Foundation.
Say that to even a casual sci-fi reader and they'll very likely say, "Oh, yeah! Isaac Asimov!" Yeah, you know what I'm talking about, don't ya? To those of you who have never read The Foundation Series, I'm not even going to try to sum up the story in a few lines... or even a few paragraphs. If you've never read it, you won't appreciate the incredible scale of the story, time frame or setting.

I've been a big fan of the original trilogy and despite what many have said about Asimov's later tales (after an absence of 3 decades between his writing the last of the original trilogy and picking it up again), I like his newer Foundation stories just as much.

Anyway, as many times as I've read the stories, I'd never even considered the possibility that someone would have the *(a sufficient word fails me here)* to attempt to film the works, but GUESS WHAT?? (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47372)

Yeah. Hollywood is going to try.
ahem...
I feel compelled to say that I'm not at all optimistic that the film will do the printed work justice. The four other attempts to put Asimov on film have all failed to one degree or another. They range from the appallingly bad (both attempts to put NIGHTFALL on film), to pretty damn bad (I, ROBOT anyone?) to almost pretty good (BICENTENNIAL MAN).

I say if (and it's a big IF indeed) the filmmakers approach the Foundation stories with the same passion that Peter Jackson did when he took on the formidable job of LOTR, then a Foundation film could be spectacular. I'm afraid, though, that it'll be just another CGI-fest with nothing but barely-grown-up-Disney channel rejects who can't act their way out of a wet paper bag with a broadsword, a script that might appeal to a gifted 5 year old on a good day and a score lifted from MTV's top ten playlist.

Think 'Starship Troopers'.:yuck:

Oh well...

Well... One of fav's, too.

It took them about eight tries to get the "Lord of the Rings" movied decently. Perhaps, with the FX technology the way it is - this one will work (assuming the actors/direction are decent and the story told with substance). I hope they do not try to cram everything into one movie because THAT would be an artistic failure unless it was about eight hours long - which would, in turn, be a commercial failure.

Maybe it will be more like "The Propet of Dune" movie? That was good but made no sense to anyone unless they'd read the book. Oh - I mean "Dune" -it was only called "The Prophet of Dune" in the original Analog serialized version back in 1965 (which, by the way, I still have). Perhaps worth reading again in these "spice" focused times.

DH

Think 'Starship Troopers'.:yuck:

Oh well...

Starship Troopers wasn't Asimov; it was Heinlein.

I'll be frank: Try as I might, I've never liked Heinlein's work. I read ST and saw the film and didn't like either version (although the film tracked the book fairly well so far as I remembered the book - it had been quite a number of years between reading and seeing).
TROOPERS was a straightforward war story. Written as it was in the late 50's with the Korean War still fresh in people's memory (and WWII as well for that matter), it was pretty much a thinly-veiled allegory of both/either war dressed in sci-fi trappings.

Starship Troopers wasn't Asimov; it was Heinlein.I don't recall saying otherwise.I'll be frank: Try as I might, I've never liked Heinlein's work.OK...If we're playing 'Dueling Dead Sci-Fi Writers', I don't care much for Azimov. I read ST and saw the film and didn't like either version (although the film tracked the book fairly well so far as I remembered the book - it had been quite a number of years between reading and seeing).
TROOPERS was a straightforward war story. Written as it was in the late 50's with the Korean War still fresh in people's memory (and WWII as well for that matter), it was pretty much a thinly-veiled allegory of both/either war dressed in sci-fi trappings.Then you missed the point of the book (the movie had no point, other than a feeble attempt at entertainment. It certainly didn't incorporate the ideas RAH was trying to convey in the book). The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) is pretty well done.

MY point was that it might end up being another crappy film adapted from a classic Sci-Fi book, with my case-in-point being Starship Troopers.

I agree with you 100% that if Foundation is treated as hamhandedly as ST was, it would be a poor film. Also, sorry about misunderstanding your statement about ST the film.

I say if (and it's a big IF indeed) the filmmakers approach the Foundation stories with the same passion that Peter Jackson did when he took on the formidable job of LOTR, then a Foundation film could be spectacular.

