Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

> I was telling my partner that I felt the movie was meant for people who read the book. She thought it was boring.

A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring.

I think that most people expect character-driven narrative, and so when you get a work that leans more towards ideas and concepts, people tune out.

Edit: I think is also why the movie Sicario (also by Villeneuve) threw some people off, because it didn't operate with a "normal" narrative: SPOILER {the roles of main character and protagonist were two different people}:

* https://thebarkbitesback.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/going-deep...

View on HN

On the other hand, if you take a book that leans towards ideas and concepts, and you make series with character-driver narrative out of it so people won't tune out, you get something like Foundation, that has only title and names of places and characters common with the original. All that made the original interesting is lost.

> All that made the original interesting is lost.

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing:

> “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history.

> So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda...

* https://archive.md/YFxVi

A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history".

It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing something completely opposite.

It's not all bad, though. There are elements that would fit well with the books. The way they handled emperors, for example.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[1] - Or what could be described as pivotal moments - the whole point of Seldon's use of psychohistory was to set the initial conditions to ensure there's a high probability that future events will take a very particular path[2]. Kind of like we do space missions today, where a probe is launched just right, so it stays on a predetermined path through the Solar System, making it reach its destination years or decades later.

[2] - And to my great relief when first reading the trilogy, Asimov wasn't dumb about this. He seemed to have known enough about what today we'd call non-linear systems and chaos theory, that he addressed the obvious problems of psychohistory and long-term stability of Seldon's plan in the trilogy (as well as in subsequent books).

> A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history.

That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.

... which is the point. It's all about the spinning top (The Foundation) staying spinning and not falling over...

Premise: You can't expect predictions to stay true over centuries, you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management. Bonus: due to the circumstantial requirements, you get to make them secret and hidden.

Requirement: There has to be tension within a book. There has to be conflict, resolved in a way conducive to literary imperative.

Resolution: Something has to be able to challenge this otherwise-perfectly-set-up system. Something that is not predictable, and which would not be easily adjustable by the Second Foundation; something out of the ordinary. A single man, who really can influence history. The Second Foundation would be prepared for a Napoleon of their time, but they wouldn't expect anyone like the Mule.

Corollary: The Second Foundation is exposed, introducing tension and conflict for the next book in the series. Who wants to be a puppet on a string, after all ?

It could have gone very differently if the Mule hadn't been sterile, or could have taught his skill, but again, literary imperative dictates that "The Good Guys win", so the Second Foundation overcomes the Mule, and the plan is put back on track. Suspiciously well, in fact. The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.

"The Good Guys" changes in later books, of course, and the Second Foundation end up losing, but that's quite literally another story :)

I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

What I found endearing about the books[0] is that it didn't try to cast any of the factions as The Good Guys. The Foundation definitely isn't. The trilogy, especially the first book, shows the Foundation applying plenty of hard realpolitik to survive and expand; they do not carry any moral banner, except that of Seldon's Plan. They're not the United Federation of Planets by any measure. They just are. The Second Foundation isn't presented in a better light either.

> The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.

I most likely haven't read far enough into the book sequence, but at least by "Foundation's Edge", the anthropic principle remains valid; the protagonist of that book, despite being seen as special by their contemporaries, still turns out to be involved in the story only because they happened to be best person available along the criteria of the ... entity ... driving the events.

[0] - That I've read so far, i.e. the trilogy, and "Foundation's Edge".

> I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

That's why I had "The Good Guys" in quotes :) We're supposed to root for the Foundation/Second Foundation, but it's clearly presented as the best of two evils. People, being people but better than 30,000 years of anarchy.

> you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management

That's where your anthropic principle ends, though, halfway through the trilogy. From there on out the original protagonists can't win without a new "special" set of characters blessed with superhuman abilities.

I feel the Mule was like the Mongols, bring distant realms under one rule, disperse the knowledge and then burn out.

It is just not to set the initial conditions. It needs to be guided constantly. The probabilities need to be updated periodically, alternate paths need to be mapped (e.g. bring the plan back on track after The MULE). Hence the Second Foundation and the need for people to be unaware of them.

(spoiler) Even the entity, beyond the Second Foundation, who started everything and keeps it on track.

Yes, that's what I meant in my footnote no. 2. I was just trying to avoid spoilers - but since the whole subthread subsequently has been: both Seldon and Asimov demonstrated their understanding of chaotic systems by creating the Second Foundation, whose purpose was to maintain Seldon's plan as a closed-loop optimization system, despite the Foundation (and initially, the reader) believing it was an open-loop, fire-and-forget one.

Also what I liked about the series is the multiple logical explanation of things which seem equally convincing but ultimately wrong. e.g the location of the second foundation and later of earth.

In this logical recursion you have to keep track of the level your are in till ultimately a simple explanation is revealed. Sometimes it feels too much of a coincidence, but I enjoyed the mental gymnastics.

