this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
46 points (89.7% liked)
Television
4596 readers
29 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I said this in another post but I'll repeat it here
One of two things will happen.
The show runners will stay true to the source material and a bunch of people will complain that it isn't original and Cyberpunk 2077/Bladerunner/[insert franchise here]* did it first. Completely unaware that Neuromancer did it first.
Or
The show runners will use Neuromancer as "inspiration" and write their own story, to better (Foundation) or worse (Ring of Power) results. Either way, fans of the original work will complain that the show isn't faithful to the source.
tl;dr: No matter what they do, someone will be vocally upset
ETA: *Ghost in the Shell, I couldn't think of it earlier
I would not consider Foundation to be an example of better results.
Visually impressive, yes, and Lee Pace is God's most perfect creation, but when you start with a book whose explicitly stated theme is "The actions of individuals are largely meaningless against the power of widespread political movements and socio-economic forces" and end up with a show whose explicitly stated theme is "All of history can turn on the actions of the right individual at the right place and time", you have seriously fucked up somewhere.
But you're right about how it's going to go with this Neuromancer adaptation, no argument there.
You're not wrong
Ok so I haven't watched S2, so grain of salt and all.
Taken in it's own merits, and without considering the source material, Foundation is very well done. As opposed to Rings of Power, which has all the re-watchability of Rise of Skywalker. (Less so, actually, RoS at least has better production values and middling banter.) I could only get through book 1 of Foundation, when I was… 18? 20? It was sufficiently dense enough to not garner further interest at that time. I'll give it another shot sometime though. The point being, I'm not as attached to the pre-existing narrative as a result.
However, I totally understand your viewpoint. Why name a show after something and then completely ignore a core concept of the novels? It's a core concept! That being said, i think there's a difference between doing that badly and doing it good…ly. Well. Doing it well. The difference being a well written story that's internally consistent. That was the biggest sin D and D made with Game of Thrones. They ran out of source material and couldn't write a story that was internally consistent with existing character motivations and personality.
On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do a 100% faithful adaptation. Even if one could accurately and entertainingly convey internal monologues, there's just so much that can't be done with visual storytelling created from print media. The best I've seen are Lord of the Rings and The Expanse. Amazing art, but absolutely not 100% faithful. And how could they be? How do you present the Scouring of the Shire to an audience that expects to see classic Act Structure and knows the story is over when the Ring is destroyed? How do you turn Dominique Tipper into a 2 meter tall hollow boned belter? And that's okay
Sorry, i got a little distracted there. The point is, I understand your opinion and respect it. I also sympathize with screen writers caught between a fandom and producer. When I watch shows from an IP I love, I try to remind myself of the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius, and I ask myself: "Are you not entertained?"
I don't think that a slavish adaptation of Foundation would be a remotely good idea. The books are very dry, the scifi elements are dated, and the characters are thin cardboard cutouts.
I do think that it's perfectly possible to adapt the ideas behind Foundation in a way that respects the source material. But you're not going to get that adaptation from a guy like David Goyer.
The problem with Foundation is that it is fundamentally uninterested in why people love the books, in spite of their flaws. So it ends up throwing away the baby with the bathwater in the process of adaptation. A science fiction series focused on the idea of the power of people and social movements in the collective over individual hero narratives would have been an incredible thing to see. Instead we got a boring, paint by numbers, save the cat and fill in the madlibs Hollywood hero narrative about Salvor Harden (a character whose catchphrase in the books was "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") being the special magic child of destiny who solves all the problems in the show by shooting them.
It's a shame, because the stuff with the clone emperors is awesome. The whole concept of a clone dynasty is a great way to get across how much the empire has stagnated, and the actors are all doing a great job with the material. And look and feel wise, the show is very impressive. Stunning effects, cool designs, etc. But all the action on Terminus is just predictable and dull in my opinion.
Don't even get me started on weird shit like a character floating off into space because another character doesn't just turn off their mag boots, jetpack up two feet, grab them, and jetpack down again. That scene hurt my brain.
I appreciate the write-up and analysis.
I'm not good with names so i had to look him up. He did the screenplay for Dark City, which was pretty awesome, and Batman Begins, also awesome. But he was involved with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, so, not perfect. I don't know enough about him to really pass judgement
Oh yeah, those scenes (easily preventable tragedy) always kill me.
So, you've inspired me to try tackling the Foundation book series again. I just finished Out of the Silent Planet by CS Lewis, so I'm primed for earnest but dated scientifically inaccurate sci-fi lol
Mostly youtubers with clickbait thumbnails, and people without intelligence of their own blindly parroting what the clickbait tells them to.
To be fair, the Sprawl and Blade Runner did it more or less at the same time (I think it was Burning Chrome, Blade Runner, Neuromancer, but it doesn't really matter).
They sort of condensed something that was floating in the zeitgeist, the collective subconscious, of the late seventies / early eighties, and managed to completely independently create stories that could almost, aesthetically and by their philosophy, be set on the same world.
(And, let's be fair to Mike Pondsmith too, his game, while published a bit later, was quite genre-defining, too, even if it had been clearly influenced by the former.)