Online Series: Asimov's Foundation series on Apple tv

[beowulf]

I don't even know where to start here. The Foundation Trilogy might've been the very first big book I fell in love with. Read it as a teenager, then re-read the whole thing again in my 20s. Haven't touched it in 30 years. It's in my long term memory surrounded by the same gauzy romantic glow as my first girlfriend.

First question is why anyone would choose this source material in the first place. I'm shocked that a 70-year old story high on concept and low on character development would be considered, let alone get made. How many people still care about Isaac Asimov and are familiar with the trilogy? Honestly, I can't be objective, but it would be a pleasant surprise to learn that people under 50 would want to watch this.

Next thought is that they'd have to span the entire 1000 year (or whatever it was) timeline for the psychohistory premise to have its full dramatic impact. You can't possibly condense the arc into a single generation, at least not without radically re-writing the central idea of reshaping the future over a millennium. But if the series respects Hari Seldon's vision, it sacrifices main characters that carry the story from start to finish. Too many planets, periods and people to really dig deep on any of them, which is a built-in design flaw for a filmed series. How the hell are they going to pull this off? What a shame to wait this long for a dud.

Last thought: you don't hear the word, "interregnum" often, but on the rare occasion it's used I immediately flash back to The Foundation Trilogy.

Well I am 44 lol

Asimov is a more cerebral sci fi I think. Dude was also prolific and didn't limit himself to sci fi which over 500 published works. From his website A Catalogue of Isaac Asimov's Books

I think it's appropriate that his website, which I have had in my bookmarks forever, still looks like it was made not long after his death in the 90s.

 

[Elvis P]

Great plot, but (except for the Mule) zero characterization. I love Isaac and his Three Laws of Robotics, but he's more of a future historian and future science writer than a real writer with a full toolbox.

 

[Eisen]

I don't even know where to start here. The Foundation Trilogy might've been the very first big book I fell in love with. Read it as a teenager, then re-read the whole thing again in my 20s. Haven't touched it in 30 years. It's in my long term memory surrounded by the same gauzy romantic glow as my first girlfriend.

First question is why anyone would choose this source material in the first place. I'm shocked that a 70-year old story high on concept and low on character development would be considered, let alone get made. How many people still care about Isaac Asimov and are familiar with the trilogy? Honestly, I can't be objective, but it would be a pleasant surprise to learn that people under 50 would want to watch this.

Next thought is that they'd have to span the entire 1000 year (or whatever it was) timeline for the psychohistory premise to have its full dramatic impact. You can't possibly condense the arc into a single generation, at least not without radically re-writing the central idea of reshaping the future over a millennium. But if the series respects Hari Seldon's vision, it sacrifices main characters that carry the story from start to finish. Too many planets, periods and people to really dig deep on any of them, which is a built-in design flaw for a filmed series. How the hell are they going to pull this off? What a shame to wait this long for a dud.

Last thought: you don't hear the word, "interregnum" often, but on the rare occasion it's used I immediately flash back to The Foundation Trilogy.

Simply don't give a damn about the marketability and do it well and hope people like it. Making it more digestible would certainly alienate the people who'd like it the most. At least that is what I hope will happen, in my naivete.

 

[Eisen]

Great plot, but (except for the Mule) zero characterization. I love Isaac and his Three Laws of Robotics, but he's more of a future historian and future science writer than a real writer with a full toolbox.

4 laws

 

[WetcoastOrca]

4 laws

Good catch!
Dr. Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation series (also iRobot), first places these principles:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Zeroth Law (0th) is added by another powerful mind (still some 20,000 years before the grand finale and the end of the series in Foundation and Earth):

• A robot may not harm humanity, or by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except when required to do so in order to prevent greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.

 

[Tawnos]

The Zeroth Law isn't really a law, but more of an ideal Olivaw was striving to attain, with much difficulty since at times they'd violate the other three, at least on the surface. The Three Laws were mathematical constructs, complete violation of which would cause actual harm to the positronic brain.

