TV/Movies Megathread

[Josquius]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

As not much of an SF reader that sounds like the negative stereotype of the genre that always slightly puts me off, plus some experiences where it seems to be true.

I think as I've gotten older I've matured a bit. I can today enjoy a story where 'nothing happens' but somebody's personal journey.
When I was a teen however I absolutely valued plot, worldbuilding, and, material rather than inner change, over any form of characterisation.

Spoilers ahead:

I think the Apple series fundamentally changed the story. Asimovs original was a scientist finding out how to read the future based on data and how that data should be changed to avoid a bad future. Thus by having an algorithm and introducing the foundation thousands of years of political instability could be avoided.

The Apple series makes the same premise, but the difference here is that the actions of the scientist is more or less the cause of the empire's fall. In this adaptation he has borderline magical powers to predict details centuries in advance, the location of the old battleship, the location of the mother swarm and so on. And based on those observation he more or less orchestrates the fall of the empire.

Perfectly possible he could have examined historical records to calculate the battleship's location. That has happened lots of times for ship wrecks on Earth.
The mother swarm... There too perhaps he was able to triangulate the appearance of spacer ships over time to its location from there extrapolate a location.
The only magic I'd see here is in where he got the time for this- though tracking down a shipwreck with maths does seem the sort of thing a mathematic genius might do in his free time or set his assistant as a task.
The magic is more about the vault being this weird mysterious floating multi-spacial object way above the understanding of anyone else. It strikes me as less believable a mathematical genius would be able to develop such a thing and get it built and shipped out.
I hope there's an explanation for this some day.

I find it interesting how the Foundation series at first starts fairly on track with the books, the only changes being obvious modernisations of gender flips, giving the characters substance, the absolutely genius introduction of the genetic dynasty so there could be a continuous antagonist, and so on.

With series 2 it hints that its largely following this track; are we doing Gaia now? But with the finale makes it clear it has diverged hugely.
I think it intentionally hints at this itself early in series 2 with the timeline mapping.

Also on Seldon knowing details...a curious change is him not just being recordings but continuing to be a character via AI (understandable from a TV production perspective). This also opens up possibilities for knowing details in advance- his AI seems to be actively working on stuff.

Oh. And the bodily resurrection. Now that was mad magic.,

[Tamas]

When I was a teen however I absolutely valued plot, worldbuilding, and, material rather than inner change, over any form of characterisation.

Yeah I still wish though that not every plot ever was centered around the OH SO IMPORTANT inner conflicts of a couple of key characters. I guess this is why I like history. Caesar might had been a ruthless ethnic cleanser conqueror because, IDK, his mother was too harsh with him, but I don't have to suffer through reading/watching about MOTHER MOTHER STOP IT to get to the fun bits.

[celedhring]

I thought ASOF/GoT managed to balance character and collective history magnificently.

I have this hot take that GoT was just one good final season away from becoming part of the Western canon - the books still might end there in the unlikely chance that 1) he finishes the saga 2) it's not a hot mess.

[The Brain]

As has been touched upon, some genres are just not compatible with complex characters with inner workings. Like certain old-school sci-fi where big themes and principles are in focus, or fairy-tale fantasy in the LOTR vein. In these cases keeping characters 2D maintains feel and/or focus.

[Josquius]

I thought ASOF/GoT managed to balance character and collective history magnificently.

I have this hot take that GoT was just one good final season away from becoming part of the Western canon - the books still might end there in the unlikely chance that 1) he finishes the saga 2) it's not a hot mess.

Agreed.
It was especially obvious with the first books that the plot and characters were just there to demonstrate the world. Nonetheless they did have some interesting character dynamics whilst on tour.

And those novels are never going to be finished.
Honestly not sure I'll even read Winds when it comes out. The show and natural progression of time has wrecked my memory of the others.

[HVC]

They rushed to get to their next show, but did so badly that they lost it instead. Would be Kind of funny if they hadn't screwed up a show I liked.

[crazy canuck]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

As not much of an SF reader that sounds like the negative stereotype of the genre that always slightly puts me off, plus some experiences where it seems to be true.

I think as I've gotten older I've matured a bit. I can today enjoy a story where 'nothing happens' but somebody's personal journey.
When I was a teen however I absolutely valued plot, worldbuilding, and, material rather than inner change, over any form of characterisation.

Spoilers ahead:

I think the Apple series fundamentally changed the story. Asimovs original was a scientist finding out how to read the future based on data and how that data should be changed to avoid a bad future. Thus by having an algorithm and introducing the foundation thousands of years of political instability could be avoided.

The Apple series makes the same premise, but the difference here is that the actions of the scientist is more or less the cause of the empire's fall. In this adaptation he has borderline magical powers to predict details centuries in advance, the location of the old battleship, the location of the mother swarm and so on. And based on those observation he more or less orchestrates the fall of the empire.