I'm afraid, though, that it'll be just another CGI-fest with nothing but barely-grown-up-Disney channel rejects who can't act their way out of a wet paper bag with a broadsword, a script that might appeal to a gifted 5 year old on a good day and a score lifted from MTV's top ten playlist.

Well, New Line is the house that did LOTR so that is good news right there. Although not Tolkein verbatim, it is tough to uncover anyone who didn't find Jackson's rendition of the books well freakin' done. As far as Foundation being merely a CGI-fest, the original story line would have to be changed substantially to do that wouldn't it? CGI in LOTR advanced the story line and was not the main focus, the actors took care of that. It's been a long time since I re-read the trilogy (you surely don't read it just once) but my recollection was that it was anything but a space opera. Sure, there is spaceflight, engagements with The Mule, & atomic sidearms & personal shields but those things are only to set the tone which is really just straight-up psychological drama.

This project will succeed or fail by who helms it and will almost certainly follow recent trends in the fantasy & sci-fi action film realm. Characters are required to have depth, actors are required to act, and tight direction binds it all together. LOTR certainly hits that out of the park but so does Ironman and absolutely does the latest Batman. Have faith until we see who is tasked to direct.

(the movie had no point, other than a feeble attempt at entertainment. It certainly didn't incorporate the ideas RAH was trying to convey in the book).


Starship Troopers definitely gets polar opposite reactions that is for sure. Personally I like it and feel that Verhoeven did a masterful job. It doesn't follow exactly but it does track much of the book. The opening scenes where citizenship & voting discussed are pretty much as Heinlein wrote them.

As in Robocop, Verhoeven portrays characters over the top as caricatures and laces a good deal of present tense social commentary throughout. When ST came out the internet was just starting to hit overdrive with 24/7 info & news access and much of the vignettes reflect that, "Would you like to know more?". Same for Robocop and lurid cable TV shows & the decline of classic network offerings, "I'll buy that for a dollar." and so on. I would surely like to see Verhoeven do more sci-fi in this vein. I believe he nails the present era quite nicely in his films.

Well, New Line is the house that did LOTR so that is good news right there. Although not Tolkein verbatim, it is tough to uncover anyone who didn't find Jackson's rendition of the books well freakin' done. As far as Foundation being merely a CGI-fest, the original story line would have to be changed substantially to do that wouldn't it? CGI in LOTR advanced the story line and was not the main focus, the actors took care of that. It's been a long time since I re-read the trilogy (you surely don't read it just once) but my recollection was that it was anything but a space opera. Sure, there is spaceflight, engagements with The Mule, & atomic sidearms & personal shields but those things are only to set the tone which is really just straight-up psychological drama.

This project will succeed or fail by who helms it and will almost certainly follow recent trends in the fantasy & sci-fi action film realm. Characters are required to have depth, actors are required to act, and tight direction binds it all together. LOTR certainly hits that out of the park but so does Ironman and absolutely does the latest Batman. Have faith until we see who is tasked to direct.

You are almost 100% correct. Allow me to add this: No matter how brilliant the director is, he is ultimately limited by the actual written material he has to work with. I'm not referring to the source material, I mean the script. The screenplay. That must be forged with the utmost care for the final product to do the source material justice.

Back in about 2001, I learned that Morgan Freeman had bought the film rights for my personal favorite A.C. Clarke book: RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA. For years I went to IMDB and indeed scoured the WWW for any word on the status of this upcoming film. My latest research (disappointing as it is) states that the film version of RWR has been dropped due to the continued lack of an acceptable script. As unhappy as it makes me that RWR might never see a screen treatment, I'm glad that the powers that be chose not to do it at all rather than crank out an inferior product.

The screenplay.

Grievous omission on my part, right on the money for yours.

:thmbsp:

A LOT has to be done right, in order to do justice to a huge film project like the Foundation series.

First, it must be divided into enough instalments (trilogy?) to at least do minimal justice to the story line(s).

Then, it must have a well-written script and well-conceived design, to capture the original writing accurately enough.

