5 ms·

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of Foundation versus Dune: > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, a

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of Foundation versus Dune: > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history. > So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching. * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-foundation-series.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda... * https://archive.md/YFxVi https://archive.md/YFxVi

juliangamble 5y ago
I love that Paul Krugman implies that Foundation copied Star Wars. (Ie Foundation was the original Empire Space Opera from which many Sci Fi authors cribbed including George Lucas)
- vermilingua 5y ago
  I don't see how he implies that at all.
- mstade 5y ago
  I read it completely differently. To me it seems he’s saying the show Foundation is copying Star Wars, which in his opinion is completely antithetical to the novel and so therefore he’s stopped watching the show.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    That is indeed what Krugman is saying. It's pretty clear: > "How does the Apple TV series (of Foundation) turn this (the novel, Foundation) into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake "Star Wars" And having seen the Foundation show, having read the Foundation book and seen the Star Wars movie, I think he (Krugman) has a point.
- ScarletEmerald 5y ago
  Nope. Foundation was first published in 1942, and is something of an alternate take on the Space Opera w Evil Empire genre, which came earlier, with the first prominent example being E.E. "Doc" Smith's Galactic Patrol in 1934. Smith previously wrote the Skylark series of space opera stories, first published in 1928. And while not identical, Smith's Lensmen and Lucas' Jedi Knights have a great deal in common.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Is it? There was a lot of space opera and space adventure and space imperialism in the 1940s and 50s. Claiming to be the original is a big claim. Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight; samurai movies (Hidden Fortress), Westerns, war films (the trench run is from 633 Squadron). Partly why it was so successful.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight; Cause in point, Lucas cribbed Coruscant from Trantor
- rkk3 5y ago
  No, he is implying they "Star Wars"-ified it; that they made it a show that is 'good vs evil' and all problems are solved by laser guns.
tootie 5y ago
Krugman has stated in the past that the entire reason he became an economist is because it was the closest real world profession to being a psychohistorian.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Amusing considering economists care more about their precious numbers than sociology, psychology and history.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    In the ad for his MasterClass, Paul Krugman says (~25s): > Doing economics requires stepping back from all of the details to say "What is the essential here? What is the story?". It's about people. It's not about money. It's ends up about what people do. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJEszZK54dw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJEszZK54dw
  - tootie 5y ago
    I think you're confusing economists with economic policy makers. Economics is a science. The study of scarcity. It's not about money.
Lochleg 5y ago
I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. Apple's Foundation is awkward at times and its writers seem to believe that they needed to correct and reinvigorate books that were outmoded, but, apparently, the production itself is said to lack real faults. It's really easy to kill a franchise these days because you want it to speak to your audience, but it is seen as much less aspirational with its mixed messages. Of course, that's just my general impression, and I could be talking about any franchise that starts with "Star".
- tenuousemphasis 5y ago
  There's also the fact that one of the authors of the Expanse series is closely involved with the creation of the show (and the reworking of characters/arcs to fit the medium better).
  - nottorp 5y ago
    There's also the fact that the authors of the Expanse were professional movie script writers before writing a book series :)
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. As per a sibling comment: the original authors were involved. But: It depends on style of the show material and the style of the new medium. If the original is cerebral and low-action, can you make a commercially successful adaptation with the same qualities?
- chaostheory 5y ago
  The Expanse, like virtually all sci-fi and fantasy narratives, follows the Hero's Journey. It's a pattern that is familiar to virtually everyone and it's already proven commercially successful. As Krugman himself writes, "[Foundation] mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year." It is hard to film faithfully while attracting and preserving a large audience.
yufeng66 5y ago
Krugman is just too emotionally invested in the book, so nothing comparable to the book. If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it. It wasn't about Foundation, then why call it "Foundation"? It's like that Will Smith movie called I, Robot: why did they bother calling it that? You can create a new sci-fi show or movie without the 'false marketing' of referencing previous source material: that's what the original Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars did in the 1970s. Or you can try to faithfully use the source material as much as possible as The Expanse show has done, and what Villeneuve has generally done with his Dune. There are plenty of both sci-fi and fantasy works available for adaptation into shows and movies. And if (general) audiences expect action-y stuff in their sci-fi/fantasy, then pick one in which the source material is more action-y. Don't try adapting Waiting for Godot into the next Die Hard.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    I, Robot is significantly harder to adapt than Foundation. The former is like a book of little logic mysteries. The film turned the setting concept into one big murder mystery to appeal to modern audiences. It was a drastic tonal change, but preserves some of the concepts of Asimov, even including the Zeroth Law at the end.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      The movie was an already written script paired with the title and some characters renamed. It was not made (the script) with the intention of adapting the book (which is a series of short stories with a common framing story). I, Robot, like World War Z, needs an anthology or serial format to be properly presented as a show or film.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Saying Krugman is too emotionally invested in the book is an understatement. This is the man who claims to have wanted to bring about psychohistory itself as the natural evolution of economics.

