I suspect that will be one of the first things a Hollywood type would change. Robot-looking robots are much cooler on-screen than actors that they're just calling robots.
Asimov's "FOUNDATION"
- Thread starter UncleRogi
- Start date
I suspect that will be one of the first things a Hollywood type would change. Robot-looking robots are much cooler on-screen than actors that they're just calling robots.
Oh, I expect there'll be robots, aliens, and shit blowing up real good (TM).
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
The Encyclopedia Galactica's existence only indicated that Gaia didn't occupy the entire galaxy.
It could very well be that a Second Galactic Empire temporarily existed, under the second foundation's control (or even the first foundation - though it's unlikely, considering the last foundationverse books).
Gaia remains the favourite when it comes to humanity's future simply because R Daneel supported it - and he practically controlled the galaxy.
Yeah, you're probably right about that.
And you're probably right about that.Oh, I expect there'll be robots, aliens, and shit blowing up real good (TM).
Well, Trevize chose Gaia to become Galaxia, meaning they would occupy the entire Galaxy. But there are a number of problems with that. Even if Daneel supported it, he was having self-admitted difficulties with making decisions-- which is why he cultivated Trevize and his "Black Box" and why he wanted to merge with the evolved Spacer child. Trevize made the decision in favor of Galaxia based on the idea that Foundation's assumptions were incomplete, but he wasn't happy with that decision; with good reason, as his reasoning was also incomplete. His assumption was that Humanity is the only intelligence in the Milky Way, but this was wrong on two or three counts. First is that Robotic intelligence was a huge influence on Human history. Second is that the evolved Spacer child (I'm thinking his name was something like Fallom) represented an alien intelligence. Third, if you consider Nemesis to be part of the Future History as I do (and as I think Asimov would have if he continued), then the entire existence of Gaia is predicated on the existence of an alien intelligence.
Plus, of course, Asimov himself didn't like the "group mind" and wanted to think of a way out.
I love the Foundation series written by Asimov... it is just so epic and well written that i nearly let everything rest while reading it the first time.
Due to being badly burned by the Dune sequels/prequels written a few years ago (and boy were they bad compared to the original work) i haven't touched any expanded Foundation material and don't plan to.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Due to being badly burned by the Dune sequels/prequels written a few years ago (and boy were they bad compared to the original work) i haven't touched any expanded Foundation material and don't plan to.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
It isn't too hard to imagine the Foundation novels as an Emmerich movie, actually. It's just the next step for him: Not the end of the world, but the end of the galactic polities. Just shift the focus to events that are happening rather than people talking about events that have happened (and very likely compress time - expect Hari Seldon to meet the Mule, you heard it hear first) and you've got a pretty coherent idea for a film.
The use of Avatar tech is an encouraging notion. I don't like Emmerich even on his better days, but it sounds like I'd get some nice space opera visuals out of this movie.
The use of Avatar tech is an encouraging notion. I don't like Emmerich even on his better days, but it sounds like I'd get some nice space opera visuals out of this movie.
I must find myself in agreement with you there, trevanian. There are more frightening prospects than a Roland Emmerich Foundation film, and Childhood's End is one of them. Turning More Than Human into a Heroes-type franchise is so obvious also I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
In the original Foundation trilogy, there are no robots of any kind. It was only in the later books that Asimov retconned the Foundation and Robot universes into a single continuity and shoehorned a few humaniform robots into the Foundation era. So a movie based on the original trilogy shouldn't have any nonhuman characters of any kind.
If Roland Emmerich is doing Foundation, expect it to be braindead.
That's exactly my point. A big-budget blockbuster movie is the wrong model for a story like this. It should be a low-budget TV miniseries.
And who says the characters have to be white? I don't think Asimov specified. That many millennia in the future, our modern ethnic categories probably wouldn't exist anymore anyway. It would be best to cast it with multiracial actors.
And who says the characters have to be white? I don't think Asimov specified. That many millennia in the future, our modern ethnic categories probably wouldn't exist anymore anyway. It would be best to cast it with multiracial actors.
The strength of the Foundation novels is their focus on events that take place just before or after any action. There are very few space battles actually depicted in the text. Heck, even the occupation of Terminus by Anacreon happens entirely "off screen." But it's the human element -- the psychological and social actions and reactions to these events that makes the story so compelling.
I'm pretty sure that a blockbuster film would thoroughly defeat that entire purpose. I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing the Foundation universe come to life on the big screen, but I don't have very high hopes for the story in the film.
I'm pretty sure that a blockbuster film would thoroughly defeat that entire purpose. I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing the Foundation universe come to life on the big screen, but I don't have very high hopes for the story in the film.
Like trying to make Watchmen a blockbuster when it's a very wordy story with little action.
Roland Emmerich doing Foundation is probably the only director assignment in Hollywood today more completely and bizarrely wrong than M. Night Shyamalan doing The Last Airbender. Both directors' styles are the absolute, diametric opposite of what their assigned stories need. What's next? Michael Bay remaking My Dinner With Andre? Some famous torture-porn director doing Dora the Explorer: The Movie?
That depends on how thoroughly they adapt it for the screen. If Asimov himself can decide to modify the Foundation continuity for storytelling purposes, I don't see why it's being treated as such an issue that a modern movie adaptation would, too.
I'm just wondering what there is about this adaptation of the story that requires performance capture. I'm not making a big "issue" of it, I'm just surprised by it and wondering what it means. My point is simply that there's nothing in the original story that would require performance capture, so the fact that it's being used must mean something rather different is being done, and I'm wondering what that could be.
Yeah, Asimov made a point of creating a universe with only humans, after he went a few rounds with John Campbell.
^Movie executives often aren't aware that their book-based products are based on books at all. They have underlings whose job it is to find properties for them to adapt, and they aren't really interested in where they come from, just what kind of movie can be made. Which is why films that are nominally based on books often end up more like generic movie formulae than like the books they're based on.
Of course, that doesn't mean the director, producers, and writers of the film don't know the source material. They'd pretty much have to be familiar with it as part of their research. But they're following the marching orders of superiors who don't necessarily care or even know about the source of the idea. Their job is simply to try to make a crowd-pleasing movie.
Of course, that doesn't mean the director, producers, and writers of the film don't know the source material. They'd pretty much have to be familiar with it as part of their research. But they're following the marching orders of superiors who don't necessarily care or even know about the source of the idea. Their job is simply to try to make a crowd-pleasing movie.
I didn't like Foundation when I read it in 9th or 10th grade. Maybe I just didn't get it. On the other hand, I did read Nemesis and loved that one.
I can never forget the Foundation Trilogy. Just before my family was scheduled to leave Japan I had checked the book out of the library and our departure plans were slightly delayed until I could find the book and returned it. My dad was pretty upset with me. 
Pretty good read too.
Pretty good read too.
Similar threads
