5 ms·

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, t

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.
    - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
      Apple TV is at this point, the underdog that most people don't know about. Probably 1 out 50 persons even know it exists around me. So I wager they wanted very hard that the name of Asimov created a fan base that would carry their own PR. Otherwise, why chose the book at all ? After all, as you said, it's almost impossible to adapt, so they didn't buy the rights for the writing.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        > Otherwise, why chose the book at all ? After all, as you said, it's almost impossible to adapt, so they didn't buy the rights for the writing. I mean, Apple bought the show from a production company that was able to get adaptation rights from the Asimov estate, and presumably that production company had creative people who liked the series and were motivated to adapt it. It's not like there was some white label series already in development and Apple went searching for some famous book series brand to attach to it.
chipotle_coyote 5y ago
For God's sake, Apple didn't "design [the Foundation TV show] according to their own rules". Apple bought the rights to a TV show created, developed, produced, and run by people who do not work for Apple. Yes, Apple is signing checks, yes, that I get that means they have some influence -- but that doesn't make the show into an "Apple product" the way an iPhone or a MacBook is. It just doesn't. There is no one at Apple saying "I think this show should be 'designed' this way" for this or any of their shows. Apple TV+ is developing a reputation for being relatively hands-off and creator friendly, largely thanks to the staff they hired to actually run things, which includes former top executives at Sony and HBO. The main thing that Apple brings to the table is money. Lots and lots of money. If you don't like the Foundation show, that's fine, but this "oh, this is the hubris of Apple and I am glad they failed and everything they do is terrible and Tim Cook personally beat my cat to death" narrative isn't just tired, it's utterly irrelevant. What you don't like is David S. Goyer's take on Foundation. If you really don't like that take, then you wouldn't like it if it were running on Netflix or Amazon Prime or HBO Max, either, and it would have been just the same on one of those services -- albeit probably with a smaller special effects budget. And the thing is, a "faithful translation" of the first books would be deathly boring. It's full of great ideas, but also full of flat characters, stilted dialogue, droning monologues, and very little in the way of actual plot. It's a story that hinges on the fall of a giant galactic empire yet lets that fall happen entirely off camera. One reviewer in 1982 described it this way: > I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, nearly a quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and conversation. No action. No physical suspense. That "reviewer" was Isaac Asimov, when he re-read his own work before commencing the fourth book. Foundation started as a series of short stories patched together, then became a novel series full of retcons: it was all predicted by math! Wait, it was really the Second Foundation and Mentalics! Something something The Mule(tm)! Hold on, it was the robot from this other series entirely what the hell, Isaac! Goyer has the disadvantage of trying to take what starts out as basically a future history sourcebook and turning it into a story, but the advantage of not having to retcon anything. There are already references to Foundation and Earth in the show. Do I love the show? No, but I like the show. Is it turning a cerebral almost action-free book series into an action epic? Yes, but so far it's been a smart action epic, and I'm okay with that. Is it arguably Foundation fanfic? Maybe, but fanfic is usually "what if we shipped these two characters"; Foundation is fanfic of its source material in the sense of asking "what if Asimov created characters anyone would ever consider shipping in the first place."
criddell 5y ago
The series has generally positive reviews (70% on Rotten Tomatoes). It was recently renewed for a second season already. I think it's a success for them.

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.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    Apple TV is at this point, the underdog that most people don't know about. Probably 1 out 50 persons even know it exists around me. So I wager they wanted very hard that the name of Asimov created a fan base that would carry their own PR. Otherwise, why chose the book at all ? After all, as you said, it's almost impossible to adapt, so they didn't buy the rights for the writing.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      > Otherwise, why chose the book at all ? After all, as you said, it's almost impossible to adapt, so they didn't buy the rights for the writing. I mean, Apple bought the show from a production company that was able to get adaptation rights from the Asimov estate, and presumably that production company had creative people who liked the series and were motivated to adapt it. It's not like there was some white label series already in development and Apple went searching for some famous book series brand to attach to it.

chipotle_coyote 5y ago

For God's sake, Apple didn't "design [the Foundation TV show] according to their own rules". Apple bought the rights to a TV show created, developed, produced, and run by people who do not work for Apple. Yes, Apple is signing checks, yes, that I get that means they have some influence -- but that doesn't make the show into an "Apple product" the way an iPhone or a MacBook is. It just doesn't. There is no one at Apple saying "I think this show should be 'designed' this way" for this or any of their shows. Apple TV+ is developing a reputation for being relatively hands-off and creator friendly, largely thanks to the staff they hired to actually run things, which includes former top executives at Sony and HBO. The main thing that Apple brings to the table is money. Lots and lots of money. If you don't like the Foundation show, that's fine, but this "oh, this is the hubris of Apple and I am glad they failed and everything they do is terrible and Tim Cook personally beat my cat to death" narrative isn't just tired, it's utterly irrelevant. What you don't like is David S. Goyer's take on Foundation. If you really don't like that take, then you wouldn't like it if it were running on Netflix or Amazon Prime or HBO Max, either, and it would have been just the same on one of those services -- albeit probably with a smaller special effects budget. And the thing is, a "faithful translation" of the first books would be deathly boring. It's full of great ideas, but also full of flat characters, stilted dialogue, droning monologues, and very little in the way of actual plot. It's a story that hinges on the fall of a giant galactic empire yet lets that fall happen entirely off camera. One reviewer in 1982 described it this way: > I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, nearly a quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and conversation. No action. No physical suspense. That "reviewer" was Isaac Asimov, when he re-read his own work before commencing the fourth book. Foundation started as a series of short stories patched together, then became a novel series full of retcons: it was all predicted by math! Wait, it was really the Second Foundation and Mentalics! Something something The Mule(tm)! Hold on, it was the robot from this other series entirely what the hell, Isaac! Goyer has the disadvantage of trying to take what starts out as basically a future history sourcebook and turning it into a story, but the advantage of not having to retcon anything. There are already references to Foundation and Earth in the show. Do I love the show? No, but I like the show. Is it turning a cerebral almost action-free book series into an action epic? Yes, but so far it's been a smart action epic, and I'm okay with that. Is it arguably Foundation fanfic? Maybe, but fanfic is usually "what if we shipped these two characters"; Foundation is fanfic of its source material in the sense of asking "what if Asimov created characters anyone would ever consider shipping in the first place."

criddell 5y ago

The series has generally positive reviews (70% on Rotten Tomatoes). It was recently renewed for a second season already. I think it's a success for them.