6 ms·

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

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!"

jonnycomputer 5y ago
I think this really gets at the issue. Calling it Foundation, but not keeping the spirit of the novel, is just basically exploitative.
- klodolph 5y ago
  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.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Such a post-truth comment, 'why is it wrong to call something A when actually it's not'.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    The IP... I really don't understand why having some relatively well known name is so important when it ends up being something entirely different. I think culturally that really shouldn't fly. Why not at that point just come up with new IP? If you want take the elements needed from existing work as influences...
    - pharke 5y ago
      They should be brave enough to do their own take on the concept without using the title and clout of the original author. It would allow them more freedom in rewriting the parts that they need to and would transform the whiplash felt by readers of the previous work into possible delight at seeing a new story with new characters riffing on the original concept.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Selling your product to a network, and later to the audience, must be dramatically simpler when you have existing IP to build upon. We almost certainly wouldn’t be talking about it on HN if it weren’t Foundation.
      - citizenkeen 5y ago
        You don't think we would be talking about Apple's flagship science fiction show?
        macintux 5y ago
        I've not seen many front page discussions of modern movies or TV shows here, no. Sometimes a retrospective on older art, but I don't remember any of those either for the visual media.
    - b112 5y ago
      But they didn't come up with new IP. Instead, they hand picked 'oh, neat!' things they were told about, then just filled in all the missing bits with weird, unrelated, drama. EG, non-story related character confict. That's not content, but filler, designed to extend screen time. To actors, drama is the only important part of the role, and thus to many in hollywood. (One can have plot twists, action, suspense, without teenage drama...) So it isn't new IP, that would require original thought, and 99% of modern hollywood is rehash. All the marvel/dc stuff, remakes of older movies, series, cartoons, the best stuff is old, but new. Modern Hollywood can't do new. Modern Hollywood can't even do remakes without bombs! So it'd be hard to get buy in for new, and as this series sold loads of books... Well, pick the juice IP bits, lather teen style drama (eg, noise), and...
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      Think about Why do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, an amazing sci-fi novel, and Bladerunner, an amazing sci-fi movie loosely based on it. Now, granted, maybe the book title was rejected for the movie based on marketing concerns, but it also established distinct identities for the two.
klodolph 5y ago
I would reject faithfulness as a measure of success. I'd much rather have "That's not Foundation!" I already have Foundation. I can read it whenever I make the time. It's kind of cool to see a book translated to the screen... but if it doesn't really survive the translation? That's ok too! It can just be a movie with a ton of similarities to an existing story. Blade Runner, The Shining, Starship Troopers, or hell, Adaptation. They all have varying relationships to the source material. None are especially faithful, but they're all still good movies.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Some adaptation is appropriate, as a lot of the pulp fiction scifi from that area has characters doing ridiculous things like using tape drives. On the other hand, setting up a scene and doing a shoot are not the same skills used for telling a story. Many directors have absolutely terrible taste when it comes to story telling, as we can see from Game of Thrones and the other Dune adaptation.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Agreed, but we really need a faithful adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? set in San Francisco, as Dick envisioned it.
- mcphage 5y ago
  Annihilation did that rather well, I think—the source material is about imperfect clones, that had the same structure as the original but weren't the same inside. And then they released a movie that had the structure of the book, but wasn't the same inside. I thought that was quite clever.
  - Joeri 5y ago
    The three books of the southern reach trilogy were the most creepy read I’ve ever had. Because of the dense and meandering writing style I felt like I was slowly losing my sanity together with the main characters of the books, trying to hold onto details and losing the fight. The movie was ok to watch if taken by itself, but indeed not the same thing.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
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...
- charlieflowers 5y ago
  The show is basically fan fic set in loosely the same universe. It is absolutely nothing like the books.
  - vntok 5y ago
    Which is perfectly fine.
    - charlieflowers 5y ago
      Not to me it isn’t. If they want to make up a story, fine. Don’t use the same name for something completely unrelated.
christkv 5y ago
Actually the sci-fi channel mini series of dune and children of dune is not bad considering the limitations of budget and 90s technology. Sticks pretty close to the books and gives more background for people to understand what is going on. Definitively worth a look.
wffurr 5y ago
The Expanse is exactly that. And it's pretty great.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

