Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made

In article <chenrich-6E5F55.11541630072008 DeleteThis @news.verizon.net>,
Christopher Henrich <chenrich DeleteThis @monmouth.com> wrote:

> In article <eaf0949nr6bug29lgik92v1tj9kq4mvfqr DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Jack Bohn <jackbohn DeleteThis @bright.net> wrote:
>
> > Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know if it's going to be unspeakably awful but I
> > >certainly expect it to be highly inadequate, at best a timid
> > >taster of the real thing. The only way to do justice to the
> > >Foundation series would be through a multi-episode
> > >animated series. I'm saying animated so that one can
> > >present on the screen anything they like without worrying
> > >about budget.
> >
> > Well, there's the problem. The Foundation Trilogy doesn't really
> > call for anything that would break a special effects budget. I
> > believe the only space battle described is just that... described
> > at a meeting, and then passed over with, "...and now to important
> > matters." Spending time showing the battle, or other big-screen
> > visuals just takes away from the more important matters.
> >
> "But we *want* to break the special-effects budget!"
>
> In Asimov's fiction, a lot of what happens consists of people sitting
> around a table talking. This can work fine in written fiction. But in a
> movie?

Actually, I don't think it works well in written fiction either.
Probably why I never got into Asimov.

>The movie makers will think, "Talking heads." And they will
> shudder. If[1] they do go ahead and make the movie , they will probably
> feel forced to improve it. Irreparably.
>
> [1] This is one hell of a big "if." Many ideas for movies are floated,
> and sink. People, sitting around a table and talking, decide to do
> something else.
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

"pullo" <pullo004 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6q3ds$ogi$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Bill Patterson" <WHPatterson RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c74edb69-02f2-45f2-90a1-236acfb07f34@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The problem seems to be that the "Hollywood" repertoire of motivations
>>and allowable dramatic situations seems stuck on a comic book level.
>>There is plenty of drama in the Foundation trilogy -- but it tends to
>>center on dilemmas rather than fistfights.
>
> I think the vignette with the courtroom scene where... was it Mallow?...
> is on trial for abandoning the supposed Foundation missionary is within
> Hollywood's abilities. They could treat it like an archetypal court case
> movie.

Here is my take on what the movies could look like:

Foundation: The Motion Picture

Prolog Trantor: 15 minutes

Meet Seldon.
Some scenes of Trantor.
Arrest and expulsion.

1st Crisis: Four Kingdoms: 25 minutes

Obviously mostly dialogue relating how the foundation has developed and it's
current crisis and how it is resolved with the climax of Seldon's first
holo-appearance.

2nd Crisis: Anacreon: 25 minutes

More dialogue driven plot with some visuals of fleets, especially the
refurbished Imperial Cruiser. The climax would be the riot that overthrows
Weinus.

3rd Crisis: Askone: 15 minutes

More or less just to move the plot development along. Foreshadowing of the
end of the religious aspect of the Foundation's control.

4th Crisis: Korell: 30 minutes

Basically a straight court room drama with an opening scene that appears to
show Mallow's obvious moral - if not legal - guilt. The climax would be his
legal victory and public acclaim with the denouement being his political
success and successful no-waging of the war.

At this point there is one movie worth of material. But for a grander
version the first half [Empire] could be included in a Lord of the Rings
length feature with the Mule half put into the second movie of a duology.
But I will continue as if it was a trilogy.

Foundation & Empire: The Empire & Mule Strike Back

Part 1: The General: 60 minutes

Mostly action. Lots of epic space battles. The ending of Rios being
recalled might seem to be anticlimactic but given it isn't the end it works
to set up the larger challenge of the Mule.

Part 2: The Mule: 60 minutes

More action with the nadir of the Foundation surprisingly crushed - well
surprising to the 6 viewers who haven't read the books. The flight of the
protagonist chased by the Mule can be done in an almost Terminator fashion
with the surprise [again to those 6 newbies] twist of who the Mule really
is.

This fits the template of a second movie in a trilogy in that it leaves the
protagonist at their worst seemingly utterly defeated.

Second Foundation: A New [Second] Hope:

Part 1: The Mule's Search: 50 minutes:

Similarly divided in to two parts, this would be more plot and dialogue
driven. It would be more of a Da Vinci Code puzzle and intrigue than
outright action. The 2nd Foundation would be cast as heroes though of
course in the next part that get turned on its head.

Part 2: The Foundation's Search. 70 minutes:

Still a puzzle & plot narrative but with a bit of action in the Kalgan
war. It would raise the question of who is "good" and who is "bad", freewill
and the morality of the Second Foundation and all that.

