Cards on the table: I've been reading Asimov since I can remember and that was a very long time ago! I'm intimately acquainted with his science fiction writing and can quote passages verbatim. So when I heard that 'Foundation' was going to be made into a TV series, I was filled with dread. This only got worse when I heard who the directors/producers/writers were.
Well, I suppose if you put a work like 'Foundation' into the hands of people who's background is Superhero movies, this is what you get, and we shouldn't be surprised. We also shouldn't be surprised that it must be pummelled into fitting the demands of a certain demographic and current social mores. Unfortunately, I don't think they were up to the task. They certainly haven't been very brave in their approach and have served up what might have been expected. Sure, the visuals are all terribly sumptuous and wonderful, and all of the money is right up there on screen, so kudos to the production team. It borrows heavily from other movies and adds stuff just for the sake of it. Example: ships with a black hole at the centre, taken straight from Nolans 'Interstellar', created by the whirling rings from Sagans 'Contact'. Lots of examples of this.
Much of what they've added is completely irrelevant to the story and could safely have been left out. Genetic dynasty of Emperors? Irrelevant. The whole religious aspect? Irrelevant. The jump ship thing? Irrelevant. Space elevator? Irrelevant. Gaal Dornicks back story? Irrelevant. In fact, the very core of the story on which the whole thing hinges seems to have been abandoned and replaced with something banal and predictable that can be depicted with giant space battles and people firing guns, with lots of fire and explosions. The difference between the original Asimov story and the new 'padding' is quite obvious.
It's not a new 'Game of Thrones' (thankfully!), it's not a new Star Trek either. If you don't know the books and have been brought up on a diet of Superhero movies, Star Wars and other TV SF, and are looking for something a bit more thoughtful, this probably hits the spot.
If you do know the books, you'll probably be disappointed and irritated by the pointless "we know best' meddling.
It isn't boring - it's not 100% action and contains 0% zombies, so a certain audience would declare that to be boring. It's not for you. Move on. It's not groundbreaking, genre defining or bold either. It could have been, had the writers/producers been a bit braver and understood the original books a bit better. Perhaps it's a low resolution depiction of the original.
Finally, what did Asimov himself have to say? From his 1981 book 'Asimov on Science Fiction', Chapter 54, 'Hollywood and I':
"I have hitherto firmly resisted the lure of Hollywood. I have refused to write screenplays even when invited to do so and even when my own stories were in question.
There are two basic reasons for this resistance. First, I am not visual enough to write dialogue and events that are to be interpreted primarily in the form of moving images on a screen. I'm just a word-man, and though it is a wise person who knows his powers, it is an even wiser person who knows his limitations.
Second, I am reasonably confident that in magazines and books my fiction will appear very much as I have written it. Anything I write for the visual media, however, I am certain will be tampered with by producers, directors, actors, office boys, and the relatives of any or all of these."
Well, I suppose if you put a work like 'Foundation' into the hands of people who's background is Superhero movies, this is what you get, and we shouldn't be surprised. We also shouldn't be surprised that it must be pummelled into fitting the demands of a certain demographic and current social mores. Unfortunately, I don't think they were up to the task. They certainly haven't been very brave in their approach and have served up what might have been expected. Sure, the visuals are all terribly sumptuous and wonderful, and all of the money is right up there on screen, so kudos to the production team. It borrows heavily from other movies and adds stuff just for the sake of it. Example: ships with a black hole at the centre, taken straight from Nolans 'Interstellar', created by the whirling rings from Sagans 'Contact'. Lots of examples of this.
Much of what they've added is completely irrelevant to the story and could safely have been left out. Genetic dynasty of Emperors? Irrelevant. The whole religious aspect? Irrelevant. The jump ship thing? Irrelevant. Space elevator? Irrelevant. Gaal Dornicks back story? Irrelevant. In fact, the very core of the story on which the whole thing hinges seems to have been abandoned and replaced with something banal and predictable that can be depicted with giant space battles and people firing guns, with lots of fire and explosions. The difference between the original Asimov story and the new 'padding' is quite obvious.
It's not a new 'Game of Thrones' (thankfully!), it's not a new Star Trek either. If you don't know the books and have been brought up on a diet of Superhero movies, Star Wars and other TV SF, and are looking for something a bit more thoughtful, this probably hits the spot.
If you do know the books, you'll probably be disappointed and irritated by the pointless "we know best' meddling.
It isn't boring - it's not 100% action and contains 0% zombies, so a certain audience would declare that to be boring. It's not for you. Move on. It's not groundbreaking, genre defining or bold either. It could have been, had the writers/producers been a bit braver and understood the original books a bit better. Perhaps it's a low resolution depiction of the original.
Finally, what did Asimov himself have to say? From his 1981 book 'Asimov on Science Fiction', Chapter 54, 'Hollywood and I':
"I have hitherto firmly resisted the lure of Hollywood. I have refused to write screenplays even when invited to do so and even when my own stories were in question.
There are two basic reasons for this resistance. First, I am not visual enough to write dialogue and events that are to be interpreted primarily in the form of moving images on a screen. I'm just a word-man, and though it is a wise person who knows his powers, it is an even wiser person who knows his limitations.
Second, I am reasonably confident that in magazines and books my fiction will appear very much as I have written it. Anything I write for the visual media, however, I am certain will be tampered with by producers, directors, actors, office boys, and the relatives of any or all of these."