Maybe?

I don't get the problem with Foundation. Like why can't they take the source material and create their own interpretation? What's so wrong with that? Maybe someone will go on and create a Vorkosigan Saga interpretation too?

I read the books. Loved them. Really enjoying the show too.

If my memory serves me right, Foundation was never about individuals but collectives. That's what psychohistory math was about. The show fails completely to transmit this idea which for me, is the core of the books. So if they don't even get that right, what's the point of making a show about it?

It’s fun and interesting. What other reason do they need? You’re latching on to the premise that a show or movie based on a book must strictly adhere to that book or else it’s not good. It doesn’t. It can be loosely coupled or tightly coupled.

You’re disappointed because you have set expectations on what they should do. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I got over the “it must follow strictly” mindset a long time ago.

It's bad for other reasons. What I'm criticizing is clamming to be an adaptation of the books when it doesn't even get the most fundamental thing of the book right.

> You’re disappointed because you have set expectations

They created those expectations by clamming it is an adaption of the books. Imagine if I claim that my show called "The lord of the rings" is based on the novels but the only thing in common is that the main character is named Frodo.

Waiting Hard for Godot sounds amazing.

The characters keep avoiding explosions and evading terrorists, mostly uninterested and unaffected by them, focused only on their eventual meeting with their CIA contact who is code named Godot.

Occasionally an unusually big action sequence will trigger an extended reflection on the banality of it all.

Excellent point. I'd definitely would watch that. And seriously, I think your larger point is that if you're going mess about with some legendary original source material, doing it in a self-referential way that says, "Yes, we know the original isn't what we're doing here, and here's how we are different on purpose" is probably something you want to think about.

You're making me aware of that larger point, though it may have been implicit.

And the thing is that I love Waiting for Godot, so I could make a strong pitch.

I've just read an interview with the writer, David Goyer:

https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/foundation-apple-adapta...

It's frustrating and I'm not sure why. I think it's because Goyer didn't realize that the 80's books were fan fiction.

Isaac Asimov was always his own biggest fan.

If you write an adaptation of the Foundation series that focuses on Gaal Dornick you're working with a prequel.

The only good prequel ever made is Godfather II, right?

Because a good story starts as late as it possibly can.

So in this case, self-referential or not, Goyer was doomed. He's basing the series on some very bad books.

> The only good prequel ever made is Godfather II, right?

Casino Royale is considered a prequel because Bond just gets his double-0 in it, while all the other ones he already had it.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is a prequel as well: it is set in the US Civil War, while the others are set after it.

The entire subgenre of military scifi or military space opera is full of stories that would translate well into a visual medium, with plenty of action. I've read many but haven't seen any adapted yet.