Foundation: The Movie
By John DeNardo |
Tuesday, October 14th, 2003 at
12:07 am
From Sci Fi Weekly
Foundation Moves Ahead
Jeff Vintar, who recently wrote the big-screen adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, has been brought on to complete the script for another Asimov work, Foundation, according to a report on the Cinescape Web site. An inside source told the site that the epic SF trilogy will most likely be split into two films, tentatively entitled Foundation and Second Foundation.
Filed under: Movies
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
How they will do this should be interesting. The three Foundation novel, the original ones, are really comprised of 6, I think, shorter stories. My guess is they’ll pick the most intereting ones and go from there. I’m expecting to see a lot of the Mule and of the Second Foundation.
Heck, John does post some interesting items to this website after all. I figured it was just JP carrying the load for the most part . . . Anyway, enough of the dig, I have been thinking about re-reading this set of books. Hmmm, added incentive now if it is going to be a movie or movies.
The original Foundation series is always a good. I’d recommend against the later stuff which ties the Robot series and the Foundation series together. I think Asimov was looking for more cash. I could be wrong.
But I don’t think so.
Thanks for the dig, Rich. I was beginning to think you weren’t as loud as your wardrobe.
Back in ’98 (the 90′s!), I set a goal to read all of Asimov’s Foundation and Robot (and related) books before 2000. At the time, the tally was:
This included such lame non-Asimov offerings as the Robot City and Robots and Aliens series (which I wound up mostly speed read). But it also inlcluded some semi-decent stuff like Roger MacBride Allens Robot series (Caliban, Inferno and Utopia). I thought the “Second Foundation Trilogy (Foundation’s Fear by Gregory Benford, Foundation and Chaos by Greag Bear and Foundation’s Triumph by David Brin were, in order: Lame/OK/Good.
But the original series was best. Asimov had never planned to connect the Robot stories with the Foundation stories until some of both were already published. He makes no bones about potential inaccuracies in the later stuff due to already-published stories. I never read them with a critical eye, so I don’t recall any flubs.
I do remember enjoying Asimov’s original Robot short stories (The Calvin. Powell and Donovan years). There is a book club edition of The Complete Robot Stories that has all of Asimov’s robot stories (there’s lots more than is in I, Robot, which, coiincidentally, is an upcoming Will Smith movie). The only one missing from that collection is his last robot story, and that is included in Asomov’s Robot Dreams collection.
…And to answer Rich’s number of post remark (not that anyone’s counting), the current tally is:
JP: 62
John: 62
Scott: 7
Kevin: 2
So there.
Well, I read the Robot series and the Foundation series. I guess I missed the books that tried to tie them together. But I never tried the John approach of trying to read every related book from other authors . . . whew! And not to sound picayune, but the comment was “interesting items” not total items posted. But it is interesting that you keep count . . . . I guess I have to stop posting under pseudonyms so that I get “credit”.
Picayune?
Who talks like that?
…And yes, I was counting the interesting ones. It just so happens that all of our posts are interesting. BTW, the counts were only for original posts, not comments.
Wow. I go to sleep and what happens?
The Cubs lose in typical Cubs fashion, and a semi-flame war breaks out! Woo hoo!
Where’s my gasoline….
I think that the Four SPACER novels, viz, The Caves of Steel, The **ked Sun (**=Na), Robots of dawn and Robots and Empire ties in rather neatly with The whole foundation and second foundation series. For those who haven’t read them in order, i recommend the following list. I went through all of them recently and enjoyed them immensely.
EARTH AND THE SPACERS
———————
*The Caves of Steel
*The Naked Sun
*Robots of dawn
*Robots and Empire
EXPANSION
————
The Stars Like Dust (the empire novels)
TRANTOR, PRE-UNIFICATION
————————
The Currents of Space (The Empire Novels)
Pebble In The Sky (The Empire Novels)
The above three novels can be skipped without any loss of continuity. They don’t have any direct reference to any characters or storyline of the preceding or following novels.
FOUNDATION
———–
* Prelude to Foundation
* Forward the Foundation
* Foundation
* Foundation & Empire
Second Foundation
—————–
* Foundation’s Edge
* Foundation & Earth
Post foundation
—————-
*foundation’s fear
*foundation and chaos
*foundation’s triumph
How did you count Kevin’s TWO and not count my many contributions!?!??!!?!?
Uh Pete, look at the date…
Hmmmm…screenwriter of the movie “based” on Asimov’s I, Robot? Seeing that it appears all they did was to take the Asimov title, some superficial bits and character names, and slap it on somebody else’s story…will he do the same with the Foundation books? Not feeling too good about this project!!!
don’t knock foundations edge and foundation and earth – they are both fantastic reads that really close up his entire universe wonderfully – i think it wraps up his entire ficiton line
I would recommend reading the Trilogy first but that would be fantastic even if it were a lack luster film. I mean it would expose a whole new generation to some classic sci fi from the golden age
I tell you one thing if it weren’t for stuff like Robbie the Robot and murmurings of I,Robot I would have never known that existed.
Hi, I’m new here. I just stumbled upon this site looking for information on the Foundation movie and have found it. To introduce myself, my name is Josh. I am thirteen years old and live in Georgia, U.S.A. But, to get to my comment:
Yes, I have to agree. I started reading the Foudnation Series a few months back and have enjoyed them alot.
To quote Ringworld: I mean it would expose a whole new generation to some classic sci fi from the golden age
Definitly! All the Sci-Fi’s today are only filled with either violence/sex/lame rip-offs or a combination of the three. The Foundation Series has got to be the best Sci-Fi books of all time, no contest. Maybe if some of the other kids took the time to read they wouldn’t be doing so bad in school. (*cough* throughs test marked F in trash *cough*)
I hate to be a pessimist, especially about books I love so much, but if the same moron who adapted I, Robot for the silver screen is in charge of butchering the Foundation series, then there truely is NO justice in the world.
Let’s see what he did with I, Robot: Two characters in the movie had the same name as two of the characters in the book. Wow! There **ALSO** was a single scene reminiscent of Chapter 6. That’s good. So, let’s check out scores: 2 names were right, 1 scene might remind someone of one of the 9 chapters.
Does that meet anyone’s reasonable definition of the words “Adaptation”?
