Interesting extract from a longer /Film interview with in-demand director Roxann Dawson.

I appreciate how she speaks with respect for the shows of the new era.

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    from a not book reader (actually think I read them, but such a long time, I doubt you were even born yet), Foundation is Excellent fucking Science Fiction, and it’s too bad you can’t enjoy a production of this quality on this scale that just keeps getting incrementally better with every passing episode. it’s really good televison, and the best show on tv right now.

    • BrainisfineIthink@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve just started the show, and I feel like from the outset they made it clear that a LOT of the show is creative fiction to fill in the gaps. I feel like a lot of people forget just how short the original trilogy is. F, F&E and SF, collectively, are like an 8 hour read! I don’t love everything the show has done (and some of the acting is atrocious) but I love how they chose what boils down to allusions in the books and focused whole episodes on what that would’ve looked like in real time.

      I also really like how they are not afraid to completely abandon cliff hangers for several episodes at a time, while still keeping you invested in what’s happening. Asimov dwas notorious for that and did it SEVERAL times on the trilogy. Oh you wanna know what happens? Well I’ll tell you eventually, but first, here’s forty pages introducing brand new characters on a completely different planet…300 years in the future. Bitch.

        • BrainisfineIthink@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its kind of fucked either way. They’re too short but a lot happens because each book is broken into thirds that are separated by huge time gaps, and inside those thirds there are also time gaps. A movie, even a long one, would be incredibly disjointed and the pacing would feel bizarre.

          I imagine it’s probably why nobody has made it a series or movie before even though it’s such a beloved sci Fi series. You’d have to take a lot of creative liberties with it, which is for better or worse, what they’re doing.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I admit my views are coloured by my love of Asimov’s work, and their radical re-write has left a bad taste in my mouth. But when I analyse this show objectively I am left bewildered that anyone could call it “excellent fucking science fiction.”

      Most of the actors are TERRIBLE. It was like watching wooden planks act. Instead of developing the story in any meaningful way, the directors chose to focus on disparate and dream-like sequences which appear to have little connection to each other. Bizarre pacing. They took the expansive time gaps and somehow made them confusing and meaningless. The dialogue is atrocious. The CGI is laughable. The accents are ridiculous. This is science fiction of the worst kind.

      Lee Pace is the only reason I finished season one. Despite the horrific writing, he somehow pulls it off. The Expanse set the bar very high for sci-fi, but it showed us it can be done well. Foundation is fantasy in space. It’s Wheel of Time and Rings of Power in space bad.

      • Mina@swiss-talk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        @JasSmith

        As far as I see it: The series actually reverts the whole premise of Asimov’s vision, which is:

        The behaviour of large groups of people can be modelled statistically, whilst in the series, everything hinges on specific events and persons.

        If you want to film a long term epic tale about galactic civilisations, be my guest, but don’t call it “Foundation”.

        Note: As good as Asimov’s world building is, literarily, he’s only mediocre.

        @StillPaisleyCat @chemical_cutthroat @downpunxx

        • Mina@swiss-talk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @JasSmith

          Now that I pissed off as well the fans of the series, as the ones of Asimov, let me explain:

          Asimov set milestones for SF:

          His Laws of Robotics and Foundation are cornerstones of the genre.

          When I say: “His literature is mediocre” it’s because he is not truly interested in his characters. He has no love for them. His stories are ideas driven, not character driven.

          I’d still recommend him to anybody, even mildly interested in SF.

          @StillPaisleyCat @chemical_cutthroat @downpunxx

    • Kraivo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Asimov’s works are quite hard to adapt to movies or TV series, imo. If you have read him once, you probably know