were a poor adaptation, but because they were poor movies. Movies and series have to stand on their own regardless of source material. Just like you cant redeem a ****ty movie/series by telling me "oh this makes sense in the book", you cant bring it down by telling me "oh its different from the book".

Adaptators have to make concessions to the medium they are adapting it as. If you want a perfectly faithful adaptation of the novel, then YOU convince Apple to trust you with dozens of millions of dollars.

Yes, just like how the Watch* series wasn't a dumpster fire of an adaptation. Except it was, because gutting the story or world and inserting your own stuff isn't being a very good adaptation.

Saying you're telling a well known story means you need to tell that story, not tell a different story and say 'sorry, we can't tell the story we promised because it's a different medium'.

Why can't Hardin be the mayor of Terminus and partially trained psychologist, who saves the day because she's the only one in a position of power with any knowledge of how people think? Yes definitely show her doing stuff, have her pull strings at the paper to present things in the light she wants, show her recording conversations and sending them off to be analysed, focus on her setting up the coup. But don't give me another character and claim it's her.

* I've heard it's okay if you've never read the books? I don't know, I love Discworld and couldn't finish the first episode because of what they did to Cheeri.