15 ms·

There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take: I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that im

There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take: I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books. That said: the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction. It works well because they are _short_ stories, and following the span of history, frequently jumping ahead a generation, is cool. But it would’ve been very difficult to render that as-is for television and have much of an audience. Also, the original stories were written in the 1940s and some parts feel quite dated (everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women). So whoever picked the stories up, they were going to make a lot of changes. If you think of the series merely as “inspired by” them not “based on them,” then the show isn’t bad. It has some corny flaws like most TV (the combat, just terrible), but they’ve developed a few good characters, added some new mysteries, and the order in which they’re unfolding events over time is interesting. So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :)

chaostheory 5y ago
> the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction and this is why it's near impossible to translate Asimov's Foundation faithfully to TV. I don't understand why a lot of fans can't see this
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Perhaps a lot of fans never asked for Apple to do this?
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I had the same idea of LOTR, with all their songs and heavy narrative, yet the Peter Jackson's adaptation was great, a love letter to Tolkien. He did show, not tell.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    LOTR uses the same Hero's Journey pattern as StarWars. The main thing Jackson did was remove the songs and poetry. That's easy imo.
robbiep 5y ago
I agree with you. It took me a while to get my head around the approach they were taking (I re-read the whole series prior to it airing) but what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. Even just getting rid of the 1950s stereotype gender roles - which is the obvious place to start - doesn’t change the long arcs of obvious dialogue. It’s a really grand scope for a universe - but I’m enjoying the series so far and it will be interesting to see where they go with it. Basically I’m just hungry for more space and since it’s visually very appealing and the universe is compelling, I think it deserves a chance.
- TheTrotters 5y ago
  Few people are criticizing the show from deviating from books per se. It isn’t good on its own merits. Of course they had to make some changes and flesh out some characters to adapt it for TV. They just made poor choices. Instead of going with chosen ones, heroes, and battles, they should have gone for politics in space. Something like the political manouvering in A Song of Ice and Fire but in space.
- ianai 5y ago
  It's been a while, but I remember Asimov leaving a lot out of the books. i.e. Stories would start after the violence or some clever twist would side step it altogether. He left a lot for a visual medium to add-in. The core is there so far: psychohistory, robots, huge Trantor, planning to 'save' a galaxy amount of culture and info for a galactic reboot, etc. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's the first live action adaptation beyond the robot movie. Kind of always have to be forgiving with a first attempt. Even Star Trek TNG didn't get into a grove until 2nd or 3rd season.
  - skocznymroczny 5y ago
    Arguably, the departure of Gene Roddenberry was what made TNG what it was after the 2nd season. Giving more spotlight to Klingons and Romulans, violating the prime directive, made for a more interesting show. Later DS9 improved on these concepts, by showing a Federation that is willing to bend the rules when desperate times, using deception (forging evidence to disrupt the Dominion-Romulan alliance), covert operations (Section 31) and even planning a genocide (infecting Odo with a disease to spread the disease to other Founders, also Hugh in Star Trek TNG).
citizenkeen 5y ago
> interesting enough to watch if you’re bored is a terribly damning critique when a show costs as much as Foundation does. It's not Netflix faff, it's Apple's flagship.
- dkonofalski 5y ago
  Not really... most television needs to clear the bar of being something that you watch when you're bored and then get hooked into. Otherwise, you'd only have viewers that are familiar with the source and that's not a great way to grow viewership. It's how Game of Thrones grew so quickly for HBO. That show was a confusing mess with tons of characters but it was interesting to watch if you're bored because there was enough that you could pick up just from the costumes, locations, and acting.
  - allturtles 5y ago
    Maybe this is just because of where I am in life, but between work, children, and hobbies, I don't have time to be bored. If I'm watching TV it's because I'm choosing to do it instead of something else I should be doing or want to do. I will only even try shows that receive high praise from people I trust or from a lot of reviewers. If a show's only function is to kill time it has negative value to me.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      Sorry... to clarify, I'm not suggesting that that's the function of the show. I'm just saying that shows, nowadays, need to be simultaneously easy to get into to start but also in depth enough to keep people hooked. We're still early into the show so I think we're still in that "simple" stage.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      It's good that HN is so rewarding!
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  It reminds me a lot about Star Trek Discovery, another high budget flagship meant to carry CBS's streaming service. Top of the line CGI, written like a soap opera Star Wars.
Rerarom 5y ago
You can make a lot of changes without pissing on its main themes. E.g. there are a lot of characters and scenes which were just sketched and the show could have filled them in instead of inventing whole new plots out of cloth. Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so, you'll see" but he could have just not made it look like it is so. Another thing would have been to compress everything until Bel Riose in the 1st season, since it's only afterwards that Asimov really matures as a writer. It's not like I don't enjoy anything (the Empire plot is solid even though it's not at all from the books, proof that I'm not a purist or anything), but everything just shows a lack of interest in being faithful to the main ideas of the books.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  > Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so Almost all modern TV in the Scifi & Fantasy tropes relies on the the Hero's Journey. It is very hard not to use it especially if you want a large audience. To faithfully recreate Foundation for TV, you'd have to make a fake documentary and that just doesn't draw enough people to make the budget work
  - TheTrotters 5y ago
    But if you want your show to be a success you have to take chances. If they make just another derivative show they can’t be surprised by the poor reception. (Besides I’m not sure I agree with the premise. Game of Thrones was a big success and it was much more complex than a simple Hero’s Journey.)
    - goatlover 5y ago
      Particularly since one of the two characters on the hero's journey for a majority of fans turned evil in the last two episodes. And that the one who ended up in the seat of power at the end had a different kind of journey.
    - WorldMaker 5y ago
      Arguably, framing Hardin as a "Hero's Journey" is the show taking chances versus the relatively much more dry source material. As Seldon says time and again, psychohistory can only predict the actions of large enough groups of people, it cannot predict the actions of individuals. From that perspective alone, I've found so far I mostly appreciate the twists the show is taking on the source material. Most of them seem to me to be individual actions within the overall predictions of psychohistory (treating the books as one prediction versus reality/timeline and the show as another).
