<story><title>When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost</title><url>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/08/when-foundation-gets-the-blockbuster-treatment-isaac-asimovs-vision-gets-lost-sci-fi</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>robbiep</author><text>I agree with you. It took me a while to get my head around the approach they were taking (I re-read the whole series prior to it airing) but what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. Even just getting rid of the 1950s stereotype gender roles - which is the obvious place to start - doesn’t change the long arcs of obvious dialogue.&lt;p&gt;It’s a really grand scope for a universe - but I’m enjoying the series so far and it will be interesting to see where they go with it. Basically I’m just hungry for more space and since it’s visually very appealing and the universe is compelling, I think it deserves a chance.</text></item><item><author>burlesona</author><text>There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take:&lt;p&gt;I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books.&lt;p&gt;That said: the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction. It works well because they are _short_ stories, and following the span of history, frequently jumping ahead a generation, is cool. But it would’ve been very difficult to render that as-is for television and have much of an audience. Also, the original stories were written in the 1940s and some parts feel quite dated (everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women). So whoever picked the stories up, they were going to make a lot of changes.&lt;p&gt;If you think of the series merely as “inspired by” them not “based on them,” then the show isn’t &lt;i&gt;bad&lt;/i&gt;. It has some corny flaws like most TV (the combat, just terrible), but they’ve developed a few good characters, added some new mysteries, and the order in which they’re unfolding events over time is interesting.&lt;p&gt;So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>GeekyBear</author><text>&amp;gt;what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it&lt;p&gt;Agreed.&lt;p&gt;The inspiration behind the Foundation series, setting out to shorten the Dark Ages after the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is great.&lt;p&gt;However, if you try reading those short stories again today, you&amp;#x27;re quickly reminded that early in his career, Asimov was already great at world building, but terrible with characters and dialog.&lt;p&gt;Add in the mismatch between the cultural norms of the 1940&amp;#x27;s (when the early Foundation stories were written) and the cultural norms today, and a rewrite was always going to be required.</text></comment>
<story><title>When “Foundation” Gets the Blockbuster Treatment, Asimov’s Vision Gets Lost</title><url>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/08/when-foundation-gets-the-blockbuster-treatment-isaac-asimovs-vision-gets-lost-sci-fi</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>robbiep</author><text>I agree with you. It took me a while to get my head around the approach they were taking (I re-read the whole series prior to it airing) but what struck me most on re-reading was how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it. Even just getting rid of the 1950s stereotype gender roles - which is the obvious place to start - doesn’t change the long arcs of obvious dialogue.&lt;p&gt;It’s a really grand scope for a universe - but I’m enjoying the series so far and it will be interesting to see where they go with it. Basically I’m just hungry for more space and since it’s visually very appealing and the universe is compelling, I think it deserves a chance.</text></item><item><author>burlesona</author><text>There are a lot of people really hating on the TV show here, so I’ll offer a slightly contrarian take:&lt;p&gt;I would say the biggest problem is the marketing that implies they faithfully are telling the books, when they’re not. The TV show is not faithful to the books.&lt;p&gt;That said: the books are fascinating, but they are almost more like historical documentaries then narrative fiction. It works well because they are _short_ stories, and following the span of history, frequently jumping ahead a generation, is cool. But it would’ve been very difficult to render that as-is for television and have much of an audience. Also, the original stories were written in the 1940s and some parts feel quite dated (everyone is smoking all the time, the hyper focus on nuclear power, the relative role of women). So whoever picked the stories up, they were going to make a lot of changes.&lt;p&gt;If you think of the series merely as “inspired by” them not “based on them,” then the show isn’t &lt;i&gt;bad&lt;/i&gt;. It has some corny flaws like most TV (the combat, just terrible), but they’ve developed a few good characters, added some new mysteries, and the order in which they’re unfolding events over time is interesting.&lt;p&gt;So, is it a classic? No. Is it faithful to the books? Not at all. But IMO it’s decent sci-fi, and interesting enough to watch if you’re bored :)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>brodouevencode</author><text>&amp;gt; how completely boring it would be to be faithful to it&lt;p&gt;What movies have you seen that have been faithful to the literary work but still were great movies? I&amp;#x27;m struggling to come up with one.</text></comment>