• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Roland Emmerich to completely ruin Asimov's Foundation

U

Ubik

Commodore
Commodore
I just read this, and it breaks my heart. Emmerich, director of only one satisfactory movie (Independence Day), and several unbearable ones, has just been given the job of directing Asimov's Foundation. This is depressing. It's unfair. The man likes making disaster movies, mindless action movies. And somehow, he (or someone) must have convinced Sony, or whoever, that Foundation is a disaster-story. Yes, it's about the end of a galactic empire, but it's not an apocalyptic tale at all. Has anyone involved in this fiasco even bothered to read the books? Or did they just read the back covers?

And hey, I'm not a purist or anything. I thought I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas, was quite surprisingly good, and relatively faithful to the source material as well, a few action scenes notwithstanding. But Emmerich? Of Day After Tomorrow and 10, 000 BC? Directing a cerebral and political tale about free will? How is this going to be anything other than a complete humiliation of Asimov's name and work? Ugh. This makes me so angry. And sad. I've been hoping for a Foundation movie (or tv miniseries) for years now.
 
Ubik said:
And hey, I'm not a purist or anything. I thought I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas, was quite surprisingly good, and relatively faithful to the source material as well, a few action scenes notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Wait...you think the movie I, Robot was faithful to the source material??? :wtf:
 
Ubik said:
I thought I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas, was quite surprisingly good, and relatively faithful to the source material as well, a few action scenes notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

You really need to track down and read the script Harlan Elison wrote for an I, Robot movie back in the early 1980's. (Released as a trade paperback about 15 years or so ago) It's the best SF movie never made, and blows the version of Robot they did make out of the water.
 
Admiral2 said:
Ubik said:
And hey, I'm not a purist or anything. I thought I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas, was quite surprisingly good, and relatively faithful to the source material as well, a few action scenes notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Wait...you think the movie I, Robot was faithful to the source material??? :wtf:
Click to expand...

I will echo the :wtf: - I quite like I, Robot as a film but faithful? naw...
 
Suffice to say that "I, Robot" is probably better than anything Roland Emmerich has ever done. The action scenes are bit annoying... this is certainly a movie which would have worked much better as a maturer and calmer film without most action sequences.
 
Ubik said:
I just read this, and it breaks my heart. Emmerich, director of only one satisfactory movie (Independence Day), and several unbearable ones, has just been given the job of directing Asimov's Foundation. This is depressing. It's unfair. The man likes making disaster movies, mindless action movies. And somehow, he (or someone) must have convinced Sony, or whoever, that Foundation is a disaster-story. Yes, it's about the end of a galactic empire, but it's not an apocalyptic tale at all.
Click to expand...

I agree that Emmerich is a terrible choice, but for what it's worth, of the thirteen movies Emmerich has directed to date, only four (Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012) have been disaster movies.


Has anyone involved in this fiasco even bothered to read the books? Or did they just read the back covers?
Click to expand...

I've heard stories of movie executives who weren't even aware of the fact that the films they were bankrolling were based on books. A writer may do a script treatment based on a book, said treatment then making its way to an executive who only considers it in terms of whether it would make a profitable movie, with no thought to what its original source was. Also, studio executives are not generally known for their literacy.


Admiral2 said:
Wait...you think the movie I, Robot was faithful to the source material??? :wtf:
Click to expand...

Considering that it was intended to be a loose prequel to the book rather than a direct adaptation, I think it was reasonably faithful, at least within the context of the requirements of a Will Smith summer action blockbuster.
 
Mysterion said:
You really need to track down and read the script Harlan Elison wrote for an I, Robot movie back in the early 1980's. (Released as a trade paperback about 15 years or so ago) It's the best SF movie never made, and blows the version of Robot they did make out of the water.
Click to expand...
Ellison's screenplay is interesting, and it does adapt Asimov's short stories (which Proyas' film does not do, because it wasn't intended as an Asimov film), but in the end, I think Warners was right not to go forward with Ellison's script.

What Ellison wrote was a science-fiction art house film. He wanted a massive budget for a film that, frankly, was not going to be justified by the returns the film was going draw.
 
This is sad but not surprising in the least. Any Foundation film that is really true to the source material is guaranteed to be a box-office dud.
 
But it does show that his films are not automatically disaster movies. (At least, not in terms of their subject matter. ;) )
 
The best way to film Foundation is faithfully, on a small budget, for Masterpiece Theater. :cool:

I think it would be really nice if they would film Ellison's screenplay for I, Robot; contemporary CGI brings it within the realm of reason.
 
Allyn Gibson said:
Ellison's screenplay is interesting, and it does adapt Asimov's short stories (which Proyas' film does not do, because it wasn't intended as an Asimov film), but in the end, I think Warners was right not to go forward with Ellison's script.

What Ellison wrote was a science-fiction art house film. He wanted a massive budget for a film that, frankly, was not going to be justified by the returns the film was going draw.
Click to expand...
I really like some aspects of Ellison's script. It's a very good adaptation of the stories in question, and he even manages to work them into an overall plot. Susan Calvin's character is well-defined, and even Powell and Donovan get their moments.

But some aspects of the frame story are just so... unAsimovian. An Asimov story wouldn't have an army of ants harnessed to do deforestation work. Susan Calvin wouldn't live in an Incan temple. It some respects, it was far too much a Harlan Ellison movie.
 
I personally think Foundation could be a grandiose epic. It would require major alterations, which by itself would not be a crime. If it was, we would not have gotten Blade Runner.

You can start with Prelude to Foundation:

To Emperor Cleon I, the science of psychohistory seems to offer the opportunity to predict and direct the course of his Galactic Empire. To Hari Seldon, discoverer of the still theoretical science, it becomes a nightmare as the young historian becomes the most wanted man in the colonized universe.
Click to expand...
Good potential here for a futuristic techno-thriller.

http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Foundation-Novels-Isaac-Asimov/dp/product-description/0553278398
 
As a linked collection of short stories, Foundation is going to be tough for anyone. It depends on the script. Emmerich seems to be a competent enough producer and director, so if he doesn't do the script, the results may be good. He did Thirteenth Floor from someone else's script and that worked well.
 
Many of the short stories in Foundation are connected by a single concept: a clever but outnumbered and outmatched Foundation is trying to survive against a belligerent dying Empire and its "barbarian invaders". I think a good story could be made out of that.

In a sequel, the Foundation meets its match: The Mule.

Can the mysterious Second Foundation comes to the rescue?

Stay tuned.
 
The original book wouldn't be so great as a movie, but both stories in Foundation and Empire would be. Chuck the original book out (maybe a prologue or other exposition), then open with the Foundation encountering the Empire. Lots of room for space battles and other intrigue. Ditto with the Mule encounter.
 
^ I don't think it's necessary to discard Foundation or to substantially rework Foundation and Empire. An adroit director and writer could deliver the stories one by one without giving a feeling to viewers of anything but a single narrative.

Allyn Gibson said:
(which Proyas' film does not do, because it wasn't intended as an Asimov film)
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it bears remarkable similarity to several Asimov's shorts - most notably, Robot Dreams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top