wccrawford 5y ago
I don't even remember the original books, other than that I liked them. I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. The only thing I like is the mysteries. I'm not very far in, but they're few and far between, and wading through all the crap to learn about them is tiring. I keep trying to force myself to watch the next episode, but it doesn't happen.
- treis 5y ago
  >I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. IMHO, that matches the books.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    The books at least advanced at a constant pace. Foundation seems stuck since three episodes ago. I'm surprised how an hour-long show can consist of mostly stalling. It will need a few seasons per book at that pace.
joking 5y ago
I'm really enjoying it, and I read the books so long ago that I almost don't remember much from them, so I don't have any problem with the story not being faithful to them.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I considered a re-read when I learned this was coming out, but now I'm glad I have three decades' distance from the books. I may re-read after the show concludes, but at this pace that could be some time yet...
serverholic 5y ago
The emperor storyline is really the only thing worth watching. The rest is just boring, low-quality sci-fi.
- pxue 5y ago
  Feels like they started writing Cleo's arc and hastily added Hardin's because it didn't check all the boxes.
koheripbal 5y ago
I never read Foundation, so maybe that's why I like the show so much. The ideas are all new to me and I have no idea where the story is going.
- nucleardog 5y ago
  I have read the books. The entire series a few times now actually. I enjoyed them immensely both for the story and some of the ideas that are played with throughout. They'd make terrible, boring TV. I'm glad they've not attempted a shot-for-shot remake of the books as a TV show, and instead chosen to adapt by taking some of the core ideas and (thusfar) general gist of of the stories and turn them into something. I'm glad I get to explore those ideas further and put my head in that world a bit more. I like that they've added some other interesting ideas to play with. I think the moaning is just the same general thing that comes up any time anything is adapted to screen. There's a huge contingent of people that, for some reason, seem to treat the source material as some holy text that's never to be changed instead of just being happy that some of the good and interesting elements are being carried over into a new story.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Counterpoint: maybe people are getting jaded by the constant nostalgia baits Hollywood keeps producing. Personally, I'd prefer less remakes/prequels/lazy adaptations and more epics like LOTR, for example. LOTR also had adaptations, but they were well-thought and respectful to the source material.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  If they had named the show anything but "Foundation", I think it would be a decent lure for Apple TV. Loosely basing it on the Foundation series, and naming it "Foundation" was more to generate hype than a love letter to fans of Asimov's work.
baq 5y ago
i completely agree. it isn't bad sci-fi tv. nowhere near the expanse, but that doesn't say much, since for me nothing really comes close to the expanse.
allturtles 5y ago
Talk about damning with faint praise.
shoto_io 5y ago
Exactly. I really like the show. I haven't read the books, so I couldn't be offended in the first place.
dr_ 5y ago
Agreed. The show may not follow the book, but it’s entertaining in its own right. Star Wars was essentially a “dumbed down” version of this, the show maintains some complexity - it can get corny at times but you still have to follow what’s going on or you could lose track of the story. And the Brothers’ are some of the most intriguing sci fi characters that I’ve watched.
throw0101a 5y ago
> So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) If you want to make an action-y television series, then choose action-y source material. There's so much good sci-fi (and fantasy) out there that can be used for that type of style. The Vorkosigan Saga for one: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga While it may be possible to adapt Waiting for Godot into a Die Hard-like movie, why would you do so?
- ericmay 5y ago
  Maybe? I don't get the problem with Foundation. Like why can't they take the source material and create their own interpretation? What's so wrong with that? Maybe someone will go on and create a Vorkosigan Saga interpretation too? I read the books. Loved them. Really enjoying the show too.
  - aspaviento 5y ago
    If my memory serves me right, Foundation was never about individuals but collectives. That's what psychohistory math was about. The show fails completely to transmit this idea which for me, is the core of the books. So if they don't even get that right, what's the point of making a show about it?
    - ericmay 5y ago
      It’s fun and interesting. What other reason do they need? You’re latching on to the premise that a show or movie based on a book must strictly adhere to that book or else it’s not good. It doesn’t. It can be loosely coupled or tightly coupled. You’re disappointed because you have set expectations on what they should do. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I got over the “it must follow strictly” mindset a long time ago.
      - aspaviento 5y ago
        It's bad for other reasons. What I'm criticizing is clamming to be an adaptation of the books when it doesn't even get the most fundamental thing of the book right. > You’re disappointed because you have set expectations They created those expectations by clamming it is an adaption of the books. Imagine if I claim that my show called "The lord of the rings" is based on the novels but the only thing in common is that the main character is named Frodo.
ourlordcaffeine 5y ago
>IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) Is it still a somewhat hard sci-fi or has it been turned into a fantasy flick?
- neaden 5y ago
  I would say it's as hard as the original novel, which has FTL travel and psychic powers.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Would an entirely new branch of mathematics that predicts the future count as hard science fiction?
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    Barely, since neither Asimov nor the TV show writers, have spent 60% of the material on explaining how it actually works.
- stevenwoo 5y ago
  In the span of ten minutes they restore the artificial gravity on a derelict spacecraft then they walk into a room on that same ship that has large open vats of some dangerous liquid that people fall into and die.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Or Salvor's boyfriend who says his propulsor doesn't work and gently floats away, feet away from several people equipped with functioning propulsors, including Salvor. The lava floor strongly reminded me of Galaxy Quest's chompers. Come on, Apple.
- phh 5y ago
  Feels way too fantasy to me. Though only the first book didn't have fantasy parts (imo. and I don't feel like it was required). And possibly, most of the fantasy parts will be explained in the tv show, and we'll end very small fantasy elements, but I'm expecting to be disappointed there.
baud147258 5y ago
> If you think of the series merely as “inspired by” them not “based on them,” then the show isn’t bad. Then what is the point of using a license if you're just "inspired by"? The producers could just say it's inspired by sci-fi classics and do whatever they want, including not respecting the spirit of the original work, which should the primary goal in an adaptation.
