6 ms·

Is the book really good, or just worth a read? I've recently seen the TV series and I liked some of its scifi ideas, but wonder if the bad parts are down to th

• jhawk28 5y ago
  The show has very little to do with the book.
  • monopoledance 5y ago
    Thanks. I figured that to some extent, but assumed some larger themes originated in the books. Like the emperor's dynasty, which I found to be an interesting take on immortality and power.
    • margalabargala 5y ago
      The clone dynasty of the emperor does not in fact appear in the books, though it may have been inspired by a different part later in the series.
    • WorldMaker 5y ago
      The emperor's dynasty is one of the biggest departures from the book because it's a (very good) hack in order to have some actor continuity across hundreds of years of time, but it's also a very interesting departure because it does reflect/evoke some of the books' other themes. (Relatedly and spoilers: any Robot involvement at all in the Foundation series is a very late in the books "twist". In part because it came from Asimov's late use of Foundation as the "capstone" to tie together/lightly retcon Robots and Empire and few other things into a final united timeline. They were considered all dead in the Empire era. It was another interesting departure to show one in direct service to the Empire in the first season, and a lot of interesting speculation on how that is expected to play out over the series versus events in the books. Again, another departure driven by trying to get more of the actors to make it across some of the bigger time jumps. Though there is precedence for this one in the books as the trilogy of prequels by the "Killer Bs" [three authors whose last name start with B who were not Asimov, but invited to write prequels by his estate] also brings Robots into play much earlier in the Foundation timeline than later.)
      • monopoledance 5y ago
        Oh, wow. That's not what I would have expected at all. Very clever writing, indeed. I really liked the trinity clone cycle idea. Lee Pace's performance was incredible as always, but the other's were a good cast too. Just the A-Train costume looked out of place. The series was great at times and then completely flat for long strips in-between. I don't get how half-assing it was acceptable to production. Why let's make it expensive and mediocre!
        • WorldMaker 5y ago
          I was really impressed with Terrence Mann's eye brow makeup (eye brow wigs, probably?) that were a really understated "special effect" to make Brother Dusk feel so related to Lee Pace. It took me episodes to realize that that must have been the one weird trick, but once I'd realized it seemed kind of obvious. His eyebrows look nothing like that in real life or other films/shows. (He was the bad guy in Sense8!) > The series was great at times and then completely flat for long strips in-between. Yeah, I'm still not entirely sure why they paced some of the show the way they did. That said they did cover several hundred years, so weird pacing was pretty much the nature/challenge the books gave them to try to adapt to. It's possibly the sign of a good show that most people I've talked to disagree on which exactly were the flat bits. I love a good, long fly through shot of space scenery and/or "cool planets". I know lots of people that disagree. I thought there weren't enough scenes of Terminus "in action" doing what it was supposed to be (collecting/writing the Encyclopedia Galactica; which I don't think was even properly named anywhere in the first season?). The very few scenes they did include I know dragged for some people, because there is only so much most people can take of arguments about what to include in an Encyclopedia, but I wanted way more of such scenes because instead of showing them the show just kept instead telling you that Terminus was a planet of scientists and knowledge workers and needed protecting rather than showing you what Terminus' part of the plan was and what they were supposed to be doing, and why that was a great work driving them as a community. Relatedly, I know a lot of people that loved the strange religious in-fighting and monologuing of that "The Mother" religion, and the Emperor trying to take advantage of it to delay the Fall (and likely making the Fall worse in the process) and oof did that drag for me. None of that stuff comes directly from the books. (Isaac Asimov was an atheist for much of his life and waxing poetic about a made up religion even just for worldbuilding purposes was outside of his wheelhouse/comfort zone and he knew it. Given some of showrunner Goyer's other stuff, I think such long monologues are also outside of his wheelhouse, but yet he doesn't seem to know or acknowledge it and just keeps writing them, but that's just my hot take.) Isaac Asimov did invent a fake religion for the books, but (spoilers for stuff to come) more in the way of the Foundation itself using religion as a coarse, gross controlling tool.
• hvs 5y ago
  The books (especially the early ones) are really an anthology of stories about the collapse of the galactic empire and its recovery than a specific story. It is completely different from the show. Think more "I, Robot" (again, the book not the movie). And, yes, I think they are really good but they are idea-driven not character-driven.
  • monopoledance 5y ago
    Thanks. So, I guess the story requires some commitment, right?
    • hvs 5y ago
      Actually, each of the books are a pretty quick read. They are also good as audiobooks.
      • monopoledance 5y ago
        Perfect. I put them on a list :)
  • Baeocystin 5y ago
    The funny thing about I, Robot, the movie is that had it simply used a different title, it would have been a perfectly decent sci-fi film on its own. It just had almost nothing to do with the book.
