Foundation (Asimov) on the big screen?

[pokerfan]

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't fuck it up!


Dante Harper is adapting ‘Foundation’ For Roland Emmerich: http://www.slashfilm.com/dante-harper-adapting-isaac-asimovs-foundation-roland-emmerich

These covers are even from the version I read so many years ago:

(artwork by Don Ivan Punchatz who passed away just a couple of years ago.)

Please please please please please please please p....

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Generally speaking, those book series to movie translations don't go well, but

I'm with you. I hope it goes well! We need more great sci-fi movies!

[pokerfan]

6. Fingers crossed

and no one should even come near Ringworld until they can demonstrate that they won't fuck that up, either.

[MiddleFingerMom]

2. I look at "Dune" and despair...

.
.
.
... but I look at "Lord of the Rings" and hope.
.
.
.
I was a HUGE science fiction reader (read "Dune", loved it, but will NEVER put
that much time and effort into a book again), and really REALLY liked Asimov...
but for whatever reason, I don't think I even STARTED reading any of the
Foundation Trilogy.
.
.
.

[pokerfan]

4. Dune was pretty much unfilmable

what with all the voices in people's heads. Adapting Foundation should be a more straight-forward affair and if the director can avoid the excesses of say, a David Lynch, it should work on the big screen.

[gratuitous]

3. I don't know how they can mess this up

Asimov, for all of his talents, was an extremely linear story-teller. His works, and the Foundation trilogy is perhaps the epitome of this, get on the main character and stay with that person to the exclusion of all else. I certainly enjoyed reading the Foundation stories, and I liked the premise, but I think Asimov would have benefited greatly from a collaborator, who would have shifted the action from time to time. For instance, in Lord of the Rings, once the Fellowship is broken, the narrative divides its time between Frodo and Sam on the one hand, and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli on the other. The Aragorn sequence splits between the hunters and the captive hobbits, then splits again when Aragorn joins up, to follow the events in Rohan and Minas Tirith.

Asimov, on the other hand, sets things up then brings out his main character, and stays with that person through thick and thin. It makes for a very simple narrative, and that should make for an easy screenplay to write, as well as a very straightforward movie, the kind Hollywood likes to make.

Billy Bob says, "Check it out."

[surrealAmerican]

5. You're assuming that they'll stick closely to the text.

There is no reason to assume that. Look what got made of "I, Robot".

[gratuitous]

8. True enough

"I, Robot" should have come with the standard disclaimer: "Based on the title of a book that a lot of sci-fi geeks liked, but that's where the similarity ends. You have been warned."

[pokerfan]

7. yeah

For instance, in Lord of the Rings, once the Fellowship is broken, the narrative divides its time between Frodo and Sam on the one hand, and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli on the other.

but do you recall how Tolkien handled that as opposed to Jackson? The first half of Two Towers is all Aragorn et al and the second half is all Frodo and Sam. Even as a kid reading that, I thought it was weird structure. Cutting more quickly back and forth between the two stories was one of the things I agreed with concerning Jackson's treatment.

[gratuitous]

9. Jackson and his co-writers did a whole buncha things

I was glad they didn't feel constrained by Prof. Tolkein's holy writ. I didn't care for the excision of Tom Bombadil (see below) and the scouring of the Shire, and the bollixing up of some of the other elements didn't sit precisely well with me, but the results speak for themselves: An epic movie and fantastic effort that will stop anyone else from trying to make another movie out of Lord of the Rings (and messing it up royally) for the rest of my life.

Jackson also brought out some elements that Tolkein didn't, but that I am confident he would have approved of: The most outstanding one is the affinity between Frodo and Gollum as ring bearers. Only they know the true burden of carrying the ring, and while circumstance forces them to collaborate, you see more than once Frodo's apprehension that in looking at Gollum, he's seeing his own fate and future. The prospect is both fascinating and appalling as expressed by Elijah Woods.

As to Bombadil, I never quite knew what to make of his character. I knew from other reading that he was based on Tolkein's compatriot C.S. Lewis. I had a friend put Bombadil in other terms, parallel to the legend of the Little People in Ireland, and I found his interpretation compelling. In Irish lore and legend, the island used to be ruled by giants of mythical proportion and ability. Over time, as Ireland's fortunes waned, these giants became subjugated then circumscribed, until they have mythically and literally shrunk down in the people's minds to leprechauns inhabiting hummocks and bumps of land. They retain their power, but it's wielded under very definite circumstances and in very definite ways.

Similarly, Tom Bombadil was once a colossus of Middle Earth, who eventually wearied of his role. He voluntarily restricted himself and his activities until he becomes essentially the steward of the Lady Goldberry, in a very small part of the world where he feels most comfortable and at home, The Old Forest. Anyone who comes into the Forest comes under his aegis, knowingly or unknowingly, but the affairs of the world outside the Forest don't concern Bombadil anymore. He is the master of the place he has described for himself, and not even the great ring of Sauron can influence him. I think it would have been very interesting if Jackson had availed himself of the Bombadil episode in Lord of the Rings. It's possible something involving Bombadil will be adapted for The Hobbit. That would quite cool.

[pokerfan]

10. on the whole, Jackson's LOTR was an excellent adaptation

The Scouring is the one part that I didn't get when I first read ROTK. But now I see how important it is to the overall structure. The story begins in the Shire and it should end there bringing the narrative full circle. The Scouring shows how much the Hobbits have transformed and grown (some even literally). Instead we get a brief glimpse of them riding into town dressed in their finery and then it's back to the tavern. The only difference is this time Sam has the courage to approach Rose. I guess once you've faced down orcs and giant spiders...

Even Tolkien didn't really know what to make of Bombadil according to Letters. I can live without him in the story but then how do the Hobbits get their magic swords of Westernesse? Oh yeah, that's right. Strider was just wandering around carrying them until they showed up. :banghead: On the plus side, at least he was no longer carrying around the shards of a broken sword. Rangers would have been much more practical than that. I think it made sense to have it on display at Rivendel.

Jackson also expanded the role of women, giving Arwen more to do than serve as a trophy even if it did mean robbing Frodo of one of more iconic scenes at the Ford of Bruinen. It was worth it to show how Aragorn could see some Luthien in her. Luthien was pretty but she was also a butt-kicker who didn't take crap from anyone, including the Valar.

[Ohio Joe]

11. What fucking moron thought Emmerich could do Foundation?

An extremely difficult movie to film and they give it to a shit director? I do not want this to get made... Not like this.

[pitohui]

12. roland emmerich!!!!

this will not be asimov as the thinker and scientist, this will be the derring do/space opera side of asimov that he never gets credit for

after this i wish emmerich would take on peter hamilton

this could actually be good as long as you stand back and take the long view