rsynnott 5y ago
I'd agree that they needed a lot of reworking to make a TV series out of it, but some of it feels slightly gratuitous; the clone emperor thing feels like a pointless overcomplication, and I'm pretty sure they're going for some sort of Dune-esque guild navigator thing with the imperial starships. I'm mostly quite enjoying it, but I think they could have been a _bit_ more restrained with their rewriting and lost nothing. > everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women Also, newspapers! The original novels had paper newspapers, transmitted across the stars. At a certain age, science fiction tends to become accidentally a bit steampunk.
- dkonofalski 5y ago
  That's interesting to me because the brothers are one of my favorite parts of the show because of the new ideas they bring up in relation to the Empire. It gives the writers some really clever and interesting ways to discuss the problems with a long-standing continuity of ideas while giving those internal inconsistencies human faces to stand-in for something that would be much more nebulous and vague otherwise.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I feel like it kind of misses the point, though. Societies like that don't collapse because the leader is immortal, they do so because the _society_ is ossified.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      I don't even think that's the point, though. I think it's more of a criticism of strict stubbornness. It's not the fact that he's immortal that's the problem, it's the fact that he/they continue to "lead" in the exact same manner, attempting to ossify a society that, on its insides, is changing. The only thing consistent is change, especially in society. Isn't the point of Foundation that, despite spectacular individuals, societies move on and change?
    - phh 5y ago
      I feel it's the point they are trying to make with the cloned leader (I wouldn't exactly say immortal). They are saying the fall is faster because of an ossified leader, but nonetheless the fall will happen anyway, because it's not just the leader that is ossified, but the whole society.
ivankirigin 5y ago
I don't understand why more "unfilmable" books don't get launched as an animated series. Maybe execs think adults wouldn't watch it?
- Tronno 5y ago
  "Unfilmable" just means impossible to translate into a sequence of scenes, with characters and a coherent story. For example, long internal monologues about the design of space ships, etc. You could try, but it wouldn't be entertaining in a classical sense without deviating strongly from the source material. Animated shows would have the same problem.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  You have to see this from the big picture view as a way to draw mainstream audiences for a paid streaming service. Without major drastic changes, a faithful translation of Foundation would be unwatchable for most people (most people are not into documentaries let alone fake ones), and it doesn't serve Apple's goal of getting more subscribers.
karaterobot 5y ago
If you proceed from the assumption that they had to adapt the Foundation novels into a serialized streaming show, then I guess I agree with you. Is there some new law that says you can't make up your own story anymore? You can even steal the things you like about Foundation, that's fine. It's not like all adaptations succeed, and all original IP fails, so I have no idea why they keep pretending that step 1 must be to buy the rights to something that already exists, even if it is structurally unfeasible to adapt.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
You can't have your cake and eat it. Apple made a ton of buzz around the TV show, and it took _because_ they use the Asimov work. Apple did the Apple thing, they overhyped a product that they then designed according to their own rules, expecting everybody to just eat their crap and smile as usual. But it turns out people liking classic SF books are not your average fanboy, and they don't like being lied to. It's not just about marketing, it's about trust. It's about taking a dump on a legendary art piece to make money with a the Apple smug confidence. While Dune was a masterful yet humble demonstration of respect and love to the book. Sure, it's was impossible to adapt the book as a show. By nature. Any reader would have told you that. They didn't care. They wanted their poney. It was never about making something for us. Well, for once, I'm happy it back fired. They don't get to hear "no" often enough.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Apple did the Apple thing, they overhyped a product that they then designed according to their own rules, expecting everybody to just eat their crap and smile as usual. > But it turns out people liking classic SF books are not your average fanboy, and they don't like being lied to. It’s a bit silly to imply that the intended market was people who like or have even heard of SF classics like the Foundation series. The intended audience is pretty clearly everyone who watches stuff. It’s one of many shows trying to spend their way into cultural ubiquity after the immense success of Game of Thrones. Even if previous Asimov fans were disappointed it would have been totally fine if the show took off (this was the case for many George R. R. Martin fans and the Game of Thrones TV series).
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    Sure, but in that case you can't expect to benefit from the hype produced by the fans community, and any backslash is on you. Turns that those people make a lot of noise for their small number. The screeching voices and all that.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Right, and that’s precisely what I’m saying: that it’s silly to claim that Apple’s plan was to make a mediocre show and rely on generating hype with nothing more than the name recognition of Asimov and the Foundation series.
BurningFrog 5y ago
I could handle a reinterpreted Foundation story for TV. Easily. The problem is that this is sooo bad. Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. That's what I saw until falling asleep halfway through Episode 3. Perhaps it got better. Perhaps it's not "for me". But that's what I saw.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > That's what I saw until falling asleep halfway through Episode 3. Perhaps it got better. Perhaps it's not "for me". But that's what I saw. I have to skip some scenes because they become too boring: flirting, romance, sex? skip. Emotional scene that adds nothing to the plot? skip. Maybe I lost some important bit among that, but seeing the sluggish pace, I doubt it.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. That seems...faithful.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Maybe a good screenwriter could have fixed that, who knows?
- clajiness 5y ago
  > Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense... That seems like a problem with you, not the story.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  > characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. You need to re-read the books. While the overall ideas and plot is good, the details and dialogue are terrible.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
browningstreet 5y ago
Ignoring the lack of faith to the source material: It's bad.. the dialogue, conflict, etc., are far below the levels we've come to expect in sci-fi shows like Expanse. This is a complete waste of Jared Harris' talents. In the last episode, the resolution of his incomplete download was dramatized by a bit more screaming, then he was all good. It doesn't feel elevated or sophisticated at all... it does look very pretty. But it's not even representative of itself -- they keep talking about "trillions" of people here and there, and the new Book of Boba Fett does a better job of selling large population centers than Foundation ever does. Also, my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue: aren't most cop and lawyer shows mostly a lot of talk, usually in just a few common settings?
