The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing:
> “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history.
> So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda...
It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing something completely opposite.
It's not all bad, though. There are elements that would fit well with the books. The way they handled emperors, for example.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
[1] - Or what could be described as pivotal moments - the whole point of Seldon's use of psychohistory was to set the initial conditions to ensure there's a high probability that future events will take a very particular path[2]. Kind of like we do space missions today, where a probe is launched just right, so it stays on a predetermined path through the Solar System, making it reach its destination years or decades later.
[2] - And to my great relief when first reading the trilogy, Asimov wasn't dumb about this. He seemed to have known enough about what today we'd call non-linear systems and chaos theory, that he addressed the obvious problems of psychohistory and long-term stability of Seldon's plan in the trilogy (as well as in subsequent books).
That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.
Premise: You can't expect predictions to stay true over centuries, you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management. Bonus: due to the circumstantial requirements, you get to make them secret and hidden.
Requirement: There has to be tension within a book. There has to be conflict, resolved in a way conducive to literary imperative.
Resolution: Something has to be able to challenge this otherwise-perfectly-set-up system. Something that is not predictable, and which would not be easily adjustable by the Second Foundation; something out of the ordinary. A single man, who really can influence history. The Second Foundation would be prepared for a Napoleon of their time, but they wouldn't expect anyone like the Mule.
Corollary: The Second Foundation is exposed, introducing tension and conflict for the next book in the series. Who wants to be a puppet on a string, after all ?
It could have gone very differently if the Mule hadn't been sterile, or could have taught his skill, but again, literary imperative dictates that "The Good Guys win", so the Second Foundation overcomes the Mule, and the plan is put back on track. Suspiciously well, in fact. The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.
"The Good Guys" changes in later books, of course, and the Second Foundation end up losing, but that's quite literally another story :)
What I found endearing about the books[0] is that it didn't try to cast any of the factions as The Good Guys. The Foundation definitely isn't. The trilogy, especially the first book, shows the Foundation applying plenty of hard realpolitik to survive and expand; they do not carry any moral banner, except that of Seldon's Plan. They're not the United Federation of Planets by any measure. They just are. The Second Foundation isn't presented in a better light either.
> The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.
I most likely haven't read far enough into the book sequence, but at least by "Foundation's Edge", the anthropic principle remains valid; the protagonist of that book, despite being seen as special by their contemporaries, still turns out to be involved in the story only because they happened to be best person available along the criteria of the ... entity ... driving the events.
--
[0] - That I've read so far, i.e. the trilogy, and "Foundation's Edge".
That's why I had "The Good Guys" in quotes :) We're supposed to root for the Foundation/Second Foundation, but it's clearly presented as the best of two evils. People, being people but better than 30,000 years of anarchy.
That's where your anthropic principle ends, though, halfway through the trilogy. From there on out the original protagonists can't win without a new "special" set of characters blessed with superhuman abilities.
(spoiler) Even the entity, beyond the Second Foundation, who started everything and keeps it on track.
In this logical recursion you have to keep track of the level your are in till ultimately a simple explanation is revealed. Sometimes it feels too much of a coincidence, but I enjoyed the mental gymnastics.
Very few shows or movies can pull off exploring how a system works, from top to bottom, to show how the world is shaped by rules, customs, etc. The Wire comes to mind as the best "real world" example. I was very impressed by how the Dune movie hinted at the underlying systems while translating the salient points and the "feel" of Dune to the language of film. While I feel it failed in some places, it's a hugely impressive achievement. I love Lynch and like his Dune, but really it's a totally different work from the books with surface level similarities. 2021 Dune feels like a true film adaptation, no easy feat.
Well at least I can take the Foundation TV show off my "to watch" list now
It reminds me of an attempt to make a Brave New World TV show, which based on the trailer has... little to do with the original book. The book itself wasn't even a good book in terms of storytelling IMO, it was more about worldbuilding and a bleak look at a "utopian" future.
I read the book in the early seventies; never liked the prequels/sequels. I'm also not that keen on the mutant Paul/Sandworm god. That didn't work for me.
As a big fan of the Dune series I'm a bit unsure if I really even want to see the movie.
Arrival was excellent, but my experience with Blade Runner 2049 makes me unsure about Villeneuve's work.
My biggest gripe with it is that it's just yet another Villeneuve movie. It's not different enough compared to BR2049. It seems as if 2049 was just a study for Dune. (Because probably it was.) And there's just not enough life in Dune compared to the richness of the books. (Nor in BR. Or in Arrival. ... Because Villeneuve emphasizes the anxiety of alienation a bit too much...?)
I felt the same about the “Joker” movie. Good acting and production but ultimately not interesting .
Aesthetics were amazing. But after a certain point I just don't care how it looks and feels. No story worth digging into.
And it's not like the man can't tell a character driven story. I cared a lot about the characters in Arrival. It made my whole family cry.
I felt nothing from Blade Runner 2049. Nothing.
I just couldn't get past the horribly stilted dialogue, the clowny costumes, and the completely terrible "inner monologue."
Oh, and the last scene where the emperor himself jumps on the merry-go-round and is shooting things. wtf.
The movie was so completely bad in every dimension.
The only positive is that after watching it, I got a better idea of what was happening in the 2021 version.
Not criticising Lynch for having a go; props. I just don't think it worked out. That's how the cookie crumbles for most movies. Nice try.
Given some folks are complaining about the "white saviour" trope in Dune, it would be interesting to see Dune Messiah be made. It's not like Herbert wasn't aware of the idea, given what he knew about (e.g.) T. E. Lawrence ('of Arabia').
Freemen are being oppressed, but they aren't the weak ones in Dune not by a long shot since they even have enough wealth to outbid the empire on satellites in orbit around Arrakis.
I want to see Dune God Emperor adapted now that would start getting to "seriously weird" territory.
This is a fine line to thread and I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment as to how the handled it, but while the Freemen don't have interplanetary domination in mind and Paul does lead them to Jihad, it's not like Avatar where the native are being exterminated and some random guy leads them to military success.
The ridiculous thing about that narrative is that an alien with their own agenda (most likely not for the benefits of the native) is somehow given leadership
The thing is all of that is explained in much more detail in the second part of the book. You know, the part that's not a film yet.
it seems more like condemnation of the concept of leading, or controlling, as opposed to educating and liberating. The white savior element is not neccessary to convey that message.
None of this stopped me from really enjoying the movie - though I think highlighting the ambiguity could make it into a really great movie. The book does it by exploring how the systems work in the world which rarely works well in movies, so I'm not sure how part 2 could do it without it feeling "tacked on"
the book's pacing isn't exactly brisk from what my younger self remembers of reading it.
A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring.
I think that most people expect character-driven narrative, and so when you get a work that leans more towards ideas and concepts, people tune out.
Edit: I think is also why the movie Sicario (also by Villeneuve) threw some people off, because it didn't operate with a "normal" narrative: SPOILER {the roles of main character and protagonist were two different people}:
* https://thebarkbitesback.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/going-deep...