Perfectly possible he could have examined historical records to calculate the battleship's location. That has happened lots of times for ship wrecks on Earth.
The mother swarm... There too perhaps he was able to triangulate the appearance of spacer ships over time to its location from there extrapolate a location.
The only magic I'd see here is in where he got the time for this- though tracking down a shipwreck with maths does seem the sort of thing a mathematic genius might do in his free time or set his assistant as a task.
The magic is more about the vault being this weird mysterious floating multi-spacial object way above the understanding of anyone else. It strikes me as less believable a mathematical genius would be able to develop such a thing and get it built and shipped out.
I hope there's an explanation for this some day.

I find it interesting how the Foundation series at first starts fairly on track with the books, the only changes being obvious modernisations of gender flips, giving the characters substance, the absolutely genius introduction of the genetic dynasty so there could be a continuous antagonist, and so on.

With series 2 it hints that its largely following this track; are we doing Gaia now? But with the finale makes it clear it has diverged hugely.
I think it intentionally hints at this itself early in series 2 with the timeline mapping.

Also on Seldon knowing details...a curious change is him not just being recordings but continuing to be a character via AI (understandable from a TV production perspective). This also opens up possibilities for knowing details in advance- his AI seems to be actively working on stuff.

Oh. And the bodily resurrection. Now that was mad magic.,

Yes, and Gaal is given a magical power of seeing the future.  After reading more of the book, I am not sure why that was done in the adaptation.

I think if I had read the books first I would not have enjoyed the adaptation as much.

[Josquius]

Yes, and Gaal is given a magical power of seeing the future.  After reading more of the book, I am not sure why that was done in the adaptation.

I think if I had read the books first I would not have enjoyed the adaptation as much.

I don't think I'm spoiling much to say psychic powers are a thing in the books too. Gaal being psychic helps give us a character we know to get involved with them when they show up rather than them just suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

I enjoy both. The books always struck me as something it'd be impossible to adapt so I can accept whatever changes. That they've stuck so closely impresses me.

[Jacob]

Yeah I still wish though that not every plot ever was centered around the OH SO IMPORTANT inner conflicts of a couple of key characters.

Yeah me neither. That's one of the reasons I mostly ignore TV and films coming out of "the Hollywood school of writing". It seems inevitable that it's going to be about that OH SO IMPORTANT conflict, and that at least half the time is going to be about "HOW DO WE KICK IT UP A NOTCH AND INCREASE THE STAKES?"

It's getting a bit tedious. It doesn't help that the pacing is often very similar.

[Tamas]

Yeah I still wish though that not every plot ever was centered around the OH SO IMPORTANT inner conflicts of a couple of key characters.

Yeah me neither. That's one of the reasons I mostly ignore TV and films coming out of "the Hollywood school of writing". It seems inevitable that it's going to be about that OH SO IMPORTANT conflict, and that at least half the time is going to be about "HOW DO WE KICK IT UP A NOTCH AND INCREASE THE STAKES?"

It's getting a bit tedious. It doesn't help that the pacing is often very similar.

Yeah, For All Mankind went all in on this with the space programs of both superpowers resting on about 4 to 6 people's interpersonal relationships.

But the peak of this had to be Sons of Anarchy, which over the seasons devolved into its own parody. After some point all every supporting character (various badass independent-mined bikers) did was to sit around waiting to be an errand boy in the lead family's (like, 3 people) feuds.

[Admiral Yi]

Hey Jacob, just noticed Guns of Navarone is on Netflix.

[Tamas]

I am really struggling with Foundation season 2. I want to go on because of the visuals and the weird triple emperors thing but it is so bloody boring.

[Duque de Bragança]

I've been watching "The Seventh Seal" and going through the various commentary on the Criterion Channel.  This morning I was rather alarmed to see a gaunt, pale figure dressed head to toe in a black cloak walk by my window.  Before I could go find my chess board I realized it was my neighbor who, like most Floridians, overdresses in cooler weather.

At least you did not lose that fatal game. 
I checked once the English dub for laughs, bad but not "so bad it's good" so disappointing.

[Savonarola]

I've been watching "The Seventh Seal" and going through the various commentary on the Criterion Channel.  This morning I was rather alarmed to see a gaunt, pale figure dressed head to toe in a black cloak walk by my window.  Before I could go find my chess board I realized it was my neighbor who, like most Floridians, overdresses in cooler weather.

At least you did not lose that fatal game. 
I checked once the English dub for laughs, bad but not "so bad it's good" so disappointing. (

The first time I saw it was with the English dub; this was a very long time ago so all I remember is that Death had a really annoying voice and wondering why this was considered the greatest movie ever made since Monty Python had done it so much better.   

I had seen the subtitled version since, but that was probably almost twenty years ago.  I remember the movie being a lot longer and gloomier than it actually is.  It clocks in at about 90 minutes and, like a Shakespearean tragedy, he intersperses the heavier scenes with comic ones.

The documentaries about Bergman said that he had made comedies earlier in his career.  Has anyone seen those?  I will acknowledge that, in the films of his that I have seen, he can do a witty scene or two, but the "Wild Strawberries" guy doesn't seem like he would be a barrel of laughs.

[Jacob]

Hey Jacob, just noticed Guns of Navarone is on Netflix.

Thanks for the heads up