Anyways, that's my take. I doubt it will get made right but ya never know.
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:20:05 -0700 (PDT), ncwaite.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:

>On 30 Jul, 20:45, "Steven L." <sdlit....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> ncwa....DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > _Foundation_ doesn't strike me as having enough action to make a good
>> > film.  The first half of the trilogy [1] consists mainly of people
>> > talking to each other until historical inevitablility makes things
>> > come out in favour of the Foundation.  
>>
>> An interesting way to play it, would be as a futuristic political
>> thriller in the style of "Seven Days in May" or "All the President's
>> Men."  That is, a taut script focusing on intelligent intrigue and
>> suspenseful plotting.  Those two movies didn't have a lot of action
>> either, as you know.
>>
>
>No but they did have people uncovering facts or taking decisions that
>mattered. In _Foundation_ that is all irrelevant as events unfold due
>to Psychohistorical Inevitibility, not individual actions.
>
>Actually, _Foundation_ might be a politically difficult film to make.
>In the beginning, you have a small state that dominates its militarily
>stronger neighbours by religous means. Later on, you have a despotic
>state that is overthrown by a military force. A former officer of
>that despotic state then tries to assasinate the leader of the
>military force in a suicide bomb attack (using an atomic bomb, thus
>proving that they did have weapons of mass destruction).

Dude, it's easy to make a Foundation movie. Just do Foundation and
Empire. It has space battles, fist fights and daring escapes. None
of it matters, of course, but they only find out at the end.
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

In article <jv4394lcp2ghd7u9tbnsdfdl8eriknt277 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, Jack Bohn <jackbohn RemoveThis @bright.net> writes:
>Steven L. wrote:

>>The question is, would Hollywood producers make a SF movie (like
>>"Foundation") as a political thriller?
>>
>>The best political thriller SF movie I ever saw was "The Day the Earth
>>Caught Fire." But that wasn't an American movie.
>
>Dr. Strangelove?

That wasn't an American movie, either.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

On 30 Jul., 12:17, Jack Bohn <jackb... DeleteThis @bright.net> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> >I don't know if it's going to be unspeakably awful but I
> >certainly expect it to be highly inadequate, at best a timid
> >taster of the real thing. The only way to do justice to the
> >Foundation series would be through a multi-episode
> >animated series. I'm saying animated so that one can
> >present on the screen anything they like without worrying
> >about budget.
>
> Well, there's the problem. The Foundation Trilogy doesn't really
> call for anything that would break a special effects budget. I
> believe the only space battle described is just that... described
> at a meeting, and then passed over with, "...and now to important
> matters." Spending time showing the battle, or other big-screen
> visuals just takes away from the more important matters.

Well, sci-fi movies tend to have big budgets, and this is, after all,
supposed to take place in a Galactic Empire with 25 million inhabited
worlds! I'm pretty sure that they want this to be a large-scale
commercial franchise - another Star Wars -, so I would be very
surprised if the budget for the first one is less than 100 million
dollars. This means that they would certainly insert a lot of action
into it, and probably, as they always do, change the story somewhat.
The thing is that the books don't really describe the visual look of
the future, so the filmmakers have pretty free hands on that score. If
they are imaginativ enough, they could certainly do something really
cool. And just being set in a cool place could make the dialog and
storyline a lot more cinematic.

> (Disclaimer: I thought the last line of the "Nightfall" movie
> went a long way to redeeming that dud.)

The 1988 or 2000 version? (The former is by far the best, but it's not
out on DVD. Both are pretty damn bad, though, and have very little to
do with the original story.)

