Asimov's "Foundation" (2011)

[docm]

Hollywood Reporter link....<br /> <br /> <div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div> <strong>Shaye, Lynne on for 'Foundation'<br /> <br /> <em>Producers on board for Isaac Asimov's sci-fi epic</em></strong><br /> <br /> Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne are looking to the future -- literally.<br /> <br /> The New Line founders-turned-producers have signed on to produce their first project since they received their post-New Line deal at Warners, boarding an adaptation of Isaac Asimov's futuristic sci-fi epic "Foundation" that they'll produce through their Unique Features banner.<br /> <br /> Warners recently picked up "Foundation," which had been in development at Fox. Vince Gerardis, who had been attached as a producer in the Fox incarnation, will remain on board as a producer for the Warners project with Shaye and Lynne.<br /> <br /> "Foundation" is based on Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy," which centers on a society that has figured out how to predict the future based on a method called psychohistory and sets up a foundation devoted to scientific research to protect itself and ensure its survival.<br /> <br /> The politically inflected work, which features such characters as the prophetic Hari Seldon and a villain called the Mule, spans hundreds of years, essentially tracking the rise and fall of civilizations. Each book contains a new set of characters, which has in the past prompted some development execs to say they consider it a difficult work to adapt for the screen.<br /> <br /> Shaye and Lynne's goal is to adapt the first book for now, and, if it's successful, potentially follow the New Line "Lord of the Rings" template by developing adaptations down the road of the second and third books.<br /> <br /> Calling the trilogy "one of the things I've had close to my heart" since he read the books as a young man, Shaye said the project had as its goal locating and creating an audience for the Asimov classic. "Our idea to renew the worldwide audience's appetite for the story," he said.<br /> <br /> Shaye noted that the books' political themes, particularly its focus on the rise and fall of empires, give the movie a geopolitical relevance. But he also said their complexity would cause the company to move forward carefully. "This is not a script you can knock out in six months," he said.<br /> <br /> Science fiction is a genre in which the duo and New Line had dabbled, most notably in recent years with "The Last Mimzy," the sci-fi family tale that Shaye directed.<br /> <br /> Shaye and Lynne exited the Warner fold this year as part of Time Warner's absorption of New Line. This month, the pair announced the formation of Unique, a production company with a three-year, first-look deal at Warners. The goal is to produce two or three movies per year, with Warners handling marketing and distribution.<br /> <br /> Hollywood has found Asimov a difficult writer to adapt to film because his books tend to incorporate philosophical themes as much as action elements. Still, the loose adaptation of his "I, Robot" collection of stories turned into a $340 million global hit for Fox in 2004.<br /> <br /> Fox, which adapted the whole trilogy as one standalone script (perhaps in a bid to counteract development obstacles), had attached several individuals who had worked on an earlier Asimov adaptation. In addition to Gerardis, who produced "I, Robot," Jeff Vintar, who penned the screenplay to that film, was attached to pen the "Foundation" screenplay. Vintar has said in interviews that he was focusing on the latter parts of the trilogy, which span a more limited period of time, to make the Fox project more manageable.<br /> <br /> Shaye said that the ambition of the "Foundation" project makes it the right movie to kick off the Unique slate. "This epitomizes the movies we want to make, not the movies that ought to be made to fill a slate or movies that repeat an old formula," he said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Wow, That will be a challenge. It would be extraordinarily difficult to make that a single film. It will be interesting to watch how this project progresses.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Yup, a challenge indeed....but then it looks like a similar challenge, Watchmen,&nbsp; is going well.&nbsp; Must be the current trend to use fan-boys for the director, writers; Watchmen, Batman Begins/Dark Knight, Iron Man etc.&nbsp; Let's hope Warner does the same here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Carrickagh]

<p>Wow! They've got their work cut out for them. </p><p>Conceivably, they made the first "I, Robot" with sequels in mind, following the Dr. Susan Calvin story arch. I liked "I, Robot" the movie. But it didn't follow the stories at all. It came closest to "Liar," I suppose. And they haven't made one since, as far as I know.</p><p>I worry about the comment on the "Lord of the Rings" <em>template</em>. Jackson didn't make those movies as a template. It is probably one of the few movies I have seen that could be rightfully called a work of love. </p><p>The First Foundation stories (and Prelude to Foundation, written much, much later) were about the fall of one empire and an attempt via the Foundation to salvage some portion of civilization and short-circuit the Dark Ages. Most of the early stories were dialogue and ideas. They will need to strike the right balance between the Key Concepts, Moving the Story Along, and Action. Good luck to them. I hope they can do all that in one movie.</p><p>I wonder what the Good Doctor would think of it?