My main problem with the show is - Foundation (2021) Discussion

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 years ago

Your complaint is a valid one. The books were even worse. They are a collection of short stories published in the magazine Astounding Science Fiction between 1942 and 1944. The stories that make up the 2nd and 3rd books; Foundation and Empire, and 2nd Foundation were published by 1950. The first chapter of the original Foundation novel was written in 1951 when they were published as a trilogy.

The books lack unity with most characters disappearing except for occasional mentions in the future stories. The TV series could have fixed this without adding all of the stuff about the Emperor clones.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 3 years ago

Actually the stuff about the Emperor clones is, in my opinion, the most interesting and intriguing thing about the show so far ...

reply

[–] Missemd (276) 3 years ago

The Emperor clones are my favourite part of the show too.
Absolutely riveting.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 3 years ago

Agreed. It's a cool idea for sure, and they casted higher caliber actors than some of the other leads.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Your complaint is a valid one. The books were even worse.

These books that are even "worse" are a classic of scifi. The top work of one of the top writers in the genre. You know, a snip.

The books have a clear and defined main character: the Foundation itself. It's its story told through different small stories. World War Z (the novel) did something similar. Well done, it's amazing, and Asimov does it wonderfully.

The problem is that it's difficult to adapt, specially if the creators are more busy introducing blackwashing and other woke things than worrying about annoying "secondary" stuff like, for example, good storytelling. But don't blame the original books that the current screenwriters did a shitty job.

reply

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 years ago

I enjoyed reading the books. I think they would have been better if they were originally written as novels instead of serials and had better continuity.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

I'm not that sure. Asimov shined in small independent stories. He was a guy with an endless flow of ideas, writing down them fast one after another. The Foundation series was just a set of short ideas that eventually became part of something bigger. If he would have planned a saga from the very beginning... probably he would have felt bored and the series would have been much worse, or maybe it wouldn't even exist.

It's something similar to Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality saga. The short stories eventually created a bigger story. It's a masterpiece. And probably it wouldn't be the same if he would have tried to plan it.

reply

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 years ago

The Foundation prequels and sequels worked better as books, although the prequels read like they were constrained by having to reach a certain ending to conform with the original Foundation novel. The sequels, Foundations Edge and Foundation & Earth were better reads.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 3 years ago

I would have established the premise quickly, then fastforwarded to the future very quickly. That's where all the interesting characters in the books reside. At this pace, we're not even gonna get to them for a few seasons.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

That would have worked. Or perhaps keeping the original stories, but introducing an additional layer of connection between them. I'm thinking, for example, Cloud Atlas.

In my opinion, the Wachowskis would have been the perfect showrunners for this show.

reply

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 3 years ago

The first 3 episodes were interesting, hopefully there is a payoff somewhere.
That robot chic needs to have more back story.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 3 years ago

Is she hot? A pleasure model?

reply

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 3 years ago

Well, she wears a kinda nun dress that is designed to hide her machinery underneath. If anything it looks like she has arthritis in her hip joints. So you can say she is hot.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 3 years ago

She's hot to me. She's like Mary Poppins.

reply

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Get behind her Satan !

reply

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 years ago

In the books the robot (Eto Demerzel) is actually Daneel Olivaw who first appeared in Cave of Steel and has been alive for thousands of years. He was on Earth in the early days after the Spacers dominated Earth and prior to the second settler expansion. He does not appear in the original Foundation trilogy, but is a significant character in the Foundation prequels and one of the sequels.

reply

[–] Mighty1 (53) 3 years ago

I hope they don’t do that whole Gaia nonsense, it seems like they’re hinting that Gaal is mutated or something like the Mule and the Gaia people with that scene where she’s able to be awake in hyperspace or whatever.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 3 years ago

My main problem with the show is mostly the same. Little content, lots of filler, lots of screen time wasted on characters sitting around talking about their feelings over and over again. This should all be big concept scifi but instead, we have a typical made for streaming soap opera. Also, the story is confusing enough without intentionally rolling it out in a time-jumping mystery box fashion. And they definitely seem more focused on making their special effects than the writing. I think the show creators would have been happy to adapt anything, they didn't care what it was, they just wanted to make a scifi show so they could play with their toys.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I have the same problem with the show - there is no main plot, and nothing is explained in sufficient detail.