- Tue
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

On 31 Jul., 14:30, "pullo" <pullo... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> "pullo" <pullo... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g6q3ds$ogi$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>
> > "Bill Patterson" <WHPatter... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c74edb69-02f2-45f2-90a1-236acfb07f34@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>The problem seems to be that the "Hollywood" repertoire of motivations
> >>and allowable dramatic situations seems stuck on a comic book level.
> >>There is plenty of drama in the Foundation trilogy -- but it tends to
> >>center on dilemmas rather than fistfights.
>
> > I think the vignette with the courtroom scene where... was it Mallow?...
> > is on trial for abandoning the supposed Foundation missionary is within
> > Hollywood's abilities. They could treat it like an archetypal court case
> > movie.
>
> Here is my take on what the movies could look like:
>
> Foundation: The Motion Picture
>
> Prolog Trantor: 15 minutes
>
> Meet Seldon.
> Some scenes of Trantor.
> Arrest and expulsion.
>
> 1st Crisis: Four Kingdoms: 25 minutes
>
> Obviously mostly dialogue relating how the foundation has developed and it's
> current crisis and how it is resolved with the climax of Seldon's first
> holo-appearance.
>
> 2nd Crisis: Anacreon: 25 minutes
>
> More dialogue driven plot with some visuals of fleets, especially the
> refurbished Imperial Cruiser. The climax would be the riot that overthrows
> Weinus.
>
> 3rd Crisis: Askone: 15 minutes
>
> More or less just to move the plot development along. Foreshadowing of the
> end of the religious aspect of the Foundation's control.
>
> 4th Crisis: Korell: 30 minutes
>
> Basically a straight court room drama with an opening scene that appears to
> show Mallow's obvious moral - if not legal - guilt. The climax would be his
> legal victory and public acclaim with the denouement being his political
> success and successful no-waging of the war.
>
> At this point there is one movie worth of material. But for a grander
> version the first half [Empire] could be included in a Lord of the Rings
> length feature with the Mule half put into the second movie of a duology.
> But I will continue as if it was a trilogy.
>
> Foundation & Empire: The Empire & Mule Strike Back
>
> Part 1: The General: 60 minutes
>
> Mostly action. Lots of epic space battles. The ending of Rios being
> recalled might seem to be anticlimactic but given it isn't the end it works
> to set up the larger challenge of the Mule.
>
> Part 2: The Mule: 60 minutes
>
> More action with the nadir of the Foundation surprisingly crushed - well
> surprising to the 6 viewers who haven't read the books. The flight of the
> protagonist chased by the Mule can be done in an almost Terminator fashion
> with the surprise [again to those 6 newbies] twist of who the Mule really
> is.
>
> This fits the template of a second movie in a trilogy in that it leaves the
> protagonist at their worst seemingly utterly defeated.
>
> Second Foundation: A New [Second] Hope:
>
> Part 1: The Mule's Search: 50 minutes:
>
> Similarly divided in to two parts, this would be more plot and dialogue
> driven. It would be more of a Da Vinci Code puzzle and intrigue than
> outright action. The 2nd Foundation would be cast as heroes though of
> course in the next part that get turned on its head.
>
> Part 2: The Foundation's Search. 70 minutes:
>
> Still a puzzle & plot narrative but with a bit of action in the Kalgan
> war. It would raise the question of who is "good" and who is "bad", freewill
> and the morality of the Second Foundation and all that.
>
> Anyways, that's my take. I doubt it will get made right but ya never know.

They probably won't include as much of the books as that. They
probably need name actors to star, so I doubt they will be time-
hopping the way the books do from the beginning. But we can hope.

What do you mean "the 6 people who haven't read the books"? Lots of
people, incl. SF fans, haven't read the books! I am chairman of a
small science fiction fandom society (just under 100 members, many
pretty hardcore), and while a good many (but by no means all) of us
have *read* the books once, there are only two or three of us who
consider them personal favorites. Among ordinary people at large, who
might go to see the movie, there would only be a tiny fraction who had
read the books. Most people would probably hear of them for the first
time in connection with the movie. The Foundation books, to the best
of my knowledge, are nowhere near as popular as for instance the Lord
of the Rings books.

- Tue
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

Why all the negativity, it could be good! These guys got the LOTR
movies made, and while hardly flawless, they were at least adequate.

I'd say the Foundation texts will need some spiffing up, to make a
modern movie. Risk, yes, but I think the basic story lines are there,
it's very episodic, the original texts are pretty good script outlines
(yeah, I know, same could be said of "I, Robot", but that never had
any narrative arc, Foundation does)

All three books are political, but also apolitical, good solid tech
weinie libertarian as much as anything.

This can be done in meat-grinder fashion, just take the CSI tv
outlines, add the Foundation story lines and characters, film for two
hours per episode, and serve hot. A weird idea for Hollywood - let
the book's themes carry the weight! They did let this happen for
LOTR, just barely, but enough.

Positively,
J.


On 30 Jul 2008 00:19:55 -0400, nebusj-.TakeThisOut@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

> Granted, the intention is probably not to make an unspeakably
>awful movie based on Asimov's _Foundation_ series, but I think you and
>I both know that's going to happen, don't we?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN2926301220080729
> Asimov sci-fi epic "Foundation" coming to screens
> Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:45am EDT
> By Steven Zeitchik
>
> NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - The ousted founders of
> downsized studio New Line Cinema are producing an adaptation of
> the Isaac Asimov sci-fi epic "Foundation."
>
> The project marks the first undertaking for Bob Shaye
> and Michael Lynne, who set up their own banner called Unique
> Features earlier this month after exiting New Line when the
> ailing studio was absorbed by its bigger corporate sibling
> Warner Bros. Unique aims to make two or three movies annually,
> with Warners handling marketing and distribution.
>
> Science fiction is a genre in which the duo and New Line
> had dabbled, most notably in recent years with "The Last Mimzy,"
> which Shaye directed. That 2007 film grossed just $27 million
> worldwide, according to tracking firm Box Office Mojo.
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

