advertisement


Asimov’s foundation.

I accidentally came across a series of short SF films on YouTube under the label DUST. Some of them seem quite good.
 
iansr said:
I agree Ali. Iain (M) Banks is sadly missed. One of the best SF authors of more recent times IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yes agreed, up there with Peter Hamilton, Greg Bear and Alastair Reynolds to my mind. Met him in Dunfermline once, he did a talk at Waterstones. Nice bloke.
 
narabdela said:
Sorry, not "Up there with". At least a couple of rungs above. (imho of course)
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Some PFH Is right up there but too many misfires and a bit more gung ho without the deeper concepts/thought.

I have the Banks shelf (with one fellow genius interloper)

51535624320_89008591c7_c.jpg


And the rest of them shelves

51535417824_a3cac4ba7a_c.jpg


51534942593_843b0319e0_c.jpg
 
Having watched both the Dune and Children of Dune trilogies on Amazon I have to say I was impressed they managed to tell the story pretty close to the books and the general quality of the filming and effects were as good as could be expected for a non film series. I also loved the Original Dune as a stand alone film more inspired by the book than accurate but good in its own way . Some of the acting was card board cut out quality but the visuals in the main worked as for me did the films.

Have decided to hold off watching any of the Foundation series until they have shown the series one complete then I can either watch in a big binge or drip myself an episode a night .
 
Tried watching 1st episode, half way through and absolute shite IMHO

Knocked it off and music on instead...

I love all stuff sci-fi and weird / wonderful, but just couldn't get into this. It was crap
 
Are any other fans of the book annoyed that Hardin's "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" is being completely ignored in favour of the show that is a more predictable modern action-based SF-TV affair? It looks great, but that's not enough.

Having said that, Asimov's 'two men in a room discussing stuff' style is pretty un-filmable.

It's OK—Better that Another Earth (with the most ludicrous ending of any series) and such like, but I'm reminded of ST:Discovery in that respect. Only the Trek name 'elevated' it above more common fare you normally get on SyFy and the Asimov name does that here too. I wish Apple had just commissioned something new.

The most interesting parts of the books—psychohistory (very contemporary idea now), science as religion, philosophy, and the subtle persuasion and manipulation of whole societies are missing so far.

And because of that, the vital 'great disruptor' storyline will probably have no impact at all.

The Radio series was good though. Great score as well by the Radiophonic workshop. But SF is better as books/radio anyhow.


Stephen
 
Sorry if this is going OT but I saw Dune today. On IMAX. Epic. I really do hope they make a part 2..!!
 
"both dazzling and frustrating, often spectacular and often slow"

Pretty much wraps it up. But the 'slow' is generally both dazzling and spectacular IMHO.
 
zygote23 said:
My matey is one of the art directors....emailed me last night to confirm.
Click to expand...

That’s fantastic news. It would’ve been terrible if there’s no part 2. My only issue with Dune is that it is very much a part 1..!! (It even says so when the film starts)
 
Saw Dune yesterday, thought it was a good attempt and fairly faithful to the book... It would be a tragedy if part 2 doesn't get funded.

Definitely spectacular and the soundtrack didn't annoy me, unlike most big films nowadays, even though it was noisy and discordant.

Not sure what I'd make of it if I wasn't familiar with the book though!
 
stephen bennett said:
The most interesting parts of the books—psychohistory (very contemporary idea now), science as religion, philosophy, and the subtle persuasion and manipulation of whole societies are missing so far.

And because of that, the vital 'great disruptor' storyline will probably have no impact at all.
Click to expand...

The concept of Psychohistory is central to the story, without it there is no real substance, with it the story is brilliant. I always assumed that Asimov distilled Toynbee’s concept of the natural lifespan of civilizations as outlined/explored in his magnum opus A Study of History. From that Asimov ‘created’ the science of Psychohistory for his Foudation series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top