Foundation
-
@george-k said in Foundation:
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
Oh flipping heck, it's on Apple TV, what a PITA. I really can't justify another subscription.
I think you can get a free 6-month trial.
I'll need to time that carefully
@doctor-phibes I was wrong.
It's only 7 day free trial. But if you
get a Macpurchase a qualifying Apple device, you get one year - free. -
September 24th.
Link to video -
I re-read it about 5 years ago.
This makes me want to revisit.
The interesting question is this: Should I read in order of publication, or in order of the story?
Having read through Alastair Reynolds' "Revelation Space" universe this summer in order of story, I think that might be a better option.
Chronological: Prelude to Foundation (1988)
Forward the Foundation (1993)
Foundation (1951)
Foundation and Empire (1952)
Second Foundation (1953)
Foundation's Edge (1982)
Foundation and Earth (1986) -
I re-read it about 5 years ago.
This makes me want to revisit.
The interesting question is this: Should I read in order of publication, or in order of the story?
Having read through Alastair Reynolds' "Revelation Space" universe this summer in order of story, I think that might be a better option.
Chronological: Prelude to Foundation (1988)
Forward the Foundation (1993)
Foundation (1951)
Foundation and Empire (1952)
Second Foundation (1953)
Foundation's Edge (1982)
Foundation and Earth (1986)@george-k said in Foundation:
The interesting question is this: Should I read in order of publication, or in order of the story?
I would always read in order of publication. There's a few gotcha's in there - particularly the tie-in with R. Daneel from the robot stories, which clearly Asimov hadn't thought about when he started the books.
-
@george-k said in Foundation:
The interesting question is this: Should I read in order of publication, or in order of the story?
I would always read in order of publication. There's a few gotcha's in there - particularly the tie-in with R. Daneel from the robot stories, which clearly Asimov hadn't thought about when he started the books.
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
I would always read in order of publication.
Yeah, I get it.
Speaking from my "Revelation Space" experience, however, I'd disagree. There are SO many ideas that are talked about in the first-published books that make no sense, other than in a vague deus ex machina sense.
Reading them in chronological order was a better experience for me. -
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
I would always read in order of publication.
Yeah, I get it.
Speaking from my "Revelation Space" experience, however, I'd disagree. There are SO many ideas that are talked about in the first-published books that make no sense, other than in a vague deus ex machina sense.
Reading them in chronological order was a better experience for me.@george-k said in Foundation:
Speaking from my "Revelation Space" experience, however, I'd disagree. There are SO many ideas that are talked about in the first-published books that make no sense, other than in a vague deus ex machina sense.
Reading them in chronological order was a better experience for me.Alastair Reynolds isn't Isaac Asimov. I suspect he put a lot more planning into the series. Foundation was supposed to be a trilogy, not the ever expanding series it became.
-
@george-k said in Foundation:
Speaking from my "Revelation Space" experience, however, I'd disagree. There are SO many ideas that are talked about in the first-published books that make no sense, other than in a vague deus ex machina sense.
Reading them in chronological order was a better experience for me.Alastair Reynolds isn't Isaac Asimov. I suspect he put a lot more planning into the series. Foundation was supposed to be a trilogy, not the ever expanding series it became.
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
Alastair Reynolds isn't Isaac Asimov.
Indeed. Very different.
But I love Reynolds.
Have you read his stuff?
-
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
Alastair Reynolds isn't Isaac Asimov.
Indeed. Very different.
But I love Reynolds.
Have you read his stuff?
@george-k said in Foundation:
@doctor-phibes said in Foundation:
Alastair Reynolds isn't Isaac Asimov.
Indeed. Very different.
But I love Reynolds.
Have you read his stuff?
No, but he's on my to-do list. I'm working my way through the Expanse series at the moment, rather slowly I'm afraid.
-
@george-k said in Foundation:
First two episodes aired last night. Has anyone watched?
Watching tonight.
-
Thoughts?
I'm finding it, though engaging, "different." High production values, beautifully filmed.
But...
It just doesn't FEEL like Asimov's book(s). The series takes the concept of psychohistory and uses that as a springboard to tell a somewhat related story.
-
This is Apple TV? I will have to watch it on my phone...
-
I’m first half hour into the first episode.
Please tell me it gets better.
Seems too contrived. Almost cartoonish.
-
I’m first half hour into the first episode.
Please tell me it gets better.
Seems too contrived. Almost cartoonish.
-
A beautiful mess: Foundation is indeed a grand and sweeping epic, but so too is a tidal wave that leaves nothing but incomprehension in its wake.
Frustrating Foundation: Apple’s Foundation patches together a dizzying number of characters, ideas and threads of backstory from throughout Asimov’s books, plus plenty of new additions from executive producer and showrunner David S. Goyer (Batman Begins), to create a frustratingly convoluted opening hour...
Indeed, for the uninitiated, early episodes of Foundation can be a chore to get through, let alone understand. (Be prepared to replay scenes in order to catch snatches of rushed, whispery or conceptually opaque dialogue.) Which is a particular shame considering how beautiful every single frame looks.
Beautiful, but: Across the full 10-episode season, no hour of Foundation passed without multiple breathtaking compositions or pieces of well-considered visual world-building. Still, I needed more mind games and machinations, fewer literal tapestries and more tapestries of woven galactic history. The show provokes myriad instances of technical appreciation, yet rarely finds a way to be truly provocative.