Can you imagine what he’ll do to the Foundation series? There will be a character called Salvor Hardin. There will be a character called Hari Seldon. And there will be a single scene with a Empirical emissary that might remind someone of a scene later in the book. Otherwise, it is a total adventure/love story about Salvor Hardin and his attempt to thwart the evil galactic plans of Darth Moron, an emissary of the Empire and competitor for his love interest, the grand-daughter of the late Hari Seldon.
God save us from this idiot.
- Bo Zimmerman
Foundation fan of the first order. Hell, I even liked books 3-6 and the preludes.
Hi, I just stumbled in on this looking aroun @ Asimov stuff, and thought I might throw in my two cents. I’m a freshman at Western Mchigan University, and just finished the original foundation trilogy and the Prelude to the Foundation. All of which -and I’m sure this is shocking news to all- I enjoyed very much. Jeez, at most of the climaxes (or big twists, whatever you want to call them)I’d jump up and down like a little kid! great books.
..anyway, I’m impressed that they are going to try to make a foundation movie. Not that its a bad idea at all, I’m just impressed that they are giong to try it in practice. And on the subject of Asimov-based movies, Bicentennial Man wasn’t bad. I don’t know if he wrote a book of that title, but the movie definitely has asimov all over it. the basic premise is from a short story whose name I cant recall but I think is in “Martian tales and other short stories” or something like that. A guy who gets a robot, starts getting upgrades for it and makes it closer and closer to a human. The movie goes in a whole different direction (the robot doesn’t want to kill the owner), but it was a really good story made using asimov’s premise.
The foundation movie could be really good, and I’ll certainly be looking out for it.
By the way, if anyone happens to be familiar with Clive Cussler’s novels, a movie of ‘Saharah’ is coming out summer 2005. Cussler’s stuff has nothing to do with Asimov or really with science fiction at all. It’s a little like james bond (not the movies, the books), but more spontaneous and with a lot of history tied into it. Sahara is probably one of the best books I’ve ever read, though not quite as mind-bending as the foundation series. Although the movie preview made me feel really suspicious, I will probably be like the 3rd person in line to see it. But if you run out of asimov stuff to read, Cussler is another guy who knows how to do it right.
blah. Oh, and I thought I Robot was not bad, as movies go. Asimov’s stuff isn’t really that cinematic, but I guess they had to call it an adaptation to use the title and have some of asimov’s stuff in it. It was pretty good as its own story.
But Zimmerman, man you said it- if the foundation trilogy gets gutted by the “magic of moviemaking”, there truly is no justice in the world.
jeez, i can’t even distinguish between writing a %$&#ing essay and a simple post anymore..(sob, sniff)
Hi guys my name is Collin and I’m a high school student. I’ve just finished the foundation trilogy and am now reading the prelude to the foundation. I’m a huge fan of these novels, and they are certainly scifi at it’s best. I am also a film maker and studying film…and I am about as curious as i am scared to see how anyone would approach turning the foundation into a film. It’s more likely that they will massacre the story but there is always a possibility it could be excellent….the idea itself has major potential. If the film maker were to approach the story with an open mind and not try to change the story more than seems neccesary i think it could work out….If they try to fit to much in one film though…it will not be good.
Anytime Hollywood gets ahold of a sci-fi script, there is a potential for huge, point missing, what in the hell were they thinking about screw-ups to occur. Case in point, for those that have actually read the book, Starship Troopers (bonus points for those who remember the seriously OLD board game), you’d have to agree that the version released in the theaters has very little to do with the book. Of course, that could also be because the Hollwood assclowns who rewrote it, didn’t particular care for the author’s viewpoints on what it means to be a citizen, and how and why only citizens should be allowed to vote. If you only saw the movie, you of course, didn’t get that…only that A:) Bugs were bad B:) Apparenlty some fascist global government was in charge and C:) that if you joined the military for said fascist government, you got to shower with really hot chicks! (ok, maybe the last part was a Good point of the flick)
Given that, it’s not going to be a surprise to me if this movie makes catwoman look like oscar material but I’ll try and remain ‘guardedly optimisitic’. On a humorous side note, why not vote to make Colin Farrell ‘the mule’…
Doug
Is this project dead now?
The foundation trilogy is possible the best damn series of books I have ever had the pleasure to read. I don
I just had another thought…. The entire foundation series from the prelude to earth could also make an excellent mini series. BattleStar Galactaca would be my prime example. It would probably not make anywhere near as much money as it would on the big screen, but I’ll be damned to hell if they can screw that up…. Just some food for thought.
-IzzI—–The entire foundation series from the prelude to earth could also make an excellent mini series. BattleStar Galactaca would be my prime example. It would probably not make anywhere near as much money as it would on the big screen, but I’ll be damned to hell if they can screw that up…. Just some food for thought.———-
ah, the problem with this, have you actually SEEN anything Sci-Fi has put out? it’s “effects” driven. And all the effects look “computery.” The Foundation series were story driven to a point. Remember when he wrote the first book, he had no intention of writing all 7 foundation books nor weaving the thread among most all of his books! i think people need to get a handle on asimov in the movies first.
The foundation series could be the next… or better than the next Star-Wars. For better or worse, the stories were written in a haphazard fashion that accentuate the random order of the “Psychohistory science.” Think of all the characters you meet in this series. So many, but they all have a single part to play in a huge epic. Similar to Lord of the Rings? It even has a historical bent; so many people put a spin on the future events… you even have the mule who throws everything out of whack… then it’s guided back into order by an outside paternal order.
I don’t want to see a huge movie made of Foundation and/or the first 2 or 3 books… then no one finishes it with all 7 books in line… My preference would be to have 7 movies for the 7 books… but that’s just a traditional hope.
It would even lend itself to the star wars type production… do foundation first, then do the prequels of Prelude & Forward.