I mean Seldon's predictions are reduced to a MaGcGuffin of some sort, no one articulates exactly what's in them. As it is now, we are watching the downfall of the three Emperor guys (all of them are great actors, especially Pace), which is entertaining, but we already established that it will not be preventable, so it's great to see it unfold, but has no real significance on the main plot.

But... there is no main plot. We are left with the plot of Salvor and how she protects the Foundation, but again, nothing is explained. The Vault is again, a MacGuffin, as the Foundation characters are not treating it as a real-world object. I mean if it's dangerous, why not raise a perimeter around it, to deter people falling unconscious, possibly die when trying to get into it? IF they are short staffed, why not install a camera system with motion detection to warnt the guards whenever someone gets into the proximity of the field? Speaking of cameras, did they try to see what's inside by seding in a camera mounted to a drone? Wait, I just remembered - many of them know that Salvor is not affected, so maybe send her in to see what is inside?

All these questions were not addressed at all, and it seems we are waiting for some arbitrary plot development for Salvor to finally figure out that she needs to interact with the Vault. Which is poor storytelling. There are no clear stakes, there are no setups and payoffs, we are seeing several plotlines slowly unfolding, but there is almost no tension.

Shame, the Foundation deserved better treatment.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

Yes. There is not real conflict the viewer can relate to, and the one actor most people know and watch the show for gets removed pretty quickly.

Also, whole basis for the movie, that someone can invent a mathematics that can predict human behavior of a massive level across the galaxy for 1000 years is so absurd I am surprised Isaac Asimov, a mathematician, ever came up with it. It's ridiculous.

But also, I guess where you are attracted to the "empires", my nature is such that I hate all monolithic political authority, so my programming will not let me enjoy those characters. Although there is a little crack in that with Brother-Dawn and his gardener girlfriend, maybe?

Oh, yeah, and Raised By Wolves was another meandering story that doesn't quite connect with viewers because you don't know who or what to connect with.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 3 years ago

"Also, whole basis for the movie, that someone can invent a mathematics that can predict human behavior of a massive level across the galaxy for 1000 years is so absurd I am surprised Isaac Asimov, a mathematician, ever came up with it. It's ridiculous."

Actually it is not. It's called determinism. In the following video she talks about free will but the main idea is that the universe is "determined" and it's only one possible and probable future. A mathematician that would be able to determine the status of all particles in the universe would be able to calculate ALL the events happening in the universe from the big-bang to the end of the universe. It's just about science, cause and event. Asimov's idea is close to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

"But also, I guess where you are attracted to the "empires", my nature is such that I hate all monolithic political authority, so my programming will not let me enjoy those characters."

Nope, i'm not attracted but they are the only characters that show humanity, drama and actually pose some interesting questions about immortality, morality, perceived good and bad. And the only ones that are really well played (along Jared).

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> Actually it is not. It's called determinism.

Please, don't be daft. Just because you can put a name on something doesn't mean it is true, or there is a mathematics that can predict it.

Take a calculus, statistics and a DiffyQ class and then chemistry and how the motions of gas atoms are predicted ... it is all in the macro ... no one predicts the path of a single gas atom, or anything but the most basic behavior of the whole gas cloud.

> A mathematician that would be able to determine the status of all particles in the universe

Yeah, if he had that knowledge, and a computer than filled up two more universes. You're talking shit.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 3 years ago

Interesting how you managed to contradict yourself in 2 paragraphs. lol.

Anyway: "Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. ... The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism

Educate yourself, stop being ignorant.

Anyway 2: exactly that's why he was using a formula to "calculate" what will happen- based on limited data.

If you want you can read more about Asimov and determinism:

https://ehkern.com/2013/08/08/asimovs-foundation-and-the-science-of-history/

Anyway, seeing how you again start with your favorite arguments (adhominems) it's better to stop here. Fuck off.

"Also, why don't to tell me that the premise for 99% of the movies are absurd" - Jedi Knights, Asgardian Gods, laser saber, immovable hammers, etc etc. WTF are you doing on a forum that deals with "absurd" fantasies???? Make sure you DON'T WATCH Dune, it's bases on even more absurd ideas.

I really need a "block" button for such idiots ...

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

Hey rude dipshit, just because I think Foundation's premise is ridiculous doesn't mean I think Star Wars is realistic ... if that is the extent of your critical thinking methinks you're missing a brain.

I'll wager I was writing essays about determinism before you were born.

