As I mentioned in post 47 of this thread, the BBC radio series is also in the public domain:
http://www.archive.org/details/IsaacAsimov-TheFoundationTrilogy
All eight hours worth of it. You may be put off if you don't like British accents.
Asimov's "FOUNDATION"
- Thread starter UncleRogi
- Start date
As I mentioned in post 47 of this thread, the BBC radio series is also in the public domain:
http://www.archive.org/details/IsaacAsimov-TheFoundationTrilogy
All eight hours worth of it. You may be put off if you don't like British accents.
You are still completely and utterly misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. I'm talking about a shift in the emphasis of how you tell the same story. Every story is shaped by editing choices. You take the entire sequence of events and choose to include some of them and exclude others, thereby creating a certain emphasis and focus. What I'm talking about is covering the same sequence of events but editing it in a different way, focusing on different parts of the same story. You keep talking as though I'm proposing telling a totally unrelated story, and that is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I've told you that over and over and you're just not hearing me.
Those are going in my mp3 player.
Unfortunately, the recordings aren't as good as the ones that I made myself by digitizing the cassette tape release. They appear to be the same as the recordings that are available as MP3 downloads on amazon.co.uk and play.com.
Okay, I guess not. I guess I just don't see how the emphasis can be changed to make the Foundation stories into an action movie. I won't say it's impossible, though.
There are lots of action movies where the situation turns out to be the result of the manipulations of some secretive, sweeping organization or conspiracy. For instance, Serenity. There's a whole expansive sociopolitical backstory of governmental corruption and secret black-ops agencies and decades-old coverups, and it's revealed through the action of the story. Then there are cruder examples like National Treasure and The DaVinci Code, I guess. You could do something similar here, except in this case the manipulative secret society turn out to be the good guys. (Which was the case in National Treasure, I believe.)
Well, that's not a perfect analogy, since the (first) Foundation is a somewhat more major player in events, but the point is that it is possible to use an action story to illuminate complex worldbuilding and ideas.
Well, that's not a perfect analogy, since the (first) Foundation is a somewhat more major player in events, but the point is that it is possible to use an action story to illuminate complex worldbuilding and ideas.
It wouldn't surprise me if Emmerich misread the text and is planning on making the Mule look like this.
My prediction is that the story will be dumbed down to Galactic Empire vs The Mule (an evil mutant rendered in CGI like Gollum), and the Foundation will be a secret defence force set up many years ago by Salvor Hardin that will swing into action using its awesome Psi powers. No need to mention Psychohistory, and certainly no role for Hober Mallow.
You're harshin' my Mallow. 
Sorry RJ -- a CGI Mule would probably eliminate Magnifico as well.
Personally, I've always had a soft spot for the Foundation series. They were my first real foray into non-Trek SF and pretty much have given me a life-long interest in the idea of whether something like psychohistory/sociology would ever be possible or effective. I didn't even really mind too much that Asimov later appended the Robot series into the continuity, as it does explain the rather significant lack of any kind of artificial intelligence in the Foundation universe, as well as how a 20,000 year old empire could avoid the effects of Transhumanism, since the robot overseers would be loath to take such a step themselves, due to the extremely conservative programming they're beholden to, preferring instead to try to keep humanity stagnant, leading to the events of 'Edge' and 'Earth'.
I didn't even really mind the Killer B prequels. Taken apart, they're interesting thought experiments of the logical ends of some of Asimov's ideas. 'Fear' being most concerned about Psychohistory itself, 'Chaos' concerns itself with the Three Laws themselves and whether they've served their purpose in protecting humanity or if Asimov's 'Frankenstein' scenario came to pass after all. 'Triumph' seems most concerned with trying to come up with an explanation for the events of 'Edge' and 'Earth', as well as generally tie up continuity issues throughout the series. Of course, your mileage will vary as to how one likes any or all of those things, but I find it interesting to see Asimov's ideas thought through from a more modern, harder scientific perspective. I will say, however, that I didn't care much for the 'sims' or the 'memes', as they seemed to clash too much with the 'feel' of Asimov's universe. I have mixed feelings on the whole 'Robot religion' thing, too. While I can certainly see the merit in showing the conflict between the Calvinian and Giskardian interpretations of the Three Laws doctrine. I just think the metaphor was taken a bit far at times.