But i still believe a dedicated crew should explore the other single stories of Asimov first… they eventually integrate into the foundation series in SOME fashion… He even alludes to Nemesis, The Gods Themselves & The End of Eternity. Why not first exploring those three… that way the producers LEARN more about asimov… and even if they suck, they can still be referenced in asmovian fashion in the story line as myth…
it would only be fitting… maybe someone could convince peter jackson to take it on?
please don’t let sci fi get hold of asimov… they’ll ruin it.
i’d rather read it.
ok: another thought for food. (i’m hungry!) there are a couple of parts that could be woven or recut differently… i.e. the part where seldon is on trantor seeing off the final foundation encyclopedist to terminius could be the ending scene of fwd foundation and then also the first scene of the foundation.
i guess i need to read some of the other novels written by other authors… i’ve heard they suck. i’ve often thought that someone should undertake writings of the expansion from earth/spacer worlds to the empire… and then the Gaia series… expanding beyond the foundation…
One thing you could say about asimov… he certainly left a lot of elipsis in his writing… nice places to fill in.
speaking of… i’m trying for an amateur writing of the expansion to empire myself… http://www.expansionempire.blogspot.com
is there any news on this adaptation?
it’s been like 3 years since i’ve read the series and i’m craving a movie adaptation.
could be outrageously successful, much moreso than “i, robot”
so long as they keep it free of the big willy stylez ;(
I think the Foundation, Empire, and Robot series (they really ARE part of the same story) would be better done as a television space opera (you know, like STAR TREK). There is certainly enough material to last for years and you could start with Foundation and then spin it off into the other segments (like STARGATE SG-1 and STARGATE ATLANTIS now dominate the SciFi channel). You could still do movies to start off the series, but there is just too much material to try and condense it all into a single movie.
Hello everyone, I also am new. I stumbled upon this site because I saw a news blurb that Hugh Jackman was expected to be seen in The Foundation Movie. My jaw dropped because I knew nothing about this project. I have read many of Asimove’s books including the Foundation Series several times and was initially very excited to here that a movie was being made of this great set of books.
That said I agree with most of you that I’m very pessimistic about how good this film will be. I was dissappointed by the Bicentennial Man one of my Asimov favorites and I refused to see I Robot just based on the Previews (total misses the spirit of the collection of short stories). If it truly is the person that did the I Robot script that is working on this script then I’m pretty depressed about what is likely to come out.
Regarding Izzi’s thought about the SciFi chanel doing a mini series – I think it is a good one. I disagree with Goggle Design – I saw the Dune Series that they put together and thought it was far superior than the ridiculous movie that was put out many years ago. Seems to me that a mini series is the perfect format and the SciFi channel audience is the right one. Why the hell have an entire channel dedicated to SciFi if it doesn’t put out some work of the masters like Asimov?
I have to spend a line or two defending Peter Jackson. I have read the LOTR series many times. I thought it was courages to the extreme on New Line’s part to go for 3 movies – a move it gone wrong could of wrecked the company. Even with 3 movies going into 3 hours each, there had to be painful cuts made to the storyline. Jackson and his team did an inspired job with the movie script with many wonderful LOTR lines taken directly from the book and put in the mouths of different characters. (Example the opening lines in the prelude of Fellowship of the Rings spoken by Galadrial where originally spoken by Treebeard in Two Towers yet they worked perfectly!) They deserved all the awards and money they earned. We were treated to a great piece of film art built on a great set of stories. It is rare when it happens!
Sorry for the long tirade I appreciate your discussion group.
I would suggest that any adaptation of the Asimov Foundation Series be narrated by R. Daneel Olivaw. It’s overview of the entire Empire process would hold together any subplots and pull the entire story together.
I just stumbled across this site, and I was surprised that these movies were still in the works. I had heard a rumor of a Foundation movie trilogy about ten years ago, but I haven’t heard anything else since, so I just assumed it had been cancelled.
I’m a huge Asimov fan. I’ve read all of his major books, and I’m thrilled when I find one of his lesser-known out-of-print books at a used bookstore. As far as I’m concerned, he’s one of the best storytellers of all time. Unfortunately, though, a great book doesn’t guarantee a great movie. If the Foundation movies are made well, I’m sure that they will be box-office successes on the same level as the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Matrix films. I think what will really make or break the movies will be how they’re adapted to the screen.
The Foundation series covers about 600 years, and deals with dozens of major characters during this time frame. The Foundation books are also set against the backdrop of the larger Future History storyline which spans thousands of years of human (and robot) evolution. In order to convert this story into a couple of two-to-three hour movies would be a terrible oversimplification. This is what happened to I, Robot. The book covered about 100 years of robot evolution, and had to be drastically rewritten to make a movie that flows properly.
I have mixed feelings about the movie adaptation of I, Robot. If you look at it as just a movie, then it’s a decent sci-fi action movie. But when you consider it as an adaptation of a book by the Grand Master of Science Fiction, then it’s disappointing that more effort wasn’t put into the storyline. This movie simply became “just another Will Smith sci-fi movie” when it had the potential to be much more. I hate to say it, but that’s the direction I see the Foundation movies headed in.
I agree with the idea that Asimov’s books would be best suited for a mini-series. There would definitely be enough material to keep the series going for quite some time. When I think along this line for too long, I get uncomfortable again. I can easily imagine Asimov’s storyline turning into the next super-franchise like Star Trek. I would hate to see Asimov’s work turned into a played-out cliché just as much as I would hate to see it turned into an oversimplified one.
I saw a bumper sticker once that said “don’t judge a book by its movie.” I think that this is the best advice to give. No matter how good or bad the movie adaptation is, seeing the movies will never be as good as reading the books.
I think we can call this project DOA. If Hugh Jackman were involved, there’d be more news by now. Heck, if anybody were involved, there would be more news (it’s been a while, no?).
:O
Hello!
I found this on Hollywood.com and it seems like they are planning to rape the books as well as they did with I, Robot:
“Based on the “Foundation” trilogy by Isaac Asimov, a parable to the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and the emergence of Christianity. Far into the future, Hari Seldon, pioneer of a new science called psycho-history, mathematically predicts the fall of Earth’s empire throughout the galaxy, followed by thirty thousand years of chaos. Earth has become a giant computerized center that administrates the entire galaxy, but the distant colonies have deteriorated nearly to barbarism. Seldon plans for his brainchild, The Foundation, a reclusive body located on another planet, to emerge as the new civilization through the preservation of knowledge and order.”
http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/370600
My bold.