> "Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes

In terms of Foundation, you cannot set the initiation conditions of do mathematics of infinite variables. Maybe when you step up and learn algebra you'll get a hint of what that means.

IF you like this show, I guess it's because they aim popular movies and TV these days for a 6th grade mentality. Go crazy!

reply

[–] asom (6824) 3 years ago

"Hey rude dipshit, just because I think Foundation's premise is ridiculous doesn't mean I think Star Wars is realistic ... if that is the extent of your critical thinking methinks you're missing a brain."

If that's what you understood then no wonder your thinking level is so low. Under the sea level. I bet that if you take and IQ test the result will be into negatives. I was just pointing to you that most movies have absurd premises. Specially Sci-Fi ones. And that is usually not a reason not to like them. And as I said: if you think their premises are absurd and you cannot stand absurd premises ... wtf are you doing here???

And stop calling someone rude when you are the troll that ALWAYS starts with adhominems.

And again, if you understood somehow that I like this show ... you have big problems in your brain (but we already know this from your star wars failure, real, ahahaha ), you should sort them out.

As I said: fuck off and hide under the rock from under you showed up.

reply

[–] tar (29) 3 years ago

> A mathematician that would be able to determine the status of all particles in the universe would be able to calculate ALL the events happening in the universe from the big-bang to the end of the universe. It's just about science, cause and event.

This contradicts quantum mechanics (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle et al.).

In general, it is always the absurd adherence to the idea of tangible things that denies the reality of non-tangible and constantly changing relations.

We find this problem not only in physics (at Foundation even in mathematics... which is nothing else than a pure descriptive/understanding support), but very strongly also in monetary theory (the money-thing as a so-called medium of exchange instead of the actual relations of volatile assets arising from intangible, but real set law and thus power relations).

The only really comprehensible aspect here would be the at first seemingly abstruse designation "psychohistory", which in turn brings the aspect of mass sociology into focus through the "psychology of the masses", which has been known for more than a hundred years. However, this has nothing to do with mathematics, at all.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Also, whole basis for the movie, that someone can invent a mathematics that can predict human behavior of a massive level across the galaxy for 1000 years is so absurd I am surprised Isaac Asimov, a mathematician, ever came up with it. It's ridiculous.

Why would be it ridiculous? If you could mathematically model social behavior, why shouldn't you be able to make predictions?

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Absolutely agreed, this might be possible scientifically. Besides OP should remember, this is a sci-fi series. You know, this is the fi part of that genre :-)

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

By that way or looking at things Peter Pan is Science Fiction. Science Fiction, at least good science fiction, tries to project a world that could be, or ideas that could happen or be valid. There is simply no way PsychoHistory would or could exist. The proof is right in the show itself.

No theory of prediction could take into account random events over a thousand years. If you don't intuitively understand that, just calling it fiction may be good enough for you, but it puts Foundation on the level of Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Well, for me, any sci-fi story could have some wild ideas that are built upon the foundation (hah!) of what we currently (at the time of writing) know in a certain field of science - but these ideas should be presented in a believable and credible fashion to tell a good story. As long as the story is good, the ideas could be scientifically off, but if they are logical and consistent, I won't mind.

So in the case of Foundation and psychohistory - we don't get enough explanation in the series, so it's poorly presented, but with more careful writing, psychohistory could be a viable idea. It is not, as of right now, but this is not the fault of the concept, because in a better written series I would not mind the general impossibility of predicting random events over a thousand years. Because if better written, the show could present an in-universe explanation on why Seldon was able to predict them, why they are not random.

But right now, I need to side with you on this - in lieu of this detailed explanation, psychohistory could never work. "Seldon knows why it's working but we won't tell you, har-har" is not good writing, and that's what the writers are doing right now. All ideas worth exactly as much as competently they are presented, and Foundation is not doing well in that regard.

We desperately need more information on Seldon's concepts, thinking and conclusions. But this damn mystery box trend that started around the turn of the century is so popular among writers even to this day, that this fine concept also fell victim to this BS. Shame.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> As long as the story is good, the ideas could be scientifically off, but if they are logical and consistent, I won't mind.

I can see that, but to me, unless the writers are lazy or stupid they could just as well make some effort to be believable. I do mind. I don't care for stories that involve time travel. Maybe there could be a time travel story I like, but it would not be for the science fiction it could be for different reasons and I would classify it as fantasy or something. Like there was a movie called "Frequency" with Dennis Quaid about a radio where he could communicate or hear his father somehow. It was a clever entertaining story, and they call it science fiction, but nah!

