Foundation trilogy on the big screen

[Simon_Jester]

The only way it will be good is if the director surpasses himself to a degree that is very rare

That depends on your definition of 'good'. I can absolutely see this turning out to be a thoroughly entertaining SciFi action flic-as long as you don't mind it having practically nothing to do with the source material it is allegedly based on (ref the 'Starship Troopers' movie, which was apparently not inconsiderably popular). A true to the source material movie even if possible (which I too doubt) would probably sink like a stone at the box office.

I have a personal attachment to the story and flavor of the Foundation novels themselves. So yes, I am defining "good" partly in terms of preserving some semblance of the source material. I'll grant them some leeway, but not as much as the movie Starship Troopers had.

The reason I feel that stories that bear no relation to the source material are a problem is that they poison the reputation of the source material itself, and because they make it much harder to release a real version of the story later on.

I mean, you could make a damned good movie based on the actual book Starship Troopers, rather than just slapping the name on something generic... but at this point, it is far more difficult to do that because the movie rights have already been taken and used by someone.

They made themselves the prize, the last remaining bit of Imperial Glory, too important for his claim to the throne to be blown up, then when he had left to fight a colonial campaign, quietly engineered his death and a succession struggle that prevented anyone else coming to bother them. As far as I recall. There's no way I'm re-reading that pile of drivel to check.

Well, it seems reasonable; that trick worked for the old Basilica of St. Peter, didn't it?

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

More massively disappointing than actively bad, a low D rather than an F; the co-author was someone- I think Gregory Benford- from whom I was expecting a lot more, but it read as if he and Asimov's actual talents had managed to cancel each other out and all that came out of the process was the lowest common denominator. The idea was a lot better than the execution.

In terms of directing talent, I'm still trying to think of a name; who does good tense political drama anymore? On TV, even- if it was possible to get some of the team from The West Wing, or better yet The Wire, behind this, it could really work. An action movie director, no. Although, the first actual movie director name that comes to mind for this is Clint Eastwood.

[Bakustra]

More massively disappointing than actively bad, a low D rather than an F; the co-author was someone- I think Gregory Benford- from whom I was expecting a lot more, but it read as if he and Asimov's actual talents had managed to cancel each other out and all that came out of the process was the lowest common denominator. The idea was a lot better than the execution.

In terms of directing talent, I'm still trying to think of a name; who does good tense political drama anymore? On TV, even- if it was possible to get some of the team from The West Wing, or better yet The Wire, behind this, it could really work. An action movie director, no. Although, the first actual movie director name that comes to mind for this is Clint Eastwood.

If it comes to the Second Foundation Trilogy, Asimov had no part in the writing, since he had been dead for several years by that point.

[ThomasP]

Part of me wonders if this couldn't be handled by making the films a series of vignettes linked by the theme of the Seldon Crises (the example that came to mind was Sin City, for some reason) and the Mule.

Then I remember it's Emmerich and that would never happen, in lieu of disaster porn.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

All right, Asimov's being dead would explain why he was so far off form...wasn't Benford working from Asimov's notes? Similar collaborations- like the one with Silverberg over extending Nightfall to novel length- worked almost as poorly.

[offiox]

He might say that Foundation could only be filmed with the kind of advanced technology used in Avatar, but I disagree. In fact, I feel the opposite is true. Foundation would lend itself very well to seriously cheap film-making. Very well indeed. All the most important scenes are just dudes talking, the sets could be made super-cheap, the space and background bits could be CGI, and there are few action scenes. Babylon 5 level effects would be sufficient to tell this story well, and cost a fraction. My fear is that with a big budget the temptation will be to tell a very different story of the fall of an empire, more like Revenge of the Sith than Foundation.

Anybody filming this story should look at BBC historical dramas, particularly those about Rome such as 'I, Claudius' and 'Rome'; Sky Captain, since it did a good job of melding CGI and live-action, in my opinion; and Babylon 5, as mentioned earlier. And while I think it can be done in a single film, such a film would have to be a documentary-style project to fit all the key points in, it would be much better suited to a mini-series.