Now, this really sucks. Look at it! Its a rape! Asimov would turn in his grave if he knew. One of the best theme in his story is thath Earth i a forgotten planet, a mysterius world.
it should be an EPIC triology with epic grand music to show the passage of eons…with a grand scope with quality actors and brilliant directing…
haRI SELDON CHARACTERISATION WOULD BE VITAL TO SET THE TONE…HE SHOULD BE A VULNERABLE PERSON WITH A HINT OF SADNESS…looking into the future and trying to SET FUTURE HISTORY to the correct forks in the road…
As a life long fan of the work of Isaac Asimov I hope that Jeff Vintar has a lot more respect for the original Foundation novellas than he showed with his abysmal treatement of I Robot.
Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson applied this lesson well…don’t fool with a classic…
Who am I kidding? I’m not going to bother watching the film….like Isaac Asimov decided after doing the novel treatment of the screenplay of the film ‘Fantastic Voyage’(and fixing up some rather bad scientific and continuity errors), he wasn’t going to except any offer from Hollywood to film any of his stories and novels..ever.
Let us respect the great man’s will…..
I hate Hollywood!
CURSE YOU JOHN ROGERS AND DENNISFELDMAN!!!(6)(6) They have totally ruined what people call the best sci-fi series ever!
Even though its gonna be a horrible movie I’m probably gonna watch it, just to see how they messed it up. >:(
thecomicist–
i agree totally!
R Daneel would be a phenominal narrator. Just the thought makes me say, “Wow… i want to see that movie.”
esecallum
That’s exactly why I don’t think the Sci Fi channel could/should do it. there’ll be no Grandness about it… Instead, we’ll have lots of sexual tension swamped into a 35 minute hour of commercials for ipods, TGI Friday’s & the latest mirical drug. They’ll be sure to have lots of special effects, lazer zappers & XP31 Space Modulators… later, the series will try to moralize me as to why i should love everyone or why we’re all the same.
There should be a “non-synthesizered” soundtrack (i already have my own that i play when reading the books). There should be memorable actors who play memorable roles. I think Will Smith can do better than he was given credit for in I, Robot… I just think the movie was skewed far too much. If you were to watch it as if it were NOT based on an I A book, it was a good movie… but the title & tie in to Asimov’s work made it very hard to please.
One good point: There’s enough stories involved that it would likely be split into more than 7 movies… especially the initial 3 books.
As for the Dune reference, sorry. the new movie didn’t do the books justice. At least the first one had Sting in it… Again, the new one looked a little too computer generated.
Regarding the possible future rendering of Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy or Saga or series as a Hollywood movie, I have to agree with Tobias Malm’s (December 2006) comments that, if the film makers decide to use Earth instead of Trantor as the administrative centre of the Galactic Empire, then many fans will be very disappointed because, as Tobias puts it, one of the best themes is that Earth is a forgotten planet and a mysterious world and not even mentioned in the original trilogy. Foundation is set in a fictitious segment of the Galaxy, likely many parsecs from Earth. This allowed Asimov to expand the Trilogy into a saga and although many fans of the original trilogy moan at Asimov’s later efforts to pick up the thread of the two Foundations (one at each end of the Galaxy) the story is still brilliantly told, there are many new concepts, the characters are compelling and there is the prospect of the search for Earth by the characters Golan Trevize, a Terminus councilman and Janov Pelorat, a very polite historian and scholar who accompanies Trevize when he is sent in “exile”. Furthermore, there is an exciting link to characters from other branches of Asimov’s work, namely the mystery sf novels, The Caves of Steel through to The Robots of Dawn and the End of Eternity. If Trantor is therefore replaced by Earth in a possible Foundation movie, there won’t be any logical openings for sequels as well as confusion in the actual novels’ plots. I do hope they don’t rape this epic story by catering for what they believe to be filmgoers-who-like-Earth-to-be-involved-somehow-cos-its-nice-and-warm-and-cosy-and-familiar. Strange and new terrains are what gives a new film uniqueness. Personally, yes, I will have to watch it if it ever gets produced, otherwise I will die of curiosity. Pray they give it the respect this amazing epic deserves.
I like many Foundation fans here fear the worst.
I believe that the foundation series is too
‘complicated’ for Hollywood.
It would be better served as a DVD set film release or series.
If the good doctor were still living today there would be no “Foundation” movie happening at all…Asimov had no time for Hollywood butchering any of his novels…His one and only foray into cinema was his novelisation of the “Fantastic Voyage” screenplay in 1966…an involvement he had no real love for…..
The movie rendering of his book “I Robot” is nothing more than a travesty….and if the same screen writer for that is working on the new Foundation movie then Susan Calvin help us…:-S
I think they should be made as a TV series plus the movies, that way its gonna be way better and detailed, the movies should be about the mule and his fall, cause is the most interest and it doesnt have 100 year leaps between its chapters like the previous. the first movie should end when hari sheldon apears while the ivasion! :-@ the rest could continue with another tv serie.
The mere act of bringing Asimov’s concept of psycho-history into the modern web-centric/video-centric culture via a mass-market delivery mechansim like motion pictures, if completed, will be a triumph in itself, regardless of how poorly the plot & character development are handled! That being said, I personally find it nauseating to forsee how easily a screenwriter’s maladaptation of the Foundation series could mar the perspective that Asimov’s own writing gives this long-running tale. Loss of both plot depth & story viability – not to mention the loss of “writer’s intent” – are pretty much the norm here. I would think that true success in bringing such a complex storyline from life in word-and-thought to life in scene-and-sound can only be accomplished learning-curve style: by a whole series of failed attempts, and then ultimately only properly completed by someone who has a *LOVE* for the original written work. (Note that LOTR was left un-attempted for *decades* after the initial abysmal efforts at transliteration [for both Hobbit & LOTR proper] which disappointed many fans with simplistic animations and butchered & abbreviated storylines, and Peter Jackson was *well aware* of this fact.)
Perhaps this need for successive attempts (& failures) at transliteration is why so much time has elapsed between initial word of the movie’s production and the current time where we still have no projected release date(s). While I wholeheartedly agree that Foundation (original trilogy, et al) has absolute potential to become a long-term, high-dollar (aka “blockbuster”) revenue stream for movie executives, I must also agree with many of the other posts here that this can only become reality by a very “care-full” crafting of the screenplay adaptations – which is something that HollyWood is rarely known for, most especially in the genre of science fiction…
Would anyone care to wager as to what Hari Seldon’s own theories might predict for the final outcome here?
