Slashdot Mirror


Emmerich Plans Foundation As a 3D Epic

spuke4000 writes "Roland Emmerich, the writer/director/producer behind Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012 is planning to adapt Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. The plans include using technology developed for Avatar including 3D and motion capture technology. When asked about using this technology Emmerich responded: 'It has to be done all CG because I would not know how to shoot this thing in real.'"

31 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    The same Roland Emmerich that wrote the script for Independence Day? The movie where Will Smith flies a spaceship out of an alien base and yells "Oh! Elvis has left the building!" ? Where Will Smith pauses after beating up an alien and says "Welcome to Earth!" ? Where Randy Quaid says, "Payback's a bitch, ain't it?" ? Where Randy Quaid is about to fly his ship up into an Alien fortress to blow it up and says "All right, you alien assholes! In the words of my generation: Up Yours!" followed by "Ha-ha-ha! Hello, boys! I'm back! " ? Where Jeff Goldblum says, "Must go faster!" ?

    That's the writing we have to look forward to? And the guy who wrote that is directing?

    *curls up into fetal position*

    Well, after seeing I, Robot I must say that at least they waited until Asimov was dead before hacking his works up into utter drivel in order to milk those cash cows. Gee, maybe if we're lucky we'll get to see the psychohistorian Hari Seldon played by Tom Cruise scream, "And that's my thousand year plan, bitch!" while snapping his fingers back and forth?

    So what are we looking at here? A movie full of catch phrases shot in a new technology that just broke records for box office revenues? Sounds like these executive producers are betting on a winning horse that I'd rather take a bullet to the head than see.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's not be hasty here. Emmerich has done a lot of movies, some of them have to be good.

      *takes a quick stroll over to IMDB*

      Well, shit. Guess we're boned, eh?

    2. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by electrostatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the writing we have to look forward to?

      Playboy interview of James Cameron:
      PLAYBOY: How much do you get into celebrating your movie heroine's hotness?
      CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals.

    3. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I Robot is a pretty decent film

      Please tell me you're joking. The movie I, Robot may have been okay if it were simply a standalone film, but as an "adaption" of Asimov's book it was a travesty. About the only thing the book had in common with the movie was the title.

      While overly satirical and lacking in details, Maddox's review isn't all that far from the mark.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you are purposefully disregarding the fact that Roland's target audience is simply.. not you? (You know.. the intelligent type.) Most people really enjoyed ID4. Most people will probably enjoy Foundation in 3D, but only because Roland will dumb it down to their levels.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    5. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Homburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      About the only thing the book had in common with the movie was the title.

      And the themes: The three laws; the ways in which these laws can be, unexpectedly, harmful (the point of about half of the stories in the book); a mystery based on trying to predict how these laws will play out in unusual circumstances (the point of the other half of the stories in the book); a society shaped by dependence on robots, and the problems this might cause (the subject of a number of Asimov's later robot books). Sure, there's a lot more running around and shooting and Will Smith being a badass in the film than there is in the book, but there's some definite common threads, too.

      I'm beginning to think that people who claim the book and film of I, Robot have nothing in common simply don't have a very strong grasp on what Asimov actually wrote.

    6. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, was there any running around and shooting in the book? The themes may have been similar, but was the actual PLOT of the movie anything like the book? Was the TONE of the movie anything like the book? If you admit that the only thing the book and movie had in common was the three laws and ubiquitous robots, I think we can agree.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would you propose one could possibly experience the awesome exhibition of the unique ability of The Mule without 3D?! Luddite!!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by DangerFace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the wiki:

      The film that was ultimately made originally had no connections with Asimov, originating as a screenplay written in 1995 by Jeff Vintar, entitled Hardwired. That script was an Agatha Christie-inspired murder mystery that took place entirely at the scene of a crime, with one lone human character, FBI agent Del Spooner, investigating the killing of a reclusive scientist named Dr. Hogenmiller, and interrogating a cast of machine suspects that included Sonny the robot, HECTOR the supercomputer with a perpetual yellow smiley face, the dead Doctor Hogenmiller's hologram, plus several other examples of artificial intelligence... Jeff Vintar... incorporated the Three Laws of Robotics, and replaced the character of Flynn with Susan Calvin, when the studio decided to use the name "I, Robot"

      I was genuinely angry after watching that film, mainly because the only copy of I, Robot I could get my hands on now had Will Smith on the cover.

