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.
Related posts:
Filed under: Movies
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
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