In response to ‘Elrond74′: Hari Seldon’s theories would not be able to predict the final outcome here – the data set is too small.
I really can’t see how this film is gonna stay true to the books while at the same time appealing to a large audience. There will have to be large space battles otherwise they wouldn’t make it, but there aren’t any big space battles in the books, its always somewhere else while a battle is going on. So perhaps there will be the Return of the Jedi type thing going on.
I’d be interested to see how they portray the Mule. And also it’ll be interesting to see how they do the emotional reading of the Second Foundationers.
I hope this film actually happens and does well. I’d really like them to do the later books too, as I think seeing the Farstar on the big screen would be great.
If we know Hollywood, the Mule will be a young hunk with big mussels and karate skills. :-S
The heart of the whole Foundation story is the Mule. He’s the key. He’s the great tragic figure. Everything else in the original novels revolves around his story, both in the set-up and in the consequences of his failure. It’s a person who rebels against fate, who stands up to the system, and who almost brings it down…except love gets a bit in the way. As long as you have someone really great playing him, then you have the basis for a good movie. Don’t get distracted by the other story lines. There are great possible visuals for his story, that convey strong emotions, just what you want in a movie.
I think Steve Buscemi would be a perfect Mule.
How about Crispin Glover for the Mule. I know he’s stranger than just about anything else out there but I think the role calls for it.
Oh my goodness.. Don’t do this, Hollywood! EARTH? How about we spam them with mad e-mails about the subject?
WILL there be ANY foundation movie/s ? The first post is from 2003. It’s been five years already…
DJ Qualls as the Mule. he’s got the look and the quirkiness (is that a word?)
The foundation has to be made into a movie .
a century from now ,i doubt if anybody would bother chasing volume after volume of unceasingly expanding storylines & ideas
If The Foundation is to ever survive the geometric decline of our attention spans, it has to make the transition from medium to medium
Infact the precedence that the series gives to the progression of the story than the resolution is what would make it a great movie adaptation
Somebody could just take a few story lines and weave them into a great trilogy
the first movie should cover the creation of the foundation and proceed straight through to the creation of the second Empire
The second one could be the story of the Mule and the third one , The Prelude
ofcourse, it would do better as a Game anyday ( part strategy , part action ). The series would immediately reach several millions in two or three weeks . thats infusion of knowledge at hyperspace speeds folks
Good idea foundation series as movies. Bad idea the guy who did
i Robot having any part in it.
For the record, I vote against having James Cameron direct.
I think an animated version may be able to focus on the story more than a Hollywood version and be easier (cheaper) to produce. An animated version will likely be easier to tell more of the story line without getting into 30 minute computer generated starship battles.
good to see recent posts here
this is certainly an exciting prospect
more news on this would be great, editors can we get a hold of jeff for an update please?
New news – New Line plans to tackle the project
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i9154afd0680ec28a1d8e18e265bbed4a
Well given the quality of a previous effort…The Last Mimzy…I can only hope this attempt dies as quietly as previous efforts!
:-@
After reading the wisdom of Drew’s comments of March, 5th 2008, I agree that perhaps the movie, Foundation, should chiefly concern itself with the emotional conflicts of the tragic but initially comical figure of the “Mule”instead of cheap, self-indulgent Star Wars battles. This character brings an interesting obstacle to Seldon’s irrefutable psychohistoric predictions that barbarism or gradual lack of peace everywhere in the Galaxy will last only for a millennium (with the help of his two secretly established “foundations” on hidden planets at both ends of the Galaxy) instead of a sufferingly long 30,000 years. This obstacle threatens the late Hari Seldon’s predictions to such a degree that it looks as though his reasoning that the greater the number of humans in the galaxy that the result of stimuli, such as economic or scientific changes, can be predicted with more accuracy, is threatened so much that it looks as though his theories can be confounded completely due to the actions of a single, solitary, one-off, freak of nature, such as the Mule, who is a human being but with mutant powers like emotional telekinesis, an attribute that Seldon could not have considered a possibility.
Or could he? Or does it matter what a single entity such as the Mule, does or doesn’t do when Seldon’s mathematics are based on huge numbers of people and the main trend that they lean toward? Would a single, solitary lonely clown person like the Mule with mental powers make a difference?
Is this all too complicated for a Movie? Perhaps it should be left to etchings on paperback books for ever.
On the other hand, the public really, really love the epic Lord of the Rings. Director Peter Jackson, bless him, bravely sold his soul to the producers in order to insist on a direction of three movies to tell Tolkien’s amazing and powerful middle Earth fairy tale. I believe that the Lord of the Rings trilogy proves that the general public are ready to accept ideas of epic proportions.
As we all know, Hollywood believes it needs cheap or heavily-used emotional or sentimental content rather than interesting and far-reaching philosophies on future possibilities. It can be a challenge to tell a romantic story using prominent characters, that spans thousands of years, without romance and character plots. Yes, there needs to be some emotional content and humour (Asimov used both all the time in this saga in a very clever and interesting fashion) but I do hope that the clever filmmakers have enough pride to create an epic film that Asimov, his fans and his new readers will be proud of.
The Trilogy, which I read 40 years ago, was comprised with a philosophy that one’s imagination would fill in the blanks of the Foundation stories.
Today’s youth seem to lack the imagination necessary to fill in the blanks.
The movie will probably be subdued as was the movie I, Robot. One needed to have read the book to understand the fullness of the plot. The movies leave little to demand imagination. One needs to read MOST of Issac Asimov’s books to appreciate the social eccentricities and naiveness that show in his works.
The Seldon psychohistory, for those who do not understand it and although never explained fully by Issac Asimov, is actually based upon several philosophies:
That much of the population of any given group will not get the point so therefore will always be behind the curve. This situation causes a slow basic shift in any specific direction. Picture an animal with a tail that is 4 times as long as its body and twice as heavy. What the predictions show is that a direction change in the population will start without any leadership, will always head in the direction of emotional instability until the first results of the shift come in, then the shift will head in a more intelligent direction.
