Foundation trailer

Headphones

It's really beautiful to watch, but slower than most Sci Fi.

The pre launch blurb suggested it was designed to be watched in "binge" fasion, so was deliberatey written and shot slower and broader - and they've released it weekly...

I suspect it'd be great in binge fashion, but this may harm it's probability of reaching the end.

crunchman

Is there any way to watch this without signing up to Apple's evil empire?

TimmyO

From what I've read the whole season covers about half of the first book - which wasn't exactly long - so not surprised it has to go slow 

Logie

I was so looking forward to Foundation but as good as it looks it wasn't enough for me to keep my subscription up when my free period ended. I read a lot of sci fi as a young 'un but never really got into the Foundation series. As soon as the narrator started waffling, blowing my mind in the process, I just gave up. I think it'd be an awful lot better for a viewer who was familiar with the books ( and is no doubt really intended for them ). Looks incredible though.

PolarityMan

TheBigDipper said:

I haven't read (or remembered) the original three books since I was a kid. My vague recollection is that it was a bit old-fashioned and plodding compared to the sci-fi I preferred. I enjoyed the robot-oriented books as the entertainments they were written to be, but remember Foundation as being a bit wordy without any ideas that grabbed my imagination. 

So I tried this, and quite like the way they've put it together. Pretty to watch and I'm not really comparing it to the books - coz I don't remember much of the detail. I'll be in much more trouble when I go to see the new Dune film (and I hated the old one). 

FWIW, I had a free year of AppleTV+ when I changed my AppleTV box. I wouldn't pay for a proper subscription because there's not enough content I want to watch. However, I enjoyed series one of The Morning Show and I'm currently subscribed purely because I wanted to watch series two of Ted Lasso. Getting Foundation is a byproduct of that. 

It was a really weird kind of mix. The concept of psychohistory was great and kinda hard sci-fi tinged, especially when combined with the whole decaying / dystopian setting but then the mule was just pure pulp sci-fi.

I think it's kinda of its time in that respect as the different niche's in sci fi hadn't really been as firmly established. He also wrote a series of basically the lone ranger in space as well. 

I think modern sci fi has really refined the genre and executes much better but the thing about some of that old stuff from the 50s / 60s was it was really insanely creative. 

WezV

It really does look great  but I'm not rushing to watch more.


It's very much Game Of Thrones in space, but doesn't bring much new to the formula.

TimmyO

Watched Ep1 today - I liked it - I actually thought there was quite a lot of "content" in it despite the 'slow' comments. 

WezV

I just picked it up again and watched episodes 3-6.   Lots to annoy the Asimov purists, but it is turning into a pretty good TV show.

I'm really liking what they have done with Empire 

Tannin

fields5069 said:

It makes more sense to start with Foundation, yes agreed. I should go back and read these. I was mightily impressed when I was a teen but it would be interesting to see what I think of the style now.

Best not to. They have not stood up well. Asimov, despite his massive reputation for a while, was never much of a fiction writer. His works mostly read more like children's books: very simple and clear, lacking characterisation, imagination and flavour. This is an opportunity for a very rare thing indeed: a film of a famous book which is actually better than the original. In fact you can pretty much back that in.

His non-fiction, on the other hand, is superb. Asimov's straight-to-the-point style and his gift for simplicity and clarity made him one of the very very best science educators. His non-fiction is still worth reading today, though of course you have to make appropriate allowances for subjects which have changed a lot since they were written.

Shrews

Prelude to Foundation is one of my favourite books and was a little disappointed when I went on to read the original trilogy. With Foundation especially I found I had to keep going back a chapter to re-read it, just to get my bearings on where I was. Whereas Prelude was all set in the same timespan and was a rip-roaring trip across the Galaxy, especially on Trantor.

I will one day catch up with this new series as I'm intrigued, but just wish they'd make a film of Prelude and then I'd be happy. 

WezV

Tannin said:

fields5069 said:

It makes more sense to start with Foundation, yes agreed. I should go back and read these. I was mightily impressed when I was a teen but it would be interesting to see what I think of the style now.

