Apple Is Developing a TV Show Based On Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series (deadline.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Deadline: In a competitive situation, Apple has nabbed a TV series adaptation of Foundation, the seminal Isaac Asimov science fiction novel trilogy. The project, from Skydance Television, has been put in development for straight-to-series consideration. Deadline revealed last June that Skydance had made a deal with the Asimov estate and that David S. Goyer and Josh Friedman were cracking the code on a sprawling series based on the books that informed Star Wars and many other sci-fi films and TV series. Goyer and Friedman will be executive producers and showrunners. Skydance's David Ellison, Dana Goldberg and Marcy Ross also will executive produce.

Originally published as a short story series in Astounding Magazine in 1942, Asimov's Foundation is the complex saga of humans scattered on planets throughout the galaxy, all living under the rule of the Galactic Empire. The protagonist is a psycho-historian who has an ability to read the future and foresees the empire's imminent collapse. He sets out to save the knowledge of mankind from being wiped out. Even the Game of Thrones' creative team would marvel at the number of empires that rise and fall in Foundation. Asimov's trilogy has been tried numerous times as a feature film at Fox, Warner Bros (with Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, who greenlit The Lord of the Rings), and then at Sony with Independence Day director Roland Emmerich. Many top sci-fi writers have done scripts and found it daunting to constrict the sprawling saga to a feature film format. Most recently, HBO tried developing a series with Interstellar co-writer and Westworld exec producer Jonathan Nolan, but a script was never ordered.

Comments

Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[smooth wombat]

Many top sci-fi writers have done scripts and found it daunting to constrict the sprawling saga to a feature film format.

I finished reading the trilogy a week or so ago. There is no feasible way to take what was five hundred or so years of conflict and intrigue, and all the attendant characters, and make it into a two-hour movie. Nor even a three-hour movie.

Whatever would come out would be a shell of the story, the characters lifeless, and the plot unable to be followed by the majority of viewers. A tv show is the only way to approach Asimov's story since it allows for longer development of plot lines and encompass the time involved.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[Bradmont]

> Whatever would come out would be a shell of the story, the characters lifeless, and the plot unable to be followed by the majority of viewers. A tv show is the only way to approach Asimov's story since it allows for longer development of plot lines and encompass the time involved. Honestly, the characters were already lifeless. I have read and loved a lot of Asimov's writing, but characters were never his forte, and the characters in Foundation are downright flat.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[Sumus Semper Una]

Having read the novels some years ago, the only part of it that seems like it would make much sense as a movie was the part where The Mule messes up psychohistory. And without all the backstory it just wouldn't be as strong a story.

All I can say is if they do make this into a series I hope they take their time casting The Mule. He was actually one of my favorite characters of the books for some reason I've never been able to identify.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[nospam007]

" A tv show is the only way to approach Asimov's story"

Indeed. And every year will finish with the line:
"It doesn't matter, because I know, where the Second Foundation REALLY is!"

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[EndlessNameless]

This is why I liked the Altered Carbon series on Netflix better than most movie adaptations, in spite of some changes. The world and plot was slightly different than the novel, but it did the story justice in a way a 2-3 hour film could not.

A longer series could have avoided the heavy-handed exposition of the virtual/stack technology. And allow more time for the characters to shine, which is usually possible with the depth available from the novel.

With on-demand streaming becoming more popular, I hope to see more novels adapted in this fashion.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[lkcl]

I finished reading the trilogy a week or so ago. There is no feasible way to take what was five hundred or so years of conflict and intrigue, and all the attendant characters, and make it into a two-hour movie. Nor even a three-hour movie.

now that you've read those, can i also recommend the books that were written by authors under the direction of the Asimov Estate? Roger Allen McBride, and Greg Bear. "I, Caliban" and "Foundation and Chaos". also, can i recommend "The End of Eternity", you will see why when you read them. also, "The Robots of Dawn" (paying special attention to Giskard - http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/R... - who later featured indirectly in "Robots and Empire")

the primary reason is this: i see it again and again, stupid stupid politicians and even high-profile people like elon musk being total idiots, recommending that the "Three Laws be put into Law" or "Sent Into Space". anyone who TRULY UNDERSTANDS the Three Laws knows that they are DEEPLY FLAWED.