Of course Paul Krugman is a fan of the Dune and Foundation books!

Very few shows or movies can pull off exploring how a system works, from top to bottom, to show how the world is shaped by rules, customs, etc. The Wire comes to mind as the best "real world" example. I was very impressed by how the Dune movie hinted at the underlying systems while translating the salient points and the "feel" of Dune to the language of film. While I feel it failed in some places, it's a hugely impressive achievement. I love Lynch and like his Dune, but really it's a totally different work from the books with surface level similarities. 2021 Dune feels like a true film adaptation, no easy feat.

Well at least I can take the Foundation TV show off my "to watch" list now

Thanks for that summary; I didn't know there was a Foundation TV show, and at the moment I don't care either.

It reminds me of an attempt to make a Brave New World TV show, which based on the trailer has... little to do with the original book. The book itself wasn't even a good book in terms of storytelling IMO, it was more about worldbuilding and a bleak look at a "utopian" future.

So far it's a binge watch in a weekend when you have nothing better to do series (visuals are nice), but instead of giving the viewer that satisfaction of having some minimal immersion for a few hours in a story ... it has FUCKING DUMB cliffhangers at the end of every god damned episode. :(

Oh yes. The Foundation series would stand fine on its own, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of everything the book trilogy was, making the experience extremely jarring to me (I've read the books somewhat recently, so they were fresh in my mind when I started watching).

I agree. Having read the books of both series though and coming in with the expectation that I just wanted interesting science fiction I’ve been pleased with both the Dune movie and the Foundation series.

Foundation so far looks like two different shows: a very cool Empire story with three cloned Cleon guys, and a pathetic cliched YA action series about Terminus. (I'm rooting for the Cleons)

[grin] I don't think you're going to win there, unless they really take the show in a different direction :)

They shouldn't trust that suspicious Demerzel robot, better destroy it.

The problem for me is that the movie wasn't leaning into ideas and concepts either. I see a lot of comments about political, religious and ecological topics in Dune but I saw almost nothing about that in the movie, other than very shallow comments/ideas. To me, Dune felt like a completely empty movie: scenes are beautiful, yes, but that was it.

Nobody seems to mention the mini-series - I thought it was the best Dune rendition to video/film. I hated the Lynch version. Sting totally turns me off.

I read the book in the early seventies; never liked the prequels/sequels. I'm also not that keen on the mutant Paul/Sandworm god. That didn't work for me.

This is how I felt about his Blade Runner 2049 -- aesthetically stunning, but weak hollow story, like an intensively expensive well done fan-fic.

As a big fan of the Dune series I'm a bit unsure if I really even want to see the movie.

Arrival was excellent, but my experience with Blade Runner 2049 makes me unsure about Villeneuve's work.

Wait and watch it with part 2.

My biggest gripe with it is that it's just yet another Villeneuve movie. It's not different enough compared to BR2049. It seems as if 2049 was just a study for Dune. (Because probably it was.) And there's just not enough life in Dune compared to the richness of the books. (Nor in BR. Or in Arrival. ... Because Villeneuve emphasizes the anxiety of alienation a bit too much...?)

The emptiness in BR2049 was explained in-universe: people were leaving Earth for colonies and the planet was severely depopulated. It was OK for it to have this lifeless feeling. But "Dune" should be brimming with life, struggle and constant dangers, this melancholy and sterility do not fit it at all.

I also found Blade Runner 2049 terrible. It felt totally empty. The original movie had an interesting story and built an interesting world. I don’t even know what 2049 was really about.

I felt the same about the “Joker” movie. Good acting and production but ultimately not interesting .

2049 is completely unengaging for me. It seemsa to add exactly zero to the original movie.

Yep. And doesn't work as a standalone movie either.

Aesthetics were amazing. But after a certain point I just don't care how it looks and feels. No story worth digging into.

And it's not like the man can't tell a character driven story. I cared a lot about the characters in Arrival. It made my whole family cry.

I felt nothing from Blade Runner 2049. Nothing.

Did you not care at all for K and his struggle for meaning?

I love that movie and I think in it, the story is just an excuse to show us the world and it's the world that's more interesting. A future where androids are organic, of course they have protein farms everywhere. They appear to have mastered sustainable (solar) engergy too. All of this and it's still a distopian future ravaged of inequality.

For all its faults, Lynch's Dune turned out to be an overall better movie! Who could have thought?

My god, how could you say that. I watched the Lynch version before watching the new version, just to be able to compare. The Lynch version was the worst movie I've ever seen.

One must know how to watch it. Younger people can hardly see past the flashy pictures. Lynch's Paul was particularly brilliant, his figure had some mystic qualities around it, new movie has nothing like it.

I'm not young :)

I just couldn't get past the horribly stilted dialogue, the clowny costumes, and the completely terrible "inner monologue."