</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/0/e75c5a61-4684-4215-b0db-6e6793c632f5.Medium.png" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wow! They've got their work cut out for them. Conceivably, they made the first "I, Robot" with sequels in mind, following the Dr. Susan Calvin story arch. I liked "I, Robot" the movie. But it didn't follow the stories at all. It came closest to "Liar," I suppose. And they haven't made one since, as far as I know.I worry about the comment on the "Lord of the Rings" template. Jackson didn't make those movies as a template. It is probably one of the few movies I have seen that could be rightfully called a work of love. The First Foundation stories (and Prelude to Foundation, written much, much later) were about the fall of one empire and an attempt via the Foundation to salvage some portion of civilization and short-circuit the Dark Ages. Most of the early stories were dialogue and ideas. They will need to strike the right balance between the Key Concepts, Moving the Story Along, and Action. Good luck to them. I hope they can do all that in one movie.I wonder what the Good Doctor would think of it? <br /> Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>You can't do the entire Foundation series in one, or even probably 3 movies and do the story any justice. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[cosmictraveler]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="4">While it will be difficult to do, I believe that the first book can be done with a 3 hour epic movie and still be following the first book OK. The second book will be just as difficult and another 3 hour will be needed as well. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I worry about the comment on the "Lord of the Rings" template. Jackson didn't make those movies as a template. It is probably one of the few movies I have seen that could be rightfully called a work of love. Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>I would see it more a work of hate, as Jackson deeply perverted everything that Tolkien wanted to say.&nbsp; </p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The First Foundation stories (and Prelude to Foundation, written much, much later) were about the fall of one empire and an attempt via the Foundation to salvage some portion of civilization and short-circuit the Dark Ages. Most of the early stories were dialogue and ideas. They will need to strike the right balance between the Key Concepts, Moving the Story Along, and Action. Good luck to them. I hope they can do all that in one movie.I wonder what the Good Doctor would think of it? <br /> Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>He may be spinning in his grave, it they treat it anything like Hollywood's other attempts to bring his books to film. &nbsp;I still cringe when I think of "Nightfall". &nbsp;And what would he have thought of malevolent robots depicted menacing humans, as in "I, Robot"? With a homie Will Smith in the role of Elijah Bailey? (I know, he was "Del Spooner" in the movie, but only Elijah Bailey ever investigated murderous robots in any of Asimov's stories). My apologies, because you said you liked "I, Robot", but I thought it was awful!</p><p>That being said, I'm very much looking forward to a movie adaptation of "Foundation", although my hopes are not high that they will do a good job. &nbsp;This news is coincidental, because it just so happens I'm in the middle of re-reading all of the Foundation novels, including the later ones that details the usurpation of the Seldon Plan by the establishment of Gaia. &nbsp;I was describing the stories to a friend of mine and wishing that they would make movies out of them, and poof, here they are....amazing!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Carrickagh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would see it more a work of hate, as Jackson deeply perverted everything that Tolkien wanted to say.&nbsp; Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />You'll have to forgive me, but I'm just not that hip when it comes to opinions. It's my tradition to&nbsp;read the books cover to cover every November - December and have done so since I was about 14. I think what Jackson did was about as good as it can get in movieland. I would really hate to think of the many ways it could been done quite terribly wrong. (And I am a survivor of the Rankin-Bass animated effort). I've also seen many interviews with Jackson and Boyens and they obviously went thru great pains to get things just so within a modern movie framework. My vote would be: good effort, B+.</p><p>Probably another topic for another thread, but in what way do you think the story was perverted? </p><p>I do appreciate your sense umbrage, however. I'm probably one of the few people I know who view the Star Wars efforts as the reigning anti-democracy films of all time.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm probably one of the few people I know who view the Star Wars efforts as the reigning anti-democracy films of all time. <br /> Posted by Carrickagh</DIV><br />Why do you think that? &nbsp;You can start a new thread .. I'm curious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<p>Funny, how the Foundation Trilogy ended up becoming -- what was it -- five or six books?</p><p>One movie won't cover the whole thing. There's no way.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Funny, how the Foundation Trilogy ended up becoming -- what was it -- five or six books?One movie won't cover the whole thing. There's no way.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by lampblack</DIV></p><p>Yes, but if the first Foundation movie is a success, they would do well to end the sequels at the third book, "Second Foundation". &nbsp;After the Mule disrupted the Seldon Plan, the secretive Second Foundation of mentalists had to put it back on track, thereby revealing their presence, and the way they manipulated events and adjusted the minds of the resentful First Foundationers in order to restore their obscurity makes for a very satisfying, dramatic ending. &nbsp;The fourth and fifth books upsets all of this by pitting the First Foundation and the Second Foundation against each other, and sets up their dissolution altogether with the establishment of Gaia, which I somehow found deflating. &nbsp;When I recall reading these last two novels for the first time, I remember feeling very annoyed with Isaac Asimov for ruining my expectations. &nbsp;I <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">wanted</span> the Seldon Plan to play out to it's conclusion! &nbsp;Plus, these last two novels brings in robots and a search for Earth and all sorts of other distractions that I don't think would play out well to theatre audiences.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Carrickagh]