Asimov spent a LIFETIME EXPLAINING WHY.

it boils down to the fact that the robots were incapable - literally - of permitting humans to take risk. they had no imagination and no free will (a facet explored in the "I, Caliban" series with the "New Law" robots, which *did* have some modicum of free will).

Giskard was the first Robot with a Zeroth Law, "Thou shalt not allow HUMANITY through action or inaction to come to harm". He "imprinted" that - and his telepathic ability - onto R Daneel, who over the next thirty THOUSAND years became the hidden background character that (as described in "The End of Eternity") caused Earth to become mildy radioactive, forcing humans into space, where, unfortunately, due to the Robots, they populated 50 worlds.... and stopped.

The Foundation Series then jumps forward thirty thousand years, to cover an epic fight for human survival, where it is only AFTER Asimov died and other authors were permitted to "fill in the gaps" (Foundation and Chaos by Greg Bear) do we find out what was really going on.

So, when you say "would not fit into a four hour film".... I would be genuinely extremely surprised if the full depth and breadth of Asimov's work would be able to fit into anything less than a 200-series show of an hour each.

I am.. blown away that people believe that the three laws are a good idea. completely astounded.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[aitikin]

All I can say is if they do make this into a series I hope they take their time casting The Mule. He was actually one of my favorite characters of the books for some reason I've never been able to identify.

Likely because he's the only character that actually has any...character to him? I mean, it's been about a decade since I read them, so grain of salt added, but I seem to recall none of the characters really having depth outside of The Mule. Everyone else felt like a cross between a red shirt and any one of the 12 dwarves in The Hobbit that weren't the king. I can't remember any of their names (I'm bad with names though) and couldn't tell you any characteristics of them other than the men in Foundation often smoke.

It'll be interesting to see how/if Apple will address that last point...but the lead writer attached worries me...I don't need to remind anyone about Batman V Superman, do I?

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[datavirtue]

If you have good content these days and you don't make it into a series you are seriously out of touch with consumers. I need to be able to binge-watch an in-depth literary masterpiece for free. There is no need to cut or twist anything...just produce a series.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[Darinbob]

It does bring up a problem I had with the books. The ability to predict the big picture of the future seemed off to me. The Mule definitely put that in prespective. However there are many Mules in history, or as people say it these days, Black Swans

For instance, if the new world had not had tobacco, it would have greatly changed the history of many countries. This accelerated the colonization of the new world. Similarly, a small change in negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles could have prevented WWII, which changed the entire world. And most big changes in history can be tracked back to earlier changes in history (did Martin Luther indirectly lead to Napoleon's campaigns, and this Napoleon indirectly lead to WWI, etc).

The difference with the Foundation series is that it suggests that in the long term all these small changes in history will smooth out and result in essentially the predicted result. But since those books were written there was the increased interest in chaos theory that took a very different view, that the small changes end up causing large and unpredictable long term changes.

So ya, in real life, tobacco was a huge plot point.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[AHuxley]

Radio shows could Foundation Series. Just find a TV person with skills. Dont turn it into a Star Trek: Discovery.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[crunchygranola]

He is terrific as Khruschev in The Death of Stalin which is an amazing movie. It is a black comedy, but it is also - ironically - one of the most accurate historical movies I have seen. Satire does not get in the way of truthfulness.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[dryeo]

More likely delayed a bit until another excuse showed itself. At the time, some of the great powers, in particular Germany, were just itching to go to war and just needed the excuse and with the treaties in effect at the time, any conflict was going to expand.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[war4peace]

Oh come on!
Hari Seldon is a very well defined character.
Great characters abound: Yugo Amaryl, Raych, Dors Venabili, even Demerzel/Daneel. You could even infer a couple emperors' character traits from the scenes they appear in.
That alone for the first book.

Admittedly, the interim period up until the Mule is a bit bleak, however Bel Riose is a good character worth expanding a bit, and moving on to the latter books, I liked the Golan Trevize/Janov Pelorat/Bliss trio, a LOT. They go through quite a few adventures together.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[AmiMoJo]

The robots where usually the best characters.

Re:Difficult to compress centuries to hours

[AmiMoJo]

Altered Carbon was a pretty good adaptation, but they really toned it down a lot for TV and in doing so Kovacs was a much less interesting character. I really liked the contrast between his more human side and when he flips the Envoy switch in the books, but that was mostly lost on TV.