The whole point is that psychohistory, the whole idea, is preposterous, even on a general level. If it somehow turned out that it was a fake theory that Seldon invented to rattle the empire, maybe, but I assume in thousands of years the average person would be educated enough to know it is impossible. Not to mention the whole inventing a galactic empire where events can occur in real time and be synchronized and the empire can communicate and respond across the galaxy in hours. That's ridiculous enough.

I'd put a series like "The Expanse" up against that as more of a real science fiction series. Or 2001: A Space Odyssey in movies.

> I would not mind the general impossibility of predicting random events over a thousand years.

You should, because "random" means unpredictable! ;-)

This is why I was surprised that Asimov wrote such a thing, but, it was 1942, and he was writing to make money, so this is more akin to Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, a space opera ... just not very good, which is why I never finished reading it when I began it as a pre-teen.

Can you give me an example of your mystery box concept. Movies seem to be very conservative in what they will try, so what we see usually comes out of what has been successful at the box office before with some twist from some other movie that has was a success.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Thanks for the lengthy response, there is a lot to unpack here, so let's begin.

I can see that, but to me, unless the writers are lazy or stupid they could just as well make some effort to be believable

In your whole first paragraph we agree :-) You put it as: "make some effort to be believable". I put it as "logical and consistent". But we are talking about the same thing, we want the same thing from the writers here. I also like Frequency BTW, and I'm glad you brought it up, as it is a prime example of "I don't mind the blatant scientific impossibility of the premise as long as you are giving me good acting, engaging characters and a believable and exciting plot, which is well written and executed". And that is... all I want from sci-fi movies, honestly.

I'd put a series like "The Expanse" up against that as more of a real science fiction series. Or 2001: A Space Odyssey in movies.

... and this is why I don't subscribe to this "only hard SF is SF" viewpoint. I love Aliens, Total Recall, Edge of Tomorrow, RoboCop, etc. And you could say that something like "2001" is superior to all of these, because of it's well thought out scientific background (zero gravity toilet instructions and all), but I love 2001 as well for the above mentioned reasons - to reiterate, the things I need are the following:

"good acting, engaging characters and a believable and exciting plot, which is well written and executed"

And... come to think of it, I need this from all the movies and series I watch, not just the sci-fi ones. But let's get back to Foundation and your next point:

You should, because "random" means unpredictable! ;-)

Touché, I worded that wrong. What I meant was that the writers could come up with a way to explain how Seldon found a pattern, and realized that the events are not random, so he could predict them... Of course I'm not sure if Asimov included such explanation in his books (and I guess not).

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> and this is why I don't subscribe to this "only hard SF is SF"

Explain to me why that matters to you please? I'm watching Amazon Prime's The Great Courses series on Science Fiction and it makes a lot of really interesting points.

But just to make a point separate, in general abstract terms for conversation, discussion or analysis there is nothing to be gained by bleeding a term that is specific into something more general. That is why I support a reasonable ( to me, with rationale ) definition of science fiction. It is not for me, it is for the sake of general discussion. The idea that kept coming up was that science fiction is like historical fiction - it illustrates something that could have happened and stays in line with the facts as most people know them or can suspend their disbelief around.

That's why I leave time travel stories out in general, and in fact perhaps even stories that rely on faster than light travel - because despite some goofballs in the media talking nonsense, the evidence of science seems to be that neither are possible. The idea is a fantasy idea made up in order to tell a story and pretend it is science fiction, when it is fantasy - that is, no plausible, and thus a waste of time. That's for what I am looking for in science fiction.

Fiction. Good fiction that conveys some ideas about life and the universe, etc. To me telling a good story is key, adding spaceships, and lasers, monsters, special effects is for kids ... and kids have no need to differential literary genres - except with the BS competitiveness that kids play at.

Hope that makes sense. No bickering intended, just short on space to explain.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Explain to me why that matters to you please?

Let me clarify - it doesn't. You came up with The Expanse and 2001 as examples of "real" SF. And for that I say it don't really care how "real" the SF is in a film as long as I get a good story, great acting, etc. This was my point.

