I guess I'm Joe Hillbilly, because I loved the Foundation tv series. No, it's not a faithful reproduction of the books, and I couldn't care less about that. I can love both and not get bent out of shape, especially since the books would make a pretty crappy tv show.

But if there's only the southwest resemblance between the two (eg World War Z) then it's just a stupid money grab and why not make a new universe for the story to exist in? It would lead to better franchising opportunities when there aren't books to compete with.

I see no problem with a screenwriter taking inspiration from a book but taking it in a different direction to adapt it for a different media (and perhaps time). Honestly, I find the fans who can't tolerate one deviance from their bible tiresome.

What are your precise criticisms about the adaptation?

I am seriously unsure of whether I like it or not. Some ways in which I have gone back and forth:

- It's visually on point (I think) in conveying the vastness of Asimov's imagined Galaxy.

- The storyline is bent out of shape; but not enough to make it seem like a totally different series.

- Then again, Salvor Hardin's character and others are much more action-oriented whereas in the books they are depicted as thinking and strategizing a lot more (from what I can remember, I really need to re-read the books).

So I don't really have any substantive criticisms apart from a vague feeling of "this could have been better". Do you?

I didn't finish the TV show (I got maybe halfway through), but my main problem was the changes to Hardin. In the book, Hardin is a shrewd politician, and there's nothing magical or blessed about him. He "defeats" Anacreon by exploiting their own dim beliefs in magic against them. In the TV show, Hardin is a warrior with a special "magical" connection to the Vault. That conveys a very different, almost contradictory message compared to the book.