Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Sci-Fi News

New Asimov Movies Coming 396

Posted by Soulskill
from the dear-god-no-will-smith dept.
bowman9991 writes "Two big budget Isaac Asimov novel adaptations are on the way. New Line founders Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne are developing Asimov's 1951 novel Foundation, the first in Asimov's classic space opera saga, which has the potential to be as epic as Lord of the Rings. At the same time, New Regency has recently announced they were adapting Asimov's time travel novel The End of Eternity. Despite having edited or written more than 500 books, it's surprising how little of Isaac Asimov's work has made it to the big screen. '"Isaac Asimov had writer's block once," fellow science fiction writer Harlan Ellison said, referring to Asimov's impressive output. "It was the worst ten minutes of his life."' Previous adaptations include the misguided Will Smith feature I, Robot, the lame Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams, and two B-grade adaptations of Nightfall." This reader also notes that a remake of The Day of the Triffids is coming.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Asimov Movies Coming

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, the potential (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UziBeatle (695886) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:06AM (#25922785)
    Sure, they could do the same thing that was done for Dune. Yep, the epic potential of a horrid screen adaption is there. I'd say the potential is high. Pity as Foundation series was classic science fiction at its best.
    • by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:19AM (#25922861)

      I'd be first in line for the foundation movies.

      As long as it was movies. Not the whole thing crammed into a 90 minute movie

    • by kandela (835710) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:20AM (#25922871)

      As science fiction readers we always seem to approach a movie release of our favourite stories with dread.

      Why do film makers always do such a bad job with sci-fi classics? Is it just blatant commercialism? Is it that modernisation of a classic story is inappropriate? Or is it something more fundamental - do film makers simply not understand science fiction?

      I have a feeling that when Hollywood hears the words 'science fiction' they immediately think special effects and action and how they can maximise those things for the viewing experience. Yet sci-fi books are about ideas. I, Robot is a classic example of the whole point of the book being sacrificed for extra action. Similarly I am Legend for those who have read the book is most thought provoking in its ending but Hollywood sacrificed that for a... well, Hollywood ending.

      There have been some excellent sci-fi movies: 2001, The Andromeda Strain for instance, so it is possible. Why do film makers so often get it wrong?

      • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:55AM (#25923051)
        I'm afraid it's because the vast majority of the moviegoers out there are just not capable of watching a movie any more if it's not crammed full with special effects and made for a 5-year old to understand.

        I suppose 2001, one of my favorite movies, would be a complete failure if it were to be shown to todays public.
        • Re:Oh, the potential (Score:4, Interesting)

          by foobsr (693224) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:36AM (#25923503) Homepage Journal
          I'm afraid it's because the vast majority of the moviegoers out there are just not capable of watching a movie any more if it's not crammed full with special effects and made for a 5-year old to understand.

          I suppose 2001, one of my favorite movies, would be a complete failure if it were to be shown to todays public.


          Thank you, you saved my day — and, yes, The Times They Are A-Changin', but not to the better these days.

          CC.
      • Re:Oh, the potential (Score:5, Informative)

        by jonwil (467024) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:14AM (#25923425)

        2001 (the book, the film and the story) was basically co-written by one of the best SF authors of all time (Arthur C Clarke) and one of the best filmmakers of all time (Stanley Kubrick). Also, from what I gather, there wasnt a huge amount of involvement in the creative process by MGM (as opposed to the way most films get made today)

      • by Black Parrot (19622) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:28AM (#25923483)

        I have a feeling that when Hollywood hears the words 'science fiction' they immediately think special effects and action and how they can maximise those things for the viewing experience.

        Not just SF. This year's Jones and Bond outings were all chase and fight, utterly devoid of all the other stuff that makes for a good movie.

        Hell, I can't even tell you what Solace was about.

        Hollywood movies are degenerating into big budget laser light shows: "Gee that's cool, but...."

        • by bsDaemon (87307) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @07:56AM (#25924051)

          I saw the new Bond with my sister and one of her friends, neither of whom had ever seen a Bond movie before. They both hated it because they had no idea what was going on.

          This is probably because for some reason they decided to make an actual sequel to Casino Royale. If you didn't see it, you won't have any clue what is going on in this one.

