Apple Shares Teaser for Upcoming Apple TV+ Series 'Foundation'

Honestly, this is the first series I haven't been cautiously optimistic at best about; it looks amazing.

The Foundation novels are interesting, and they certainly had a big impact on science fiction as a genre, but they seem totally un-adaptable to me. Not only that, they didn't age very well. Many of Asimov's predictions seem insanely bad now. He had no idea the internet was coming (of course), but the books revolve around a bunch of scientists making an encyclopedic book containing all of mankind's knowledge. All of these people are male, and all are scientists (arts have no place in an encyclopedia I guess?), and further, there's no concept that knowledge could be preserved or disseminated in any form other than a physical book. The total lack of women in the novels, the shortsightedness of his future predictions, the silliness and naivety of psychohistory as a concept, all make these books hard to read in retrospect.

All this to say that any successful TV adaptation will have to dramatically alter the novels in order to make them interesting and relevant for modern audiences.

Why does everything have to be about PC culture? If all the scientists are males in this SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL, then so be it. With every company clamoring to virtue signal as the next biggest social justice warrior, novel/shows like this would be a breath of fresh air. You underestimate counter cultural trends and the need for fantasy that is not a mirror reflection of our own reality.

Anyone else think it had a slight kid’s show vibe? Dunno if it was the bright coloured clothes, or the focus on the main child character, or something else. Anyone know what the books are like?

The books can be read by a 10yo and a 99yo alike. Asimov's greatness resides in how his texts flow, you never feel that there is an unnecessary word. Anything that your imagination can imagine while reading his Foundation series (or the Robot series) will work wonders.

The Foundation novels are interesting, and they certainly had a big impact on science fiction as a genre, but they seem totally un-adaptable to me. Not only that, they didn't age very well. Many of Asimov's predictions seem insanely bad now. He had no idea the internet was coming (of course), but the books revolve around a bunch of scientists making an encyclopedic book containing all of mankind's knowledge. All of these people are male, and all are scientists (arts have no place in an encyclopedia I guess?), and further, there's no concept that knowledge could be preserved or disseminated in any form other than a physical book. The total lack of women in the novels, the shortsightedness of his future predictions, the silliness and naivety of psychohistory as a concept, all make these books hard to read in retrospect.

All this to say that any successful TV adaptation will have to dramatically alter the novels in order to make them interesting and relevant for modern audiences.

it seems that I read different Foundation. In the book I know women play very important role. And for me sf is not about predicting future. It is a way to open mind to create worlds that do not have to exist but are like sandbox for ideas. I am sorry to say but I did not see any of “my“ Foundation in this trailer. But I will definitely wait with great interest.

there's no concept that knowledge could be preserved or disseminated in any form other than a physical book.

Well, we don't know what will happen between now and 30,000+ years from now. Anything could happen, including the loss of distributed knowledge through electronic means. Or, as it happens in the universe of Frank Herbert's Dune, you might even have a future in which travel in space happens but without any electronics.

No. Now I've seen what they have in mind, it's exactly what I expected. The big cop-out is the "Based on... " thing. It shares the name - "Foundation", and the names of some of the characters... and that's it. Everything else is the product of the production company. These changes are not 'alterations' for the purposes of making the task of filming easier. It's just pointless fiddling with the basics of the story to suit the personal agendas of the makers, and pandering to the appetites and social mores of the times.

Recasting / gender swapping... one of the major changes is in making Eto Demerzel female. You might consider this a trivial change, purely done in the interests of balance and inclusivity. However, if you've read any of the books set in what we might call the "Foundation" universe then you'll know what a huge deal this is, as in, utterly fundamental to the vast bulk of what comes before and after "Foundation". Read "The Caves of Steel" and go on from there, and you'll get the picture. With that one change, the producers have painted themselves into a corner which they can only escape from if they make the central theme of the whole series gender politics and sexuality. Which it isn't.

'Foundation' is not "Star Wars", or Dune, or indeed anything else. There's a school of thought which says that without changing aspects of it to make it palatable to a modern audience, it's unfilmable. This is incorrect. If you stay close to the source material, then of course, you don't get "Star Wars", or anything involving bands of plucky exiles etc. etc., but you would get something closer to say... "I, Claudius". A series which placed 12 in the list of 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. Incidentally, featuring a young Patrick Stewart! Google it if you don't know it.

Someone once commented that Asimovs books don't have any action , just lots of talking. The reply was that the talking is the action! And indeed, that is the case. No strong or pivotal female characters? Then you haven't read the books. Two characters, central to the overall story that encompasses the original three Foundation novels are Bayta and Arkady Darell. There are others. But we digress... Foundation isn't about technology, connectivity, gender politics, black holes, spacecraft, people running around with guns and stuff on fire. With depressing predictability, it's about what I'd expect from whoever thought that making shallow, forgettable 'Batman" movies was credential enough for this. Imagine deciding to film Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", and then, bizarrely, deciding that the guy that did that Batman movie would be perfect for the job.

Sure, it'll look fabulous, as it should, and all the money will be right up there on screen, giant spacecraft, moody lighting, black holes from that other movie and everything. It might even have an engaging story of some sort, in the vein of "plucky band of outsiders, beset on all sides by sinister, monolithic and implacable foes, seek to right wrongs and save the galaxy against all the odds". I wonder why they didn't just write their own story... but it seems they've done just that, and tacked the name "Foundation" onto it to lend it some gravitas and authority.

I was not convinced when it was first announced that they were going to do this. As more information has become available, I became less and less convinced, and more sure that they'd produce pretty much what we see in the trailer. It could have been, should have been great... but instead, it looks like we'll get something like Will Smiths 2004 "I, Robot" - also notionally from an Asimov book, and about as far from it as this will be. Another missed opportunity.

NB: If you think Asimov couldn't make predictions about the future, then you should read some of his non-fiction. Also, I know these books inside out, and can, and will, quote passages verbatim.

E.g: "Foundation" - Part 1: The Psychohistorians. First line after entry for Hari Seldon is as follows:

"His name was Gaal Dornick and he was just a country boy who had never seen Trantor before."

First word of the first line of the first chapter of the first book - changed, for no reason. Downhill from there.