Asimov's "FOUNDATION"

[RJDiogenes]

^^ In the actual foundation books, the only Robots are humaniform.

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.

True, unless they incorporate aspects of the prequels.

Or "Tik Toks."

If Roland Emmerich is doing Foundation, expect it to be braindead.

The studio is probably looking at it as a potential billion-dollar franchise like Star Wars or nuTrek, so definitely expect it to be brain dead.

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.

He mostly left physical appearance to our imagination, except for some significant details. But I vaguely remember one sequence where one of the major characters-- and this was in one of the later novels-- mused about how people with brown skin are referred to as "Southerners" and wondered why. It may have been Pelorat in connection with his attempts to define the characteristics of Earth.

 

[Gepard]

Or "Tik Toks."

I've always wanted to read that. Sounds like my kind of story.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ That does look interesting; I had never heard of it. But I was actually referring the way the Killer Bs snuck Robots into the "Second Foundation Trilogy." That was one of the elements-- along with serial Robotic genocide on a Galactic scale-- that dragged the books down to nuTrek levels of stupidity (and, yes, that counts as 'Dark & Gritty' ).

As for my Southerner comment above: I was close.

 

[Gepard]

...Killer Bs ....

Oh, don't be hating on Benford. He's a good author.

... nuTrek levels of stupidity (and, yes, that counts as 'Dark & Gritty' )..

And don't make me drag Kegg and Spiff in here so we can hand you your @$$ again.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Again? You all three ran away rather than face me again.

Oh, don't be hating on Benford. He's a good author.

All three of them are very good. I was dismayed by their lack of respect and artistic integrity.

 

[Kegg]

The strength of the Foundation novels is their focus on events that take place just before or after any action.

Even still it has its moments that would be prohibitively expensive, maybe. The description of Trantor from the first novel does stay with me quite a bit. That's the sort of ooh-and-aaah bit you're more or less guaranteed a splashy Emmerich-does-Avatar is going to get right.

This said, I'd probably prefer a reasonably priced feature film trilogy to the Scylla of an Emmerich 'sploshionfest and the Charybdis of low-budget talking-heads BBC fare.

A dark and gritty Foundation film is also very easy to visualise. It is a story that kicks off with an empire collapsing, as I liked to note. The descent into chaos provides ample opportunity for that sort of tack should Emmerich be so inclined.

^^ Again? You all three ran away rather than face me again.

You want a rematch?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

For anybody interested, the BBC radio adaptation is apparently in the public domain:

http://www.archive.org/details/IsaacAsimov-TheFoundationTrilogy

Some of the sound effects created by the BBC radiophonic workshop seem quaint now.

 

[Christopher]

As for my Southerner comment above: I was close.

So he establishes that there are "Easterners" (Asian-descended peoples) on millions of worlds throughout the galaxy, and that Trantor's population includes millions of "Easterners" and a lot of "Southerners" (African-descended peoples). So multiethnic casting could certainly be authentic, although Seldon himself is described as a "Westerner" (which I suppose could encompass Latinos as well as "white" people).

Even still it has its moments that would be prohibitively expensive, maybe. The description of Trantor from the first novel does stay with me quite a bit. That's the sort of ooh-and-aaah bit you're more or less guaranteed a splashy Emmerich-does-Avatar is going to get right.

This said, I'd probably prefer a reasonably priced feature film trilogy to the Scylla of an Emmerich 'sploshionfest and the Charybdis of low-budget talking-heads BBC fare.

I think the best approach would be like Caprica -- a character-driven dramatic series, but with gorgeously elaborate digital renderings of the exotic locations the characters inhabit.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Yeah, that sounds perfect-- and such visuals are far from hard to produce these days.

^^ Again? You all three ran away rather than face me again.

You want a rematch?

BRING IT ON!

Well, maybe not.

For anybody interested, the BBC radio adaptation is apparently in the public domain:

Fantastic-- thanks for the link.

 

[Kegg]

I think the best approach would be like Caprica -- a character-driven dramatic series, but with gorgeously elaborate digital renderings of the exotic locations the characters inhabit.