That a single head of a population, as in a dictatorship, will give instructions that lash about like an alligator in a feeding frenzy. That an oligarchy will limit the instructions by having compromises. A representative government will be restricted by the sheer volume of egos wanting to be important.
The Empire, with 25 million worlds, will be comprised of 25 million sets of insignificent egos. Some of the 25 million populated worlds will find themselves in need of compromising to get with the program. There will always be turmoil that will aggravate the future, add intellictual egoism, and the view of the direction of humanity is as clear as unrefined oil.
Last but not least is the hope factor that Issac Asimov injects into the plot, that all people want good for all. Nonsense is what is exuded from the psychohistory philosophy, mainly because we all know that humanity like everything in the universe follows the basic laws of the universe, that everything degenerates. Our children will be infused with what we think was a deficit in our lives and will not have to compete or work hard like we did. This will produce losses in the moral and intellectual structure of people, in general.
Traditional stupidity, in this example, is the ebb and flow of intelligence. Those who become great do not have descendents who show those same qualities of greatness. Intelligence, in this respect, flows toward stupidity, not increased intelligence.
Therefore psychohistory is simply a view of actual history that allows one to observe and make predictions based upon the ebb and flow of logical knowledge.
The fact that no posts have been made since November 08 confirms that it would be difficult to follow comment after Mr. Ron Somers. So, i will accept to “bite the bullet” in the hope that this discussion does not end.
I just discovered Mr. Asimov by mistake. I live in darkest deepest africa where transport to the only city within a hundred miles is a water shed moment. The libraries have never heard of a sci-fi genre. The movie houses are filed with films released in the rest of the world pre-BIN LADEN. The rental shops are offer”unimaginative material” like desparate housewives, prison break and so on.
My discovery of the “foundation” was like seeing the face of “GOD”. imagine then what it felt like finding the accompanying books in the series. i have since tried to introduce as many like and unlike minded people to the stories as possible and for those that could not read, i have narrated the story, – all the way from what i consider the beginning of the foundation, (“the end of eternity”) to “foundation and earth” and summed it all up with GALAXIA’s final sensing of an “intelligence” far beyond its capacity already within our galaxy.
I have imagined and re-imagined how to narrate the story. One thing always remained constant, i did the narration. (telling the story as a narration of either a History or Future always added a depth to the tale).
I agree with the previous contributor that any story told would best be served by a narration by R. Daneel Olivaw. any requirement to show the “VOICE” would only be made when finally Daneel reveals himself.
I agree that the mule plays a central role, but there is something to be said about the roles played by the “Eternals” and by R. Daneel. any movie shot should be told from these two central perspectives. The subsequent books in the foundation are also incomplete as a narration if the stories in the Naked Sun, Robots of Dawn and so on are not given their screen time.
I see nothing wrong with 10 or 12 movies. i am certain we will get with the programme. A director with an appreciation and respect of the material would be an advantage.
The movie “i robot” could serve as a prelude to how humanity finally begins to explore the stars. the story on the “eternals” can be made as a prelude to a prelude and like i have narrated the story, a start from the beginning, “the Eternals” is the best place to begin. what follows next is of course debatable.
If it turns out to be as i have imagined, then new word to express the success might have to be coined.
I am both teased into excitement and dropped into depths of doubt by the possibility of a Foundation movie. The only real equivalents we have of books this epic being made into a movie are the hapless “Dune” (I *loved* the book but was disgusted by the adaptation), the “Lord of the Rings” series, and the “Narnia” movies. Perhaps you could include “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” (although, to be honest, that would be a big vote on the “no, don’t do it” side of the ledger.)
(To be honest, having read “I, Robot” i couldn’t bring myself to watch the movie after seeing the previews; ditto “Bicentennial Man.”)
The only people I’d have any hope of staying faithful to the Foundation series would be the folks who are handling “Narnia.” They allowed for character development, not just big fights all the time. But even there, there were definitely “anchor spots” for the big battles in the Narnia stories – and those were definitely the anchors in LOTR.
My big concern is that there were so few “special effects battle” scenes in the three Foundation books, I can’t see how the SFX gristmill could possibly make a movie that wouldn’t get bogged down in itself. After all, look how “the weirding way of fighting” in “Dune” played in the book, and what those hapless b******ds did with it in the movie. Can you imagine what they will do with Hari Seldon (not to mention the Second Foundationers)? Hari Seldon gets played by Patrick Stewart? Shia LeBeouf as a young Salvor Hardin? Wolverine Hugh Jackman as Hober Mallow? Nicole Kidman as Bayta Darrell? /convulsive shudder/
The beauty of the Foundation stories was the interplay of history and science in individual lives. If Hollywood were still capable of making “Out of Africa,” it would be different. But reducing the Foundation series to some SciFi-inspired intergalactic shoot-em-up would be worse than never having tried at all, and leaving the books in the library to mold.
In short, Hollywood, either do it right or don’t do it. I agree with the previous poster that, handled right, it could be awesome. But let’s face it – I need my all-time-favorite sci-fi series turned into another “Hitchhider’s Guide” or another “I Robot” like we need another credit default swap.
I would love to watch the movies, but like most of you, I’m worried that Foundation will get the same treatment from Hollywood as I, Robot. The movie with Will Smith was ok as an action movie (review), but it wasn’t even close to true to the book of short stories.
I really liked the screenplay by Harlan Ellison (review)
If anyone is interested, I’ve done reviews on all of the novels (Robot and Foundation) in chronological order. Johnny Pez gave me permission to repost and update his timeline – Johnny Pez’s Insanely Complete Fiction List
It’ll be interesting to hear the reviews from “both audiences” (those who’ve read the books and those who’ve not). I’m pretty optimistic myself…
[b]Now it’s an official news![/b] Columbia Pictures/Sony won an auction for screen rights to “Foundation,” Isaac Asimov’s masterpiece. The film will be directed by their pupil Roland Emmerich, director of blockbusters such as “[i]Godzilla[/i]“, “[i]Independence Day[/i]” and “[i]The Day After Tomorrow[/i]“.
We think that the greatest sci-fi trilogy of the 20th century deserved much more from Hollywood, not just an action flick like the recently adapted “[i]I, Robot[/i]” with Will Smith (or something even worse).
It seems already very difficult to adapt “[b]Foundation[/b]” but with Emmerich we’ve no hope: awful choice!