<p>Nimbus,</p><p>I've been backpacking in the ADK for the last 5 days so I don't know if I have the energy to start a thread!!</p><p>I just think the Star Wars films are un-democratic in the sense that the films depict what is inherently a struggle for power of a theologically based ruling class. Specifically billions die for the cause of one aspect of a religion or another. Also, the rebels (and more specifically the clone army) do the bidding of their betters without really thinking about it too much.</p><p>Flipping the coin, you could view the films as a cautionary parable as to what happens when democracies fail. And also why they fail (personality cults, religions, trading of comfort for liberty, declaration or creation of unending emergencies, establishment of mercenary army rather than the people choosing to defend their values, etc)</p><p>That's just how they've always struck me. Of course, it wouldn't have been good drama any other way. You could make the same fundamental argument about King Lear and Hamlet. (not that I'm comparing George with Will...)</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Carrickagh]

<p>&nbsp;(The fourth and fifth books upsets all of this by pitting the First Foundation and the Second Foundation against each other, and sets up their dissolution altogether with the establishment of Gaia, which I somehow found deflating. &nbsp;When I recall reading these last two novels for the first time, I remember feeling very annoyed with Isaac Asimov for ruining my expectations. &nbsp;I wanted the Seldon Plan to play out to it's conclusion!&nbsp&nbsp;</p><p>It was interesting how R. Daneel Olivaw is a driver for those adjustments. And how in the prequels it becomes apparent that Dors Venabili is also part of this adjustment. It would have been nice to see the Seldon Plan work out, but maybe that was Asimov reminding us that "the best laid plans of mice and men..."</p><p>Anyway, I thought the turn with the Mule was a great plot twist. And there were times when psychohistory seemed less like a plan and more like a tourniquet, in that it was designed to shorten the Galactic Dark Ages to only 1000 years. I wonder if any of this was a reflection of Asimov's experience with the great Depression? </p><p>I don't know how that background story with the robots, basically tying the two series together, would play out with movie audiences, either. Also, I appreciate what you say about the search for Earth. There is a certain Deux ex Machina to that particular book.</p><p>BTW, did you ever read the Foundation prequels that were written by Brin-Bedford-Bear? I read the Benford one but had to stop. I really think the Asimov estate/publishers should have left well enough alone...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p><font color="#993366">I just think the Star Wars films are un-democratic in the sense that the films depict what is inherently a struggle for power of a theologically based ruling class. Specifically billions die for the cause of one aspect of a religion or another.</font><br />I agree that the ruling class (theologicaly ruled in this story) is the driving group (with large populations in its wake) of characters in the story, but unless I'm mistaken (been a while since I saw the movies, gotta watch em again under this new perspective to see for sure), they only get to do so because of their power. &nbsp;The Jedi don't seem to meddle into public affairs other than in a pretty general way. &nbsp;IIRC they go after the clear cut black and white matters, I can't remember them imposing their interpretation of grey matters by forcing people's choices. &nbsp;The Jedi culture/religion is accepted publicaly only insofar that it explains their magical powers.. No one is required to believe their theology to go about their busines.. In fact IIRC, Vader is told so pretty condescendingly by one of the suits in the dark star (and then gives said suit taste of telekinesis).<br />The empire does what it does because it is led by a power mongering dictator(s). &nbsp;It's even explicitely said in the scene where the young parents of Luke exchange a few bits about democracy vs totalitarianism. &nbsp;When I saw this exchange, one of the things it made me think was Aristotle's long term reaction to Plato's death sentence. &nbsp;This bifurcation into the "dark side" from an open ended future for Anakin is a pretty major arc in the full star wars story.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#993366">Also, the rebels (and more specifically the clone army) do the bidding of their betters without really thinking about it too much.<br /></font>The clone army doesn't really count. &nbsp;They are clones.. They don't have minds of their own, you can see them bred like sheep and conditioned from birth to do what they do. &nbsp;I think this is what they were meant to represent.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#993366">Flipping the coin, you could view the films as a cautionary parable as to what happens when democracies fail.</font><br />I think so..</p><p> <font color="#993366">And also why they fail (personality cults, religions, trading of comfort for liberty, declaration or creation of unending emergencies, establishment of mercenary army rather than the people choosing to defend their values, etc)That's just how they've always struck me. Of course, it wouldn't have been good drama any other way. You could make the same fundamental argument about King Lear and Hamlet. (not that I'm comparing George with Will...</font><br />I can't really say.. I read most of Shakespeare's work as a young kid (was given this big large format tome with lots of em in it hehe), but can't recall them anymore.. Other than that they were very inspiring.