On 4 Aug., 21:45, JXStern <JXSternChange....TakeThisOut@gte.net> wrote:
> Why all the negativity, it could be good! These guys got the LOTR
> movies made, and while hardly flawless, they were at least adequate.
>
> I'd say the Foundation texts will need some spiffing up, to make a
> modern movie. Risk, yes, but I think the basic story lines are there,
> it's very episodic, the original texts are pretty good script outlines
> (yeah, I know, same could be said of "I, Robot", but that never had
> any narrative arc, Foundation does)
>
> All three books are political, but also apolitical, good solid tech
> weinie libertarian as much as anything.
>
> This can be done in meat-grinder fashion, just take the CSI tv
> outlines, add the Foundation story lines and characters, film for two
> hours per episode, and serve hot. A weird idea for Hollywood - let
> the book's themes carry the weight! They did let this happen for
> LOTR, just barely, but enough.

A really cool way of filming the Foundation books, in my opinion,
would be to do it in great detail, and across a multiple movie
franchise. And not just three movies, either. The first should be
called "Foundation - Episode 1: The Psychohistorians" and only cover
the first 46 pages of the first book, perhaps with added details from
"Prelude" and "Forward", so people got a proper introduction to Seldon
and the theory of psychohistory that the over-arching plot is based
on. Then the second movie - "Episode 2: The Encyclopedists" - can time-
hop across a bunch of decades and we might receive a proper impact of
the real scope of the books.

That's what I would do, even if there's no guarantee the first one
would be successful enough to continue the series. If you don't start
well, you might as well not have started at all, so you might as well
try to do it right from the get-go. If you're interested in actually
doing a good movie. But unfortunately Hollywood habitually waters
things down. That's the real tragedy.

- Tue
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

Tue Sorensen wrote:

>On 30 Jul., 12:17, Jack Bohn <jackb....RemoveThis@bright.net> wrote:
>
>> (Disclaimer: I thought the last line of the "Nightfall" movie
>> went a long way to redeeming that dud.)
>
>The 1988 or 2000 version? (The former is by far the best, but it's not
>out on DVD. Both are pretty damn bad, though, and have very little to
>do with the original story.)

What, they remade it? And worse?!?

--
-Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

On 6 Aug., 02:31, Jack Bohn <jackb... DeleteThis @bright.net> wrote:
> Tue Sorensen wrote:
> >On 30 Jul., 12:17, Jack Bohn <jackb... DeleteThis @bright.net> wrote:
>
> >> (Disclaimer: I thought the last line of the "Nightfall" movie
> >> went a long way to redeeming that dud.)
>
> >The 1988 or 2000 version? (The former is by far the best, but it's not
> >out on DVD. Both are pretty damn bad, though, and have very little to
> >do with the original story.)
>
> What, they remade it? And worse?!?

You bet! The 2000 version was straight-to-video, but it's out on DVD,
even, unlike the '88 version.

- Tue
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

Tue Sorensen <sorensonian.DeleteThis@gmail.com> rote in news:094e7843-4a2d-4f3c-b15d-
0b0aa248502c.DeleteThis@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

>> >The 1988 or 2000 version? (The former is by far the best, but it's not
>> >out on DVD. Both are pretty damn bad, though, and have very little to
>> >do with the original story.)
>>
>> What, they remade it? And worse?!?
>
> You bet! The 2000 version was straight-to-video, but it's out on DVD,
> even, unlike the '88 version.

Geez, I thought they were talking about President Bush.
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

In article <3hhh94pf6teak3tcscde6tbarbpuh6d1n8.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Jack Bohn <jackbohn.RemoveThis@bright.net> wrote:

> Tue Sorensen wrote:
>
> >On 30 Jul., 12:17, Jack Bohn <jackb....RemoveThis@bright.net> wrote:
> >
> >> (Disclaimer: I thought the last line of the "Nightfall" movie
> >> went a long way to redeeming that dud.)
> >
> >The 1988 or 2000 version? (The former is by far the best, but it's not
> >out on DVD. Both are pretty damn bad, though, and have very little to
> >do with the original story.)
>
> What, they remade it? And worse?!?

Isn't that usually the case with remakes?

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made 

In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful erilar declared:
> In article <3hhh94pf6teak3tcscde6tbarbpuh6d1n8.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> Jack Bohn <jackbohn.RemoveThis@bright.net> wrote:
>
>> What, they remade it? And worse?!?
>
> Isn't that usually the case with remakes?
>

No. Remakes of bad movies, and adaptations of classic books that
have been filmed before often turn out as good or better than the
original -- The Maltese Falcon, Wizard of Oz, Robin Hood, Three
Musketeers, Prisoner of Zenda, Dracula, Lord of the Rings ....

--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice
person.
-Dave Barry
 >> Stay informed about: Unspeakably Awful 'Foundation' Movie To Be Made