All that being said, I think the original trilogy is my favorite, as many others have said. It does an excellent job of showing the seeming inevitability of historical events, while at the same time, demonstrating that black swans like The Mule can always come along to change the whole game at completely unexpected moments, which is what makes history a fascinating study (too bad the classes are so boring... lol).
I didn't even really mind the Killer B prequels. Taken apart, they're interesting thought experiments of the logical ends of some of Asimov's ideas. 'Fear' being most concerned about Psychohistory itself, 'Chaos' concerns itself with the Three Laws themselves and whether they've served their purpose in protecting humanity or if Asimov's 'Frankenstein' scenario came to pass after all. 'Triumph' seems most concerned with trying to come up with an explanation for the events of 'Edge' and 'Earth', as well as generally tie up continuity issues throughout the series. Of course, your mileage will vary as to how one likes any or all of those things, but I find it interesting to see Asimov's ideas thought through from a more modern, harder scientific perspective. I will say, however, that I didn't care much for the 'sims' or the 'memes', as they seemed to clash too much with the 'feel' of Asimov's universe. I have mixed feelings on the whole 'Robot religion' thing, too. While I can certainly see the merit in showing the conflict between the Calvinian and Giskardian interpretations of the Three Laws doctrine. I just think the metaphor was taken a bit far at times.
All that being said, I think the original trilogy is my favorite, as many others have said. It does an excellent job of showing the seeming inevitability of historical events, while at the same time, demonstrating that black swans like The Mule can always come along to change the whole game at completely unexpected moments, which is what makes history a fascinating study (too bad the classes are so boring... lol).
Isn't that something that Asimov himself covered in Robots and Empire, though?
That's okay. I don't want my good name associated with Emmerich.
He could be a shapeshifter! Yeah! When he's Magifico, he's a little srawny runt, but whenever he says "Shazaaaam!" he becomes a six-foot-eight he-man! This movie's gonna be awesome.
It would be better if they could get JJ Abrams to do it. They could blow up Trantor, and Hobar Mallow could strangle Preem Palvar and exile him to Solaria, and....
The scenes when the holographic Hari Seldon appears to explain the historical crisis' resolution would be rather brief.
The scenes where Salvor Hardin uses technology to shock and awe, or the escapades of the traders, and especially the armadas and conquests of Bel Riose should provide plenty of spectacle. Spectacle is a key part of drama. And Emmerich is good at spectacle. The thing is integrating the spectacle with meaning, which includes science. Emmerich has always had a peculiar way of mixing a few nifty speculations with mounds of insanity.
The key is not who'se directing, but who's writing the script.
The scenes where Salvor Hardin uses technology to shock and awe, or the escapades of the traders, and especially the armadas and conquests of Bel Riose should provide plenty of spectacle. Spectacle is a key part of drama. And Emmerich is good at spectacle. The thing is integrating the spectacle with meaning, which includes science. Emmerich has always had a peculiar way of mixing a few nifty speculations with mounds of insanity.
The key is not who'se directing, but who's writing the script.
That was pretty much my response.
I can't remember for sure, but I recall the early talk to be a film about the Mule. Unfortunately, I don't think the story of the Mule has quite as much power if you weren't already familiar with the earlier stories. By the time you read "Dead Hand," the feeling you get is that the Foundation is invincible and Hari Seldon has thought of everything. Then the Mule shakes up everything with a mutant shout-out to free will. But if you haven't read the earlier stories, it's not as big a deal.
This is 2010, man. As long as he blows shit up, the peeps will come watch.
Similar threads