          They trash all the nice cars by the opening credits -- the Aston-Martin and the Alfa Romeos. The rest of the film is full of greeny-weenie mobiles and a few Range Rovers.

          Bond only nails 1 girl the entire time. What's up with that?

          Also, the plot was down right reasonable -- a conspiracy between industrialists and government officials to back a coup in order to gain mineral rights... and the CIA is HELPING!! That's not a Bond plot, that's the Iraq war. WTF.

          I hope that they rectify this in the next film. They're on notice, as far as I'm concerned.

          • by dpilot (134227) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @08:34AM (#25924183) Homepage Journal

            I just saw it yesterday, without having seen Casino Royale. (The new one, that is. I've seen the David Niven/Woody Allen farce.) The action was very thick, but there was a plot in there, you just had to really be paying attention to ferret it out.

            All in all, I liked it better than the later Roger Moore Bond films. By that time he seemed to be mugging and smirking his way through the films, laughing all the way to the bank. This film was very dark, any hint of humor would have gotten shot, thrown out of the vehicle, and blown up immediately, but I still rather liked it.

            I thought "Quantum of Solace" referred to the tiniest amount of relief from his grief after the last movie. But I would have sworn I heard a few references to "Quantum" as an organization, and saw a few flashes of "Q" logo. I don't know if it was a hint, something I needed to see Casino to understand, or a changed direction that wasn't completely removed.

            Speaking of which, (incompletely removed change of direction) don't forget that they're making, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag" into a movie, as well as Ridley Scott doing "The Forever War." I've heard that in the latter, he wants to emphasize the lost feeling or returning home to a changed world, after losing time to relativistic travel.

        • by u38cg (607297) <calum@callingthetune.co.uk> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @09:41AM (#25924419) Homepage
          Exactly. What I don't understand is why there are no Hollywood studios like Apple. There's one guy at the top, and if he thinks it sucks, then it doesn't go. Is it really that hard to find one person with good taste and a bit of business sense? I mean, seriously, Quantum of Solace sucked hard and it was pretty obvious that chucking every damned effect and action scene they could think of at it was not what the movie needed. Why can nobody tell them this?
      • by Ostracus (1354233) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:37AM (#25923507) Journal

        "Why do film makers always do such a bad job with sci-fi classics? Is it just blatant commercialism? Is it that modernisation of a classic story is inappropriate? Or is it something more fundamental - do film makers simply not understand science fiction?"

        It could also be economics. Just how much money do you think it would take to do Ringworld on the same scale as it exists in most peoples heads when they read science fiction? Grand usually takes a "grand".

      • To just adapt something you have to set aside your ego and admit to yourself that the original writer was a better story crafter than you.

        PS. a movie or miniseries could never do justice to the foundation series, perhaps a cartoon series with the length of Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

      • Re:Oh, the potential (Score:4, Interesting)

        by localroger (258128) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @10:08AM (#25924515) Homepage
        It takes hundreds of people to make a movie, and most of them are selected not for their familiarity with the target material but for their previously demonstrated moviemaking skill. This hit home when I was reading an interview with one of the top people responsible for Terminator 3; IIRC it may have been James Cameron but I'm not sure. In any case he was going on about the time travel scenes, and how the terminators appear naked, and he tossed out a comment along the lines of "It's part of the franchise, the terminators appear naked. Who knows why? I don't know why, but that's just the way it is." And so we had to wall off the whole street for Kristanna Loken, yadda yadda yadda.

        My immediate reaction was, WTF? You are spending millions of dollars to make this thing and you don't even understand the first most basic thing, a thing any American ten year old could probably explain to you? But that's just it; millions of dollars are on line, put up mostly by people who have not read the book and would rather spend those dollars on people who have proven movie experience. And sometimes those people just don't get it, even if they are very good at what they do, and things like I, Robot are the result.
    • by bmgoau (801508)

      I think any of Peter F. Hamiltons works would make a good series of movies. They are more adaptable i think then Asimov's books, though nowhere near as classic in regard. Movies would ruin Asimov's positive mark on the genre if not done perfectly.

      I feel the most likely books of Hamilton's to be made into possibly a Band of Brothers type series or trilogy would be the Commonwealth Saga: Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained.