Still, overall it was quite good. Hopefully we get the sequels too.

the psycho-historian doesn't 'read the future'

[fredrated]

he develops the mathematics to predict the future based on large-scale statistical analysis.

Re:the psycho-historian doesn't 'read the future'

[lkcl]

he develops the mathematics to predict the future based on large-scale statistical analysis.

that's not quite correct: the pioneer of psychohistory is R Giskard:
http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/R...

Asimov's stories are *really* complicated and absolutely amazing, whilst at the same time being drier than frozen CO2 and consequently at times an awesome pain in the ass to read.

Foundation Series on TV? Gah.

[TheZeitgeist]

Ambien is Foundation Series in a bottle. How does one express effects of a sleeping pill on the TV? An artistic challenge right there.

And its TV, which means they have to sex it up somehow. How do you do that with Foundation Series?

Its going to be nothing like the books, or its going to be unwatchable. Probably both.

Sci-Fi Resurgence?

[mentil]

Seems quite a few classic sci-fi novels are being picked up for streaming/TV series adaptations recently. Foundation, Consider Phlebas, Ringworld, The Three-Body Problem, Altered Carbon, The Expanse. And then there's Star Trek: Discovery and The Orville. Television sci-fi was dead just a few years ago, I wonder what happened all of the sudden? One could say 'Game of Thrones' led to a general resurgence of geek lit, but there's a suspicious dearth of recent fantasy novel adaptations; Shannara and Wheel of Time are the only ones I'm aware of. Maybe Black Mirror or rising interest in SpaceX are responsible.

Re:Sci-Fi Resurgence?

[TheZeitgeist]

I suspect there is something to having good analytics about what people - as in the vast majority of people living beyond pop-culture's limited horizon - actually watch. Nielsen ratings are as antiquated as NTSC, and everyone knew it but nobody had different datasets to compare. With Netflix et al, now they do.

And there is precedent for this in movies - which bank on books almost by default. Outside of Star Trek, Star Wars, and Pixar, every big franchise started with a book. And its been that way ever since Popcorn Movie era began with Jaws (not ironically originally a book).

There's been exceptions like Indiana Jones and The Matrix, but overwhelmingly Hollywood depends on books to not only get plots, but gauge popularity (and longevity) of a given book to ascertain market for making movies and TV based on it.

Re:Sci-Fi Resurgence?

[thinkwaitfast]

Good sci-fi does not rely on special effects. That's for soap operas in space

Original Content

[craXORjack]

I love the way the streaming companies are getting into the business of creating content. Sure, some of it, okay a lot of it, sucks. But a lot of it is quite good. Another classic Sci-Fi novel I've been waiting to see made and maybe it will soon is Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama. Guess who has the rights and has been trying to get it made for 20 years... Morgan Freeman. I never thought of him as a Sci-Fi kind of guy but, yeah.

Re:It's Apple

[Joce640k]

This will only inconvenience their paying customers, not the pirates.

(as with all DRM)

Foundation Has Not Aged Well

[acvh]

I read Foundation and its sequels as a teen, and I remember thinking it was pretty cool. More recently, when I saw that people were writing additional Foundation-based novels, I went back to reread the originals. What a disappointment that was.

The writing is really bad; Assimov had some good ideas, but should have let a writer put them into story form. The concept of psychohistory and predicting future events seems quaint now, given what we have learned about chaos theory (or sensitive dependence on initial conditions), quantum mechanics, and more.

I couldn't get through the first one without a deep sigh for my lost youth; then I returned them all to the library.

Whoever decided to adapt this for TV will have to rewrite so much of it that they might as well just forget using Foundation as source material and come up with their own plot, characters and narrative.

Re:Foundation Has Not Aged Well

[thinkwaitfast]

The history of civilizations appear to follow the same life arc regardless of individuals or technology. I think that was one of the key elements of the book.

Re:Foundation Has Not Aged Well

[jbmartin6]

he was a very prolific writer, but quality took a back seat at times. I recommend his collection of dirty limericks.

Merits of the Three Laws of Robotics

[steveha]

I am.. blown away that people believe that the three laws are a good idea. completely astounded.

I think you are overstating things a bit here.

The Three Laws are a convenient shorthand for saying "a comprehensive set of safeguards governing the operation of a robot." In the web comic Freefall people simply talk of "safeguards" rather than some arbitrary three laws.

