WWTBAM Bored

Doesn't say if that going to be a trilogy or not.

That's either going to be nothing like the source material or the most boring movie ever not directed by Andy Warhol.

Bob Juch wrote:Doesn't say if that going to be a trilogy or not.

I'll go back and re-read, just like I did for the Ring Trilogy.

I'll get to HPB sometime in June, plenty of time for a July release.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Doesn't say if that going to be a trilogy or not.

I'll go back and re-read, just like I did for the Ring Trilogy.

I'll get to HPB sometime in June, plenty of time for a July release.

By the time Asimov died, Foundation was much more than a trilogy. I think he got it up to six or seven books. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Doesn't say if that going to be a trilogy or not.

I'll go back and re-read, just like I did for the Ring Trilogy.

I'll get to HPB sometime in June, plenty of time for a July release.

By the time Asimov died, Foundation was much more than a trilogy. I think he got it up to six or seven books. --Bob

Actually, others wrote the prequel trilogy, with permission from Asimov's widow. He had written a fourth book, though, in the later years when he was trying to tie together all his major series in the manner of Heinlein and Lazarus Long. I believe the robot Daneel was the linking factor, but my memory may be mistaken.

I've liked Emmerich's stuff more than most people. And the trailers for 2012 look intriguing.

One safe bet is that there's going to be a heck of a lot of CGI effects in this.

gsabc wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: I'll go back and re-read, just like I did for the Ring Trilogy.

I'll get to HPB sometime in June, plenty of time for a July release.

By the time Asimov died, Foundation was much more than a trilogy. I think he got it up to six or seven books. --Bob

Actually, others wrote the prequel trilogy, with permission from Asimov's widow. He had written a fourth book, though, in the later years when he was trying to tie together all his major series in the manner of Heinlein and Lazarus Long. I believe the robot Daneel was the linking factor, but my memory may be mistaken.

I'm not talking about the prequel trilogy, which I've never read. I'm talking about Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth, Forward the Foundation, and Prelude to Foundation, all of which were written by Asimov himself.

Foundation's Edge actually had a very nice premise. Someone on the Second Foundation realized the Seldon's Plan was operating too smoothly. He (our protagonist) hypothesizes that an unknown force was guiding the Plan, just as the Second Foundation guided the Plan unbeknownst the the First Foundation. The book (and the two that followed) are about his attempt to test his premise. --Bob

I think Robots and Empire is the book that linked his Olivaw series to the Foundation series, and Olivaw makes an eventual appearance in the Foundation series. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: I'm talking about Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth, Forward the Foundation, and Prelude to Foundation, all of which were written by Asimov himself.

That is four.

The six or seven you referred to earlier is why the prequel was mentioned.

Um, Skoop.

The four he named were the sequels to the original Foundation trilogy: Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation.

In addition, Asimov tied the Foundation idea to several of his other stories, including the Empire series and, as has been pointed out, the Robots series.

mrkelley23 wrote:Um, Skoop.

The four he named were the sequels to the original Foundation trilogy: Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation.

In addition, Asimov tied the Foundation idea to several of his other stories, including the Empire series and, as has been pointed out, the Robots series.

I have never read any of them so I should not have posted anyway. I thought someone was being corrected unfairly but it seems not.

Thanks for the clarification.

Oh God- that movie will be as boring as hell.

I shudder when people try to make movies out of such source material.

Jeemie wrote:Oh God- that movie will be as boring as hell.

I shudder when people try to make movies out of such source material.

Don't worry. It'll have as much resemblance to the original novels as the "I, Robot" movie had to its source material. The names remain the same, but the plot has been changed to protect the public from actually having to think about the subject matter.

gsabc wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Oh God- that movie will be as boring as hell.

I shudder when people try to make movies out of such source material.

Don't worry. It'll have as much resemblance to the original novels as the "I, Robot" movie had to its source material. The names remain the same, but the plot has been changed to protect the public from actually having to think about the subject matter.

Asimov was a good science fiction writer, but his material would never have translated to the big screen - Harlan Ellison attempted to do it with "I, Robot" but that screenplay was never picked up. Then Hollywood tried to make movies out of "I, Robot" and "The Bicentennial Man", with mixed success. Had the movie version of "I, Robot" been titled something else, it would have been accepted more among Asimov fans - IMO it was a good movie in and of itself, dealing with the issue of what Asimov himself called the "Zeroth Law". That "Zeroth Law" was hinted at in a short story with a somewhat disturbing ending (as Asimov robot stories went) that had a robot developing the same line of reasoning as VIKI in the movie. As for "The Bicentennial Man" it was a travesty.

The problem with making the Foundation series into a movie (or series of movies) is that it is much more of a "think piece" than an action flick. Emmerich may be able to pull it off, but I have my doubts.

This guy isn't very happy with the choice of director:

http://newsinfilm.com/?p=8061

earendel wrote:Asimov was a good science fiction writer, but his material would never have translated to the big screen - Harlan Ellison attempted to do it with "I, Robot" but that screenplay was never picked up.

More's the pity. Ellison published it, with Asimov's blessing, and it would have made a terrific movie. Ellison being the cantankerous mongoose that he is, though, no studio would have anything to do with it or him.

Had the movie version of "I, Robot" been titled something else, it would have been accepted more among Asimov fans - IMO it was a good movie in and of itself,

Agreed. But since it was titled and advertised as a movie adaptation of the stories, it was nothing like its source and sucked accordingly.

The problem with making the Foundation series into a movie (or series of movies) is that it is much more of a "think piece" than an action flick. Emmerich may be able to pull it off, but I have my doubts.

A science fiction movie that makes us think, and doesn't just bludgeon us mercilessly with obvious statements of morality since the viewing audience is considered to be too stupid to understand metaphor?? In this day and age of cgi and Industrial Light and Magic, Inc.?? Surely you jest.

gsabc wrote:

earendel wrote:Asimov was a good science fiction writer, but his material would never have translated to the big screen - Harlan Ellison attempted to do it with "I, Robot" but that screenplay was never picked up.

More's the pity. Ellison published it, with Asimov's blessing, and it would have made a terrific movie. Ellison being the cantankerous mongoose that he is, though, no studio would have anything to do with it or him.

Harlan was a cantankerous mongoose, but has mellowed a lot. I spent many hours in his house in 1987 and 2002/3. Just don't start an argument with him unless you have everything to back up your side.

gsabc wrote: A science fiction movie that makes us think, and doesn't just bludgeon us mercilessly with obvious statements of morality since the viewing audience is considered to be too stupid to understand metaphor?? In this day and age of cgi and Industrial Light and Magic, Inc.?? Surely you jest.

Emmerich hasn't yet met a CGI effect he hasn't liked, so I doubt he's the director to give you a lot of subtlety.

Still he'd have to go a long ways to make something worse than Nightfall, which totally trashed the story and also inflicted David Birney as a leading man on the two or three people actually dumb enough to see the movie (present company included).

silverscreenselect wrote:

gsabc wrote: A science fiction movie that makes us think, and doesn't just bludgeon us mercilessly with obvious statements of morality since the viewing audience is considered to be too stupid to understand metaphor?? In this day and age of cgi and Industrial Light and Magic, Inc.?? Surely you jest.

Emmerich hasn't yet met a CGI effect he hasn't liked, so I doubt he's the director to give you a lot of subtlety.

Still he'd have to go a long ways to make something worse than Nightfall, which totally trashed the story and also inflicted David Birney as a leading man on the two or three people actually dumb enough to see the movie (present company included).

The Gwyneth Gibby version made in 2000 is worse!