So here’s the baseline for Roland Emmerich’s unholy adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation: it won’t be as bad as the adaptation of Asimov’s I, Robot.
This is like me promising you that your next beating won’t be as bad as the one that put you in a coma. But it’s a step forward – at least Emmerich has provided us with a basement for our expectations. Says the director, ‘I don’t want to repeat that disappointment; I want to give people exactly what the Foundation trilogy is. You have to tell a story that represents the books but also works as a film.’
Emmerich tells Empire that Robert Rodat has handed in his first draft, which comes in at a whopping 240 pages (the rule of thumb is that one page of script equals one minute of screen time); Emmerich has asked him to cut it down to under 200. What’s weird is that reading between the lines of the piece on Empire it’s sounding like rather than make a trilogy out of Foundation, Rodat and Emmerich are condensing it all into one film. How could they possibly do such a thing?
Glad you asked. Says Emmerich: ‘I worked with Bob on the story for weeks, sitting in a room trying to figure out how to make all the loose stories [work] and put them in a box called ‘Foundation’. Bob’s perfect for this thing – he also knows as a writer he has to find the hero and a bad guy in the piece. We had to come up with characters that go through [the series], which is very hard.’
It sounds like Emmerich and Rodat are making up characters for their film. And it sounds like they’re making them either immortal or cutting the timeline of the story way down, since Asimov’s books take place over a millenia. Expect to see Hari Seldon outrunning the literal crumbling of the Galactic Empire before trading blows with The Mule as the Second Foundation explodes around them! (In 3D mocap, of course)
18 comments
I don't usually like being so defeatist… but Foundation is simply unfilmable without wholesale changes that would render it un-Foundation like. It's just not a cinematic story. At all. The lack of a clear protagonist throughout would pose a major problem for any film. I'd rather see someone tackle Larry Niven's Ringworld (although, my #1 sci-fi adaptation dream is that one day HBO will adapt Stephen Donaldson's Gap series – how awesome would that be?).
i don't really understand why no one's ever tried to adapt the elijah baley/daneel r olivaw robot novels. they seem a hell of a lot more filmable than Foundation.
I specifically didn't hate I, Robot because I knew something would come along and make that hatred seem foolish. -oh and I predict floating mountains on at least 3 of the planets in the movie.
How is Foundation unfilmable? Why do you need to follow a main character all the way thru the movie? If Kubrick can switch protagonists from Floyd to Bowman midway through 2001 why can't the same be done for the various threads in the Foundation story? Why not approach the early stages of the story and the entire first novel as an anthology film? The main character is the idea of the Foundation itself. It's the only consistent thing throughout all 7 (or however many the final tally) books. Cast your big as Seldon so he appears as the hologram during the Seldon Crises and then get your main actors who'll sell the film as part of the Mule section of the anthology. How hard is this?
Changing from one lead to another halfway through is one thing. Constantly changing your lead is something different. Not to mention basic dramatic structure. Far smarted men than you or I have called this unfilmable, for good reason.
PRELUDE TO FOUNDATION is a great introduction to the basic ideas of FOUNDATION. Why not just adapt that? It is basically a chase story and/or detective novel; that should be easy to film.
Devin, your next beating will be worse.
Why does this need to be easy to film? Jer, I'm pretty sure Aristotle never said you can only ever have one major time shift in a film to a new set of characters. If you made the first film into a standalone film – you'd have a prologue about Hari Seldon then two stories about Hardin. You could combine the Traders section and the Merchant Prince section. And still have room to bring the beginning of F&E into the mix to setup the Empire attacking the Foundation as a lead into a second film. How is that unfilmable? The Second Film is about the Mule. Cast your stars as Seldon and Hardin and the General from F&E.
Christopher… it's not that it's unfilmable per se (you can technically film anything). It is that the story structure is not really congruent with what makes a satisfying filmic structure. I'm not opposed to unconventional structures either – it's just that when I think about Foundation, I just can't see myself being emotionally engaged in any way with the story and characters (which was an issue I also had with the text). Also, let's not kid ourselves – Roland Emmerich is definitely no Stanley Kubrick. Emmerich has just made possibly one of the most colossally stupid things ever committed to film (2012). You know as well as I do that he doesn't have the chops to subvert all the rules of structure and not turn it into a complete dog's breakfast. My guess, is he'll adopt a conventional structure and, in so doing, it will miss all the thematic points that Asimov was making with the books.
Jer… That is one of the saddest posts I've ever read. I don't have much confidence in Mr. Emmerich (which is to say I have none at all) but nothing is unfilmable if one has the vision and the balls. Again, I don't think Roland has either.
agree with Mr Rekshun comment #1 – a good adaptation of the Gap series would be immense. Especially as the roles and motives of each character reverse throughout the series, seeming two dimensional villains and heroes being the opposite of how they first appear. In relation to this piece though any Emmerich version of Foundation will be arse.
@Rekshun – I would argue that the story and the characters are not the driving force of the foundation novels, at least not the first one. It's the idea of the Foundation and what Seldon is able to bring to the Galaxy through its creation. However, once you move to Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation that changes. *semi*SPOILER -If you felt no betrayal at the conclusion of the Mule's story than I don't know why you'd give a shit about a Foundation film or trilogy in the first place. There's some really interesting interpersonal dynamics going on in that section of the Foundations history. I agree that Emmerich is a horrible choice for the material (the only argument I can see for him is that he knows how to work with effects) I was just arguing against the notion that the books are "unfilmable." They actually have a very interesting dramatic structure. What they do not lend themselves to is formula or action sequences. My point was that despite what some people feel, formulaic plotting using movie cliches and space battle action sequences is not a prerequisite to an interesting and/or successful science fiction film.
Rekshun is right, the Gap series is pure genius (if your into twisted broken characters engaging in horrifying actions). HBO is the only outlet for any good adult story that does not fit neatly into a 2 hour block. Everything from Foundation, to Preacher, to ASOIAF to Gap…….I want HBO to do it all.
One page of script equals one minute of screen time: I really do appreciate learning these details about the film business. Your other business-related comments including your piece on publicists and public relations are reasons why I enjoy CHUD so much. So thank you.
I don't always agree with your perspective but I always enjoy reading it.
oh, god help us x_x
When does Akiva Goldsman turn in his draft with Big Willie written in?
Remember that I, Robot was a finished script when the Asimov rights were acquired and (badly) pasted into it.
I'd get in line now for a good adaptation of one of the Baley/Olivaw novels. They're incredibly filmable and even relevant to today's audience. Screw Foundation, one of the most boring sf classics ever penned.
They don't have to have characters running through all the movies. Hari Seldon is the only character who should be in all the movies. Just concentrate on the most important story in every book, and start the movies with a 10 minute prologue explaining what has happened the last 100 years or so, between every book.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.