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue I'm still surprised about how slow they can make an hour-long episode. Between fistfights, face closeups and gratuitous sex scenes and drama, barely anything advances. It's following the Star Trek Discovery formula but in slow motion.
- pier25 5y ago
  I agree. I don't care about the books and stopped watching mid season. The production impressed me for the first episode and then it was very bland and boring. There is no drama, nothing that caught my attention. It feels like watching a boring documentary.
- zarkov99 5y ago
  It is horrible. And you could predict it was going to be horrible as soon as you saw the obvious distortions caused by Woke nonsense: gender swap of not one, but two of the central characters, the not so subtle hints at the horrible religious fanatic and climate change denying people who so oppressed poor Gaal, etc. Apple's Foundation follow the familiar Hollywood woke playbook: do not create new stories, because of course that would require actual creative talent, instead correct (maybe desecrate is a better term) old great stories to comply to SJW messaging. The new Dune is another example but Villeneuve actually has talent, and though he did pay the Woke vig, which is sad, he managed to appease the lunatics without impacting the story too much. I guess that is the best we can expect from Hollywood these days.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
> No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. I would offer an even more contrarian take: the show actually is being relatively faithful to the books. At least of the most recent episode. More concretely, while obviously there are important changes (the Cleons, how Seldon dies, the Anacreons invading rather than making diplomatic threats, nobody smoking, etc.) none of these are terribly unfaithful to the story. Most are small bits of harmless dramatic license. Others explore parts of history that the books simply panned away from (e.g., happenings on Trantor during the first Seldon crisis.) What really worries me is that, as of the most recent episode, they seem to be introducing characters with some kind of superpower wherein they can see or alter the future. This is going to screw the story up completely.
- jjk166 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the seeing the future thing is just how they're doing the second foundation.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    Fingers crossed. Except that also they're giving this power to Salvor Hardin, who really shouldn't have it.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Big but: Foundation never had clairvoyants, not even Gaia. This is a huge deviation from the books, since now we have people predicting the future on their own, without psychohistory.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Of all the deviations from the books, this is really one of the smallest.
      - ASalazarMX 5y ago
        It's a critical deviation, which shouldn't have been done on a whim. Seldon's psycohistory predicted the path of the whole empire with great accuracy, but knowing their destiny would make people act differently, so Terminus didn't have psycohistorians, just a vault that would open at crucial events and give information. It would have worked well until the Mule threw a wrench with its mental ability to tune other minds. He wasn't a clairvoyant, he just altered people's feelings. The Second Foundation put the plan back on track thanks to their own mental abilities, but they also weren't clairvoyants. So far only psychohistory could predict the future. Later we have Golan Trevize, who also couldn't see the future, but had a gift for choosing right with incomplete information. Even Gaia had to rely on Trevize for its final decision. Foundation's Gaal can see the future, and this is a world breaking ability. Hari Seldon and his psycohistory become obsolete since she can do that on her own, any action against the Foundation is moot, any deviation from the plan can be predicted, etc. The only way to write Gaal out of that corner is making her clairvoyance work as reliable or unreliable as the plot needs (lazy writing), and judging from how she can predict and block micrometeorites now (which can puncture a ship's shield and hull, but not a tablet), it seems that's the route they will take. There was no need to introduce clairvoyance in the Foundation's universe.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
And maybe it will inspire someone to go read the books. Adaptations often do that.
AlbertCory 5y ago
I read the books so long ago that I remember zero about them. So "lack of fidelity to the books" is hardly my issue. The issue is: they're high-glitz Hollywood garbage: "We can't think of any new ideas, so we'll just make the actors more 'modern' and relatable, and spend a lot on the CGI." It's interesting that I don't watch much sci-fi, but AppleTV is also running Invasion which I do find watchable. Even though those characters are also kinda cliched.
simonh 5y ago
I think they're really trying, but just slightly missing the mark. They're raising a lot of ideas that aren't in the book, but are actually relevant to the concept of psychohistory. Things like the group think exhibited in various factions, many of the characters grapple with the way society constrains their freedom of action. The identical genetics of the emperor/s raises the question of the relevance and nature of individual identity. I think they actually do quite a good job of integrating all these themes of freedom, social constraint and inertia, personhood and destiny. The first book doesn't really do any of that, so in doing so the show is diverging dramatically from the story of the first book. Nevertheless given psychohistory they're all interesting questions. Later books do explore various implications of psychohistory, but I don't think it's viable for a show to wait x-many seasons before bringing in these themes. The problem is the actual story is a bit sluggish, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I can see what they are trying to do.
ryanSrich 5y ago
> I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books. I will have to disagree here. While I don't mind deviating from the books, I do mind incredibly bad story telling, pandering, shitty acting, and just about everything else wrong with Apple's Foundation. Its only redeeming qualities are certain aspects of the aesthetics and cinematography. Everything else makes it completely unwatchable, and not because it's unfaithful to the books.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
It has some brilliant adaptations, like the Cleon clones, and some abysmal ones like the psychic supergenius self-taught mathematician from a backwards anti-intellectual hyper-religious civilization, that is destined to lead the Foundation. Way to pile on plot devices and clichés on a single character, a clear sign of weak writing.
hintymad 5y ago
I was wondering if there is an explanation on why the political systems in American's science fictions are just so unimaginative? I mean, a civilization could predict the future, could destroy a planet, could travel across galaxies, and could rule trillions of people, yet they had an empire just like ancient Rome? Change of technologies and productivity and economy will not lead to change of political systems?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > yet they had an empire just like ancient Rome? It wasn't quite just like ancient Rome, but... > Change of technologies and productivity and economy will not lead to change of political systems? It did, which is why their political system wasn't one of the ones popular at the time it was written. The system echoed with past ones because the combined effect of the economic and tech changes (particularly notably the relationship between travel and communications speed) echoed the past.