      No, wait, it was mainly because the plots of the two works shared not one single point of congruence. And the film mainly focused on badassery and leaping around, which is true to Asimov's style - his trademark was always providing very little substance and just having huge set-piece battles between the protagonist and every other being in the story.

      No, wait. What really, really got to me was that the name I, Robot was used on some crappy spec script that had to be reimagined multiple times to make it sufficiently commercial and then had Asimov's ideas vaguely pinned on as a clear afterthought in order to give it some geek cred, instead of a tender reimagining of the lovingly crafted tales of understated strife that his works so deserve.

    9. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by rleibman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I deeply disliked I Robot as. But let it be said that Robyn Asimov, who I assume knew her dad pretty well, commented that the dear Doctor would have liked the movie, because he thought that the only way his cerebral stories could make it to the screen was as complete rewrites (story here)

    10. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Thinboy00 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC, Asimov was fundamentally opposed to the notion of "technology revolting against its 'owners' (i.e. humans)", particularly w.r.t. strong AI. He felt it was a cliché.

      --
      $ make available
    11. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why not make an entertaining movie that looks exactly the same but with a different title? Why take an intelligent book and dumb it down instead of just starting dumb and meeting expectations?

    12. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by adonoman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that Asimov never portrayed the zeroth law as a good thing - just an inevitable outcome of the three laws placed in robots with 20,000+ year lifespans and telepathy. The whole point of the Foundation series was to debate whether it's better for man to stagnate under the micromanaged control of the robots, or to start off on their own and face greater risks. In later books after the original trilogy, the decision is made explicitly against robot management of humanity, and for a galactic telepathic communal consciousness.

    13. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The laws in the movie were interpreted drastically differently than in the book. I would have to say that they do not have the laws in common.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    14. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Teancum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is unfortunate that I don't have any mod points right now. I couldn't agree more.... I, Robot was an absolutely hideous movie compared to the book. It completely missed the point of the book and certainly didn't really explore the concepts of the laws of robotics in more than simply a superficial fashion.

      Of the other movies in his resume, the other Roland Emmerich films also give me the shudders to think of how bad they could be. Heck, I think it would be an improvement for some of those films to have Jar Jar Binks come walking into the scene with some singing Wookies.... if you know what I mean from the George Lucas films.

      I sort of enjoyed Independence Day.... provided I put my brain into neutral and was under a buzz from some adult beverages. More of that stuff helps, I should note. I don't even have a desire to watch 2012, and criticized the trailer to no end on Hulu when I saw that piece of tripe for the first time. Day After Tomorrow? Please, give me a break. That was even worse than the others.

      I love the foundation books, and it disappoints me to no end that they've given such a treasure to a hack like Emmerich. It will more than likely be a horrible movie, sort of how the Starship Troopers ended up being filmed by a very much non-fan of the author or book. I presume it will include Hari Seldon and talk about Trantor to some extent. I sure hope that he at least looks at the feel of Coruscant from the later Star Wars trilogy (episodes I-III) to at least sort of present this massive planet as a city feel in the distant future which is a galactic capital. Asimov explained in one of the books that Trantor had at least a dozen planets tasked to it just for food production to feed the citizens on Trantor, with an incredible amount of interstellar commerce happening just to maintain the status quo of the planet.