 

[Tawnos]

Foundation doesn't really lend itself to television.

Virtually no action sequences.

It does say "based on" which I guess means they have some lattitude.

It does depend on what you choose to depict. There's a fair amount of action in the prequel books fleshing out Seldon's life and there's actually a lot of action that takes place "off screen" in the original Foundation novels (think of the space battles of Bel Riose), including Hardin's investigations of the 4 Kingdoms, which it looks like from the trailer they might show. Maybe?

It's not what we're experiencing when we read the books, but the action does exist and can be added to all the other, more cerebral stuff happening.

I'd *love* for a show to do the total anti-climax of Hardin on Anacreon.

 

[Eisen]

The Zeroth Law isn't really a law, but more of an ideal Olivaw was striving to attain, with much difficulty since at times they'd violate the other three, at least on the surface. The Three Laws were mathematical constructs, complete violation of which would cause actual harm to the positronic brain.

But Olivaw acts upon it and doesn't cease to exist despite violating the 3 laws at times. If not a law, it's certainly more than an ideal unless we are assuming that he was malfunctioning. With Giskard, I agree though to an extent, though.
I need to read Olivaw's discovery by Trevize and Hari again, it's been some time. There he expalins it.

 

[The Macho King]

Great plot, but (except for the Mule) zero characterization. I love Isaac and his Three Laws of Robotics, but he's more of a future historian and future science writer than a real writer with a full toolbox.

TBF the Mule is awesome though.

 

[The Macho King]

Also where's my Malazan show.

 

[Eisen]

TBF the Mule is awesome though.

The Mule can suck it (and Gaia as well). Second Foundation ftw.

 

[Tawnos]

But Olivaw acts upon it and doesn't cease to exist despite violating the 3 laws at times. If not a law, it's certainly more than an ideal unless we are assuming that he was malfunctioning. With Giskard, I agree though to an extent, though.
I need to read Olivaw's discovery by Trevize and Hari again, it's been some time. There he expalins it.

I mean it’s not a law in the sense that it’s never compulsory. The programming of the three laws makes them compulsory, even if Daneel is eventually able to overcome them in order to apply the 0th law. His application of that “law” is voluntary.

 

[Eisen]

I mean it’s not a law in the sense that it’s never compulsory. The programming of the three laws makes them compulsory, even if Daneel is eventually able to overcome them in order to apply the 0th law. His application of that “law” is voluntary.

That's true. The first three laws are etched into the hardware, the zeroth is self programmed software.

 

[NyQuil]

It does depend on what you choose to depict. There's a fair amount of action in the prequel books fleshing out Seldon's life and there's actually a lot of action that takes place "off screen" in the original Foundation novels (think of the space battles of Bel Riose), including Hardin's investigations of the 4 Kingdoms, which it looks like from the trailer they might show. Maybe?

It's not what we're experiencing when we read the books, but the action does exist and can be added to all the other, more cerebral stuff happening.

I'd *love* for a show to do the total anti-climax of Hardin on Anacreon.

Spoiler

What I found so refreshing about Foundation was the complete lack of decisiveness on the part of its protagonists at times - the fact that Hardin was a genius precisely because he did absolutely nothing until the last possible moment.

It ran contrary to so many stereotypical heroes that I remember laughing out loud when I got to that penultimate section.

He wasn't a guns blazing kind of guy and his solution was to act as predictably as possible in order for things to unfold as they should.

Then, Asimov pulled a pretty clever move and unraveled the whole thing - later exposing the weakness of psychohistory. Of course, Seldon predicted that too.

 

[NyQuil]

One series I always wanted them to do was Frederik Pohl's Gateway books.

Another ancient science-fiction author, these books would also have to be modernized a bit but they represent a pretty compelling concept that would translate well to the small screen.

Sort of a mash-up of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Das Boot.

 

[RandV]

Also where's my Malazan show.

I love Malazan but it's all big armies and special effects, I mean there's armies of freakin zombie raptor with sword arms! Way too expensive to begin with, before you even begin the process of attempting to 'adapt' it. Blizzard is making their Netflix Diablo series animated, and that's about the only way you could do Malazan.

