Foundation outdated?

[Ilya]

Every once in a while someone on the Intenet wishes for Asimov’s "Foundation" to be made into a movie, and gets the usual response -- it will never work. Too slow, too little action, too much talk. Might work as a TV series.

Few days ago I saw this kind of exchange for the umpteenth time, and then it struck me -- for today's audience "Foundation" has a much deeper problem,which makes it completely unsuitable even as a TV series. Think of the main premise -- A centuries-long conspiracy which secretly manipulates the rest of the human race "for its own good" through mind control are the good guys! It would never fly today, on screen or in print. In fact, if something like "Foundation" were published without Asimov's name, it would be unsaleable. Note that in "Foundations' Edge" (1983) Asimov made Second Foundation not exactly villains, but corruptible. That took Second Foundation "off the pedestal" and cleared the space for... an even more insidious "for your own good" bunch of mind-controllers! At least that's how it would seem to me today if I read it for the first time. I wonder how BAUT readers in their teens and 20's react to "Foundation"?

[rdaneel]

I think it is important to note that Asimov himself, even in his early works, is quite ambivalent about whether or not "benevolent" control or planning by some supposedly intelligent entity is a good thing. Consider his novel "The End of Eternity", which is in part a critique of the notion that it would be good if a human society was able to edit the timeline to eliminate the many evils of human society. Or consider his short story "The Evitable Conflict", which I think is the last story in the original "I, Robot" book, which in part deals with whether it would be good if computers controlled human society "for our own good". I believe the novel was written in the mid 1950s and the story somewhat earlier than that. The short story is mildly favorable towards this benevolent planning, the novel is mostly less favorable. And even in the Second Foundation book, many of the sympathetic characters of the Foundation are quite hostile towards this benevolent outside control by the Second Foundation.

[Doodler]

I thought the Matrix covered psychohistory well enough for a movie angle. Not the greatest handling of it, but it was a fair try.

Algorithmic predictive control of human behavior, complete with an anomaly.

[peter eldergill]

Never thought of it that way, Doodler...thanks

Anyhow, Foundation is my all time favourite book. I love the plot. It's a simple read to be sure (unlike some threads on here about GR !!!) adn I think that's what I like about it.

I've never thought of it from the conspiracy point of view, either. THat's kind of neat

Maybe we can convince he guy who did Firefly (Wheedon?) to do a series as mentioned

Pete

Edit: As a book I don't find it outdated (except in book 1 where women aren't portrayed very well). I think the sci fi is pretty good...he doesn't try to explain everything. I really like the crumbling empire bit as well

[Inferno]

THe biggest problem with the Foundation novels is that they are not self contained stories. The first book is really, what, 5 short stories? And the next two have 3 short stories each. I don't think they'd work very well as a film. In particular, Asimov's tendency for his conclusions to resolve around some logical deduction rather than an action or drawn out dramatic scene.

Maybe it could work as a tv series, but i doubt it.

[Doodler]

Never thought of it that way, Doodler...thanks

That particular revelation was the only aspect of the third movie that made it worth the price of admission. That and the way they actually chose to end the final scene. The trilogy had a number of weaknesses, but there were some nice twists, and enough strengths to tolerate it.

[The Shade]

This topic should have had a spoiler warning at the top.

Inferno, Foundation did have 5 short stories, but the 2 books following only contained 2 novellas each.

-Foundation: The Psychohistorians; The Encyclopedists; The Mayors; The Traders; The Merchant Princes
-Foundation & Empire: The General; The Mule
-Second Foundation: Search by the Mule; Search by the Foundation

And to get back to the topic at hand: good observation Ilya. It's something I never thought of when I first read Foundation 10 years ago.

[Alasdhair]

Psychohistorical Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Psychohistorical-Crisis-Donald-Kingsbury/dp/0765341956/sr=8-1/qid=1159387201/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4085621-0321733?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Donald Kingsbury is an interesting alternate sequel - not brilliant, but worth a read.

[Doodler]

A few of the Kirk Trek books by William Shatner and company fleshed out the Preservers as psychohistorians.

[galacsi]

I wish some of Jack vance books are made into movies or TV series . Lot of action in some novels.

[greenfeather]

Few days ago I saw this kind of exchange for the umpteenth time, and then it struck me -- for today's audience "Foundation" has a much deeper problem,which makes it completely unsuitable even as a TV series. Think of the main premise -- A centuries-long conspiracy which secretly manipulates the rest of the human race "for its own good" through mind control are the good guys! It would never fly today, on screen or in print. In fact, if something like "Foundation" were published without Asimov's name, it would be unsaleable.