Given I've really rather enjoyed what I've seen of Caprica so far (the pilot), that sounds like an excellent idea. I wouldn't go so far as to call it character-driven; as the original Foundation trilogy (haven't read any others) is very much a plot-driven affair, but I suppose that might work.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, let's say that both Caprica and Foundation are driven primarily by scenes of people talking to each other, the kind of material that can be done without elaborate, expensive effects or stunts, and the effects budget is spent instead on building the world that's the backdrop to the story.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The Encyclopedia Galactica excerpts that pepper and salt the Foundation stories were written during the Second Galactic Empire. Galaxia, I suppose, could have been incorporated in some way, but it's doubtful there would be an Encyclopedia Galactica if their/its philosophy (and abilities) were ascendant.

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.

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.

In 'Foundation's edge' Trevize choose Gaia because it was the only choice that kept his 'options' open aka he could change his mind later.
In 'Foundation and Earth' Trevize confirmed his choice of Gaia as correct.
Why?
Because humanity must be united in order to survive alien intelligences (from inside and outside the galaxy). And Gaia was the only choice that ensured humanity's unity.

And about Enciclopedia Galactica - Seldon's Second Galactic empire was supposed to be formed after 1000 years.
There was no timetable established for when Gaia would occupy the entire galaxy; indeed, it is entirely possible - even very probable - that Gaia's expansion was continuing right on schedule, slowly absorbing Seldon's Galactic empire when the enciclopedia was published.

As for Daneel, he took over that spacer child because he was old and approaching death - and he wanted a power upgrade.

And if Asimov wanted to get rid of 'group minds', he certainly didn't show it in the foundation books.

 

[ATimson]

All three of them are very good. I was dismayed by their lack of respect and artistic integrity.

I can almost understand that accusation being thrown at Gregory Benford's book. But Bear did his best to "clean up" elements from Benford's book and bring the universe back into conformance with Asimov's. And Bear and Brin never did anything else that I thought lacked respect for Asimov's work...

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, it's been so long that I don't really remember who wrote what anymore. You may be right; but, if so, that means the books weren't planned out ahead of time, which is pretty stupid in and of itself.

In 'Foundation's edge' Trevize choose Gaia because it was the only choice that kept his 'options' open aka he could change his mind later.
In 'Foundation and Earth' Trevize confirmed his choice of Gaia as correct.
Why?
Because humanity must be united in order to survive alien intelligences (from inside and outside the galaxy). And Gaia was the only choice that ensured humanity's unity.

The only choice he could see at the time, but he was unhappy with it; and, as I said, the decision was based on incomplete information (not to mention speculation).

And about Enciclopedia Galactica - Seldon's Second Galactic empire was supposed to be formed after 1000 years.
There was no timetable established for when Gaia would occupy the entire galaxy; indeed, it is entirely possible - even very probable - that Gaia's expansion was continuing right on schedule, slowly absorbing Seldon's Galactic empire when the enciclopedia was published.

I suppose there's no way to demonstrate that one way or the other.

As for Daneel, he took over that spacer child because he was old and approaching death - and he wanted a power upgrade.

He had two problems, according to himself: His Positronic brain had reached the limits of miniaturization, beyond which quantum effects would render the brain useless. There are obvious solutions to this (in addition to the fact that he had twenty thousand years to establish a think tank to work on it). Second, he claimed to have limitations imposed by virtue of his intelligence being technological in nature; I don't really buy that one. Age and death really had nothing to do with it, as neither are applicable to him.

And if Asimov wanted to get rid of 'group minds', he certainly didn't show it in the foundation books.

He showed it in various characters' distaste for the notion, including Trevize; and he said it outright in interviews.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In 'Foundation's edge' Trevize choose Gaia because it was the only choice that kept his 'options' open aka he could change his mind later.
In 'Foundation and Earth' Trevize confirmed his choice of Gaia as correct.
Why?
Because humanity must be united in order to survive alien intelligences (from inside and outside the galaxy). And Gaia was the only choice that ensured humanity's unity.

The only choice he could see at the time, but he was unhappy with it; and, as I said, the decision was based on incomplete information (not to mention speculation).

Exactly; Trevize was unhappy with the choice, but he made it anyway, because it was the only solution that assured humanity's unity.
What better testament to the validity of the choice can one ask for? Trevize was completely unsympathetic to the hive mind humanity, and yet, EVEN HE CHOSE IT.

