That's not the same thing. The term "Star Trek" has come to mean any story that takes place in that Universe, whether there's any trekkin' involved or not. It would be a bit weird to call a movie Foundation if it doesn't involve the Foundation somehow. Robots Of Dawn and Robots And Empire-- and Caliban and its sequels for that matter-- and a bunch of other books take place in the same Universe as Foundation, but they're not called Foundation.
It sounds like what Christopher is proposing would involve the Foundation - it could take place between the existing stories, as opposed to adapting them directly. But that wouldn't mean omitting the Foundation by any means!
When did I ever say it wouldn't involve the Foundation? I have no idea where you're getting that. What I said was that it would tell stories about the Foundation that took place in between the events depicted in the books. As someone said above, the books tend to focus on the stuff that goes on before and after major events like wars, imperial collapses, and so forth, so they're only telling part of the story of the Foundation. The suggestion I was making was that the movies could complement that by depicting the events that are only alluded to in the books, filling in the blanks in the story. EDIT: In other words, what ATimson said.
It sounded like you were saying the movie should focus on the wars and so forth to make it more action-packed for the movie audience, rather than focus on Asimov's talking heads.
I wasn't saying "should." I was saying it might be an effective approach if they chose to go that way.
I hated the guy with the speech impediment, that Lord What's-his-face that comes to visit Terminus early on in the first book. That was a hawd chaptew to wead.
I know, but in any case it sounded like the story would not be about the Foundation; I know how you'd prefer the movie to be done.
As I've said, that wasn't even remotely what I was suggesting. I have no idea how you got that from what I said. I doubt you do. I don't think I know that myself. What I believe I said is that I'd prefer a miniseries to a movie. I don't think I've offered any suggestions on how I would "prefer" to see it done as a movie. All I've said is that I'd prefer it not to be a Roland Emmerich movie. But then, that pretty much goes for any movie.
Because we had been talking about how the scenes in the book all talk about and take place between the action-oriented events and how H'wood writers want the action instead of the talking, and then you talked about telling stories that fill in the gaps. You mentioned a dialogue-driven movies or mini-series with digitally rendered establishing shots, I believe.
I'm two-thirds of the way through "Foundation," and I'll be honest, I'm a little bored with it. I'll soldier on and finish the book, but I gotta say, it's a tad bit frustrating when the momentum starts building up and drawing you into the story, then those characters and situations are abandoned for ones in the distant future. In some ways it's a fascinating read. I mean, it's obviously decades ahead of it's time. But in other ways it's kind of bland and tends to drag a bit.
I guess it reads that way because (IIRC) the trilogy was originally published as eight short stories in Astounding Magazine over as many years from 1942. The BBC radio series adaptation was also in eight installments, and works quite well in that format.
^^ Indeed. He always claimed that his only style was to be clear. I never had a problem with his writing at all; but then again, I was always able to appreciate a wide range of writing from Clarke to Ellison to Poe to Frost. And beyoooond. I never said the Foundation ceased to exist. But if you mention filling in the gaps between Foundation stories, and are talking about being more action oriented for the movies, one naturally thinks of the events referenced but not depicted-- i.e. the wars and revolutions and pirates and so on. Y'know, this isn't really such a big deal.
But isn't that still part of the overall saga of the Foundation? Maybe not; I haven't read the books in a long time, though I keep meaning to read through my whole Robot/Empire/Foundation book collection again. But what I meant was that maybe the same overall saga could be depicted with different emphasis -- showing the parts that were only talked about in the books, so that it would be a complementary story. By analogy, it would be like doing an adaptation of Sophocles' Theban cycle and actually showing events like Oedipus blinding himself and Eteocles seizing the Theban throne rather than just having messengers run onstage and describe them. Same story, different presentation.
Well, it's part of the Foundation Universe, I suppose. I guess you could tell stories about a covert Foundation team that goes undercover to manipulate events or something; a sort of Foundation's IMF. But that seems pretty far afield from the story of Hari Seldon's Psychohistory. If they want an action space movie, it would be smarter to just base it on a video game.
That makes sense. It does read like a collection of short stories. I guess that's how I should think of it, rather than as an actual novel. Speaking of radio productions, though, I found this site that's got all these old-timey sci-fi radio shows. http://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/sci-fi/Dimension-X/index.php Scroll down to the last episode on the page, and it's Asimov's "Nightfall" on NBC radio from 1951.