Post by Adam H. Kerman Post by David Johnston Post by Ed Stasiak
Foundation: Very good
La Brea: Trash.
They're both trash.
I think everybody expected "La Brea" to be garbage, as the premiss is dumb
and its a broadcast tv show but "Foundation" maybe coulda been decent but
as is apparently now standard procedure with Hollywood, they bought the
rights to the books only to shitcan the story and make up their own retarded
"Foundation" is a nice looking show and the acting is good and the cloned
emperors is a neato idea (even though it never happened in the books) but
they're completely disregarding the original story, so why spend the money
picking up the tv rights to the books?
Question: Does the Foundation TV series, have a mathematician who
predicts the fall of the Empire, and proposes that a bunch of people be
shipped off to the ass-end of the Galaxy to preserve civilization and
build a new Empire later? Because if that happened then they are not
completely disregarding the original story.
Also, since you say "now" please tell me what time it was when Hollywood
could be relied upon to tell a story exactly the way the source material
had it when adapting it from another medium.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is as ideal a movie adaptation as Hollywood
ever produced. There were plot changes and there was a major change to
the ending, however. A significant aspect of backstory in the novel was
implied but not stated overtly in the movie.
So even the best adaptation ever done still gets changed a bit from the
source material, but I'd argue it's faithful.
That you don't believe it's possible to do a high-quality faithful
adaptation doesn't mean it's impossible, Johnston.
Oh I believe it's possible..at least with the right starting story. The
most impressively faithful adaptation I ever saw was the Hunger Games
movie. The biggest difference was the loss of Katniss's internal
monologue, which honestly only helped the story because her internal
monologue made her seem like kind of a dumbass. I also believe there
never was a time when most adaptations were that faithful and I'm
slightly irritated when people pretend that frequent alterations in
adaptation are something that only started happening recently and
Hollywood did a "better" job of such things in the past.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Foundation stories were going to require major changes in adaptation
anyway. Asimov never wrote with ease of adaptation in mind, and he was
also a better nonfiction writer than he was a fiction writer.
Nightfall was pretty good. But nobody will ever do a good adaptation of
it. It's impossible. You can describe how horrifying stars are to a
people who have never seen them, but you can't show it.