[dworkin]

Has Mr Emmerich read Foundation recently? It's not exactly action packed with interesting characters or well, actual tension. Hell, the last bit of each short story summerises what just happened! It's a good read, but not translatable to big screen, mega special effects and baysplosions.

Mirkhiem (P.Anderson) would be far better contender, having actual space battles, weird aliens and a female cat-person on the hero team. Although the premise may considered a too like the recent Avatar.

[Srelex]

Meh; knowing Emmerich, they'll just take the basic names and concepts and turn it into some sort of Star Wars, nuTrek type explosion fest with space battles and whatnot, or perhaps more like nBSG or Mass Effect.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Meh; knowing Emmerich, they'll just take the basic names and concepts and turn it into some sort of Star Wars, nuTrek type explosion fest with space battles and whatnot, or perhaps more like nBSG or Mass Effect.

Something like that is highly likely. I don't know why they bother, though. The Foundation Trilogy is not really well known outside the nerd circles and most viewers of big dumb explosion movies are just random teens and college/university students. The name does not have that much marketing value, unlike Star Trek for example. Perhaps they hope that if the movie flops at the box office, the nerd audience will at least help it to break even or something.

Of course it could be that Emmerich is an actual fan of the trilogy, but unfortunately he has never made a good movie, and it's unlikely that he would start making them now. In any case I bet Hollywood has hired scientist to find out how Emmerich and Michael Bay could produce an offspring who would be the Ultimate Big Dumb SFX Movie Director.

[Losonti Tokash]

To be fair, Emmerich said that after 2012 he's done with disaster films and can't stand them anymore, for the reason that is painfully obvious in this thread: no one thinks he can or will do anything else. Whether he sticks to it is, of course, up in the air, but I'd give him some benefit of the doubt.

[Jade Owl]

Of the top of my head, events mentioned or shown in the first book that could lend themselves to a big special effects sequence would be:

• Trantor. They’ll have to go all out to keep the average moviegoer from jumping to the conclusion that it’s a Coruscant knock-off (when in reality it’s the other way around)
• The nuclear plant that malfunctioned and “blew up half a planet”.
• The short war between the Four Kingdoms
• The crown prince of Anacreon hunting that big ass bird on an air-speeder.
• The darkening of Anacreon, when Hardin has the techno-priests shut down the entire planet to prove a point.
• Ditto for the shutting down of the repaired imperial cruiser on its way to Terminus.
• The “war” with Korell.
• Mallow's little trip to Siwenna and the visit to the power plant there.

Am I forgetting something? After that, the other books lend themselves better for adaptation I think. As a matter of fact this guy probably has the 2nd and 3rd book in mind when he speaks of applying the Avatar technology to the series.

[The Romulan Republic]

Has Mr Emmerich read Foundation recently? It's not exactly action packed with interesting characters or well, actual tension. Hell, the last bit of each short story summerises what just happened! It's a good read, but not translatable to big screen, mega special effects and baysplosions.

I disagree that Foundation lacks interesting characters. Salvor Hardin and the Imperial General from the first part of book two stand out in my memory as being okay characters (at least in the sense of having personality), and even the Mule had a few interesting gimmicks to keep him from being a completely generic villain.

The only character that I think might really be a problem, and then only if they take the action movie route, is the girl from book three, as child stars in action movies almost always suck.

[Blayne]

Foundation is something I would like to see adapted to a visual medium but I don't think movies would do it justice or be properly enjoyable.

[PainRack]

It "might" be possible to create a movie based on several aspects. For example, the rise of the priests for example.
It would require some changes in the story but an imminent invasion by Arcaneon, Salvor Hardin trip, the political backstabbing, the "hidden hand" of the Second Foundation(well, we know there were agents who started the whole revolution there in the first place), a fleet battle between rival elements of the Foundation, royalist and priestly fleets...... All of this would make a story that's screenable on the big screen and yet remain true to the spirit of the novel.

Add in a romantic second tier characters(say, Foundationeer aide and Arcacenon gal), who discover the implications of the Second Foundation maneveuring, one of them is recruited, the other memory gets wiped and voila.. You get all the basic ingredients of a popcorn movie there.