chaostheory 5y ago

> the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction and this is why it's near impossible to translate Asimov's Foundation faithfully to TV. I don't understand why a lot of fans can't see this

AniseAbyss 5y ago
Perhaps a lot of fans never asked for Apple to do this?
ASalazarMX 5y ago
I had the same idea of LOTR, with all their songs and heavy narrative, yet the Peter Jackson's adaptation was great, a love letter to Tolkien. He did show, not tell.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  LOTR uses the same Hero's Journey pattern as StarWars. The main thing Jackson did was remove the songs and poetry. That's easy imo.

robbiep 5y ago

I agree with you. It took me a while to get my head around the approach they were taking (I re-read the whole series prior to it airing) but what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. Even just getting rid of the 1950s stereotype gender roles - which is the obvious place to start - doesn’t change the long arcs of obvious dialogue. It’s a really grand scope for a universe - but I’m enjoying the series so far and it will be interesting to see where they go with it. Basically I’m just hungry for more space and since it’s visually very appealing and the universe is compelling, I think it deserves a chance.

TheTrotters 5y ago
Few people are criticizing the show from deviating from books per se. It isn’t good on its own merits. Of course they had to make some changes and flesh out some characters to adapt it for TV. They just made poor choices. Instead of going with chosen ones, heroes, and battles, they should have gone for politics in space. Something like the political manouvering in A Song of Ice and Fire but in space.
ianai 5y ago
It's been a while, but I remember Asimov leaving a lot out of the books. i.e. Stories would start after the violence or some clever twist would side step it altogether. He left a lot for a visual medium to add-in. The core is there so far: psychohistory, robots, huge Trantor, planning to 'save' a galaxy amount of culture and info for a galactic reboot, etc. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's the first live action adaptation beyond the robot movie. Kind of always have to be forgiving with a first attempt. Even Star Trek TNG didn't get into a grove until 2nd or 3rd season.
- skocznymroczny 5y ago
  Arguably, the departure of Gene Roddenberry was what made TNG what it was after the 2nd season. Giving more spotlight to Klingons and Romulans, violating the prime directive, made for a more interesting show. Later DS9 improved on these concepts, by showing a Federation that is willing to bend the rules when desperate times, using deception (forging evidence to disrupt the Dominion-Romulan alliance), covert operations (Section 31) and even planning a genocide (infecting Odo with a disease to spread the disease to other Founders, also Hugh in Star Trek TNG).

citizenkeen 5y ago

> interesting enough to watch if you’re bored is a terribly damning critique when a show costs as much as Foundation does. It's not Netflix faff, it's Apple's flagship.

dkonofalski 5y ago
Not really... most television needs to clear the bar of being something that you watch when you're bored and then get hooked into. Otherwise, you'd only have viewers that are familiar with the source and that's not a great way to grow viewership. It's how Game of Thrones grew so quickly for HBO. That show was a confusing mess with tons of characters but it was interesting to watch if you're bored because there was enough that you could pick up just from the costumes, locations, and acting.
- allturtles 5y ago
  Maybe this is just because of where I am in life, but between work, children, and hobbies, I don't have time to be bored. If I'm watching TV it's because I'm choosing to do it instead of something else I should be doing or want to do. I will only even try shows that receive high praise from people I trust or from a lot of reviewers. If a show's only function is to kill time it has negative value to me.
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    Sorry... to clarify, I'm not suggesting that that's the function of the show. I'm just saying that shows, nowadays, need to be simultaneously easy to get into to start but also in depth enough to keep people hooked. We're still early into the show so I think we're still in that "simple" stage.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    It's good that HN is so rewarding!
ASalazarMX 5y ago
It reminds me a lot about Star Trek Discovery, another high budget flagship meant to carry CBS's streaming service. Top of the line CGI, written like a soap opera Star Wars.

Rerarom 5y ago

You can make a lot of changes without pissing on its main themes. E.g. there are a lot of characters and scenes which were just sketched and the show could have filled them in instead of inventing whole new plots out of cloth. Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so, you'll see" but he could have just not made it look like it is so. Another thing would have been to compress everything until Bel Riose in the 1st season, since it's only afterwards that Asimov really matures as a writer. It's not like I don't enjoy anything (the Empire plot is solid even though it's not at all from the books, proof that I'm not a purist or anything), but everything just shows a lack of interest in being faithful to the main ideas of the books.

chaostheory 5y ago
> Also Hardin being a Chosen One and the producer insisting on reddit that "it's not really so Almost all modern TV in the Scifi & Fantasy tropes relies on the the Hero's Journey. It is very hard not to use it especially if you want a large audience. To faithfully recreate Foundation for TV, you'd have to make a fake documentary and that just doesn't draw enough people to make the budget work
- TheTrotters 5y ago
  But if you want your show to be a success you have to take chances. If they make just another derivative show they can’t be surprised by the poor reception. (Besides I’m not sure I agree with the premise. Game of Thrones was a big success and it was much more complex than a simple Hero’s Journey.)
  - goatlover 5y ago
    Particularly since one of the two characters on the hero's journey for a majority of fans turned evil in the last two episodes. And that the one who ended up in the seat of power at the end had a different kind of journey.
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    Arguably, framing Hardin as a "Hero's Journey" is the show taking chances versus the relatively much more dry source material. As Seldon says time and again, psychohistory can only predict the actions of large enough groups of people, it cannot predict the actions of individuals. From that perspective alone, I've found so far I mostly appreciate the twists the show is taking on the source material. Most of them seem to me to be individual actions within the overall predictions of psychohistory (treating the books as one prediction versus reality/timeline and the show as another).

wccrawford 5y ago

I don't even remember the original books, other than that I liked them. I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. The only thing I like is the mysteries. I'm not very far in, but they're few and far between, and wading through all the crap to learn about them is tiring. I keep trying to force myself to watch the next episode, but it doesn't happen.