    • tomnipotent 5y ago
      > It just had almost nothing to do with the book. That's because it was originally an unrelated screenplay titled "Hardwired", which was rewritten to include Asimov's Three Laws after-the-fact. And it shows.
      • Baeocystin 5y ago
        I did not know that. Makes perfect sense, thanks for letting me know.
• pbronez 5y ago
  The book (really, the series) is absolutely worth a read. I'm only a few episodes into the show, but so far they're not at all comparable. They're different stories with some common touch points. The original Foundation books are an epistemology treatise masquerade as a sci-fi epic.
  • monopoledance 5y ago
    Thanks!
  • sonofhans 5y ago
    > The original Foundation books are an epistemology treatise masquerade as a sci-fi epic. Having read dozens of Asimov books, that’s a good summary of many of them: Asimov’s social opinions and technical ideas masquerading as literature.
    • modulusshift 5y ago
      Haha if we were measuring them on literary merit most would be promptly dumped in the garbage. This is kinda just what early sci fi was like, it's rarely about the stories, the stories just contextualize ideas.
      • justicezyx 5y ago
        > literary merit most would be promptly dumped in the garbage Hmm. This is utterly wrong. I am dismayed by this attitude towards scifi writing based on the socalled "literary merit". What is literary merit? It's a measurement of the writer's ability to use human language to convey ideas. Just that. That skill is tangible between different content as well. Just because SciFi idea and a human emotional idea are different, do not translate into different literary merit. Now back to the judge on "writer's ability to use human language to convey ideas". Really, in what sense the SciFi writers are inferior to other literary writers in this measurement? Isn't that SciFi writing are not poetic? Of course, SciFi are not poets. And if there is a poetic story, I see not reason why any SciFi writers cannot be poetic. Dune, in some parts, are certainly very poetic. Just because the content is not poetic, which would be a wrong choice to use poetic wordings, that does not dminish the litrary value. Isn't that SciFi writing are not sophisticated enough? No, scifi's sophistication is the ideas, the ideas that builton futuristic technology and human environments. Those ideas are certainly less emotionally attached than other writings. But again, those ideas are better served in the SciFi writing. One can say SciFi ideas are less literary, but one cannot say SciFi writings are less litrary. The list goes on and on... This attitude towards SciFi itself is a symptom of the resistance from the stagnant literary community.
• tw04 5y ago
  The books (it's a series) are amazing, well worth it. The TV show is at best the equivalent of a 9th grader who picked up the cliff's notes, got bored halfway through those, and then wrote a book report. Some of the characters are there, and it's sci-fi, and that's about where the similarities end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series
  • worik 5y ago
    Depends on your taste. (It has been decades since I devoured the series) Science fiction has moved on since Asimov wrote that. In Foundation the characters are quite cardboard for modern taste. It is very much a product of its time. It has less of the flowery prose that modern writers are so enamoured with IMO there is plenty of much better science fiction both in books and on TV. But Isaac's writing is easy to consume and enjoyable enough.
    • monopoledance 5y ago
      > IMO there is plenty of much better science fiction both in books and on TV. Would you care to name a few? For me The Expanse, For All Mankind and, although not hard-scifi, Raised by Wolves is where it's at in terms of TV.
      • worik 5y ago
        BSG If you are into space opera The Man in the High Castle: Alternative history Hand Maid's Tail: Near future dystopia (gotten a bit close lately) Thank you for Raised by Wolves and For All Mankind. I musty have been living in a hole. Never heard of them I do not know what is not hard enough about The Expanse. Taste is personal! I like plot and character development. Without that it is just one thing after another.
        • monopoledance 5y ago
          Thanks. Unfortunately, I've seen/tried those already. Handmaid's Tale is brilliant, and I also like BSG and Caprica. Couldn't get into Man in the High Castle, tho. > I do not know what is not hard enough about The Expanse. Misunderstanding. I consider only RBW as non-hard scifi. > Thank you for Raised by Wolves and For All Mankind. I envy you. Both are phenomenal! Although RBW may be a matter of taste. I am rewatching FAM right now and still love absolutely everything about it. Kind of the reason why I had high hopes for The Foundation, as I've seen what Apple television is capable of. Btw. if you like the historic space theme, you may also like a "Strange Angel", which I enjoyed a lot. You likely haven't heard of that, either, as it's super niche and under the radar. It's not scifi tho. Enjoy!
• Stranger43 5y ago
  The first book in the original trilogy is a masterpiece, the remaining two is still good but not to the same high bar, and the same is true for the later additions i personally really enjoyed the first Prequel. In terms of morality Asimov is quite forward for his time and still very relevant but there are sections that dates him a bit. I haven't watched the show so i cant say if they are related.
• d0mine 5y ago
  It depends on what you want to get from them. If you consider reading a book as a conversation exploring various ideas, you' ll like it very much.