[The Romulan Republic]

It "might" be possible to create a movie based on several aspects. For example, the rise of the priests for example.
It would require some changes in the story but an imminent invasion by Arcaneon, Salvor Hardin trip, the political backstabbing, the "hidden hand" of the Second Foundation(well, we know there were agents who started the whole revolution there in the first place), a fleet battle between rival elements of the Foundation, royalist and priestly fleets...... All of this would make a story that's screenable on the big screen and yet remain true to the spirit of the novel.

Where are you getting the idea that a science fiction film is required to have a bunch of big action scenes? Certainly it helps if your goal is to make a big summer blockbuster, but its in no way obligatory. See Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Star Trek the Motion Picture.

Also, you should keep in mind that both the first and second books already have a good bit of action and special effects scenes. Its only the third, by my recollections, that is really lacking in that sort of stuff. See Jade Owl's list from earlier in the thread:

Trantor. They’ll have to go all out to keep the average moviegoer from jumping to the conclusion that it’s a Coruscant knock-off (when in reality it’s the other way around)
The nuclear plant that malfunctioned and “blew up half a planet”.
The short war between the Four Kingdoms
The crown prince of Anacreon hunting that big ass bird on an air-speeder.
The darkening of Anacreon, when Hardin has the techno-priests shut down the entire planet to prove a point.
Ditto for the shutting down of the repaired imperial cruiser on its way to Terminus.
The “war” with Korell.
Mallow's little trip to Siwenna and the visit to the power plant there.

For Foundation and Empire add:

Bel Riose's war with the Foundation, and The Mule's conquests. Includes space battles.

The ruins of Trantor, and prior to that the bombardment of Trantor. Occurs in between chapters in the book, but I doubt it would be too big a revision to include it in a flashback or something.

Add in a romantic second tier characters(say, Foundationeer aide and Arcacenon gal), who discover the implications of the Second Foundation maneveuring, one of them is recruited, the other memory gets wiped and voila.. You get all the basic ingredients of a popcorn movie there.

Yes, you could turn Foundation into a Hollywood action film. However, there is no reason a more faithful adaptation would have to fail.

[ThomasP]

I always thought that the story about the Foundation trade-fleets (from F&E I believe, the one I'm thinking of is where one of the traders and another guy travel to Trantor and somewhere along the way an Imperial bureaucrat of some sort is blown away by a blaster), and then the travelings of the Mule and the Darrells on their way to burned-out Trantor would make for something interesting enough for a movie.

[The Romulan Republic]

I always thought that the story about the Foundation trade-fleets (from F&E I believe, the one I'm thinking of is where one of the traders and another guy travel to Trantor and somewhere along the way an Imperial bureaucrat of some sort is blown away by a blaster), and then the travelings of the Mule and the Darrells on their way to burned-out Trantor would make for something interesting enough for a movie.

The Mule's part of the story is the one which, I think, lends itself most readily to a conventional Hollywood adaptation.

[Batman]

See Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Star Trek the Motion Picture.

2001 and TMP were also BORING AS HELL. There's a REASON TMP is known as 'The Motionless Picture'.

[The Romulan Republic]

2001 and TMP were also BORING AS HELL. There's a REASON TMP is known as 'The Motionless Picture'.

TMP I'll grant you, but I personally like 2001. Its also considered something of a classic, I believe.

I'll throw in Blade Runner as a possible example as well. By my recollection, it has a few short action scenes and a lot of talk interspersed with big landscape shots.

[Batman]

2001 and TMP were also BORING AS HELL. There's a REASON TMP is known as 'The Motionless Picture'.

TMP I'll grant you, but I personally like 2001. Its also considered something of a classic, I believe.

A lot of movies from the first half of the 20th Century are considered classics by some faction or other. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of them stink.And frankly TMP had a lot MORE action than 2001.

[Bakustra]

2001 and TMP were also BORING AS HELL. There's a REASON TMP is known as 'The Motionless Picture'.