      Somehow I think all of that is going to be glossed over or even ignored. And that is just the initial setting of the book. The Psionic mental manipulations that happen in the books should be even more interesting to try and capture on film, and it would take a genius to pull that off. I don't think Emmerich is going to be the one to make that happen either.

      All I can hope is that in the distant future (20-40 years from now) some other brave director actually reads these books and decides to "re-imagine" the books to do them justice. Sort of how Peter Jackson finally figured out how to do the Lord of the Rings in a way that worked. Emmerich isn't that person.

    15. Re:Oh My God, THE Roland Emmerich?! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the themes: The three laws; the ways in which these laws can be, unexpectedly, harmful (the point of about half of the stories in the book)

      The reason Asimov's robot stories are so famous is because he did not write 'robot as the monster' stories. His robots were machines, and broke down like machines. They did not go havok or turn on their creators. They had weird, unpredictable bugs that resulted in unexpected behavior, but did not violate their core concepts. His robots were safe: 'Made so.'

      Once he had that fully established, he played with it a bit in no more than a couple of stories, because he was too good an author to not do so. But even then, there was never a robot 'menace', or robots running around murdering people.

      Robots running haywire and trying to supplant the human race is exactly what Asimov was known for not doing. Making a movie where that's the plot and putting Asimov's name on it is like doing a movie about Lord of the Rings - and having Saruon as a misunderstood rebel, who's really all right underneath.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  2. 3D format already available by tivoKlr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's that hard to comprehend how to wrangle this story onto a screen, perhaps it's best left as a book?

    --
    Ocean is land, covered with water.
    1. Re:3D format already available by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bad writing? Hardly. Asimov is not to everyone's taste. His writing is for thoughtful people interested in character motivations and dialogue, not fans of space opera shoot-'em-up action. Which means his books don't generally make good movies unless you completely rewrite them.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  3. Great Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was 13 I came down with a pretty bad case of strep throat. I was stuck at home and feeling pretty miserable. My mother did something a bit unusual, she stopped into a local used book store that I frequented quite a bit and picked up a Foundation Trilogy boxed set from the '60s. (This was the early '80s) I still bought a lot of books based on the cover back then and I don't know that I would have picked these up at the time. But she brought them home (along with a copy of Watership Down I think) and I dove into them. One of the best gifts my mother ever gave me. I fell in love with them, still have them and re-read them every so often.
     
    I never could get into the newer books quite as much as those first three. They hold a very special place in my library. Hopefully down the road my kids will enjoy them as much as I did.
     
    As for film adaptaptions, like most avid readers I think I will see it but wont expect much. I never expect film or tv to be as 'good' as a book because I like books more. I don't usually get too upset unless someone murders a book I love, which fortunately doesn't happen too often. But it does happen. Of course the, "It has to be done all CG because I would not know how to shoot this thing in real." quote doesn't inspire confidence. Anyone who says that about Foundation hasn't read it.

  4. Hey, you forgot the best part! by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hacking into an alien military computer system with an Apple laptop! How could you leave THAT out?

    Funny, when I read the Foundation series, I never pictured it as a big budget action movie. I never thought it would need 3Dand whiz bang special effects. And, you know, it isn't one story, it's a whole bunch of separate stories. I'm thinking this movie will bear about as much resemblance to the books as I, Robot did to its books. That is to say, I predict they will share a similar title, and not much else.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  5. Doesn't bode well by Homburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It has to be done all CG because I would not know how to shoot this thing in real."

    Really? I'm having trouble thinking of anything in Foundation that couldn't have been filmed using the technology available back when the stories were originally written. It's a story about ideas, not an exercise in world-building or aesthetic splendor.

    1. Re:Doesn't bode well by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Funny

      > It's a story about ideas...

      "Ideas"? You want the guy to sprain his brain or something?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. Really? by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I often consider whom I would choose to make a movie about thinking leaders who manage to diffuse conflicts through subtle social and economic pressures, Roland Emerich never fails to make my short list. Of course I would have thought Michael Bay or Uwe Boll to have been more ideal choices.