Third, it must have someone (like Peter Jackson with LOTR) who CARES enough about the story to do it justice, AND who has the skills necessary to do it well.

There also has to be sufficient budget, combined with enough commitment and patience on the part of the producers and backers, to both see that it gets finished, and to allow enough time for it to be finished well, not overly rushed and compromised.

You need good actors, too.

You need to depend at least as much on realistic filming, good acting, and all the other things that used to make movies good, as on CGI effects. Effects cannot make up for a bad script or bad acting or bad sets, etc... Only within the last few years has CGI begun to reach a visually acceptable level, and it is very expensive to do it at that level. Little is worse than jarringly fake or poorly done CGI that reminds you "it's a movie" just at the critical moments. Hopefully this won't be an issue on a film this big, since the technology exists to do it well.

I'm encouraged by the fact that this project has been picked up by the same people who backed LOTR. At least they have the experience taking on a long and complex story and doing it justice. When it was first announced that Tolkein's trilogy was being put to film, I cringed in horror... but the result, I thought, was good; at least a lot better than I had expected it to be. Fingers crossed that this will be done with equal commitment, and come out as well. Fingers crossed, too, that they will make the same filming commitment to multiple films at once, as they did with LOTR. Trying to cram that whole narrative tapestry into a single 100-minute film would be a formula for failure.

I wish them luck, and genuinely hope they pull it off well; it sure would be nice to see a GREAT film job done of that story. As nice as it would be awful to see a typical Hollyweird hatchet job done on it.

Arkay, I totally agree with your assessment of the overuse of CGI (poorly done or not). There are far too many films out these days which are basically 100 minute demo reels of "look what we can do with CGI" with characters uttering words so poorly thought-out they make my backside pucker.

I still say that the screenplay and script is the most important element of a film. If one starts with an intelligent, well-written script, I'm willing to overlook less-than-perfect CGI.

I was literally wincing at the dialog in the new Star Wars prequel trilogy. I've never heard such rancid and unrealistic dialog. It was so bad (to me, anyway) that the 90 million dollars of amazing SFX just got boring and irritating and I honestly couldn't wait for it to end. In fact, just as the final credit rolled off the screen and the music faded out, (this was SW3, The Whimpering End) some wit somewhere in the theater said "HMMM! Sucked, that did! Hehe!" in a PERFECT Yoda voice. And THAT was the best part of sitting through that film.


Another multi million dollar disaster: Did anyone suffer... uhh I mean SEE Ultravomit...uhh, I mean, Ultraviolet? That one should have come with the warning, "Not for human consumption".

My 10 year old grandson thinks "Ultraviolet" is cool to look at but better with the sound off. To say that it's a stupid movie is an insult to stupid movies. It has a high position in my worst movies of all time list.

I'm a big fan of Mila Jovovich but I don't see how her career can stand many more stinkers like "Ultraviolet." She looks fantastic in a jumpsuit: the single plus that movie has. I thought "Elektra" was awful, and it is, but it looks Shakespearean in comparison to "Ultraviolet." "Ultravomit" indeed.

Yeah. Hollywood is going to try.
ahem...
I feel compelled to say that I'm not at all optimistic that the film will do the printed work justice. The four other attempts to put Asimov on film have all failed to one degree or another. They range from the appallingly bad (both attempts to put NIGHTFALL on film), to pretty damn bad (I, ROBOT anyone?) to almost pretty good (BICENTENNIAL MAN).




I am glad you mentioned "I, ROBOT". I read the books by Asimov and I enjoyed the movie. What about this movie did you not like?

Robert

Well...one of the primary things Asimov was trying to get away from when he began his robot stories was the "Frankenstein" concept of the robot ultimately being a mistake and the creator being forced to destroy his creation. It was the main reason he formulated the 3 laws. There was no "good robot/bad robot" element in his stories. In the stories no matter how "wrong" the robot's behavior seemed to be it could ultimately be explained by the robot attempting to apply the 3 laws to a difficult situation.