The Three Laws have a huge place in the history of SF because they represent a sea change in how robots were presented. According to Asimov himself, in forwards to collections of his robot stories, before Asimov formulated the Three Laws robots were presented as dangerous things that generally went out of control to drive a story. He reasoned that people try to make things safe, and robots would be no different; people would incorporate safeguards, and his Three Laws were his take on a minimal set of safeguards.

Asimov then spent the rest of his career gleefully finding corner cases where the Three Laws were inadequate, and writing stories about what happens when those corner cases are hit. He was the first to promulgate the Three Laws idea and also the first to poke holes in them.

If someone really is arguing that the Three Laws are perfect and ready to implement, that shows they haven't researched the subject well and you are justified in being scornful of their shallow grasp of the subject. But if someone is talking informally and saying something like "robots should be required to have safeguards like the Three Laws" I have no problem with that, even if they phrase it less carefully and say something like "the Three Laws should be mandatory."

Also, when Asimov first wrote these stories, he overlooked two things that I consider hugely important. First of all, griefers. In his stories, any human could give an order to a robot and the robot would obey as long as no human was harmed. So a griefer could order an expensive robot to go smash a bunch of parked cars, ruining the cars and the robot, and (Asimov used this in his stories) the griefer could tell the robot "if you reveal my identity, I will come to harm" and it would be impossible for the robot to name the griefer. (It would also be possible to order "smash all these cars, and then forget ever having seen or talked to me.") The other thing is that Asimov imagined that it would be extremely difficult to make robot brains that did not include the Three Laws, which seems quaintly naive to me. If there is still a North Korea when robot brains are invented, there will be a secret project to make robots capable of serving as loyal soldiers, which means robots that obey Dear Leader's orders without question (no other safeguards included). As Jerry Pournelle used to say: "What man has done, man may aspire to do."[1] The existence of robot brains will be proof that a new robot brain design is possible.

P.S. Another classic of the robot genre is "With Folded Hands". Robots have the prime directive: to serve, and obey, and guard men[1] from harm. The robots ultimately enslave all of humanity in a smothering protective embrace: anything a human might want to do, like rock climbing, could be forbidden as too risky. Any human who resists this benevolent enslavement is lobotomized so that he/she will stop resisting and just enjoy life. I think in later stories the robots supervised even sex, on the theory that you could have a heart attack or something from the exertion, so the robots only allowed sex by young people, and only so there would be another generation of humans to serve.

Finally, for a modern take on artificial intelligence with inadequate safeguards, read the Torchship trilogy by Karl Gallagher. In these books, about a dozen whole planets (including Earth) have no living humans anymore because AI-controlled machines killed them all. In the stories, the historical events where the AIs went berserk are referred to as "The Betrayal".

The first book in the To

Just turn on the news

[RhettLivingston]

We're living the story, right? Or does everyone really believe that nobody is using big data to figure out exactly where to give little pushes in our society to create huge real-world changes in the directions societies are taking? Do people believe the manipulations throughout social media currently surfacing were done without the benefit of new data and new maths?

Depict the personalities clearly

[myid]

The book has cardboard characters, but the movie doesn't have to. The movie should vividly show the different personalities.

Hari Seldon - while his health was failing, warned of Trantor's fall, manipulated Trantor's government into setting up the First Foundation, and secretly set up the Second Foundation.

The Committee of Public Safety - who foolishly thought that Seldon's warnings were treasonous.

Salvor Hardin - the first Foundation Mayor, whose style of governing is "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!".

The conniving Prince Regent Wienis, who underestimated Hardin.

King Lepold I - Wienis' selfish and weak nephew.

Those are just a few characters in the beginning, when the book's characters were the most "cardboard". With good acting and direction, the movie can show their ways of thinking and acting, and also show their reactions to what happened.

In the TV show "Columbo", it was fun to watch Columbo solve the crime, and to watch the bad guys gradually realize that they would be arrested. In the Foundation movie, it would be fun to watch events follow Seldon's plan (until the Mule came along), and to watch the expressions of bad guys when they gradually realize that their plans will fail.

Re:Character Development

[thinkwaitfast]

Science fiction is not really about the characters, but about how they and culture are affected by technology.

Foundation may just be...

[EzInKy]

...too cerebral for T.V., I doubt it will fly.