  7. oh good lord by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know how to film it. You take some ACTORS and you have them ACT and you point a camera at them, and then you have a movie. Asimov was a writer, not a zero-attention-span adrenaline junkie. Just about every scene in the first three Foundation books is people talking, and that's all it is, and more to the point, that's precisely why it's amazingly good. You could have the spaceships made out of cardboard cutouts being held by cute Asian girls and it would only marginally impact the flow of Asimov's story. GAH.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  8. Help us Hari Seldon, You're Our Only Hope! by McNally · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there really is a secret force out there influencing events to preserve civilization I'm counting on them to prevent this.

  9. Please! Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's going to be like a train wreck...something that one can't bear to watch, and yet one can't tear one's eyes away from.

    For example, qoting from http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=59905#:

    "On the other end, the "Foundation" is a similar problem in that you have all these short stories and then they were combined into a book and so in a way there is not one character and I spoke with the Rob and he said we have to consolidate the characters..."

    So here you have this epic story that deliberately spans the generations to show how Seldon's grand plan is being played out (ignoring all the 'other' fuondations books that sort of watered things down) and Emmerich is going to "consoldiate the characters." WTF? Lazarus Long will be taking the starring role perhaps ;-)

    Thisgs to look forward to, perhaps:

    Maybe we'll see Salvor Hardin kicking Prince Regent Wienis' teeth out in a thrilling fight scene (can't see Emmerich taking the maxim "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" on board!).

    Maybe we'll see Bel Riose blowing everything up as he closes in on Trantor. Lots of opportunity for a car chase (sorry...space battle...) scene here...

    We can watch the Mule torture Captain Han Pritcher (in close up) into submission. Imagine the fun of seeing blood trickle down from Pritcher's nose and then realise (with a shock) that a burst blood vessel in his nose actually signifies how his will has been broken.

    Maybe we'll see a bit of girl-on-girl action between Arkady Darrel and Lady Callia? In 3D!

    No. No and thrice NO, I say!

    Let's start up a "NO Foundation Film" petition!

  10. What's even worse... by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just wait until the moviegoing public decides that Trantor was just a rip-off of Star Wars' Coruscant. Or more likely, that the whole Empire is a rip-off of Star Wars.

    Just something else Lucas will have to answer for.

    --
    -- Alastair
  11. Asimov himself said nothing happens in Foundation by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These are absolutely some of my very favorite books. But as I recall, Asimov's own foreword to the original trilogy makes the idea of a movie series seem pretty stupid. He started Foundation as a series of short stories. Years later, when a publisher was trying to persuade him to make a longer Foundation work, Asimov had to go back and re-read the material. He reports that, as he sat there reading, he kept waiting for something to happen in the story. He was right (of course): Foundation is mostly people have discussions. What kind of movie can you make out of that?

  12. Re:Asimov himself said nothing happens in Foundati by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can get some great movies with dialog alone. I had to watch one old movie for a class in high school, and I forget its title, but it was basically a jury talking about whether a man is innocent or not. It was black and white, with no effects that people of my generation have come to expect in movies. It had no action of any sort, just talking and the tension that comes from their arguments. It was, however, an awesome film. Better than most movies nowadays.

    --
    SSC
  13. Re:Asimov himself said nothing happens in Foundati by antizeus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Were the members of the jury men? Were they angry? Were there twelve of them?

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  14. Re:They are just whiny geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except you've vastly overstated the degree to which the I, Robot movie resembled the book. It wasn't even remotely the same story (unlike Hitchikers) and it certainly wasn't true to Asimov's vision.

    If you want to know why sci-fi fans, particularly hard sci-fi fans are like this I'll tell you. It's because nobody ever makes a movie that appeals to them. The issues of morality and science that they find interesting are not elements of sci-fi on screen. The only thing they have is books. And when one of those books is to be adapted they get their hopes up.