      They are both recent books, dealing with the invasion of a future human civilization by

  • Oooh, Foundation - I'll be seeing that first run in theatres and buying the DVDs.
  • by Rix (54095) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:08AM (#25922797)

    It was based on the earlier Eando Binder short story.

    • The Humanoids (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bazald (886779)

      I actually believed that the ideads not from 'I, Robot' were from The Humanoids [fantasticfiction.co.uk], by Jack Williamson.

      Spoilers below:

      The plot in which humanoid robots are welcomed into society only to later enslave humanity, in order to protect it, comes right from the novel. Additionally, so does the idea of going to the supercomputer at the center of it all to shut it down.

      What you say seems to have some merit as well. I would think that the movie takes ideas from many sources rather than just one, or even two.

    • The Will Smith movies was a disgrace to Asimov's legacy with, as one of the worse cinema whoring of all times, them actually making Dr. Calving fuckeable.

      She was anything but cute in the books.

  • by schneidafunk (795759) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:14AM (#25922839)
    After RTFA I noticed that they are also in the process of making a new Dune movie! http://sffmedia.com/films/science-fiction-films/179-this-time-its-for-real-new-dune-movie-confirmed.html [sffmedia.com]
    • by Bios_Hakr (68586)

      I thought the SciFi channel version was pretty good. I don't think I ever made it through the second movie though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xstonedogx (814876)

      Too bad Hollywood writers think science fiction adaptations are 50% special effects and 50% stuff they think is cool but is cliche and shows they didn't grasp the book.

      Dune is complex, deep, and half of it takes place internal to the characters. Sci-Fi managed to stuff it into a five episode mini-series and did it a fair amount of justice, but I hold out slim hope for a feature length movie. That goes times a million if Brian Herbert is involved in any way.

  • Previous adaptations include the misguided Will Smith feature I, Robot, the lame Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams, and two B-grade adaptations of Nightfall

    So why should we be looking forward to the inevitably crappy Hollywood version of Foundation? Bonus link: Maddox reviews [thebestpag...iverse.net] the 'I, Robot' movie.

  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:19AM (#25922869) Homepage Journal

    If you're expecting anything better out of Hollywood then you're not paying attention.

  • No way... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:22AM (#25922887)

    They should have made a movie adaptation of Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery. THAT would be epic.

  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:27AM (#25922903) Homepage Journal

    one would think watchmen was unfilmable, but apparently early previews say it is fantastic

    one would have thought lord of the rings was unfilmable, and yet jackson made some of the best films ever made

    as long as they do it right... for values of "doing it right" that are largely unquantifiable

    • "jackson made some of the bes films ever made"???

      Oh boy, have *we* different oppinions about the LOTR series! :-) Just what is it, that makes Jackson's trilogy "one of the best movies ever made"? I found them unbelievably boring! With nice special effects, yes, and also filmed in a nice corner of the world, but the movies were - in my oppinion - just plain boring.
    • one would think watchmen was unfilmable, but apparently early previews say it is fantastic

      one would have thought lord of the rings was unfilmable, and yet jackson made some of the best films ever made

      as long as they do it right... for values of "doing it right" that are largely unquantifiable

      This is why I'm sad that a real version of The Neverending Story hasn't been made. The 80's films are just about about as true to the book as a movie about Jesus Christ leaving out the whole 'God' bit... The book on the other hand is FSCKing awesome.

      The hard part is that really great movies aren't guaranteed to make really good profits. Maybe there should be a way to fund a movie with micropayments, so that true fans could help fund filming great stories, or something? In any case the core problem still is

  • This is good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CryptoJones (565561) <akclark@cryREDHA ... com minus distro> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:29AM (#25922917) Homepage
    As long as Will Smith isn't in any more of them. Between Independence Day, I Robot, and I am Legend I think he has saturated this market enough.
    • As long as Will Smith isn't in any more of them. Between Independence Day, I Robot, and I am Legend I think he has saturated this market enough.

      He has saturated *all* markets too much. You can't go to a movie without seeing a trailer for an upcoming WS film.

    • by xstonedogx (814876) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:57AM (#25923845)

      I'll call Keanu Reeves!