That's why I leave time travel stories out in general

For the sake of enjoying a good story, I could see time travel as something viable, if the rules are clearly explained in the movie (series, book, video game, etc.). For example Primer (2004) in your book would not be "real" SF, because it contains time travel, but Shane Carruth, the creator of that movie took the effort to set clear ground rules for the time travel to work in his movie. Scientifically it doesn't work of course but this is a sci-fi story, so you need to have some imagination and be mentally flexible to be able to think in-universe to enjoy the story. And I think you are saying the same here:

Fiction. Good fiction that conveys some ideas about life and the universe, etc. To me telling a good story is key, adding spaceships, and lasers, monsters, special effects is for kids

Telling a good story is key - this exactly what I said. Although you kind of lost me at the second half of the quote. What do you mean by "for kids"? I still enjoy, Aliens, Edge of Tomorrow, etc. despite not being a kid, because these movies are telling good stories, and I like the designs of the spaceships, monsters, etc., so I'm a bit confused here.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> And I think you are saying the same here:
> Fiction. Good fiction that conveys some ideas about life and the
> universe, etc. To me telling a good story is key, adding
> spaceships, and lasers, monsters, special effects is for kids

With time travel that is really rare, because most of the stories are clever conundrums because of the rules they set up about time travel itself. The money shot of these movies is some bizarre results of the protagonist meeting themselves, or the effects of time travel.

I don't know why anyone would be upset that someone might think a correct classification of such stories would be science fantasy.

It is like some people like to include their favorite stories as science fiction because they think it adds weight to the story, maybe?

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I don't know why anyone would be upset that someone might think a correct classification of such stories would be science fantasy.

I wouldn't be. But where is the line exatly?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

There probably is no fixed line per se, but it should not be a meaningless distinction in my humble opinion.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

I'd say Aliens is a horror movie in a science fiction type setting. Such a creature could not exist and does not make any sense. Edge Of Tomorrow, I liked to, but that was because of the clever story and the relationships, built up because of the silly premise of the story ... and of course we get to see Tom Cruise beat up over and over.

Maybe there is a gap between what could seem realistic to a scientist, and there is a lot of science fiction written by scientists, and what would be acceptable as science fiction by the average kid or uneducated adult - most of the American viewing audience. That is how under science fiction on streaming services you get Lord Of The Rings, which is definitely not science fiction.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> was that the writers could come up with a way to explain how Seldon found a pattern, and realized that the events are not random, so he could predict them

I happened to come across a video on YT about the Three-body problem, or the n-body problem is another word for it. Scientists/Mathmaticians can solve from time zero to infinity the paths of 2 masses in orbit around each other. When you add a significant 3rd body, the mathematics breaks down because there are more unknowns than there are equations.

That is just for planets, and Hari Seldon would be claiming that all the particles in the universe are somehow predictable, and the n-body problem is just physics, no connections to biology or behavior, or the uncertainty principle.

What that says to me is that it is not even close ... it's not worth arguing about it is a total given that what Hari Seldon is talking about in his Asimovian universe is something Asimov knew full and damn well was absurd and impossible.

You can go on and discuss the significance of measurements and the built in error in any human measurement, and how in computations those errors propagate until the error is greater than the measurement and any conclusion is rendered noise and chaos.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I see your point and again - the explanation should not be scientific, it should be consistent in-universe, so I mean internal consistency, not external. More on these types of consistency here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency

Yes, there are absurd and impossible things in sci-fi stories, but I still call them sci-fi, even if they are not "hard" sci-fi.

So we could get an explanation of psychohistory that is similar to the Back to the Future time travel rules, which are absolutely not scientific, but in terms of the plot, they work. And I would be content with such explanation as long as it fits the story and provides character motivation, etc. In that case the only thing that would happen is that Foundation would lose its "hard SF" status (did it have one in the first place?), and I would not care as long as the story is good.

I guess we get each other's points now :-)

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

I think stepping back at altitude there is more to be gained with a more strict definition of science fiction. At the very least it would provoke people to think. Like 2001 for example, the technology was very believable but the "watchers" or whatever they are called demonstrated an Arthur C. Clarke trope, that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". That has a lot of meaning and a point about the human mind and how some people accept magic when Clarke is saying - there is no magic - look for a scientific explanation.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I agree about the gains, but it all comes down to the line between sci-fi and sci-fantasy, and who gets to draw it? Is there exact criteria that for example 2001 is meeting, but Back to the Future isn't? Can these criteria be used to categorize all the movies?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

Well, right now, I think the primary entities that get to draw that line are the streaming media and media companies who have a financial interest in listing any one movie in as many places as possible, and the TV guide or whatever functions as the TV guide these days probably tries to put movies in the broadest recognizable category they can. Between those two movies, I'd say BTTF is not science fiction, but it has some science fiction elements.