juliangamble 5y ago

I love that Paul Krugman implies that Foundation copied Star Wars. (Ie Foundation was the original Empire Space Opera from which many Sci Fi authors cribbed including George Lucas)

vermilingua 5y ago
I don't see how he implies that at all.
mstade 5y ago
I read it completely differently. To me it seems he’s saying the show Foundation is copying Star Wars, which in his opinion is completely antithetical to the novel and so therefore he’s stopped watching the show.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  That is indeed what Krugman is saying. It's pretty clear: > "How does the Apple TV series (of Foundation) turn this (the novel, Foundation) into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake "Star Wars" And having seen the Foundation show, having read the Foundation book and seen the Star Wars movie, I think he (Krugman) has a point.
ScarletEmerald 5y ago
Nope. Foundation was first published in 1942, and is something of an alternate take on the Space Opera w Evil Empire genre, which came earlier, with the first prominent example being E.E. "Doc" Smith's Galactic Patrol in 1934. Smith previously wrote the Skylark series of space opera stories, first published in 1928. And while not identical, Smith's Lensmen and Lucas' Jedi Knights have a great deal in common.
pjc50 5y ago
Is it? There was a lot of space opera and space adventure and space imperialism in the 1940s and 50s. Claiming to be the original is a big claim. Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight; samurai movies (Hidden Fortress), Westerns, war films (the trench run is from 633 Squadron). Partly why it was so successful.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Mind you, Lucas cribbed from everything in sight; Cause in point, Lucas cribbed Coruscant from Trantor
rkk3 5y ago
No, he is implying they "Star Wars"-ified it; that they made it a show that is 'good vs evil' and all problems are solved by laser guns.

tootie 5y ago

Krugman has stated in the past that the entire reason he became an economist is because it was the closest real world profession to being a psychohistorian.

AniseAbyss 5y ago
Amusing considering economists care more about their precious numbers than sociology, psychology and history.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  In the ad for his MasterClass, Paul Krugman says (~25s): > Doing economics requires stepping back from all of the details to say "What is the essential here? What is the story?". It's about people. It's not about money. It's ends up about what people do. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJEszZK54dw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJEszZK54dw
- tootie 5y ago
  I think you're confusing economists with economic policy makers. Economics is a science. The study of scarcity. It's not about money.

Lochleg 5y ago

I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. Apple's Foundation is awkward at times and its writers seem to believe that they needed to correct and reinvigorate books that were outmoded, but, apparently, the production itself is said to lack real faults. It's really easy to kill a franchise these days because you want it to speak to your audience, but it is seen as much less aspirational with its mixed messages. Of course, that's just my general impression, and I could be talking about any franchise that starts with "Star".

tenuousemphasis 5y ago
There's also the fact that one of the authors of the Expanse series is closely involved with the creation of the show (and the reworking of characters/arcs to fit the medium better).
- nottorp 5y ago
  There's also the fact that the authors of the Expanse were professional movie script writers before writing a book series :)
throw0101a 5y ago
> I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. As per a sibling comment: the original authors were involved. But: It depends on style of the show material and the style of the new medium. If the original is cerebral and low-action, can you make a commercially successful adaptation with the same qualities?
chaostheory 5y ago
The Expanse, like virtually all sci-fi and fantasy narratives, follows the Hero's Journey. It's a pattern that is familiar to virtually everyone and it's already proven commercially successful. As Krugman himself writes, "[Foundation] mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year." It is hard to film faithfully while attracting and preserving a large audience.

yufeng66 5y ago

Krugman is just too emotionally invested in the book, so nothing comparable to the book. If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it.

throw0101a 5y ago
> If the show is not called foundation, he will probably enjoy it. It wasn't about Foundation, then why call it "Foundation"? It's like that Will Smith movie called I, Robot: why did they bother calling it that? You can create a new sci-fi show or movie without the 'false marketing' of referencing previous source material: that's what the original Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars did in the 1970s. Or you can try to faithfully use the source material as much as possible as The Expanse show has done, and what Villeneuve has generally done with his Dune. There are plenty of both sci-fi and fantasy works available for adaptation into shows and movies. And if (general) audiences expect action-y stuff in their sci-fi/fantasy, then pick one in which the source material is more action-y. Don't try adapting Waiting for Godot into the next Die Hard.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  I, Robot is significantly harder to adapt than Foundation. The former is like a book of little logic mysteries. The film turned the setting concept into one big murder mystery to appeal to modern audiences. It was a drastic tonal change, but preserves some of the concepts of Asimov, even including the Zeroth Law at the end.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    The movie was an already written script paired with the title and some characters renamed. It was not made (the script) with the intention of adapting the book (which is a series of short stories with a common framing story). I, Robot, like World War Z, needs an anthology or serial format to be properly presented as a show or film.
dnautics 5y ago
Saying Krugman is too emotionally invested in the book is an understatement. This is the man who claims to have wanted to bring about psychohistory itself as the natural evolution of economics.