Speaking of this thread though I really need to read the Foundation trilogy at some point.

 

[beowulf]

I love Malazan but it's all big armies and special effects, I mean there's armies of freakin zombie raptor with sword arms! Way too expensive to begin with, before you even begin the process of attempting to 'adapt' it. Blizzard is making their Netflix Diablo series animated, and that's about the only way you could do Malazan.

Speaking of this thread though I really need to read the Foundation trilogy at some point.

Really depends on who would get the rights. Amazon is said to be spending over $500M for the first two seasons of their LotR show.

 

[beowulf]

One series I always wanted them to do was Frederik Pohl's Gateway books.

Another ancient science-fiction author, these books would also have to be modernized a bit but they represent a pretty compelling concept that would translate well to the small screen.

Sort of a mash-up of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Das Boot.

One I would be intrigued seeing is Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

 

[NyQuil]

One I would be intrigued seeing is Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

Would be great.

Compelling characters, intriguing plot twists. Probably expensive to do it properly.

 

[Tawnos]

Would be great.

Compelling characters, intriguing plot twists. Probably expensive to do it properly.

Compelling characters is a bit of a stretch, to me. Then again, few of Asimov's characters are compelling beyond their concepts and plot activity. Kim Stanley Robinson is great at ideas and plot, but character development, I think not.

Honestly, I find that it's hard to find sci-fi that isn't that way. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe the ones that do well with character development don't hold my interest in their concepts. Probably the best one that did it for me on both was Robert Charles Wilson's Spin trilogy. One of the better one-offs for character development was Timescape by Gregory Benford. That being said, I don't need great character development to enjoy a sci-fi book, if the concepts are good. Like Ilium and Olympos from Dan Simmons or the Imperial Radch Trilogy from Ann Leckie.

 

[NyQuil]

Compelling characters is a bit of a stretch, to me. Then again, few of Asimov's characters are compelling beyond their concepts and plot activity. Kim Stanley Robinson is great at ideas and plot, but character development, I think not.

I don't know - between Sax, Frank, Maya and Nadia, you have four very different characters to explore the environment with. Ann and Sax in particular show quite a bit of evolution in their character over the three books.

Honestly, I find that it's hard to find sci-fi that isn't that way. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe the ones that do well with character development don't hold my interest in their concepts. Probably the best one that did it for me on both was Robert Charles Wilson's Spin trilogy.

I read the Spin books back when they were released but I don't remember them too well. When I moved frequently during my high school, university and initial working years, my carefully curated science-fiction library started to fall apart with people borrowing them and not returning them, or being put in unlabeled boxes at one place or another.

Like Ilium and Olympos from Dan Simmons or the Imperial Radch Trilogy from Ann Leckie.

I was not a big fan of Ilium and Olympos, which is disappointing because I enjoyed the Hyperion Cantos so much.

Hyperion itself, with its Canterbury Tales structure, is almost entirely about character as you are experiencing his universe through different sets of eyes throughout the book. Meanwhile, Aenea in particular was well-realized in the latter two books.

Ann Leckie's series was interesting conceptually but the characters didn't resonate all that much with me.

Honestly, I find that it's hard to find sci-fi that isn't that way. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe the ones that do well with character development don't hold my interest in their concepts

I certainly put a premium on the ideas and concepts over character. Frank Herbert, Alistair Reynolds, Neil Stephenson, William Gibson, Jack McDevitt are all emblematic of this for sure.

I liked Andy Weir's "The Martian" which presents an inherently likable protagonist but it's really more of a survival story than a science-fiction one.

I would argue that Ursula Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness" and "the Dispossessed" are largely character studies so more of an exception to the rule.

I also thought that Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" and to a lesser extent (and similar concept), John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" are fairly character oriented.

Another decent book series with unique and compelling characters is Tad Williams' Otherland quartet.