Plus, at the end of 'Foundation and Earth', when Trevize made his final choice, this decision was no longer based on 'incomplete information'; indeed, by then, Trevize knew all the relevant information.

And about Enciclopedia Galactica - Seldon's Second Galactic empire was supposed to be formed after 1000 years.
There was no timetable established for when Gaia would occupy the entire galaxy; indeed, it is entirely possible - even very probable - that Gaia's expansion was continuing right on schedule, slowly absorbing Seldon's Galactic empire when the enciclopedia was published.

I suppose there's no way to demonstrate that one way or the other.

One can't demonstrate with 100% certainty this statement, yes. But one can prove that it's very likely - when one considers the players.

As for Daneel, he took over that spacer child because he was old and approaching death - and he wanted a power upgrade.

He had two problems, according to himself: His Positronic brain had reached the limits of miniaturization, beyond which quantum effects would render the brain useless. There are obvious solutions to this (in addition to the fact that he had twenty thousand years to establish a think tank to work on it). Second, he claimed to have limitations imposed by virtue of his intelligence being technological in nature; I don't really buy that one. Age and death really had nothing to do with it, as neither are applicable to him.

So, Daneel wanted an upgrade - which he got. There's nothing in this that indicated he was opposed or even uneasy with the idea of Gaia as the future of humanity.

The only dubious aspect of all this is that it seems to indicate that organic minds are in some way superior to positronic ones.
Considering the capabilities/achievements of robots and of humans, this ideea stretches credibility - it's pure 'feel goodism' on Asimov's part, unsupported by anything from his books.

And if Asimov wanted to get rid of 'group minds', he certainly didn't show it in the foundation books.

He showed it in various characters' distaste for the notion, including Trevize; and he said it outright in interviews.

As i said before: 'What better testament to the validity of the choice can one ask for? Trevize was completely unsympathetic to the hive mind humanity, and yet, EVEN HE CHOSE IT.'

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I just read on mania.com that Roland Emmerich plans on adapting "Foundation" using the same techniques that Cameron did with Avatar so we'll see how it turns out.

Yeah, I read the same thing, and I don't quite understand it. If it were just virtual sets, fine, but apparently Emmerich specifically said that motion capture would be used, and that's odd given that there are no aliens in the Foundation universe.

I believe it's called the uncanny valley that Robert Zemeckis can't seem to climb out of since he did The Polar Express (2004) then A Christmas Carol (2009) and in 2011 his film Real Steel (2011).
As scificool reported on Foundation last week they referred to it as:

...producing and directing the quite cerebral saga told in Issac Asimov’s Foundation series...

Now Roland Emmerich and cerebral science fiction just don't go hand in hand. This is the guy who did Independence Day (1996), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), 2012 (2009). He is a special FX action blow-em up as Kegg mentioned 'sploshionfest filmmaker like Michael Bay.
You just can't trust this kind of story content to a director like that. Dumbing it down to Hollywood storytelling is the only real possibility for the mainstream audiences.
Hey I'm all for using the motion capture technology that James Cameron used on Avatar (to be perfectly honest George Lucas used it on the Star Wars prequels too for some CGI characters) and shooting a scifi film in 3-D. "The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" directed by Steven Spielberg also used 3-D motion capture technology the same as The Polar Express.
As Christopher mentioned there are no aliens in Foundation. We'll see...

 

[DarthPipes]

I'd rather see HBO or better yet, Sci-Fi (I refuse to call it but it's dumbed down name) to a Foundation mini-series. The last thing this series needs is to be dumbed down Will Smith style. As Will Smith might say...

"Oh, HELL NO!"

 

[Klaus]

Here's a pic of perhaps my biggest "geek totem":

And I know it's real, I got it signed myself about 30 years ago.

 

[Holdfast]

Here's a pic of perhaps my biggest "geek totem"

I think this might be the first autographed anything I've seen that I'm a bit envious of. And that takes a lot, because I don't generally care about autographs at all. Nice one.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Here's a pic of perhaps my biggest "geek totem"

I think this might be the first autographed anything I've seen that I'm a bit envious of. And that takes a lot, because I don't generally care about autographs at all. Nice one.

I second that...