1

Sounds interesting

Cody on Jan 16, 2009

2

So it'll look awesome and be dumb as sediment. Nice.

Fuelbot on Jan 16, 2009

3

There are lots of problems inherent with adapting this wonderful saga to film. The biggest for me is the length and breadth of the story, which just couldn't be contained in one film, it wouldn't be possible.

If they could get this right I would be very excited, but I doubt it's possible. It's not like Asimov is even popular these days, who would go as far as to make a trilogy.

I hope they do, it was one of the stories that amazed me as a kid.

nemof on Jan 16, 2009

4

I loved the original trilogy, as well, and don't see it being easily adapted to film. Maybe. Slan would be much a much better choice.

RandyG on Jan 16, 2009

5

Foundation is an example of a great book that you really cant see as a film (or a good film).

Its argubaly the best sci-fi book ever written and dubbed as the Lord of the Rings for Sci-fi, however it looks as if it wont be treated the same with this lame director.

Beetle on Jan 16, 2009

6

He makes a fairly good disaster film, but he will fail at this. The breadth of this film really is epic, knowing Hollywood they'll reduce it down to it's most basic elements. Scratch that, they'll dumb it down.

DK on Jan 16, 2009

7

Although Foundation is considered one of the most important and influential science fiction sagas ever written, oft compared to LoTR, aside from the sheer breadth of the film, Asimov is the kind of author that relies exclusively on his grand concepts. Asimov does not know how to write character, therefore what must drive a feature film, the characters, are usually silhouettes at best in the source material. This is what concerns me most when following this particular adaptation process.

Brandon Lee Tenney on Jan 16, 2009

8

Not knowing the story behind the trilogy and after reading Brandon's^ post, it would be cool if the movie(s) could be done without little character development and make the story/visuals the main "character" of the film. Kind of like 2001 where, in the movie, the characters were not well developed. We'll have to wait and see. But I'm excited. I just hope it doesnt turn into an independence day type movie. I'd like it to be a more thought provoking movie. However I am not familiar with the story.

Dan W on Jan 16, 2009

9

yeah no faith whatsoever in the director. this guy has shown time and time again that he doesn't care about crafting a decent story or characters. he's all about the spectacle. if a talented filmmaker like alex proyas can't properly adapt an asimov story, how is a hack like emmerich going to do it correctly. plus studios would not properly adapt the book because of the scope of the story and the complexity of the ideas. it would be too much of a risk for the studio. not looking forward to this at all. i'll just go back to reading the novels.

andrew on Jan 16, 2009

10

Roland Emmerich? Are you serious? First of all, this is a practically unfilmable set of novels — and secondly… Roland Emmerich?? Could you pick a worse director for this project?

DogChasingCars on Jan 16, 2009

11

Awww fuck…

Why, why WHYY!!!??

Redge on Jan 16, 2009

12

Emmerich has proven that he can film a good opening, but his films run out of steam very quickly. And most (if not all) Hollywood studios wouldn't bother themselves to get a proper feel for Asimov's work. Thumbs down on this.

Setebos on Jan 16, 2009

13

#2 is right.

J.White on Jan 17, 2009

14

can someone tell me why Hollowood doesn't make a movie from Dan Simmons Hyperion saga?

avi on Jan 17, 2009

15

i mean Hollywood of course!

avi on Jan 17, 2009

16

Ender's Game got put into turnaround, it wouldn't surprise me if this one doesn't make it any further. I just don't see this working out.

Lady Aerin on Jan 17, 2009

17

why couldn't WB have gotten their hands on it? I bet they'd at least do justice to this series. i personally never was able to finish it (too detailed and lacking in characters for me), but i still respect it as an amazing series. too bad Mr. Emmerich won't be able to do that.

dave13 on Jan 17, 2009

18

This is going to crash and burn extravagantly and expensively. Roland Emmerich has never tackled real Science Fiction in his life and has never shown any desire to do so.

Emmerich also doesn't know how to sustain a movie (12 is right). He comes up with an eye candy concept for one particular shot or two (This massive ring of stone is really a Stargate! This massive saucer is right over the White House and blows it up! And the massive Mothership is even MORE massive and IT blows up! This massive dinosaur invades New York! These spiders grow to a massive size! This massive flood drowns New York and then becomes a massive icepack! This massive mastodon runs amuck! The world comes to a massive end!) and gets the greenlight.