    • Re:This is good... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by owlstead (636356) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @08:08AM (#25924085)

      Yes, the problem with him is that he can't be anybody else than himself. It's as much acting as Arnie did. The role in which Arnie excelled was basically himself: a muscular robot. That does not mean that the movies are not fun to watch, Will Smith can be amazingly funny. But he'll be Will Smith all of the time. Now take a look at an actor like Depp. Sure you can recognize him, but you could watch a whole movie without actually really noticing that he's in there.

      So indeed, don't put him in there unless it really fits his personality. Maybe that's what they are doing though. Many SF novels are written around one or a few heroes that play out fantastic voyages.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Elemenope (905108)

        Now take a look at an actor like Depp. Sure you can recognize him, but you could watch a whole movie without actually really noticing that he's in there.

        No, no. That's Gary Oldman. Depp is still too flashy to blend seamlessly into his roles. The closest he came was ironically his flashiest role: Cap'n Jack Sparrow...and he was aided by copious accouterments and make-up to pull it off.

  • by Badge 17 (613974) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:33AM (#25922937)

    Look, I love Foundation more than anyone should love a work of fiction, and there are lots of people like me out there. That doesn't mean this is a good idea.

    Foundation strikes me as one of the least "filmy" books - because it's really a bunch of short stories, each crisis a little puzzle. I fell in love with the books because they were essentially mystery stories wrapped around a gooey scifi center.

    This is like trying to adapt three or four Sherlock Holmes short stories at once, all on top of Hollywood's hatred of smart science fiction. I predict PAIN.

    • by schneidafunk (795759) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:45AM (#25923011)
      Badge, you got me thinking about this. I want to disagree with you because the Foundation Series is probably my favorite SciFi book. However, my favorite SciFi movie is definitely Total Recall and I think you nailed the reason down for me. I'm wondering how much action there is going to be in this. I'm not sure I'd enjoy watching a bunch of scientists arguing around a table about the inner workings of psychohistory.
    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:49AM (#25923025) Homepage Journal
      Asimov's writing wasn't very visual and it doesn't translate well to the screen. Larry Niven on the other hand...
    • by Rob Simpson (533360) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:52AM (#25923043)
      Yeah, this might turn out even worse than I, Robot. The only book of Asimov's that struck me as having the potential to make a decent movie was The Caves of Steel.
    • by RichiH (749257)

      After reading your comment, I will just not write what I wanted to. You did that for me.

    • I think story of The Mule could translate just fine with the right writer/director/actors. Other then that I'm with you, I just do not see how they can pull it off. Even Asimov admitted he never understood why the foundation series was so popular with Sci-Fi fans as it has little of the traditional blast-em and lots of good ole dialog.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The moon is a harsh mistress. Only memorable book I read of his. Ok maybe I remember a few things from foundation but barely.

  • by tftp (111690) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:00AM (#25923091) Homepage

    I saw it around that time, and it was great, not much on special effects but excellent in creating the atmosphere of Eternity. Other people want blinky lights and fiery explosions everywhere, but I'd say this movie is similar to "Stalker".

    Read here [kinoexpert.ru]

    The links there say "AVI,DVD" and "HD,BlueRay" but they do not lead to direct downloads, and there seems to be no digital copy to download, only traces of it... but I haven't looked too hard.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tftp (111690)

      Sorry about replying to my own post, but I found the movie - plays in Flash with reasonable quality. There is also download for some small cash, but I haven't tried that. The flash player has ads, but they are not too bad. There are no subtitles, though, and that's sad because I'm watching it now and the dialog (in the council chamber) is not meaningless.

      Anyway, here is the working link [www.intv.ru].

  • by Intrinsic (74189) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:03AM (#25923103) Homepage

    I thought it was a good reflection of being human. I have never read an of Isaac Asimov books though so Im sure it doesnt live up to the book, but i thought it was still a good film on its own.

  • Novels rarely make good movies, mostly because they are simply too long and involved.

    The good movies that come from novels are (almost always) films where the director has told a different story with the characters/setting of the novel. This is why we use the word "adaption" when talking about novel -> film.