treis 5y ago
>I do not like the show. It's a decent scifi environment, but the actual storytelling is pretty awful, IMO. IMHO, that matches the books.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  The books at least advanced at a constant pace. Foundation seems stuck since three episodes ago. I'm surprised how an hour-long show can consist of mostly stalling. It will need a few seasons per book at that pace.

joking 5y ago

I'm really enjoying it, and I read the books so long ago that I almost don't remember much from them, so I don't have any problem with the story not being faithful to them.

jessaustin 5y ago
I considered a re-read when I learned this was coming out, but now I'm glad I have three decades' distance from the books. I may re-read after the show concludes, but at this pace that could be some time yet...

serverholic 5y ago

The emperor storyline is really the only thing worth watching. The rest is just boring, low-quality sci-fi.

pxue 5y ago
Feels like they started writing Cleo's arc and hastily added Hardin's because it didn't check all the boxes.

koheripbal 5y ago

I never read Foundation, so maybe that's why I like the show so much. The ideas are all new to me and I have no idea where the story is going.

nucleardog 5y ago
I have read the books. The entire series a few times now actually. I enjoyed them immensely both for the story and some of the ideas that are played with throughout. They'd make terrible, boring TV. I'm glad they've not attempted a shot-for-shot remake of the books as a TV show, and instead chosen to adapt by taking some of the core ideas and (thusfar) general gist of of the stories and turn them into something. I'm glad I get to explore those ideas further and put my head in that world a bit more. I like that they've added some other interesting ideas to play with. I think the moaning is just the same general thing that comes up any time anything is adapted to screen. There's a huge contingent of people that, for some reason, seem to treat the source material as some holy text that's never to be changed instead of just being happy that some of the good and interesting elements are being carried over into a new story.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Counterpoint: maybe people are getting jaded by the constant nostalgia baits Hollywood keeps producing. Personally, I'd prefer less remakes/prequels/lazy adaptations and more epics like LOTR, for example. LOTR also had adaptations, but they were well-thought and respectful to the source material.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
If they had named the show anything but "Foundation", I think it would be a decent lure for Apple TV. Loosely basing it on the Foundation series, and naming it "Foundation" was more to generate hype than a love letter to fans of Asimov's work.

baq 5y ago

i completely agree. it isn't bad sci-fi tv. nowhere near the expanse, but that doesn't say much, since for me nothing really comes close to the expanse.

allturtles 5y ago

Talk about damning with faint praise.

shoto_io 5y ago

Exactly. I really like the show. I haven't read the books, so I couldn't be offended in the first place.

dr_ 5y ago

Agreed. The show may not follow the book, but it’s entertaining in its own right. Star Wars was essentially a “dumbed down” version of this, the show maintains some complexity - it can get corny at times but you still have to follow what’s going on or you could lose track of the story. And the Brothers’ are some of the most intriguing sci fi characters that I’ve watched.

throw0101a 5y ago

> So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) If you want to make an action-y television series, then choose action-y source material. There's so much good sci-fi (and fantasy) out there that can be used for that type of style. The Vorkosigan Saga for one: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga While it may be possible to adapt Waiting for Godot into a Die Hard-like movie, why would you do so?

ericmay 5y ago
Maybe? I don't get the problem with Foundation. Like why can't they take the source material and create their own interpretation? What's so wrong with that? Maybe someone will go on and create a Vorkosigan Saga interpretation too? I read the books. Loved them. Really enjoying the show too.
- aspaviento 5y ago
  If my memory serves me right, Foundation was never about individuals but collectives. That's what psychohistory math was about. The show fails completely to transmit this idea which for me, is the core of the books. So if they don't even get that right, what's the point of making a show about it?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    It’s fun and interesting. What other reason do they need? You’re latching on to the premise that a show or movie based on a book must strictly adhere to that book or else it’s not good. It doesn’t. It can be loosely coupled or tightly coupled. You’re disappointed because you have set expectations on what they should do. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I got over the “it must follow strictly” mindset a long time ago.
    - aspaviento 5y ago
      It's bad for other reasons. What I'm criticizing is clamming to be an adaptation of the books when it doesn't even get the most fundamental thing of the book right. > You’re disappointed because you have set expectations They created those expectations by clamming it is an adaption of the books. Imagine if I claim that my show called "The lord of the rings" is based on the novels but the only thing in common is that the main character is named Frodo.

ourlordcaffeine 5y ago

>IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :) Is it still a somewhat hard sci-fi or has it been turned into a fantasy flick?

neaden 5y ago
I would say it's as hard as the original novel, which has FTL travel and psychic powers.
goatlover 5y ago
Would an entirely new branch of mathematics that predicts the future count as hard science fiction?
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  Barely, since neither Asimov nor the TV show writers, have spent 60% of the material on explaining how it actually works.
stevenwoo 5y ago
In the span of ten minutes they restore the artificial gravity on a derelict spacecraft then they walk into a room on that same ship that has large open vats of some dangerous liquid that people fall into and die.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Or Salvor's boyfriend who says his propulsor doesn't work and gently floats away, feet away from several people equipped with functioning propulsors, including Salvor. The lava floor strongly reminded me of Galaxy Quest's chompers. Come on, Apple.
phh 5y ago
Feels way too fantasy to me. Though only the first book didn't have fantasy parts (imo. and I don't feel like it was required). And possibly, most of the fantasy parts will be explained in the tv show, and we'll end very small fantasy elements, but I'm expecting to be disappointed there.

baud147258 5y ago

> If you think of the series merely as “inspired by” them not “based on them,” then the show isn’t bad. Then what is the point of using a license if you're just "inspired by"? The producers could just say it's inspired by sci-fi classics and do whatever they want, including not respecting the spirit of the original work, which should the primary goal in an adaptation.