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

klodolph 5y ago
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.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Such a post-truth comment, 'why is it wrong to call something A when actually it's not'.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  The IP... I really don't understand why having some relatively well known name is so important when it ends up being something entirely different. I think culturally that really shouldn't fly. Why not at that point just come up with new IP? If you want take the elements needed from existing work as influences...
  - pharke 5y ago
    They should be brave enough to do their own take on the concept without using the title and clout of the original author. It would allow them more freedom in rewriting the parts that they need to and would transform the whiplash felt by readers of the previous work into possible delight at seeing a new story with new characters riffing on the original concept.
  - macintux 5y ago
    Selling your product to a network, and later to the audience, must be dramatically simpler when you have existing IP to build upon. We almost certainly wouldn’t be talking about it on HN if it weren’t Foundation.
    - citizenkeen 5y ago
      You don't think we would be talking about Apple's flagship science fiction show?
      - macintux 5y ago
        I've not seen many front page discussions of modern movies or TV shows here, no. Sometimes a retrospective on older art, but I don't remember any of those either for the visual media.
  - b112 5y ago
    But they didn't come up with new IP. Instead, they hand picked 'oh, neat!' things they were told about, then just filled in all the missing bits with weird, unrelated, drama. EG, non-story related character confict. That's not content, but filler, designed to extend screen time. To actors, drama is the only important part of the role, and thus to many in hollywood. (One can have plot twists, action, suspense, without teenage drama...) So it isn't new IP, that would require original thought, and 99% of modern hollywood is rehash. All the marvel/dc stuff, remakes of older movies, series, cartoons, the best stuff is old, but new. Modern Hollywood can't do new. Modern Hollywood can't even do remakes without bombs! So it'd be hard to get buy in for new, and as this series sold loads of books... Well, pick the juice IP bits, lather teen style drama (eg, noise), and...
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Think about Why do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, an amazing sci-fi novel, and Bladerunner, an amazing sci-fi movie loosely based on it. Now, granted, maybe the book title was rejected for the movie based on marketing concerns, but it also established distinct identities for the two.

klodolph 5y ago

I would reject faithfulness as a measure of success. I'd much rather have "That's not Foundation!" I already have Foundation. I can read it whenever I make the time. It's kind of cool to see a book translated to the screen... but if it doesn't really survive the translation? That's ok too! It can just be a movie with a ton of similarities to an existing story. Blade Runner, The Shining, Starship Troopers, or hell, Adaptation. They all have varying relationships to the source material. None are especially faithful, but they're all still good movies.

R0b0t1 5y ago
Some adaptation is appropriate, as a lot of the pulp fiction scifi from that area has characters doing ridiculous things like using tape drives. On the other hand, setting up a scene and doing a shoot are not the same skills used for telling a story. Many directors have absolutely terrible taste when it comes to story telling, as we can see from Game of Thrones and the other Dune adaptation.
Apocryphon 5y ago
Agreed, but we really need a faithful adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? set in San Francisco, as Dick envisioned it.
mcphage 5y ago
Annihilation did that rather well, I think—the source material is about imperfect clones, that had the same structure as the original but weren't the same inside. And then they released a movie that had the structure of the book, but wasn't the same inside. I thought that was quite clever.
- Joeri 5y ago
  The three books of the southern reach trilogy were the most creepy read I’ve ever had. Because of the dense and meandering writing style I felt like I was slowly losing my sanity together with the main characters of the books, trying to hold onto details and losing the fight. The movie was ok to watch if taken by itself, but indeed not the same thing.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

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...

charlieflowers 5y ago
The show is basically fan fic set in loosely the same universe. It is absolutely nothing like the books.
- vntok 5y ago
  Which is perfectly fine.
  - charlieflowers 5y ago
    Not to me it isn’t. If they want to make up a story, fine. Don’t use the same name for something completely unrelated.

christkv 5y ago

Actually the sci-fi channel mini series of dune and children of dune is not bad considering the limitations of budget and 90s technology. Sticks pretty close to the books and gives more background for people to understand what is going on. Definitively worth a look.

wffurr 5y ago

The Expanse is exactly that. And it's pretty great.