Oh, and the last scene where the emperor himself jumps on the merry-go-round and is shooting things. wtf.

The movie was so completely bad in every dimension.

The only positive is that after watching it, I got a better idea of what was happening in the 2021 version.

Well, I can agree with parts of that, and still, the new movie is worse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Totally agree. I think it was badly done. Big waste of lots of millions of dollars; and it blocked the stream for a new version, for two decades.

Not criticising Lynch for having a go; props. I just don't think it worked out. That's how the cookie crumbles for most movies. Nice try.

The merry-go-round thing was pretty cool tho, for a society without computers. I've yet to read an essay that examines it and tries to figure out its principle of operation.

How can you say that? There's no such thing as a bad Patrick Stewart movie.

Especially when he runs into battle with a doggie in his shirt!

A friend saw it with me, no context at all for him, he was fascinated by the religious war undertones sprinkled through the movie

I wouldn't call "sprinkled undertones" a few visions describing very explicitly a holy war, but to each their own.

> war

Given some folks are complaining about the "white saviour" trope in Dune, it would be interesting to see Dune Messiah be made. It's not like Herbert wasn't aware of the idea, given what he knew about (e.g.) T. E. Lawrence ('of Arabia').

Haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading the book I just don't see the white savior angle. Freemen were indoctrinated by the Bene Gesserit to believe in a prophesy and Jessica "lies" to them to make them believe Paul is the one.

Freemen are being oppressed, but they aren't the weak ones in Dune not by a long shot since they even have enough wealth to outbid the empire on satellites in orbit around Arrakis.

I want to see Dune God Emperor adapted now that would start getting to "seriously weird" territory.

I think white savior just means guy came from outside who has amazing abilities and lead the native.

Yes, but my point is that he's not a saviour of the Freemen at all. It's clear in the books that they are better armed, better adapted and their numbers is severely underestimated by the Harkonnen. At no point in the first book are the Freemen truly at risk of being decimated.

This is a fine line to thread and I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment as to how the handled it, but while the Freemen don't have interplanetary domination in mind and Paul does lead them to Jihad, it's not like Avatar where the native are being exterminated and some random guy leads them to military success.

I dont think it matters whether they are oppressed or need a savior.

The ridiculous thing about that narrative is that an alien with their own agenda (most likely not for the benefits of the native) is somehow given leadership

In the book, at least, he earns/steals that position (it's not given to him) by virtue of his mother's knowledge of their religious beliefs and his training from birth to be a leader. Which was only barely hinted at in this movie.

I've always read Dune as a strong condemnation of the white saviour. Paul dooms the Fremen to a horrible purpose; forever to deliver a religious genocide in his name. Paul knows what he's doing is wrong, we the reader are told its wrong, and yet Paul does it anyway because his power of prescience shows him the alternative is worst for the universe. The sequels completely adhere to the idea that Paul is right, and turn the whole Dune universe into shlock, but the original novel posits the idea that Paul can't be sure it's the right thing to do.

The thing is all of that is explained in much more detail in the second part of the book. You know, the part that's not a film yet.

> condemnation of the white saviour

it seems more like condemnation of the concept of leading, or controlling, as opposed to educating and liberating. The white savior element is not neccessary to convey that message.

The white savior tropes are mostly from activists. The actual book is a critique of the very idea of saviors in general.

"white saviour" is just the pithy modern name for what the book was critical of. It wasn't just in general against saviours, the oppression and race aspects were def part of the book. I'm no activist but I was disappointed (and surprised given the current climate) that those undertones weren't in the movie at all (arguably acting nice to the Freman for "desert power", but the movie was too invested in showing Leto as a really great guy with so little screen time that it couldn't afford to dwell on the complexity) - it comes more to the foreground after he's with the Freman so hopefully the second movie will explore that critique a bit more.

None of this stopped me from really enjoying the movie - though I think highlighting the ambiguity could make it into a really great movie. The book does it by exploring how the systems work in the world which rarely works well in movies, so I'm not sure how part 2 could do it without it feeling "tacked on"

Was it the intention from the start or did Frank come up with it as he wrote more books?

The movie sets up a direct commentary on our middle east adventures.

The only commentary that is set up is "colonization and oppression is bad", there's not much more there.

Just my own taste, but after Sicario and Blade Runner, Villeneuve has become one of my favorite directors. I'm looking forward to Dune.

Arrival hooked me on as well

Who would have thought a sci-fi film with aliens could be about motherhood/parenting? :)

Are you making a joke about "Aliens" or is this an honest question

Having a child is a key theme in Arrival and it is set in a context of communicating with mysterious aliens.

It's a rhetoric question. I don't think anyone was expecting that ending.

> A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring.

the book's pacing isn't exactly brisk from what my younger self remembers of reading it.

To me Sicario was a masterpiece. But Dune ... I could never get warm with it. Neither the book, nor the first movie nor the recent one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com