3 ms·

Excellent point. I'd definitely would watch that. And seriously, I think your larger point is that if you're going mess about with some legendary original sourc

Excellent point. I'd definitely would watch that. And seriously, I think your larger point is that if you're going mess about with some legendary original source material, doing it in a self-referential way that says, "Yes, we know the original isn't what we're doing here, and here's how we are different on purpose" is probably something you want to think about.

StrictDabbler 5y ago
You're making me aware of that larger point, though it may have been implicit. And the thing is that I love Waiting for Godot, so I could make a strong pitch. I've just read an interview with the writer, David Goyer: https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/foundation-apple-adaptation-david-goyer-1235069734/ https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/foundation-apple-adapta... It's frustrating and I'm not sure why. I think it's because Goyer didn't realize that the 80's books were fan fiction. Isaac Asimov was always his own biggest fan. If you write an adaptation of the Foundation series that focuses on Gaal Dornick you're working with a prequel. The only good prequel ever made is Godfather II, right? Because a good story starts as late as it possibly can. So in this case, self-referential or not, Goyer was doomed. He's basing the series on some very bad books.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The only good prequel ever made is Godfather II, right? Casino Royale is considered a prequel because Bond just gets his double-0 in it, while all the other ones he already had it. The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is a prequel as well: it is set in the US Civil War, while the others are set after it.