The "mainframe with an agenda" concept was torn straight out of D.F. Jones' COLOSSUS and duct taped to a few pieces of Asimov's story.

If I wanted to see as many commercials as there were crammed in that film (Audi, Converse, JVC, Dos Equis beer, Enigma ceiling fan), I'd just watch a couple hours' worth of any commercial TV channel.

Will Smith. He's wearing more than a little thin. Same personality, different script. How many films have you seen where he DIDN'T say. "awww, HELL nah..."?

I freely admit that the SFX were quite impressive, but without a really good story all I saw was another demo reel showing off gigabytes worth of great number crunching and paper thin everything else.

Well...one of the primary things Asimov was trying to get away from when he began his robot stories was the "Frankenstein" concept of the robot ultimately being a mistake and the creator being forced to destroy his creation. It was the main reason he formulated the 3 laws. There was no "good robot/bad robot" element in his stories. In the stories no matter how "wrong" the robot's behavior seemed to be it could ultimately be explained by the robot attempting to apply the 3 laws to a difficult situation.

Good points, but I guess Hollywood figures a movie without a villain, will not sell well.


The "mainframe with an agenda" concept was torn straight out of D.F. Jones' COLOSSUS and duct taped to a few pieces of Asimov's story.

I saw that movie. It was boring.


If I wanted to see as many commercials as there were crammed in that film (Audi, Converse, JVC, Dos Equis beer, Enigma ceiling fan), I'd just watch a couple hours' worth of any commercial TV channel.


The only two "logos" I saw was Audi and Converse. What I came with from that was that Spooner liked things from a past era, like the Converse High tops, real audio equip. and a gas powered motorcycle. It defined who he was.


He is similar to some here who have an obsession some have for vintage audio gear.


Will Smith. He's wearing more than a little thin. Same personality, different script. How many films have you seen where he DIDN'T say. "awww, HELL nah..."?

Oh you mean like DeNiro and Pacino? :D


I freely admit that the SFX were quite impressive, but without a really good story all I saw was another demo reel showing off gigabytes worth of great number crunching and paper thin everything else.

While it was not 100% faithful to Asimov, I thought the story was good. Remember, in "I Robot", the 3 laws were flawed and would lead to anarchy. That is an interesting twist to Asimov's story.

I was literally wincing at the dialog in the new Star Wars prequel trilogy.

There was a prequel trilogy?

I remember (1) awesome film in '77 and a pretty decent second installment in 1980. Somewhere in the mid 80's there was something proclaimed as the 3rd installement with a lot of muppets and dwarf actors clad in groundhog suits living in trees or something. There was a fight and someone was electrocuted with evil soul lightning. All I can recall.

:smoke:

My 10 year old grandson thinks "Ultraviolet" is cool to look at but better with the sound off.

Big fan of Ultraviolet. Until your post I didn't realize there was any dialogue.

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/S/J/8/ultraviolet01250602.jpg

Even with the sound ON, there wasn't any "dialogue"

I freely admit that the SFX were quite impressive, but without a really good story all I saw was another demo reel showing off gigabytes worth of great number crunching and paper thin everything else.

You could apply that statement to any number of films with SFX run amok!

I realize that this thread has veered WAY into OT but it is a good examination of what is so incredibly wrong with many recent films such as Spiderman 3, Indiana Jones & Crystal Skulliens, SW 1, 2, $ 3, etc. There was no plot, just a series of plot devices strung along to advance the CGI. My God Spielberg, you had John Hurt & all you had him do was drool on himself and babble incoherently! I mean really, how fucked up is that?

I do believe however that LOTR was a turning point and some paid attention to what more were looking for in a film. It even appeared to affect Michael Bay who turned out a great sci-fi (to me), 'The Island'. Maybe some in film land just get it, more are starting to, and others will continue to be punished at the box office? Let's hope so.