Best not to. They have not stood up well. Asimov, despite his massive reputation for a while, was never much of a fiction writer. His works mostly read more like children's books: very simple and clear, lacking characterisation, imagination and flavour. This is an opportunity for a very rare thing indeed: a film of a famous book which is actually better than the original. In fact you can pretty much back that in.

His non-fiction, on the other hand, is superb. Asimov's straight-to-the-point style and his gift for simplicity and clarity made him one of the very very best science educators. His non-fiction is still worth reading today, though of course you have to make appropriate allowances for subjects which have changed a lot since they were written.

I think he's a great fiction writer.  He doesn't lack imagination, but most of his original ideas have been redone multiple times now so hardly seem original.

His writing style is basic, he admitted this himself.   There is no flowery language or clever literary tricks.   He just tells a story, and the stories are usually pretty good.   Sometimes this is all I want from a book.

I think the stuff he wrote in the late 80's has dated much worse than the stuff he wrote in the 50's.  

axisus

I REALLY want to see this. I'm much more into slow paced, intelligent sci fi than guns and action. No plans to get Apple TV though .....

thumpingrug

Ive just started to watch this.  2 episodes in.  Read the books 40 years ago and found them to be exceptional at the time.  I am however struggling with the TV show.  Its much slower than the book and the empire politics seem to be laboured.  Ill stick with it, probably 3 episodes a week but more out of nostalgia then anything as so far im not feeling it 

TimmyO

thumpingrug said:

Ive just started to watch this.  2 episodes in.  Read the books 40 years ago and found them to be exceptional at the time.  I am however struggling with the TV show.  Its much slower than the book and the empire politics seem to be laboured.  Ill stick with it, probably 3 episodes a week but more out of nostalgia then anything as so far im not feeling it 

I think if you can get ok with the fact that it invents loads of stuff (and spends time on that) to bolt on to the core book story, then it’s really really good. 

At first I didn’t get why they felt the need to do that, but then I dipped back into the first book (about 35 years on from reading it) and realised that the book is, shall we say, sparse - a modern series would seem odd with nothing more than the core book plot in it I think - it would be like talking about recent history at the pace/detail of: “… and then the country decided to leave the EU, and then there was this big disease and lots of people all around the world got it, and then a war started…” 

I actually ended up finding a lot of the made up parts the most enjoyable - but I get that a hardcore Asimov fan who’d read the books much more recently might find it jarring 

Headphones

Most of the extra bits are from the sequels/prequels that Asimov wrote decades after the origninal trilogy (itself a conglomeration of short stories, rathe than three novels).

TimmyO

Headphones said:

Most of the extra bits are from the sequels/prequels that Asimov wrote decades after the origninal trilogy (itself a conglomeration of short stories, rathe than three novels).

oh I didn't know that - I only read one and a half of them a very long time ago! 

thumpingrug

Having read the entire series and the subsequent prequels, as well as everything Asimov wrote I can already see who they have taken elements of various books to create the series.  It would not have made sense without some of the context but clearly not a faithful reproduction.

Tannin

^ And just as well. Modern audiences expect a bit more flesh on the bones of a story. Yes, even on screen. 

(Usually, screen adaptations leave 80% of the book out, partly stuff that doesn't work well in a visual medium but mostly just because books generally have far more in them than can possibly be squeezed into a film production. The curious thing here is that the producers feel constrained to put lots of extra stuff in just to make it work.)

Axe_meister

I read the foundation book about 30 years ago. Normally I remember a plot fairly well. However Season 1 did not ring any bells whatsoever.
I remember the books feeling very very slow but otherwise nothing.
Enjoyed the TV adaptation however.

guitargeek62

I've just rewated Ep1 for the third time... something clicked more on this attempt, so I'll crack on and try the rest of the series now.

I love the books, and the rest of Asimov's works, but my first couple of attempts with the show left me feeling completely disinterested. I'm not sure what changed this morning though!