    Lord of the Rings is a classic example. It's (thank god) not the novels. Master and Commander is another excellent adaption, again, it's not any one of the 20 novels, but rather an independent sto

  • Fantastic Voyage (Score:5, Informative)

    by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:07AM (#25923129) Homepage
    A lot of people think "Fantastic Voyage" was an Asimov story that got made into a movie, but it was the other way around. Asimov was hired to do the novelization of the movie. Asimov wrote fast enough that the novelization was published quite a bit before the movie was released. Furthermore, as a condition of taking the job, he insisted that he be allowed to diverge from the script to fix plot holes. So, when the movie came out long after the book, and had plot holes and science errors that were not in the book, people assumed the book came first, and Hollywood botched adapting it!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by oiron (697563)
      So you're saying that Asimov botched the job of adapting, by making a crappy movie into a good novel?
    • And later, Asimov wrote "Fantastic Voyage II", which was the version that should have been filmed in the first place...
  • I have my doubts. (Score:3, Informative)

    by B5_geek (638928) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:14AM (#25923173)

    Having read the books wfirst when I was young, and then again when I was in University I just can't wrap my head around it being possible to show it _all_ good enough in 1 film. A series of films or better yet, several SEASONS of tv shows might be a better idea. Unlike some other epics, this one just can't be compressed.

    Take Wheel of Time for example; if you cut out all the 'braid pulling', Aes Sedai scheming, and repetitive explanations of how wonderful 'The Power' is, but you better not take in too much. I think they could cut it down to 1.5 hrs or 500 pages.

  • End of Eternity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk@gmail.REDHATcom minus distro> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:43AM (#25923313)
    I'm not sure how I feel about a Foundation movie/s. Perhaps it could be done but I think the epicness of the books might be hard to match though. However, if ever there was an Asimov novel that I thought would make a good movie, it's End of Eternity. Incredibly awesome plot, while still small scale enough to easily make a good movie. In any event, I highly recommend the book to anyone who hasn't seen it.
  • I, for one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:57AM (#25923369)

    ...would gladly welcome some Rendezvous-with-Rama--The-Movie-producing alien overlords. 3D IMAX, anyone? Just like Morgan Freeman promised, but never delivered. Of course, that car crash might have put him out of this game for good, but there is still a chance that I will live to see another adaptation (i.e., made by somebody else]. It always seemed to me as a more compact story, and there is an opportunity to shoot some marvellous ramascapes.

    Concerning Foundation, well...that would be a huge task. Too epic. "Just effects" won't cut it. I'm afraid I do no trust film producers enough to believe that they won't screw it completely.

  • by Pugwash69 (1134259) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:01AM (#25923611) Homepage
    If they insist on dipping into the Asimov bank of stories, they can't take the Foundation series all the way to the end without some background story about Baileyworld and R.Daneel, unless they cut vast swathes of content from the storyline.
  • by Yeechang Lee (3429) <ylee@pobox.com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @07:41AM (#25924001) Homepage

    115 replies and—as expected—already there's a half-dozen condemnations of Will Smith's I, Robot with only one positive and one mixed to balance them out. Let me tell you that the naysayers are very wrong.

    The movie surprised me with how faithful it was to the dozens of Asimov robot stories. Let me repeat: Asimov's themes fill the movie from start to finish. The movie's plot is entirely based on Asimov's four (yes, four) Laws of Robotics. I wonder if those who condemn the movie have actually read any or all of the stories, as I have, multiple times. Otherwise, I don't see how they could have missed (as I posted to Usenet [google.com] a few years back):

    Given that the film is a Will Smith Summer Blockbuster[TM], I too was impressed and touched by how well it evoked the themes of the
    Robot stories. I know the script was originally based on non-Asimovian robots, but the writers clearly went to a *lot* of trouble to fill in
    the gaps once they gained the rights to Asimov's name and concepts.

    [...]

    The plot of the movie can very well be seen as the sort of dilemma faced by our heroes in several of the Robot stories, simply writ (very) large. There are allusions to, among others, "Little Lost Robot," "Catch That Rabbit," "The Evitable Conflict," "Segregationist" and "The Bicentennial Man," and "-That Thou Art Mindful of Him."

    Yes, yes, I know Asimov disliked violence-filled "robots run rampant" stories and wrote his robot stories in part as counterpoints to such. But given the strictures of a Hollywood big-budget action movie (and don't expect a science fiction movie to be otherwise), I, Robot is pure Asimov.

