So it's interesting timing for the SF/Fantasy fan right now. In the course of just a few months we've seen the release of a TV series based on the "unfilmable" Foundation series, an epic film (and still only the first part) of the equally "unfilmable" Dune, and the release of the ages-in-development Wheel of Time series. Each of these properties have their dedicated fan bases and each have had varying degrees of success with those fan bases.
First up, let's talk Dune. Denis Villeneuve's film has been a major success, pleasing both fans and general audience with it's stunning adaptation of Herbert's novel. (I'm speaking in broad strokes here… I'm sure there are haters out there, gleefully bashing on the film.) Dune is one of my favorite novels, and I've read it several times. While there are certainly changes to the story required to make it a manageable cinema experience, the obvious care about the story, and the determination to get it right, is clear throughout. And there are so very many moments throughout the film that effectively recall those same moments from the book, bringing them to vivid life in a way that does no harm to my own visualizations of those moments (and really, what more can you ask for from an adaptation like this?)
At the other end of the spectrum, we find Foundation. As I noted above, this one has been labelled unflimable, same as Dune. But in this case, it appears the creators of the series embraced that adjective as a means to justify their revisionist version of the series. From minute one of the new series, the changes are apparent and sweeping… so much so that even the recognizable elements are only recognizable by name, and not their place in the story. My frustration with all of this started with Episode 1 and simply escalated throughout. Dani, on the other hand (who's never read any of the books) found the series enjoyable and had no problems with it. (Understandable, in that she doesn't know what she's missing, right?)
So with that in mind, I tried looking at it the way you have to look at the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan Bond films… while the trend started late in the Sean Connery era, by the time Moore started playing Bond, the only similarities between the novels and the films were the titles and character names. Yet it's possible to enjoy both, knowing what to expect from each. So, ostensibly, I should be able to enjoy Foundation the TV series by divorcing it from my recollections of Foundation the novel series, right?
And, theoretically, this is doable. Once (if?) I can shut off the analytic part of my mind that wonders WHY they felt the need to make these changes, I can see a totally serviceable SF series, with a fine aesthetic and good performances.
The problem is, I can't understand that WHY. Why, if you're going to make a TV series based on one of the most famous series in Science Fiction, do you feel the need to divorce that series from its source? Why even attempt it if you're not going to tell the stories told in the books? (The simplest answer here, of course, is money… far easier to get funding to create a series based on a known property like Foundation than to pitch your own SF series with the intent of spending multiple millions of dollars to get it up and running. SO, you buy the series and use it as the baseline to build your story upon. If it's successful, no one's going to care about the grousing of a few fans… we always complain, so why should anyone care. And if it fails, well, the books were unflimable to begin with. So it's a win/win for Goyer and team. Not so much the Foundation fanbase.)
Now, I am forced to contrast my reaction to Foundation to my reaction to The Wheel of Time. Dani and I reverse positions on this one… I've never read any of WoT, while she's read several of the books. So my lack of any knowledge of the books allows me to simply enjoy (or not, as the case may be) the story unfolding on my TV. For Dani, it's not nearly as rough as it is for me watching Foundation. Partly this is because it's been so long since she's read any of the books she can only recall the most broad changes occurring in the series (i.e. aging up the main characters), but none of the details are there to get in the way of her enjoyment. But I've read enough online to know that there is a vocal fan base that's not impressed with the series, and bothered by the changes made to their story. I can't, of course, speak to the scope of those changes, nor their impact to the stories, but clearly there are issues.
Having said all that, it doesn't sound like the changes wrought on Wheel of Time are as sweeping and unintuitive as those made to Foundation. Characters were aged up, changes made to characters or situations to better structure the story for the episodic nature of TV, etc. But, overall, the story remains recognizable.
All of which brings me back, once again to Foundation and my thesis above… aside from the money argument posited above, the real explanation for the debacle that is Apple TV's Foundation is the sheer hubris required to take that story and completely decimate anything resembling Foundation the book series in service to creating Foundation the TV series. Hence my frustration and, ultimately, contempt for the effort.
Comments