Now whenever I see an ad for a new show I buy the book due to the times we live in. I know Foundation is being done by Apple but forgive me for believing this will be like every modern day reboot. I saw a recent interview with the show runner and he said he wanted to make it for a “modern audience” which is a red flag as well as gender and race swapping. He said he checked with the Asimov estate. Too bad they all aren’t like Christopher Tolkien.
I don’t understand why they don’t just adapt the woke garbage that has won Hugo’s/Nebulas the last few years. I find it pretty ironic to hear the constant bashing of dead white male authors but they have no problem making money off their work.
And I know Wheel of Time is coming. I’m sure the critics will clap like seals about it but that showrunner has shown that he knows jack about the story.
If I remember correctly, in some woke academic paper they spell out the intention that they don't want people to be enjoy any sort of escapism or entertainment that might distract them from "The Struggle".
Everything must be about their cultural revolution. You will not be able to read a book, watch a TV show, enjoy some sport, buy bread and milk at the convenience store, or deal with the bank, without constantly being reminded of The Struggle.
You can add to that the petty malevolent intention to bring about the "End of History" by changing everything from the past until it's unrecognisable.
As we used to say on KiA back on Reddit, "they hate you, they hate everything you like, and they want you dead".
Yea I do notice how the woke mafia gets upset if someone expresses a desire to just read a story and not be beat over the head with current year politics
They actually made a word for that, they call it "praxis".
Nah, the evil guy from Jak 2
Now that's an older reference.
Boomer bait! 🤣
Man that game was fun af. I may have it on ps2 somewhere...maybe when I have some spare time I'll crack the case open and give it a go. By some miracle of God I have one of the first-run PS2s and it still works great.
I'm worried about how acclaimed the new show is with critics, that usually is a sign that it is going to be dogshit.
Yep. I remember in the 90s when the nerd sites had good things to say I would watch the shows.
When the critics like it, its a surefire dud.
I found Asimov’s use of English so jarring that it became an assignment instead of pleasure reading. He’s an atheist and his desperate desire to avoid religion or religious origin of words to cause the flow of the writing to stutter to me. I kept having to stop to use context to infer meaning to his words or phrases which became tiresome. Really in the end what I carried away is this is Asimov’s desire for a priesthood of scientists that would handout edicts and scraps of knowledge. I like the idea of creating a grand database of human knowledge so that as long as the universe survives and humanity as well then the progress is not lost to time. The issue becomes that people and institutions are corruptible. I’m sure it was addressed in later books but the tedious nature of the first book made me stop.
I liked his robot books like I robot and naked sun trilogy. I’ll see what I think of foundation
I've read mostly only his essays and non-fiction books, and that a long while ago now. I read two of his robot books (I, Robot and The Robots of Dawn), but I can't say I really care about robots' rights.
But I do have an essay collection in which he speculates on how Mankind, in its move to space, might be better served to hollow out and colonize the insides of asteroids and other smaller bodies, for various reasons (they can be enclosed, you can fit more people inside than out, wouldn't need domes or shelters, etc.) Which is fine, and might be something the Galileo Project might want to watch out for, but what turned me off was when he suggested that maybe the Earth ought to be blown up to make more room for endless humans. Boy, did I want to puke when I read that.
Bleugh. The idea of living somewhere with no sunlight, rolling hills, scenery, or none of the other things that're outside makes me sick. You'd have to be a real nerd to think living completely in some enclosed place like an asteroid or space station or whatever would be a good idea.
Sure, it'd be liveable, but what would it be bearable? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if such a place saw rates of mental illness and drug addiction go through the roof.
The rat utopia experiments come to mind.
It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for a savannah ape, but species more used to a subterranean lifestyle would probably like it just fine.
What got me was the utter hubris (the same shown in Clarke's Childhood's End) - Humans don't need the Earth any more, so fuck it and everything else that still needs to call it home.
I got through the first book and a half of the Foundation trilogy. The dude could create a wonderful universe, but holy hell was he bad at writing characters I cared to read about. I don't even need to like your characters, but they should be interesting at the least.
Asimov was a progressive of his era and Foundation works from a fundamentally flawed idea. It's the same problem that plagues people like Sargon; he wants to quickly boot strap society back to the point where it is already dying. Imagine, after western civilization has crumbled, trying to fast forward civilization to the Bush/Blair era.
I don’t mind an old progressive. I can remember when liberals were staunch defenders of freedom of speech. You do make a good point though.
Equality is a lie.
Progressivism is a death cult.
Worship Nurgle instead. It's a life cult. Every virophage is sacred and deserves its daily bread.
They were always staunch defenders of their own speech.
They've been outright attacking and trying to ban anything they don't agree with for as long as they've existed.
During the "free speech era" their primary goal was shutting down and ending religion and morality in the schools. They succeeded, and took the generation they raised to go after the rest of western civilization now.
That's a perfect example of how long they've been playing their game. I remember that mess when I was in school in the 90s, it was all about how it's against freedom of speech to even mention the existence of religion in schools. Generally applied to mean anything is okay except Christianity put in a positive light. Their whole spiel about how it makes people uncomfortable who don't share that religion, etc. It's the same old refrain they use today for trannies and the like, I just never bothered to notice.
Freedom of speech for them has for decades been instead freedom from other's speech they don't like.
This is the craziest thing. I remember bashing Christians as a teen in the 90s, laughing at their "slippery slope" arguments.
And God dammit, they were right! The insane asshole ranting about the commies in his garage was right all along.
Well that is true. I remember that.
Gaal is a little black girl. Does that ease your mind? =P
Salvor Hardin, as well: black woman.
No surprise. Race/gender swaps are an immediate red flag to me now. There is no reason other than to virtue signal or because you know critics will clap like seals
"The only thing missing from this adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s ‘Foundation’ is Isaac Asimov."
DC did a comic series a while back, called gotham high. apparently the concept was a fan comic that DC initially was gonna hire to write an official version, but then turned over to some mexican lady who basically admitted she knows nothing about batman, but her husband was really into it.
Checked with the Asimov estate? How nice. His son, David, is a legit shut-in pedophile.
His daughter, Robyn, is listed as an Executive Producer for the Apple show. She's also on the record as a big fan of the Will Smith "I, Robot." (Coincidentally, written by Akiva Goldsman who has also written multiples nuTrek episodes of "Star Trek" Discovery and Picard)
Fixed that for you. They could turn her father's legacy into nazi-flag waving gay porno and she'd still be a "big fan".
I didn't mind the I, Robot move so much, though, because the book itself was really just the memories of that "Robot psychologist" woman, because her life basically spanned a lot of robot "evolution"; basically, a bunch of high-concept short stories about robots held together with the roboshrink as the framing and connecting device a la Heavy Metal and other such anthologies-in-a-nutshell. The movie's story was basically just another story along the line, to me. The question was simply "Can I stand Smith's camera-mugging for that long?"
The books aren't "good" but they are "classic". IMO the ones after the original trilogy are better
Thanks. I’ll decide if I want to read more after book 1.
And I think they know this.
It's not just that they know this, it's completely 100% their intention. They want to take away everything from you.