News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by throw0101a on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @08:22AM (#29012262)
> All that made the original interesting is lost.

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...

* https://archive.md/YFxVi

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @08:37AM (#29012449)
A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history".

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).

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by addingnumbers on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @10:31AM (#29013790)
> A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history.

That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by spacedcowboy on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:09AM (#29014324)
... which is the point. It's all about the spinning top (The Foundation) staying spinning and not falling over...

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 :)

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:55AM (#29014970)
I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

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".

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by spacedcowboy on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:01PM (#29015061)
> I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

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.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by addingnumbers on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:39PM (#29015658)
> you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management

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.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by sifar on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:30AM (#29014628)
I feel the Mule was like the Mongols, bring distant realms under one rule, disperse the knowledge and then burn out.
Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by sifar on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:18AM (#29014447)
It is just not to set the initial conditions. It needs to be guided constantly. The probabilities need to be updated periodically, alternate paths need to be mapped (e.g. bring the plan back on track after The MULE). Hence the Second Foundation and the need for people to be unaware of them.

(spoiler) Even the entity, beyond the Second Foundation, who started everything and keeps it on track.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:47AM (#29014860)
Yes, that's what I meant in my footnote no. 2. I was just trying to avoid spoilers - but since the whole subthread subsequently has been: both Seldon and Asimov demonstrated their understanding of chaotic systems by creating the Second Foundation, whose purpose was to maintain Seldon's plan as a closed-loop optimization system, despite the Foundation (and initially, the reader) believing it was an open-loop, fire-and-forget one.
Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by sifar on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @01:07PM (#29016040)
Also what I liked about the series is the multiple logical explanation of things which seem equally convincing but ultimately wrong. e.g the location of the second foundation and later of earth.

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.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by klik99 on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:27AM (#29014591)
Of course Paul Krugman is a fan of the Dune and Foundation books!

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

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by Cthulhu_ on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @09:11AM (#29012841)
Thanks for that summary; I didn't know there was a Foundation TV show, and at the moment I don't care either.

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.

Re:“Dune” (The Movie), Annotated by pas on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @10:01AM (#29013387)
So far it's a binge watch in a weekend when you have nothing better to do series (visuals are nice), but instead of giving the viewer that satisfaction of having some minimal immersion for a few hours in a story ... it has FUCKING DUMB cliffhangers at the end of every god damned episode. :(