Variety reports:
Columbia won an auction late Thursday for screen rights to “Foundation,” Isaac Asimov’s ground breaking science fiction trilogy. The film will be developed as a directing vehicle for Roland Emmerich.
Emmerich and his Centropolis partner Michael Wimer will produce the film. The deal was mid six-figures against low seven figures.
I see nothing but “train wreck” written all over this. Emmerich is a competent filmmaker, churning out big-budget genre spectacles of debatable quality like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. But both of these movies are nothing more than shallow, star-and/or-effects-driven affairs, and The Foundation Trilogy is anything but. The only slightly intellectually engaging movie of Ememrich’s that comes to mind is Stargate, but even then Emmerich struggled to convey the intricacies of that movie’s relatively complex plot.
On a lark, and because it’s been way too long, I pulled my leather-bound, collectors’ Easton Press edition of The Foundation Trilogy off its place of pride on my bookshelf (yes, I’m bragging, I likes me my finely-bound SF book collection). According to Asimov’s own introduction to Foundation, in “The Story Behind the Foundation,” the genesis of this seminal work lies in Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (“I thought of soldiers, of military empires, of the Roman Empire—of a Galactic Empire—aha!”), and as such, as a commentary on the times we live in now (arguably the fall of the American empire), I grant that the overarching themes in the work are topical, and could resonate well with a modern, mainstream audience (remember, long-time fandom: this current spate of SF-themed movies is not meant for you). Additionally, the entire Foundation saga is a piece of advocacy for taking the (very) long view of things, and in this modern world, where everyone is fascinated with instant gratification and making sure the individual is taken care of right now, a little perspective could go a long way.
The beauty of Foundation, to me, is the slow and deliberate unfolding of a macro-narrative over the course of centuries, a true worldbuilding for the ages, where individual story arcs and particular characters—the staple of Hollywood theatre-fodder—are considered a very distant second to the main narrative of (psycho)historical change. I haven’t gone back to Foundation in a few years (this may change now; the first volume is open, on my desk, as I write this. It’s calling me back, like an old friend, and it’s a snowy day, perfect for diving into a tried and true book), but aside from Hari Seldon, the Mule, and maybe Dors Venabili, I can’t say that any one character sticks in my mind as particularly memorable—that’s not what Asimov’s writing was about!
I’m loathe to pronounce anything as “unfilmable.” That kind of blanket assertion seems to me to smack of a kind of close-minded intransigence towards creative exploration that I generally don’t abide (Watchmen haters, I’m looking at you). However, I can’t see how a two-and-a-half hour feature (or a trilogy of them, even), produced by a major Hollywood studio, helmed by an action-movie director, and probably starring a young Hollywood leading man, could ever hope to do justice to Asimov’s classic chronicle of the Galactic Empire's fall, resurgence, and the interregnum in between.
I could, however, see a smaller studio, such as maybe SciFi, taking it upon themselves to invest in making a longer-running episodic series, led by a competent showrunner, which would then set out to adapt the Foundation Saga (and maybe even include the Robot and Empire series, wouldn’t that be something!) in its entirety. This would require quite a commitment from the part of the studio, and—again—a long-term approach that is usually in very short supply among both Hollywood and TV executives, concerned as they are with this season’s ratings and only this season’s ratings.
Or maybe an adaptation’s true home would be on the internet, where smaller-scale, yet longer-running shows aren’t tied to the tyranny of a fixed broadcast schedule and its attendant concern with the here-and-now.
I don’t know. All I know is that a one-shot summer blockbuster helmed by Roland Emmerich based on Foundation does not bode well.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 04:15pm EST
I know I'm in the minority, but I liked Independence Day. It wasn't deep, but I even after all these years, I see it as containing a series of homages to other SF works. And I also liked Stargate. Of course, I also liked I, Robot, so obviously I'm okay with non-strict adaptations of so-called "classics."
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 04:20pm EST · amended on Sunday January 18, 2009 04:22pm EST
Oh, I didn't say I didn't like Independence Day. I enjoyed it. But, as you say, it's not the deepest movie out there. I said it was of debatable quality, and I also include The Day After Tomorrow in there, which really is a lame movie.
I couldn't bring myself to watch I, Robot, in all honesty. Everything that I saw about the movie went completely against what Asimov intended with his robot stories on a very fundamental level. I probably wouldn't have minded the movie if it had been called anything else.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 04:55pm EST
I think what will happen with the film is that we'll see the crucial turning points filmed. Mallow's story, etc. Those have natural drama but a film focusing on them will not be Foundation. This smacks of a studio wanting to hang something on a well known author's name and work.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 05:23pm EST
I sort of liked the I, Robot adaptation, which I felt was a pretty good attempt to piece together a lot of short stories into a two hour film. It had a lot of blatant product placement (Converse All-Stars anyone?) but it still tried to comment on human nature.
Still, no matter what, finally having a movie based on one of the best Sci-Fi series out there is great.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 06:53pm EST
Sunday January 18, 2009 07:36pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 09:56pm EST · amended on Sunday January 18, 2009 09:57pm EST
You see, the novels seem to be mostly talking heads, expounding on broad themes.
And we all know that movie produces want lots of action, heroes dodging laser bolts, and exploding spaceships.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 11:05pm EST
I frankly don't see how this will come out well. The source material does not lend itself to the movie format as Hollywood understands it. The best way to be true to the trilogy would be to make a BBC style series. (If you don't understand what I mean, then I recommend renting Jekyll from Netflix.) Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone at Columbia could make it.
And BTW, Steven Moffat (he wrote Jekyll) is on that short list of writers.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday January 18, 2009 11:12pm EST
If you want to understand what I see as the difference between British and American production, then take a look at the series Eleventh Hour. You can rent the original British series on Netflix, but reading about it on Wikipedia should be sufficient to convey the differences between the British and American series.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 19, 2009 01:33am EST
Not good enough!
I demand that Sting be cast in the role of Hari Seldon so that his holographic visage, each time decorated in a new black-and-white pattern of silks and body paint, haunts the entire length of the however many movies this becomes, probably three but it's quite hard to say. You could conceivably make five movies out of Foundation alone. And may I say that the possible plot confusion that could arise would give Dune a run for its money.
In this light, will someone please send Emmerich all the drugs that David Lynch was mainlining during Dune.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 19, 2009 03:04am EST
The real question, however, is why there isn't a Foundation video game. That makes no sense to me.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 19, 2009 03:10pm EST
Same here. Hence, this post.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 19, 2009 08:41pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday January 20, 2009 05:46am EST
Wednesday January 21, 2009 06:27am EST
Oh and he'd better not only look intelligent but be intelligent too.
And he'd better not have a paunch as robots don't get paunches, even when they're 20,000 years old.
Friday January 23, 2009 04:37pm EST