  • by McNihil (612243) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @11:34AM (#25925033)

    How will the be able to portray R. Daneel Oliwav and R. Giskard Reventlov and their brain wave mind bending of humans without it looking corny on screen BUT as amazing as it is written?

    How will they portray the mule without it looking like a bad version of Alien?

    How are they going to be able to flesh out the vast amount of social undertones that are perfused in all the books? Recently I have though "This is becoming like Trantor" when I see infrastructure "collapsing" around me in this real world we live in.

    Heck 99% of the conflicts as I recall them are on the mental plane... from the start to mycogen and beyond.

    They better be some spectacular screen writer adaptors to even scratch the surface.

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:02PM (#25925231) Homepage

    "Foundation" would be a joke today. "We can predict the future. With math. In detail. By hand!" People are less impressed with mathematical prediction now; enough of it has been done to make it clear what's possible and what isn't.

    Wall Street has had sizable efforts in that direction. You can at best do a little bit better than noise, some of the time. Which was enough to create hedge fund billionaires.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Evil Pete (73279)

      I'm not an enormous fan of Asimov. I am just not that attracted to his writing style. However, I did like Foundation. And his argument I thought was and is still reasonable. That when you are dealing with hundreds of billions of people, not just billions, then human populations become predictable like the physics of gases, except for powerful individuals like the Mule. A reasonable enough premise to carry a movie.

  • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @02:44PM (#25926599)
    In the first place, the story Nightfall is about the best one written by Asimov. The movie version made in 2000 is so bad, it is as close as you can get to blasphemy for something anti- (or at least non-) religious. The basic idea is there, but you have the white scientists against the Indian temple religious people in an utter horror of bad acting and downright stupidity. It is one of the few movies on Amazon that doesn't even have a single 4-star review, let alone 5.

    In fact, my favorite all-time review is one for this movie, which also references the despicable 1988 version (and no, it was *not* written by me):

    Torture to endure from start to finish..., December 17, 2000

    Okay, okay, this movie was as rotten as a reeking week old carcass under the blazing sun. I can lament for hours about the MANY horribly done 'effects' and the fact that it did not match the original tale, clinging only to several very BASE-ic threads to what was an Asimov Masterpiece. I could also go on and on about how this horrific movie was cast with what I would think are the dregs of the Screen Actor's Guild (if not just ordinary passers-by abducted off the streets of Calcutta and forced to perform in this heinous waste of celluloid under the threat of their demise) -- but I can only say this... As horrid as it was... as tasteless, and wasteful of cash and human life-moments as this travesty of film has been, it is not half as horrid as its 1988 predecessor. *That* movie was some product of a bodily function from a mushroom-dazed idiot, and like some movies & games have been known to induce epileptic fits, this movie nearly caused me catatonia. Anyway... this movie bites the big one, but if you enjoy MST3K as a show, and like to do as they did... it's the perfect candidate for such activities. For anyone who enjoys Sci-fi, and is looking for good entertainment, find the book by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, and read that... These film adaptations of the story (probably spawned from some evil parallel universe) should be shot into the sun.

    So please, for the love of good literature, leave Asimov alone. Most of his good works cannot be properly adapted to the screen.

  • by TheMCP (121589) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:10PM (#25926815) Homepage

    I think the thing that pleases me most is the fact that the Foundation books were largely about the idea that while religion and irrationality tend to mess up a society, science always kinda works. If they manage to convey this idea in the movies, it could be a great message for our culture at this time.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @11:06PM (#25929779)
    You may not like it but, some excellent SF novels do not make for popular movies. Comparing Foundation to LotR in audience popularity would leave me betting on LotR every time.

    Anyone remember Millennium (1989) based on the excellent story "Air Raid"? Great story. Great SF concept. Great actress (the very appealing Cheryl Ladd). Great enough adaption to the screen. The movie bombed.

    Even WALL-E was pretty decent SF that non-SF fans had trouble following.

    Not all great SF makes for great movies.

  • by spectro (80839) on Sunday November 30, 2008 @03:31AM (#25931155) Homepage

    Most of Foundation action scenes are mind control fights. It would be really interesting to see how they manage to translate that to the screen.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...