<br /><br />I had thought you meant that the movie was un-democratic in the sense that it represents something else than democracy as ideal.. But if anything, it is represented as ideal. &nbsp;The one scenes I can remember that it's represented as such is in the talks in the parliament, and another explicit one in the Queen's palace, both times pretty corny and sort of botched compared to the rest of the plot developments, but fair enough in playing their part.. &nbsp;So it's really not democracy that's politicaly denounced, rather it's like you said an illustration of totalitarianism creeping in and bursting into full burn once opportunity appears. So, politicaly, it's really more about the players that make the planets turn, rather than the people's democracy that fails itself - as in e.g. Idiocracy. This goes hand in hand with my second thought:<br /><br />The second thing that I think doesn't make of Star Wars a principaly un-democratic film is that the story is really not about politics of every day people, but about the life of one person, the hero. &nbsp;There's a lot more than just the protagonist in each movie, but the real heart of the matter happens in the Skywalker father and son storyline. &nbsp;It's because the hero has a world at stake that a whole world which matters to the audience (a world of democracy, the ideal and most meaningful/valuable), rather than because democracy is valuable that the hero and his interacting cast appear to save or crash it. &nbsp;I think that's why "democracy" gets skimped.. it's really a token matter of value to set the stage for the hero's character building trials and tribulations, even if democracy really is something truly valuable, just as e.g. the girl in the movie(s) is always beautiful. &nbsp;It's because that's what she means to the hero. &nbsp;If she were merely adequate, the audience would mostly miss the point that's being made - that the author intends (and that's how art is really apreciated: seen as the autho means it).</p><p>I thought of this on my own, and learning about Joseph Campbell and reading his books, it became as obvious as adding two and two to see that Lucas had been inspired quite a bit by it. I hadn't precisely nailed the meaning of everything till I'd read some of Campbell's stuff, but once I had, it became very easy to connect the dots I'd found on my own.<br />So.. this is my last point which was the one I most thought of when you said the movies were un-democratic.. I think the story is actualy very encouraging (albeit indirectly) for democracy. &nbsp;I think anyone who understands the hero archetype and sees such a good illustration of it (I litteraly had goosebumps and felt compeltely cathartic seeing the last half or so of the Anakin character's story, even though I'm not a SW geek at all) will see what it means to live well, to live fully. &nbsp;I think giving life everything you have at every moment that goes by is the only way to live. &nbsp;I think if everyone lived this way, the world would improve 100 fold.. But to the point, the best way for any average person (no inherited forture or other deus ex) to live this way that we have in our real world today, I think, is democracy. &nbsp;I think that's obvious to anyone who understands this hero archetype, and it's why the same ol "democracy" talk was so glossed over in the movie.. Talk is cheap... Actions speak more credibly than words.</p><p>The hero demonstrates this by standing out from someone who doesn't live this fully (everyone else in the population, basicaly) by virtue of his actions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Anyway, I thought the turn with the Mule was a great plot twist.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and of all his Foundation stories, Asimov said that "The Mule" was his favorite. &nbsp;Mine, too, although the struggle between the Mule and the First Speaker of the Second Foundation in the story that followed, where they were mentally duking it out, was a dramatic high point....although it probably would be difficult to translate to the big screen.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And there were times when psychohistory seemed less like a plan and more like a tourniquet, in that it was designed to shorten the Galactic Dark Ages to only 1000 years. I wonder if any of this was a reflection of Asimov's experience with the great Depression? </DIV></p><p>He wrote that when he was on his way to John W. Campbell's office (then-editor of <span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Astounding Science Fiction Magazine</span>) to discuss a new story concept, he didn't have a clear idea in mind, but somehow starting thinking of a famous book that he had read not once, but twice: <span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</span>. &nbsp;He thought, "why not make it a <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">Galactic</span> Empire?" &nbsp;Campbell loved the idea, and the two of them hashed out the whole Foundation plotline, including their invention of the branch of social and statistical mathematics they called "psychohistory". &nbsp;I agree that the ominous part of the Seldon Plan was the establishment of a ruling elite of Second Foundationers, who's role was essentially that of puppetmasters, but I suppose I was convinced of their benevolence when I first read the original trilogy, and it upset me that Asimov cast them in a much less noble light in the later novels.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know how that background story with the robots, basically tying the two series together, would play out with movie audiences, either. Also, I appreciate what you say about the search for Earth. There is a certain Deux ex Machina to that particular book.BTW, did you ever read the Foundation prequels that were written by Brin-Bedford-Bear? I read the Benford one but had to stop. I really think the Asimov estate/publishers should have left well enough alone... <br /> Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>Agreed. &nbsp;I read them all, but none could do Asimov justice.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>