rsynnott 5y ago

I'd agree that they needed a lot of reworking to make a TV series out of it, but some of it feels slightly gratuitous; the clone emperor thing feels like a pointless overcomplication, and I'm pretty sure they're going for some sort of Dune-esque guild navigator thing with the imperial starships. I'm mostly quite enjoying it, but I think they could have been a _bit_ more restrained with their rewriting and lost nothing. > everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women Also, newspapers! The original novels had paper newspapers, transmitted across the stars. At a certain age, science fiction tends to become accidentally a bit steampunk.

dkonofalski 5y ago
That's interesting to me because the brothers are one of my favorite parts of the show because of the new ideas they bring up in relation to the Empire. It gives the writers some really clever and interesting ways to discuss the problems with a long-standing continuity of ideas while giving those internal inconsistencies human faces to stand-in for something that would be much more nebulous and vague otherwise.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I feel like it kind of misses the point, though. Societies like that don't collapse because the leader is immortal, they do so because the _society_ is ossified.
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    I don't even think that's the point, though. I think it's more of a criticism of strict stubbornness. It's not the fact that he's immortal that's the problem, it's the fact that he/they continue to "lead" in the exact same manner, attempting to ossify a society that, on its insides, is changing. The only thing consistent is change, especially in society. Isn't the point of Foundation that, despite spectacular individuals, societies move on and change?
  - phh 5y ago
    I feel it's the point they are trying to make with the cloned leader (I wouldn't exactly say immortal). They are saying the fall is faster because of an ossified leader, but nonetheless the fall will happen anyway, because it's not just the leader that is ossified, but the whole society.

ivankirigin 5y ago

I don't understand why more "unfilmable" books don't get launched as an animated series. Maybe execs think adults wouldn't watch it?

Tronno 5y ago
"Unfilmable" just means impossible to translate into a sequence of scenes, with characters and a coherent story. For example, long internal monologues about the design of space ships, etc. You could try, but it wouldn't be entertaining in a classical sense without deviating strongly from the source material. Animated shows would have the same problem.
chaostheory 5y ago
You have to see this from the big picture view as a way to draw mainstream audiences for a paid streaming service. Without major drastic changes, a faithful translation of Foundation would be unwatchable for most people (most people are not into documentaries let alone fake ones), and it doesn't serve Apple's goal of getting more subscribers.

karaterobot 5y ago

If you proceed from the assumption that they had to adapt the Foundation novels into a serialized streaming show, then I guess I agree with you. Is there some new law that says you can't make up your own story anymore? You can even steal the things you like about Foundation, that's fine. It's not like all adaptations succeed, and all original IP fails, so I have no idea why they keep pretending that step 1 must be to buy the rights to something that already exists, even if it is structurally unfeasible to adapt.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

You can't have your cake and eat it. Apple made a ton of buzz around the TV show, and it took _because_ they use the Asimov work. Apple did the Apple thing, they overhyped a product that they then designed according to their own rules, expecting everybody to just eat their crap and smile as usual. But it turns out people liking classic SF books are not your average fanboy, and they don't like being lied to. It's not just about marketing, it's about trust. It's about taking a dump on a legendary art piece to make money with a the Apple smug confidence. While Dune was a masterful yet humble demonstration of respect and love to the book. Sure, it's was impossible to adapt the book as a show. By nature. Any reader would have told you that. They didn't care. They wanted their poney. It was never about making something for us. Well, for once, I'm happy it back fired. They don't get to hear "no" often enough.

tshaddox 5y ago
> Apple did the Apple thing, they overhyped a product that they then designed according to their own rules, expecting everybody to just eat their crap and smile as usual. > But it turns out people liking classic SF books are not your average fanboy, and they don't like being lied to. It’s a bit silly to imply that the intended market was people who like or have even heard of SF classics like the Foundation series. The intended audience is pretty clearly everyone who watches stuff. It’s one of many shows trying to spend their way into cultural ubiquity after the immense success of Game of Thrones. Even if previous Asimov fans were disappointed it would have been totally fine if the show took off (this was the case for many George R. R. Martin fans and the Game of Thrones TV series).
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  Sure, but in that case you can't expect to benefit from the hype produced by the fans community, and any backslash is on you. Turns that those people make a lot of noise for their small number. The screeching voices and all that.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Right, and that’s precisely what I’m saying: that it’s silly to claim that Apple’s plan was to make a mediocre show and rely on generating hype with nothing more than the name recognition of Asimov and the Foundation series.

BurningFrog 5y ago

I could handle a reinterpreted Foundation story for TV. Easily. The problem is that this is sooo bad. Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. That's what I saw until falling asleep halfway through Episode 3. Perhaps it got better. Perhaps it's not "for me". But that's what I saw.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
> That's what I saw until falling asleep halfway through Episode 3. Perhaps it got better. Perhaps it's not "for me". But that's what I saw. I have to skip some scenes because they become too boring: flirting, romance, sex? skip. Emotional scene that adds nothing to the plot? skip. Maybe I lost some important bit among that, but seeing the sluggish pace, I doubt it.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense, and characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. That seems...faithful.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Maybe a good screenwriter could have fixed that, who knows?
clajiness 5y ago
> Dull, pretentions stories where nothing makes sense... That seems like a problem with you, not the story.
chaostheory 5y ago
> characters that are dull speaking boxes walking around saying script lines. You need to re-read the books. While the overall ideas and plot is good, the details and dialogue are terrible.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

browningstreet 5y ago

Ignoring the lack of faith to the source material: It's bad.. the dialogue, conflict, etc., are far below the levels we've come to expect in sci-fi shows like Expanse. This is a complete waste of Jared Harris' talents. In the last episode, the resolution of his incomplete download was dramatized by a bit more screaming, then he was all good. It doesn't feel elevated or sophisticated at all... it does look very pretty. But it's not even representative of itself -- they keep talking about "trillions" of people here and there, and the new Book of Boba Fett does a better job of selling large population centers than Foundation ever does. Also, my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue: aren't most cop and lawyer shows mostly a lot of talk, usually in just a few common settings?