TMP I'll grant you, but I personally like 2001. Its also considered something of a classic, I believe.

A lot of movies from the first half of the 20th Century are considered classics by some faction or other. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of them stink.And frankly TMP had a lot MORE action than 2001.

2001 is still a fairly popular movie and a critical darling. The point is that you don't need lots of action sequences to make a sci-fi movie. After all, there are a great many movies that succeed without action sequences, such as dramas and comedies. Foundation could easily be successful and faithful to the original book if it takes its cues from historical dramas rather than from action films.

[Batman]

Vee. And here I thought I ALREADY STATED I think that Foundation would work better as a pseudodocumentary

[PainRack]

Where are you getting the idea that a science fiction film is required to have a bunch of big action scenes? Certainly it helps if your goal is to make a big summer blockbuster, but its in no way obligatory. See Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Star Trek the Motion Picture.

Science fic, sure. But a movie for the general audience, popcorn and etc? Come on, the formula is standard. Action, some romantic tension, heroes and bad guys.

Also, you should keep in mind that both the first and second books already have a good bit of action and special effects scenes. Its only the third, by my recollections, that is really lacking in that sort of stuff. See Jade Owl's list from earlier in the thread:

Not really. The third book also has its fair share of "actionable" scenes, adaptable for tv. A bit of exaggeration would be all that's neccesary to make the girl escape, the resulting capture of the 2nd Foundation and "torture" scenes good enough for the big screen. No starship porn sure, but then again, movie producers would like that.

Yes, you could turn Foundation into a Hollywood action film. However, there is no reason a more faithful adaptation would have to fail.

Look at the director. Do you seriously think you're going to get a true science fiction movie?

[The Romulan Republic]

Science fic, sure. But a movie for the general audience, popcorn and etc? Come on, the formula is standard. Action, some romantic tension, heroes and bad guys.

Just because there's a formula doesn't mean everyone has to follow it, or that success is impossible outside it. Personally, I'd like to see more films that don't follow the formula. And there are examples of reasonably successful films that don't neatly fit into the above formula.

That said, Foundation isn't even as far outside the formula as you seem to think.

Not really. The third book also has its fair share of "actionable" scenes, adaptable for tv. A bit of exaggeration would be all that's neccesary to make the girl escape, the resulting capture of the 2nd Foundation and "torture" scenes good enough for the big screen. No starship porn sure, but then again, movie producers would like that.

No big CGI action sequences though. No space battles, orbital bombardment, etc. Let's just say it doesn't exactly end the series with a bang.

Look at the director. Do you seriously think you're going to get a true science fiction movie?

Note: I don't nessissarily think that an action-oriented film cannot be "a true science fiction movie." Also, a film can fall in multiple genres. I consider Terminator, for example, to be a fine sci-fi film, as well as a fine action film and a fine horror film.

Do I think a Foundation film by Emmerich is likely to be a complex, thoughtful drama? No. Then again, I would draw attention to this, from earlier in the thread:

To be fair, Emmerich said that after 2012 he's done with disaster films and can't stand them anymore, for the reason that is painfully obvious in this thread: no one thinks he can or will do anything else. Whether he sticks to it is, of course, up in the air, but I'd give him some benefit of the doubt.

I'll give him a chance to prove everyone's assumptions wrong before I leap to conclusions.

[Marcus Aurelius]

To be fair, Emmerich said that after 2012 he's done with disaster films and can't stand them anymore, for the reason that is painfully obvious in this thread: no one thinks he can or will do anything else. Whether he sticks to it is, of course, up in the air, but I'd give him some benefit of the doubt.

I'll give him a chance to prove everyone's assumptions wrong before I leap to conclusions.

Emmerich has also tried the historical movie genre (The Patriot) and it sucked pretty bad. Stargate goes straight ito the scifi genre rather than disaster genre and I can't think of any better example of "wasted opportunities" than the second half of Stargate when it turns into a formulaic action with mediocre direction. It was written by Emmerich as well, so that tells us something more. His only movie I kind of like is the ID4 and that's only because it has a very campy tongue-in-cheek feeling to it, especially towards the end.