:tresbon:

Being a longtime SF fan, I think the common thread is that without budgetary pressure, SF movies usually stink. Think about it. The 1st Star Wars movie (1977) was a milestone in SF acheivement. Even though it was more fantasy than anything else, it set the bar VERY high for SF-type movies. I think this is because the budget was limited compared to what Lucas wanted to do, so the entire production team had to think their way around it. If you look at the really good SF movies, "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "Planet of the Apes", "Dark Star", "2001", and that ilk, they never had the money to do what they really wanted. Everything that came out with an adequate budget (all Star Wars movies beginning with Episode VI, Alien 3, I Robot, etc.) didn't have to be as creative, because the money was always there.

Perhaps there should be a $5 million cap on SF budgets from now on, and we might get some good movies again.

Or, I could be completely full of crap. It's what I do.

rooster.

Very unique and insightful post there, rooster! That may be the issue. The filmmakers just pour money on a project and lose sight of the fact that STORY is primary. That concept goes back to the original Star Trek TV series. Their budget was abysmal at best, yet look where the franchise is today.

One thing I think really added to the 1st Star Wars was, they used real models with real explosions.

I love the thought of Foundation and hope they do well. What I didn't like about I Robot was, they gunked it up with non-Asimov stuff. 'That is the question' - wonderful. Cocky attitude, not Asimov. Overall not a bad movie though IMO.

"RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" - one of my favorites from Clarke too.

Pete

I got a bad feeling about this.

[QUOTE=soundmotor;2196940]There was a prequel trilogy?

QUOTE]

I think Simon Pegg said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkCJDkG3fg

"FOUNDATION" is, imho, arguably the greatest work in all of science fiction. It would work better as a mini-series, preferably done by the British, than a movie. It's just too complicated a story and I would hate to see it bastardized and butchered like "Dune" was.

I really liked the "I, Robot" film. It was not good Asimov but it was a very good entertainment.

I would love to see a good miniseries done of the Philip Jose Farmer "Riverworld" series. The rights were bought up back in the 80s and there had been talk of something going but ..... doing that right could be even more difficult than doing justice to "Foundation."

I guess there is a "Rama" film in the works. I hope they do it justice!

"FOUNDATION" is, imho, arguably the greatest work in all of science fiction. It would work better as a mini-series, preferably done by the British, than a movie. It's just too complicated a story and I would hate to see it bastardized and butchered like "Dune" was.

I really liked the "I, Robot" film. It was not good Asimov but it was a very good entertainment.

I would love to see a good miniseries done of the Philip Jose Farmer "Riverworld" series. The rights were bought up back in the 80s and there had been talk of something going but ..... doing that right could be even more difficult than doing justice to "Foundation."

I guess there is a "Rama" film in the works. I hope they do it justice!

Already been done (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310952/) very poorly indeed, judging by the comments made by PJF fans who saw this.

As far as RWR being put on film, so far as I know that project is dead (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/13/david-finchers-rendezvous-with-rama-officially-dead/).:tears:

I had forgotten about that tv movie dreck. It was strictly a by-the-numbers cheapo production with very little in common with the books plots. "Riverworld" would make a great mini-series if the script followed Farmer's plotlines.

I hadn't seen that blurb about Rama being cancelled. I think it would make a great movie, in the right hands. If hacks are gonna work on it then I would rather it just die in development.

Kudos to Able for mentioning something I've been saying (and even yelling at the screen on occasion) for at least 10 years. Script, script, script!

It's not just Sci-Fi movies either, it's Hollywood film-making in general. There's such a focus on getting a product out there, that all thought of creating a story worth being told seems to go out the window. It's especially frustrating when the source material is so good, and the subsequent film so poor.

The Star Wars prequels have been mention several times in this conversation, and I can't stop myself from adding my own 2¢ to those comments. I had my doubts from the start that Lucas (who is famous for his poor directorial skills) would be able to create three films that would be even worthy shadows of "Episode III", but I had no idea that his attempts would be painful to watch. I came away feeling like I had just spent eight dollars to see a local theater production of Grandma Edna's very first play! Piss poor script, atrocious acting (often from normally talented actors), frequently poor casting choices, and CGI that distracted more than it ever added.

Honestly, I choose to think of Star Wars as a stand alone film, and forget that anything else was ever added to that story. I won't even watch the "enhanced" version.