ASalazarMX 5y ago
> my son made a point about the "unfilmable" books, which are a lot of dialogue I'm still surprised about how slow they can make an hour-long episode. Between fistfights, face closeups and gratuitous sex scenes and drama, barely anything advances. It's following the Star Trek Discovery formula but in slow motion.
pier25 5y ago
I agree. I don't care about the books and stopped watching mid season. The production impressed me for the first episode and then it was very bland and boring. There is no drama, nothing that caught my attention. It feels like watching a boring documentary.
zarkov99 5y ago
It is horrible. And you could predict it was going to be horrible as soon as you saw the obvious distortions caused by Woke nonsense: gender swap of not one, but two of the central characters, the not so subtle hints at the horrible religious fanatic and climate change denying people who so oppressed poor Gaal, etc. Apple's Foundation follow the familiar Hollywood woke playbook: do not create new stories, because of course that would require actual creative talent, instead correct (maybe desecrate is a better term) old great stories to comply to SJW messaging. The new Dune is another example but Villeneuve actually has talent, and though he did pay the Woke vig, which is sad, he managed to appease the lunatics without impacting the story too much. I guess that is the best we can expect from Hollywood these days.

matthewdgreen 5y ago

> No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. I would offer an even more contrarian take: the show actually is being relatively faithful to the books. At least of the most recent episode. More concretely, while obviously there are important changes (the Cleons, how Seldon dies, the Anacreons invading rather than making diplomatic threats, nobody smoking, etc.) none of these are terribly unfaithful to the story. Most are small bits of harmless dramatic license. Others explore parts of history that the books simply panned away from (e.g., happenings on Trantor during the first Seldon crisis.) What really worries me is that, as of the most recent episode, they seem to be introducing characters with some kind of superpower wherein they can see or alter the future. This is going to screw the story up completely.

jjk166 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the seeing the future thing is just how they're doing the second foundation.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  Fingers crossed. Except that also they're giving this power to Salvor Hardin, who really shouldn't have it.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Big but: Foundation never had clairvoyants, not even Gaia. This is a huge deviation from the books, since now we have people predicting the future on their own, without psychohistory.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Of all the deviations from the books, this is really one of the smallest.
    - ASalazarMX 5y ago
      It's a critical deviation, which shouldn't have been done on a whim. Seldon's psycohistory predicted the path of the whole empire with great accuracy, but knowing their destiny would make people act differently, so Terminus didn't have psycohistorians, just a vault that would open at crucial events and give information. It would have worked well until the Mule threw a wrench with its mental ability to tune other minds. He wasn't a clairvoyant, he just altered people's feelings. The Second Foundation put the plan back on track thanks to their own mental abilities, but they also weren't clairvoyants. So far only psychohistory could predict the future. Later we have Golan Trevize, who also couldn't see the future, but had a gift for choosing right with incomplete information. Even Gaia had to rely on Trevize for its final decision. Foundation's Gaal can see the future, and this is a world breaking ability. Hari Seldon and his psycohistory become obsolete since she can do that on her own, any action against the Foundation is moot, any deviation from the plan can be predicted, etc. The only way to write Gaal out of that corner is making her clairvoyance work as reliable or unreliable as the plot needs (lazy writing), and judging from how she can predict and block micrometeorites now (which can puncture a ship's shield and hull, but not a tablet), it seems that's the route they will take. There was no need to introduce clairvoyance in the Foundation's universe.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

And maybe it will inspire someone to go read the books. Adaptations often do that.

AlbertCory 5y ago

I read the books so long ago that I remember zero about them. So "lack of fidelity to the books" is hardly my issue. The issue is: they're high-glitz Hollywood garbage: "We can't think of any new ideas, so we'll just make the actors more 'modern' and relatable, and spend a lot on the CGI." It's interesting that I don't watch much sci-fi, but AppleTV is also running Invasion which I do find watchable. Even though those characters are also kinda cliched.

simonh 5y ago

I think they're really trying, but just slightly missing the mark. They're raising a lot of ideas that aren't in the book, but are actually relevant to the concept of psychohistory. Things like the group think exhibited in various factions, many of the characters grapple with the way society constrains their freedom of action. The identical genetics of the emperor/s raises the question of the relevance and nature of individual identity. I think they actually do quite a good job of integrating all these themes of freedom, social constraint and inertia, personhood and destiny. The first book doesn't really do any of that, so in doing so the show is diverging dramatically from the story of the first book. Nevertheless given psychohistory they're all interesting questions. Later books do explore various implications of psychohistory, but I don't think it's viable for a show to wait x-many seasons before bringing in these themes. The problem is the actual story is a bit sluggish, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I can see what they are trying to do.

ryanSrich 5y ago

> I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books. I will have to disagree here. While I don't mind deviating from the books, I do mind incredibly bad story telling, pandering, shitty acting, and just about everything else wrong with Apple's Foundation. Its only redeeming qualities are certain aspects of the aesthetics and cinematography. Everything else makes it completely unwatchable, and not because it's unfaithful to the books.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

It has some brilliant adaptations, like the Cleon clones, and some abysmal ones like the psychic supergenius self-taught mathematician from a backwards anti-intellectual hyper-religious civilization, that is destined to lead the Foundation. Way to pile on plot devices and clichés on a single character, a clear sign of weak writing.

hintymad 5y ago

I was wondering if there is an explanation on why the political systems in American's science fictions are just so unimaginative? I mean, a civilization could predict the future, could destroy a planet, could travel across galaxies, and could rule trillions of people, yet they had an empire just like ancient Rome? Change of technologies and productivity and economy will not lead to change of political systems?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> yet they had an empire just like ancient Rome? It wasn't quite just like ancient Rome, but... > Change of technologies and productivity and economy will not lead to change of political systems? It did, which is why their political system wasn't one of the ones popular at the time it was written. The system echoed with past ones because the combined effect of the economic and tech changes (particularly notably the relationship between travel and communications speed) echoed the past.