Foundation
-
@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.
-
-
Episode 6...
Yeah, it was an interesting story.
But, like so much of the series, it has little to do with Asimov's vision of "The Foundation" other than the faithfulness to the idea of Hari Seldon's goal of saving humanity.
If you've never read the books, it would be an above-average sci-fi tale. Perhaps even enjoyable.
But, I'm disappointed. Too many irrelevant shoot-em-ups. Too many characters that were not in the books.
I'll keep watching, but every episode verifies the idea that "Foundation" can never, ever, be made into a movie or a series. It's too dense, too complex, and there are too many interwoven stories.
I think "Dune" would be easier, LOL.