I think it might work. As much as people hate secret manipulations, there is also a part of us that desperately longs for a Prophet, Messiah, Wise Elder or some kind of benevolent superior force that might get us out of the mess we're in. Sure wish some of those Second Foundationers would show up and tell us how to save our planet. Eh?

The ambivalence of our feelings about this concept would make for great drama. But some parts of Foundation do need updating. F'rinstance... get rid of the slide rules for calculating galactic jumps!!!

[Makgraf]

I think Foundation (i.e. the first book) would make a great play. It's mostly dialogue, mostly in a few locals and the few "special effects" could easily be done with lighting.

If you were going to do a movie you'd have to do The Mule. Play up the action and the romance between the newleyweds and make Magnifico the zany comic relief. Pitch: "It's Star Wars meets The Usual Suspects. The sequel would have to merge the next two stories, because Arkady is very filmable and one of Asimov's better female characters. Plus you get another big relevation at the end.

[Inferno]

-Foundation: The Psychohistorians; The Encyclopedists; The Mayors; The Traders; The Merchant Princes
-Foundation & Empire: The General; The Mule
-Second Foundation: Search by the Mule; Search by the Foundation




The Traders, The Merchant Princes, and the General are by far the weakest parts to the series. Interesting ideas in them, but they don't make for very good stories in their own rights. Perhaps best left to "background" information about the Foundation universe.

If they were to make a movie, the question would be which stories to put into which movies (on the assumption that they hope for sequels). I'd have the Psychohistorians and Encyclopedists as part 1. Need to expand these and put in some more action and drama. Part 2 to be the Mule. Part to the Second Foundation.

The more i think about the less i think that film is the best place for these stories. Much better to be a tv series - say a three season series 13 episodes (at most) each season.

[ggremlin]

Question:

After what Hollywood did to "I, Robot", do you really want them to touch "Foundation?"

[antoniseb]

I could potentially see "Foundation" as the Foundation for a dark SCiFi channel series.

[worzel]

After that awefull attempt at Lord of the Rings decades ago I think most people were pretty skeptical that it could be done well. Peter Jackson's version has it critics but it was far better than a lot of us would have expected before he started on it.

Maybe Foundation would be the same. A history told through a series of short stories might become the new fad (although I agree that this might better suit a tv series).

As to logical deductions replacing action endings, isn't that just the classic "who dunnit" ending?

[parallaxicality]

Isaac Asimov's paternalism was a product of 1950s-60s scientific triumphalism. Attitudes towards science and human development have changed; in many ways they seem to have become opposite.

[soylentgreen]

Question:

After what Hollywood did to "I, Robot", do you really want them to touch "Foundation?"

After what Hollywood did to "I, Robot" I don't really want them to touch any book! ;)

I confess though, that I've had that feeling for quite some time now. Maybe some independent filmmakers or another nation's film industry can give the books-into-movies assembly line a try for a while....can't be any worse, right?

[ggremlin]

Sometimes they do get it right, as pointed out by Worzel on Lord of the Rings. But I can only think of two movies versions that came off well in the last 15 years. "Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams which I really liked and the Heinlien's "Puppet Masters" which ever scaled WAYYYYY down kept to the story line.

Next to that of course we have "I, Robot", "Starship Troopers", "The Postman" .:wall:

[davidlpf]

Well the thing with a foundation movie is that the cters would make an example of there pet theory.

[greenfeather]

Isaac Asimov's paternalism was a product of 1950s-60s scientific triumphalism. Attitudes towards science and human development have changed; in many ways they seem to have become opposite.

The more I think about it, the more I think Foundation would make a great series. Just look at all the "left behind" people, their entire thing is a longing for a greater power to rescue them. There's a huge longing today for any sort of Solution. So you have these Second Foundation guys, an entire society dedicated to guiding the Universe in the right direction (presumably), while at the same time everyone else hates them & thinks they're an evil conspiracy.

I thought it was a wonderful concept in 1976 and I think so now. In fact I loved the idea of the Second Foundation so much back then, that I started writing science fiction. Let's say my amateur efforts were about a race that was a cross between the 2nd foundationers and Zenna Henderson's "People."

I think I'll go back and re-read the series!

[Lord Jubjub]

OK, let me defend the movie "I, Robot" for a moment. The original series of short stories was WAY too passive, dialogue-driven, and theoretical to ever be properly translated to a single coherent story. It might have made an interesting intellectual series on some cable channel that wasn't interested in ratings, but the original set of stories will never be made into a single movie.