But say, what about Indiana Jones and the Lost Arc? What would you say that was, adventure, action, historic, horror ??? The whole ending thing with the ghosts and the magical Arc ... I don't know.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Can you give me an example of your mystery box concept. Movies seem to be very conservative in what they will try, so what we see usually comes out of what has been successful at the box office before with some twist from some other movie that has was a success.

The most prominent examples of the mystery box concepts are the series Lost (2004) and the movie Prometheus (2012). The former hooks the viewer in presenting a situation of some people on an island experinecing multiple strange mysteries and you as a viewer are following this for 6 seasons, hoping that at the end there will be a consistent explanation to all that has transpired, but no, there won't be. Instead the mysteries just keep on piling up, to drag you through some more seasons and at the end we get a disappointing finale which does not explain anything. This is exactly what happened in the case of Lost, and it was a huge success in terms of viewership, and you guessed it - the studios deemed this mystery box formula a success (as it draws in and keeps viewers hooked in hopes of that grand explanation that never comes).

Same thing happened with Prometheus - there were several mysteries presented in that movie, but none were resolved or explained. Otherwise the plot was the story of a main character who survived some mysterious and dangerous stuff. Without explanation, there was no substance, thus no tension, no excitement throughout the movie, but Prometheus was a moderate success, because it promised to be the prequel of the brilliant original Alien movie.

So yes, absolutely, the studios are "playing it safe", and the mystery box formula is very conservative, because it only demands one thing from the writer(s): keep the audience hooked with either one central mystery or multiple mysteries. That's what Foundation seems to be doing right now with Seldon's formula, and if this is a mystery box show, there will be no detailed explanation for it.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

OK, got it, thanks.

It's your idea, or you brought it up, but I am not really sure Hari's Formula fits the same pattern. His formula more or less doesn't change, it creates a fictional, and I say absurd universe, and then sets events in motion that might make some kind of sense at the start or that might intrigue the reader/viewer to watch, read ... AND PAY, MOST IMPORTANT TO ASIMOV at the time.

But the mystery is only in the clever path of the ball on a trick pool-table, not necessarily something that needs continual redefinition or expanded powers ... which is kind of like magic, which is kind of like fantasy.

See where I am going with this?

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I think the best way to approach this is character motivation.

In Foundation, there are a lot of "Seldonites" who believe that his formula is true. That is character motivation - and the audience should relate. But currently we can't, because Seldon's formula is not explained adequately. Not even on a high level. And almost all actions of all characters kind of depend on their understanding of the formula.

The three Emperors are treating Seldon's prophecies as warnings and more or less they try to avoid the Empire's downfall. That's good, and the only storyline that seems to be working, since we know they don't understand mathematics enough (not even their mathematicians actually) to fully grasp the details. But we understand their motivation.

Because of lack of information, we don't understand the motivation of any of the other characters. What exactly are they trying to accomplish? Why do they believe they are doing the right thing? Etc. So the writers should either explain the background and the details of the formula or explore the characters and their motivation. And neither is happening right now in Foundation...

So the mystery box is just a weak device to move the plot forward without needing to write detailed characters, because "the mystery keeps the audience on the hook". The writers think they get a free pass, but this story doesn't work without proper characterization...

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> But currently we can't, because Seldon's formula is not explained adequately.

Well, to be fair, even if there could be a formula, it would be a complex on not understandable except by a very few people. On a high level they know what they have been told - that it can predict the history of the Empire thousands of years in advance. Who would believe that?

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

For plot and characterization, the writers would need to aim to the mid-level of explanation. Not the overly complex one, but not the highest-level one either. But of course what such explanation would contain would depend on how the writers are planning to move the plot and the characters, and not science per se. AFter all, this is a work of fiction and it is intended to tell a story. This is what I would want from the writers, but I know they wil not give it to us, because they think the mystery is enought to keep the viewers hooked.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> depend on how the writers are planning to move the plot and the characters, and not science per se. AFter all, this is a work of fiction and it is intended to tell a story.

Maybe here is where I see at least part of a line ... the "story". When I think story, I think, lesson, parable, conflict, something with some kind of valid statement about the world or life in general. I think fantasies and such are like ghost stories ... they are there for pure physical gut effect. You might as well call pornography a story

I see movies far different from most people here though, so I am probably in the minority, though I do think I have enough of a valid point to be a useful critic.

