Interesting extract from a longer /Film interview with in-demand director Roxann Dawson.
I appreciate how she speaks with respect for the shows of the new era.
Interesting extract from a longer /Film interview with in-demand director Roxann Dawson.
I appreciate how she speaks with respect for the shows of the new era.
With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I admit my views are coloured by my love of Asimov’s work, and their radical re-write has left a bad taste in my mouth. But when I analyse this show objectively I am left bewildered that anyone could call it “excellent fucking science fiction.”
Most of the actors are TERRIBLE. It was like watching wooden planks act. Instead of developing the story in any meaningful way, the directors chose to focus on disparate and dream-like sequences which appear to have little connection to each other. Bizarre pacing. They took the expansive time gaps and somehow made them confusing and meaningless. The dialogue is atrocious. The CGI is laughable. The accents are ridiculous. This is science fiction of the worst kind.
Lee Pace is the only reason I finished season one. Despite the horrific writing, he somehow pulls it off. The Expanse set the bar very high for sci-fi, but it showed us it can be done well. Foundation is fantasy in space. It’s Wheel of Time and Rings of Power in space bad.
@JasSmith
As far as I see it: The series actually reverts the whole premise of Asimov’s vision, which is:
The behaviour of large groups of people can be modelled statistically, whilst in the series, everything hinges on specific events and persons.
If you want to film a long term epic tale about galactic civilisations, be my guest, but don’t call it “Foundation”.
Note: As good as Asimov’s world building is, literarily, he’s only mediocre.
@StillPaisleyCat @chemical_cutthroat @downpunxx
@JasSmith
Now that I pissed off as well the fans of the series, as the ones of Asimov, let me explain:
Asimov set milestones for SF:
His Laws of Robotics and Foundation are cornerstones of the genre.
When I say: “His literature is mediocre” it’s because he is not truly interested in his characters. He has no love for them. His stories are ideas driven, not character driven.
I’d still recommend him to anybody, even mildly interested in SF.
@StillPaisleyCat @chemical_cutthroat @downpunxx
I can get behind this take.
I don’t think we should over-exalt 20th century science fiction literature that was fantastic at communicating concepts and ideas but made no genuine effort to do that with well developed characters.
The awe factor was great, and it did inspire, but even for avid readers, it can be a slog. If one takes the position the value of science fiction lies in engaging a broader audience than those of us who can read the math and follow the science, then it needs to be engaging enough that it attracts and holds the interest that audience.
At this point in my life, I expect both good ideas and good characterization and storytelling. Otherwise, I’d rather just read stories and models in real math. I have no criticism at all of the show’s EPs effort to make the ideas in Foundation more appealing and accessible with better storytelling.
I first read the Foundation series in my teens, after Dune and Dune Messiah, having graduated out of John Wyndham and run out of Arthur C Clark at my school and public libraries. Foundation held my attention, the ideas were cool, but I was also reading anything I could when I wasn’t doing schoolwork. I find it hard to imagine it would have held my interest in the face of the kinds of diversions kids can take with them now.