But the movie managed to incorporate a surprising amount of Asimov's ideas about the 3 Laws of Robotics. While the ending was typical Hollywood flash, the villain was consistent with the final story in his collection.

[greenfeather]

OK, let me defend the movie "I, Robot" for a moment. The original series of short stories was WAY to passive, dialogue-driven, and theoretical to ever be properly translated to a singe coherent story. It might have made an interesting intellectual series on some cable channel that wasn't interested in ratings, but the original set of stories will never be made into a single movie.

But the movie managed to incorporate a surprising amount of Asimov's ideas about the 3 Laws of Robotics. While the ending was typical Hollywood flash, the villain was consistent with the final story in his collection.

I found an old ASIMOV magazine from the 80's and was astonished to find "the last Robot story". It was about a Robot who dreamed he was a Moses to the other robots, crying "let my people go". Wasn't this how the movie ended?

[GDwarf]

OK, let me defend the movie "I, Robot" for a moment. The original series of short stories was WAY to passive, dialogue-driven, and theoretical to ever be properly translated to a singe coherent story. It might have made an interesting intellectual series on some cable channel that wasn't interested in ratings, but the original set of stories will never be made into a single movie.

But the movie managed to incorporate a surprising amount of Asimov's ideas about the 3 Laws of Robotics. While the ending was typical Hollywood flash, the villain was consistent with the final story in his collection.
I agree that the I, Robot collection would not make a good movie, what irked me is that they used it's name when it was much closer to caves of steel.

Heck, why not just give it some generic title and say "Inspired by Asimov's I, Robot stories", or some such. Most of the people who went to see it probably didn't know about the book I, Robot anyways, so using the name just strikes me as really odd.

[Jim]

OK, let me defend the movie "I, Robot" for a moment. The original series of short stories was WAY to passive, dialogue-driven, and theoretical to ever be properly translated to a singe coherent story. ...

Actually, a screen adaptation was written (http://www.twbookmark.com/books/44/0446670626/index.html) that was very faithful to the original concept.

[galacsi]

Well , due to this thread i bought "Foundation" and stated reading it again !!

Well done ILYA .

[Lord Jubjub]

It seems to me that the Foundation series would best be brought to video as an anthology. Each story is completely isolated from the each other but they are set in a chronological order and the subsequent episodes make occasional reference to past episodes. This should work for at least the first season.

The second or third seasons would definitely depend on the ability to hold an audience, but the episodes should starting indicating a larger whole. IOW, Foundation should be written in the same style as Babylon 5.

[Lonewulf]

Every once in a while someone on the Intenet wishes for Asimov’s "Foundation" to be made into a movie, and gets the usual response -- it will never work. Too slow, too little action, too much talk. Might work as a TV series.

Few days ago I saw this kind of exchange for the umpteenth time, and then it struck me -- for today's audience "Foundation" has a much deeper problem,which makes it completely unsuitable even as a TV series. Think of the main premise -- A centuries-long conspiracy which secretly manipulates the rest of the human race "for its own good" through mind control are the good guys! It would never fly today, on screen or in print. In fact, if something like "Foundation" were published without Asimov's name, it would be unsaleable. Note that in "Foundations' Edge" (1983) Asimov made Second Foundation not exactly villains, but corruptible. That took Second Foundation "off the pedestal" and cleared the space for... an even more insidious "for your own good" bunch of mind-controllers! At least that's how it would seem to me today if I read it for the first time. I wonder how BAUT readers in their teens and 20's react to "Foundation"?

Well, I read it when I was in my teens and 20s (and I'm still in my teens and 20s), and I can say that honestly, the "conspiracy" angle didn't even occur me as overly strange.

I loved it; a lot of thought in it, and I was actually taking a Sociology class while reading it, so it made the material even more interesting.

It's a good work. The dialogue was good, and dramatic enough. With a good director and good actors, it could be handled well enough. And I would be careful about generalizing when it comes to movies... Conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28film%29) was about a group of people talking while eating lunch. No action, and yet it was still a good enough movie.

Not a best-seller, but I liked it.

Also, who says that there isn't enough action? Hell, a lot of the books involved conflict. It just never *explicitely delved into* that conflict, and the main characters were apart from it. An imaginative director could easily throw in a few battle scenes here and there.

My main concern isn't whether or not a director can turn it into a movie. It's quite possible to. It's the idea of it actually being made... that's the scary thing. They'd probably butcher it as much as "I, Robot"... depending on the director, of course.