Asimov's Foundation--The Movie

The word is that Roland Emmerich is directing a 3D blockbuster version of Asimov's book. According to IMDB it is set to release in 2011--I haven't heard much personally.

In any case, I hadn't read an Asimov book for five or six years and decided to re-read the original Foundation today. First, I Emmerich is probably not well-suited for a true adaptation of Foundation. The book revolves around mind battles, psychohistory, politics, and board meetings. Second, it really is a group of short stories. It covers more than 80 years in the first book (which hardly works in a 2 hour blockbuster.)

Don't really see how this could be any good. Hollywood already ruined I, Robot (starring Will Smith.) If it does any good--it will spark some interest in the books.

 

Ah, so kinda like the Dresden Files or La Vie en Rose: crappy, but might attract attention to the source material?

No, this sounds like about as appropriate and potentially successful an adaptation as... NightFall or, oh, that Crichton time-travel one where they go to medieval Europe...

And thanks again to James Cameron for setting movie-making technology 50 years BACKWARDS!

 

I can't see Foundation working well as a film. I think it'd be better suited to a miniseries with an episode or 2 dedicated to each time period the story progresses through.

 

A film cannot be done without drastic changes to the plot. The best option is to leave the work alone. If Hollywood is going to get involved--the better medium is through TV--dedicate several episodes to Hari Seldon (covering Prelude, Forward, and the opening of Foundation) then several episodes on Mayor Hardin and the first two Seldon Crises, and on and on.

It doesn't work as a movie.
The only Asimov movie that would make sense is Harlan Ellison's version of I, Robot (modeled after Citizen Kane.) Ellison's screenplay is brilliant.

Foundation is by the director of Independence Day (does not bode well at all for the story) who has promised to make this a 3D action spectacular on the level of Avatar (does not bode well at all.) The only glimmer of hope is that the writer wrote Saving Private Ryan.

 

Up.

Anyone know when this is coming out? It was supposed to be out in 2010 and there is almost no information online.

 

Nonsense. That's like saying Dolby set movie-making technology "backwards" to 1940's Fantasia when they brought stereo back in the 1970s.

Nah, because that wasn't Asimov's I, Robot. It was an unrelated movie that happened to crib the Three Laws and a couple character names. And it was actually kind of fun in a dumb way.

As for Foundation, it absolutely should be a TV series. But I'd do it in publishing order rather than starting with the prequels.

 

The difference being that the 3D effect doesn't really add to the story or effect that much--it's a gimmick. And now people are jumping all over it because it's a way to codge a few extra $ without that much cost/effort. And it isn't that good. Sorry, but it isn't. Plus the glasses make my eyes hurt.

Same way StarShip Troopers had nothing whatsoever to do with Heinlein's novel, except they changed the names, or PotC:CotBP had nothing to do with the Disneyland until Disney started funding it as a tie-in.

 

And stereo does? How is the sound of bullets whizzing from one speaker to the other any less of a gimmick than things popping out at you? Of course, those are the oversimple explanations of these effects.

Of course they are. This is the movie industry we're talking about here - they ALWAYS jump on any chance to make a cheap extra buck.

And it's ludicrous that you're lumping together the cheapo conversions with the actually quite costly (and much better) 3D filming done by Cameron and others.

And to be honest, I don't notice much difference between most stereo and mono soundtracks. If there was a price difference of $3 between the two, I'd opt for mono with most films, probably only splurging on big blockbusters to really get the full value from the effect.

Not really much difference between 3d sound and 3d visuals, except of course that one requires the audience to don a special apparatus...

And a lot of people get dizzy from fast-moving video games. That doesn't make fast-moving video games a fundamentally flawed form of entertainment.

 

Stereo/mono is about levels of inversion. With sound, it actually works (well, sometimes).
The 3D effect actually takes me out of the picture because it's a distraction.

As for the costly version of doing it vs the cheaper--that's secondary to the fact that it isn't necessary and detracts from my enjoyment. (Yes, there are different processes, but it's late and I don't feel like going into it now, and don't really care anyway.)

Avatar was pretty, but the 3D didn't make it prettier. Any more than filming in the reactor dome made Abyss any better. If anything, I thought the cheezy Deep Star Six underwater complex and models established a much more effective mood.
Tron was mostly 2D with a couple 3D scenes, so it really wasn't any better for all the trouble and fuss. Like Nightmare on Elm Street 6--the 3D was only used for a couple scenes, as a gimmik because the studio wanted it.

And yes, Hollywood is all about copying someone else. Doesn't make it good or right. If anything, it stiffles creativity.
The only good thing is that I'm sure, like before, this will be a passing fad, then confined to the novelty films, usually the second sequel, so it can be "Crapolla 3-D"