An epic sci-fi book like the “Foundation” trilogy is a bit like Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” for fantasy: without a great director (like [i]Peter Jackson[/i] for [i]LotR[/i]) it’s impossible to take such a deep story into a movie!
Our protest group is located at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=57522728336&ref=mf
[color=red][b]For the sake of Isac Asimovs memory mobilise your friends and prevent this from happening!!![/color]
[color=beige][color=beige][/color][/color]
Synopsis:
A genuis named Hari Seldon becomes a messiah figure when he invents a mathematics that can predict the future. One thousand years later, a deformed mutant called the Mule tries to stop the Seldon Plan and take over the galaxy.
What??? Do you understand what they are gonna do??!! They are gonna change the whole foundation universe into a simple good-one-bad-one history (Hari Seldon and the Mule). No second foundation, no Gaia, and (of course), no robots!!. It’s simply, the mule history (and it’s by the end of the 1000 years of the foundation :S). I’ve no doubts now. This movie is just gonna suck! (at least, for those who had read the books)
Somehow I just can’t see the Foundation novels being made in a TV show. Maybe into mini-series like the Band of Brothers, but definitely not into long drawn out tv shows where each episode has its own special plot.
Having long movies for each Foundation novel could work, but we’ve seen how movie adaptations of long books have turned out (Harry Potter series). Directors need to cut down spending and time so they cut out a lot of the important details that give the novel their flavor. So having each Foundation novel turned into mini series would probably be best. These mini series should also be detailed, down to the last paragraph in the book. One might argue that in terms of theater the movie might not be the best but since this movie is based off of the novel of one of the best science fiction writers in history, I’d say that sci fi fans wouldn’t really care. In fact, what made the Harry Potter series (especially 4 and 5) terrible was that small important details were sacrificed in order to make the movie more entertaining.
As for the sypnosis of the movie, it sounds terrible. Where would the audience get the concept of the Galactic Empire and its fall? or the rise of the Foundation? How are people going to get the “feel” of the setting is the movie is centered around the Mule. I have a feeling that people who haven’t read the book are only going to see this movie as a B rate sci fi film.
As for those complaining about I, Robot, I personally think I, Robot wasn’t a bad film. Sure it had nothing to do with the book itself, but like what keilwerthCat said, it had to be called an adaptation to use concepts from the book. Besides, the book itself was a collection of stories, not one single story Hollywood was able to turn into a movie. So for those bashing I,Robot, quit it. I’m pretty sure the director knew his movie wasn’t the book, and he just needed a name. If anything, I,Robot was a good sci fi film.
Somebody really ought to turn the Robot series into films though. They can be direct to DVD films and I’d still watch them as long as they have good special effects and enough money was poured into the filming.
Reasons why this project will satisfy no one:
Movie time allottment can’t do justice for time frame involved.
The “epic treatment” will mean lots of ‘splosions, and other Attention Deficit pandering.
But the biggest reason is that no audience (attention deficit or not) could follow two or three stories with sets of completely different characters (eg. Seldon alive, Hardin young and old, Hober Mallow). Lord of the Rings and Narnia didn’t have to face that.
Nor would Hollywood egos stand for actors appearing in only part of a movie; nor for having no chance of returning in sequels.
In the end, if they do this thing I’ll still go and watch (they’re counting on it). They can have their ‘splosions. They can put in Angelina Jolie (it’s inevitable isn’t it). As long as they don’t insert some idiotic JarJar Biggs-type robot for lame comic relief.
“No second foundation, no Gaia, and (of course), no robots!!”
Well, Gaia and the robots were all added well after the original tale were told, just as Asimov tacked on the “Empire” stories (Pebble in the Sky, etc.). If you go by the original tales, it pretty much does boil down to Seldon (and the Second Foundation, his direct heirs) and the technocrats (the First Foundation, the traders, etc.) vs. the Empire (initially) and the Mule (trying to recreate the Empire).
Rule Number 1 – Never compare the movie/movies to the book/books. It has to be an Adaptation! Thats just a fact not an opinion!
Rule Number 2 – Never pre-judge an announcement based on Studio, Director, Producer or any other Internet blogged information that you may have read.
Am I hopeful that Columbia or whoever else ends up getting an adaptation to the big screen will do the Foundation series justice? Not really.
Will I live in hope? Of course I will because it’s my favourite series of novels.
I do agree that in order to do any adaptation justice that you really need to have people on board who are paying homage to the original work. Just watch the hours of bonus footage that came with the LOTR trilogy extended DVDs. It was a labour of love for everyone involved and that shows in the final product.
Here’s to hoping!
Let’s make a chain so Roland Emmerich don’t direct the movie. Let’s Acclaim Steven Spielberg in every site and every forum and everywhere!
Maybe Sony can understand their BIG mistake!
I will Fred Kiesche – stick with the original foundation trilogy. Maybe make the spacer-robot movies later. ONLY THEN would you consider making a foundation movie with the robots: otherwise it’s just meaningless.
Well, this has been a long-running forum! The first comment was made in October 2003!!
There has been some interesting and clever comments made but an awful lot of them seem to be a little negative and cynical over whether Foundation should be more than one film, a TV series, actually made at all or directed by Mr Emmerich. However, I do understand some of the disappointment at the choice of dialogue, actors, sub-plots, scripts, story-altering, etc.
Although I am not sure if I could have done a better job at directing films like I, Robot, which wasn’t a completely bad film, I would prefer to make a film as true to the original story as possible.
Maybe that is what the directors and scriptwriters intended but then found financial constraints.
Can you read and perhaps respond to more of this, fellow Foundation fans? Or has the subject been exhausted?
I don’t think the subject is exhaustive because after reading everyone’s mostly passionate contributions to this discussion and their reservations about the possibility of a Foundation Movie, I would still like to see what director Roland Emmerich and writer Robert Rodat can make out Isaac Asimov’s epic story. If they continue to be interested in it!!
I certainly will not be an easy task but I am glad that the director, currently charged with the task, has received some encouragement from witnessing up-to-date film making, especially by the likes of James Cameron on Avatar.
I am not saying that Avatar is a particularly good film. In fact, there are some plots which could have been improved. It is mainly a spectacle to draw in the crowds.