Like, what is John Wick? Is that a story? Not to me. Or even Indiana Jones, or even Star Wars. These are giving a leg up because there are actually so few decent and good, let along excellent or classics - because the industry doesn't really want to be responsible for the massive garbage it foists on people.

Its the same with books, or most of everything ... 90% of everything is garbage. The problem is that it stays around to the point where it can take hours to page through all the crap on NetFlix or Amazon to find anything useful or worth watching.

But ... the Expanse which is a favorite of mine, is basically a waste of time, a serial, complete with hourly cliffhangers. But it does give a sort of realistic, or semi-plausible glimpse of how our future in space could sort of be like, whereas Star Wars is good for nothing, just an eye-candy marketing rip-off.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

(Merging the 3 threads for simplicity's sake, so this is my only response)

Agreed about 90% of anything is garbage, but I love Star Wars (the original trlogy), because it's entertaining, has almost flawless execution of a fairly simple story, and has a lot of value added by world building. Also, I love the art of SW as well - the original designs of spaceships, droids and weapons are nothing short of genius, not to mention the sound design...

How highly I rate a movie does not really depend on how realistic or plausible it is, it entirely depends on the effect it has on me. Making me think is a huge bonus of course, but I don't expect every single movie to be thought provoking.

Calling John Wick "not a story"... I think that's going a bit too far. It most certainly is a story, as it is written, it has story beats, etc. Maybe it's too simple of a story for you or you find it a worthless or bad story, which I can understand as your opinion.

There is a saying which I fully subscribe to: "It's not the story, it's how you tell it." A Simple story with great execution (see the original Star Wars) is miles better than a complex story with bad execution - IMO.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> but I don't expect every single movie to be thought provoking.

There's the difference. I do .... in some way every movie worth acknowledging has to have some element of thought provocation in my opinion. All things being equal, it can be art, or effects or dialog, theme, and it's better if there is more than one .. but there's gotta be something.

I think John Wick is not a story because no human being in their life will ever be a character or in a situation like that. People must put themselves into a fake universe ... and I am against that because it ends up taking over all movies, for spectacle, and pretty soon the new generations doesn't know what universe it lives in. These crappy movie are like mutations of the subconscious or collective unconscious. Like heroin, one hit is not going to destroy your but the cumulative effect of this breaks society, it's toxic.

> "It's not the story, it's how you tell it."

It's the story. I'm not religious, but there is a reason that a man who spoke in parables became so famous.

reply

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

One more thing about hard SF: here is the scale of Sci-Fi hardness as compiled by TVTropes:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness?from=Main.MohsScaleOfSciFiHardness

Do you agree with this scale? On which level of the scale are your favorite sci-fi movies?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

I am not sure anyone has really done that right, so while it is interesting and makes me smile, I'm not sure I would agree with all of it - but good points.

I think adding in the speculative devices in fiction needs to have a reason, to make a point, otherwise as some have said before, it's "mental masturbation". Not that there is anything wrong with masturbation, it's a natural act and everyone does it, and I I'm doing it now. Not really, but the point is that it not a productive use of media or the viewers time .. and bad movies have swamped the good ones at this point in time.

I can put up with time travel in story if there is a good reason for it relative to the plot, I just think mostly there is not. A good example would be H.G.Wells The Time Machine, there was a point there to show the trend of humanity.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 3 years ago

> If you could mathematically model social behavior

First, no one can model social behavior except in generalities, and not in a predictive way, and certainly not over any span of time, or with interaction of millions of worlds and trillions of human beings.

But, second, if you could, modeling is not predicting. You can model what a gas does when its constituent molecules have a known average velocity ... but really you can never know that measurement or any other perfectly ... and even if you did it does not mean you know what every molecule is doing where it is or what its path is. The uncertainty principle precludes this kind of perfect knowledge - but then, even if you had perfect knowledge, there is no way to have enough computing power to solve for an infinite number of variables. Your defense of this idea is kind of sad.

reply

[–] huwdj (4566) 3 years ago

That's my common complaint for many/most series these days. They start by trying to establish multiple story lines for many characters and fail to actually grab your attention.
Many science fiction series start this way as well but as I remember that wasn't the way the books were written (long long time since I read them). They predated they current multi-book, multi-threaded paradigm.

reply