More recently, you could argue that N.K. Jemisin does a good job of straddling the science-fiction with character development with her triple Hugo award winning Broken Earth trilogy.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't know - between Sax, Frank, Maya and Nadia, you have four very different characters to explore the environment with. Ann and Sax in particular show quite a bit of evolution in their character over the three books.

Different characters and evolution? Sure. Compelling? Not to me, anyway.

I was not a big fan of Ilium and Olympos, which is disappointing because I enjoyed the Hyperion Cantos so much.

Hyperion itself, with its Canterbury Tales structure, is almost entirely about character as you are experiencing his universe through different sets of eyes throughout the book. Meanwhile, Aenea in particular was well-realized in the latter two books.

Ann Leckie's series was interesting conceptually but the characters didn't resonate all that much with me.

Definitely feel that way about Ann Leckie's books. As for Hyperion, I slogged my way through the first book often feeling like... "why do I care, though?" That's more or less code for not compelling characters OR concept. At least with Ilium and Olympos, the entire worldbuilding was, for me at least, incredibly interesting. He's a hell of a writer when it comes to imagery though.

I certainly put a premium on the ideas and concepts over character. Frank Herbert, Alistair Reynolds, Neil Stephenson, William Gibson, Jack McDevitt are all emblematic of this for sure.

I liked Andy Weir's "The Martian" which presents an inherently likable protagonist but it's really more of a survival story than a science-fiction one.

I would argue that Ursula Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness" and "the Dispossessed" are largely character studies so more of an exception to the rule.

I also thought that Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" and to a lesser extent (and similar concept), John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" are fairly character oriented.

Another decent book series with unique and compelling characters is Tad Williams' Otherland quartet.

More recently, you could argue that N.K. Jemisin does a good job of straddling the science-fiction with character development with her triple Hugo award winning Broken Earth trilogy.

I like a lot of the authors and books you've mentioned here. Broken Earth barely counts as sci-fi for me... much more fantasy. Loved it though.

 

[NyQuil]

Different characters and evolution? Sure. Compelling? Not to me, anyway.

I had a funny discussion around the Mars trilogy with some folks, when we realized that we all had different favourite characters.

I'd been so wrapped up in my own perspective on the series, that I was surprised to see such diversity. One girl liked Michel Duval above all others, another liked John Boone. Arkady was extremely popular with a couple of individuals. I gravitated towards Sax for whatever reason.

I think it was a bit of a personality test in the end and it was a fascinating conversation.

 

[beowulf]

LOL nice how this has turned into a sci fi book thread. Great to see others who are in to the genre. Anyone a fan of comedic sci fi? The most well know being Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books I would have to say. Anybody else Like Spider Robinson and his Callahan novels?

 

[NyQuil]

LOL nice how this has turned into a sci fi book thread. Great to see others who are in to the genre. Anyone a fan of comedic sci fi? The most well know being Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books I would have to say. Anybody else Like Spider Robinson and his Callahan novels?

I've heard of the Callahan novels but never read them. Any good?

Douglas Adams also wrote the Dirk Gently books.

Another (science-fiction?) series is the post-modern Illuminatus! trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, which delves into near future (at the time) conspiracy theories and urban legend. Written in 1975, it was really ahead of its time when considering its content today. I'd call it humorous.

The plot meanders between the thoughts, hallucinations and inner voices, real and imagined, of its many characters—ranging from a squirrel to a New York City detective to an artificial intelligence—as well as through time (past, present, and future), and sometimes in mid-sentence. Much of the back story is explained via dialogue between characters, who recount unreliable, often mutually contradictory, versions of their supposed histories. There are even parts in the book in which the narrative reviews and jokingly deconstructs the work itself.

Finally, John Scalzi is pretty irreverent (in that Andy Weir's "The Martian" style). One amusing concept (which probably shouldn't have been stretched out into a full novel) was his Redshirts book about a group of "redshirts" who become aware of their own expendable natures as tools of a television show. It won the Hugo Award in 2013, but I preferred his Old Man's War series which had a little more science-fiction heft to it.