However, it was certainly a graphically indulgent film, was certainly a visual treat and it did have emotional content. It did its job as a film but the dialogue was very simple.
The story behind the Foundation Trilogy (which is, as many of the fans know, is actually a saga of more than 7 books now) greatly requires a good scriptwriter to bring alive the dialogue without oversimplifying it for the mass audience.
Allow some complex ideas to wash over the audience, that’s what books do and how people learn. GIVE audience the respect they deserve and if an idea is initially misunderstood, the audience will still enjoy the other aspects if it is made well enough, then return to watch it again to “fill in the gaps”. Why do we read certain books again? If we knew the story inside out there would be no point.
And it can’t be any different from some past films which were really only produced for the fans: Dune by Frank Herbert, for example, which was complicated but the book fans sort of understood it. My Dad thought it was great although he admitted it was somewhat abridged. I thought the effects at the time were interesting but I was a bit lost from halfway through.
Or the X-men saga which is quite a simple multi-superhero story but the fans of the comics rave about it. Which is great! I enjoy them, too. To a point.
, the essential dialogue of The Foundation Trilogy has to be placed against a believable (and perhaps stunningly visual) futuristic panorama to enhance the atmosphere and importance of the plot, whilst transporting us, the audience, away from our everyday lives.
It needs to grab our attention, as all films and books should, but in such a way that we easily absorb the story’s philosophy as a focal thread as if it is a part of our everyday understanding. It should try to do this without a background introduction to explain what Asimov means by “psychohistory” or what has happened to the Galaxy so far. This should be done by the screenplay and the audience’s imagination only. Introductions with the use of a narrative or text, often leave me cold and take away the mystery and the exciting unknown of a unique story. Other than the briefest of facts to state time and place, I believe that narratives or introductions are a lazy way for the director to leave out a large chunk of creative storytelling or they assume audiences will get bored too quickly to understand a concept through the use of drama, dialogue and character plots. In a Galaxy of human beings, set thousands of years into the future, we have got to assume that some customs have changed dramatically but to knock that on the head with perhaps a sterile voice at the beginning of the film, to explain the story’s main plot will diminish the power of mystery and anticipation.
Having said that, at the beginning of each chapter, Asimov cleverly placed extracts taken from the fictitious “Encyclopaedia Galactica” to give clues as to the era set, the location and the key characters concerned in the chapter. That could translate to the screen, say, as a scholar in a Trantorian library reading from or listening to an ancient electronic talking or textual encyclopaedia at the start of the film and certain sections. The scholar could change in age to visually show the passage of time and could turn out to be a key character or relative.
This, is one aspect in my mind, of how the film could be interesting and interweaving of characters over the story’s time period may be put to good use and help understanding.
This method of using a character’s actions to summarise or explain a story’s plot is actually used in a really lovely and humourous way in the books. A clever little girl called Arkady Darrell, daughter of Bayta Darrell who prevents the Mule from learning the location of the Second Foundation, is doing her homework in her bedroom on the equivalent of a typewriter or word processor which has excellent speech recognition. She is particularly interested in the history of the Galaxy, psychohistory and how her mother was involved.
She amusingly makes a few mistakes in her dictation and the word-processor prints her vocalised errors, even a surprised “aaaaaaagh” when a young man surprises her and climbs through her window. The humility of futuristic people is, in a way, assured and the new chapter is introduced in a clever way.
Arkady Darrell’s character is then used in an adventure that takes her away from home and the story continues.
I hope the film makers’ recognise these little gems and use them to full advantage because they bring a little cosy familiarity to the audience and show that we could still retain quaint customs and habits in the distant future like the use of paper (we still use paper, pens and pencils despite the advance of computers and signature technology!) and traditional windows in a house!
Good luck to the film makers and to the audience. I really hope it doesn’t turn out to be a popcorn movie.
Hello everyone,
I am aware that there are a lot of people out there who has Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy very close to their heart (I am one of them) and therefore there is a mixture of anticipation and dread awaiting the release of the movie adaptation.
A lot of people are not confident that Roland Emmerich can deliver, based on his past films. I don’t think he has tackled an epic like this but I hope that if this disaster movie expert continues with his desire to direct this story set over centuries, perhaps millennia, then he will ensure it is not reduced to a single two to three hour film.
To give the story chance to develop and enable understanding, Foundation Trilogy (or saga; after all there are many books in the Foundation Universe, written also by other writers) should be at least three long films: I have always admired Peter Jackson’s insistence that Lord of the Rings be three films, perhaps five if you include the forthcoming Hobbit films (I believe there will be two films). And what an amazing epic that was. I was blown away by it. Very powerful images, great sets, cast and emotional content. It was simply amazing.
If The Foundation Trilogy movie adaptation is approached with the same philosophy as Lord of the Rings, then it must be a movie worth waiting for, and I, and I am sure many others, will be thrilled if that philosophy is, indeed, adopted. Nothing else will be acceptable, especially if Roland Emmerich and his scriptwriter claim to be as fond of the story as the fans.
I do hope they do well to translate this story, set over many hundreds of years, in an exciting and fascinating way.
In a way, although I am disappointed that there are not many updates on the progress of this movie, I am glad the producers are not rushing it. It has been the subject for more than 15 years now so another 5 or more years wouldn’t matter to me as long as they give it the creativity and thought that it truly deserves.
I believe it is Columbia who have won the rights to produce Foundation.
I am not sure I approve of Roland Emmerich’s philosophy that Foundation has got to be done in 3D because then, one can ask for more money. I mean, it is good to be frank or honest, but that makes it sound like he wants to crank out an indulgent Hollywood Blockbuster to compete with James Cameron’s Avatar. It needs to be more than just 3D and personally, 3D should be left for single action movies. I’m sure it will be novel to see some space scenes with the glasses on, but once you get those impressive shots out of the way, it will be the dialogue and not the scenery that will be important.
Please, Mr Emmerich, Mr Rodat and Columbia,
do a great job! And don’t dare replace Trantor (the planet on which the first scenes are set) with Earth> IT WON’T WORK! If I hear from previews that it is set on Earth, like many thousands of fans, curiosity will go out of the window and I certainly will NOT go and see it. That’s a promise!
Thanks guys!
Andy