One of the best, and one of the most hardcore science fiction trilogys ever written (in later years Asimov wrote additions to the trilogy but those really just started an entire new ark.), Roland is taking on something he has neither the intelligence or imagination to handle. I'm not saying this to insult the man, though I know it might sound like it. I haven't the capacity to be President of the United States (and neither have some of our presidents), but at least I know my limitations.

I also have to agree with 17 on WB. If anyone was going to do this series justice it would be them.

Feo Amante on Jan 17, 2009

19

Ever since 10,000 BC I have no respect for Roland as a movie director or producer whatsoever

Scott McHenry on Jan 17, 2009

20

Emmerich will never make a good movie. He's a big budget Uwe Boll. There, I said it.

DinoChow on Jan 17, 2009

21

Emmerich can be fun, but this film would be practically impossible in the first place (unless it was sort of like 2001: A Space Odyssey) and will almost certainly be bad.

Hmm…maybe if they could do a really high-budget, high-production values HBO miniseries, it might work…but probably not.

scm1000 on Jan 17, 2009

22

Someone needs to do for Asimov what Kubrick did for Clarke. Emmerich as far from Kubrick as you can come.

shige on Jan 17, 2009

23

Darn. Why did they have to put such a piss-poor director at the helm of a potentially awesome film??

Ajax on Jan 17, 2009

24

Disaster.

avoidz on Jan 18, 2009

25

Oh God no.
Oh God no.
Oh God no.
Og Hod no.

Emmerich on the Foundation trilogy?

*clutches "Prelude to Foundation" tightly and cries in a corner*

Ganaesh D. on Jan 19, 2009

26

Terrible choice: Foundation is such a complex book… a director like Emmerich will ruin Asimov's legacy!
Please join our group on facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=57522728336

Aldo Iannotti on Jan 21, 2009

27

Emmerich is not a "master of disaster." He is a disaster.

This is an insanely bad idea. Let's take a man who gave us such breaindead creations as Godzilla, 10,000 BC, or Independence Day, and put him at the helm of the greatest epic in the history of science fiction. This is an undertaking that requires talent, subtlety, and intelligence. Putting Emmerich in charge is akin to having a butcher perform plastic surgery. No offense to the butchers, of course.

The Reader on Feb 25, 2009

28

More like having a garbage truck driver perform plastic surgery. No offense to the garbage truck drivers, of course.
I imagine Roland Emmerich in future interviews saying things like, "Der audience is going to luff der spaceships. Vhere der special effects und explosions are concerned, ve spared no expense. Der dogfights in space vill be huge also mit der THX sounds. Der money shot, uff course, vill be when der giant spaceship crashes righten tru der planet and comes outten der other side. It vill be cinematic majesty! Dis is vat der pipple vant!"
Yeah, I expect Roland Emmerich's FANTASTIC VOYAGE and FOUNDATION TRILOGY to be two expensive mouthfuls of "Der"!

Feo Amante on Feb 25, 2009

29

I don't think we should be so quick to judge what Emmerich will do here … meanwhile, here's a podcast that discusses how the Foundation trilogy responds to Laplace's Demon, or the proposition that, given sufficient knowledge of all conditions, we can know everything about the future…

Paul Levinson on Mar 15, 2009

30

I share many of the apprehensions about Mr. Emmerich and the adaptation of Azimov's gem to the big screen. Despite the negatives, the Foundation trilogy is a monumental challenge I pray can be overcome. If handled properly, the trilogy could become another Star Wars event and attract a similar cult following.

Does anyone truly understand the challenge I suggest? As I see it, the principal gauntlet tossed at Columbia and Mr. Emmerich is to help restore acting as a noble profession. In case you've missed it, on-film character development, engaging plot structure, and superb acting is fast disappearing. Meaningful actor performance has been replaced by whizz-bang special effects, screenplays full of utterly pathetic lines, and an actor's ability to make wild-eyed expressions. What has happened to acting performance that touches one's soul, tears at the heart, or climaxes a scene with memorable words or an unforgettable gesture? Frankly, if acting was my chosen profession, I would demand changes before true artists are replaced by lizards, ducks, cavemen, and cartoon characters like we see in some television commercials! The handwriting is on every movie screen today.

With a story like Foundation, and a strong cast of dedicated actors, I am convinced that this beloved trilogy can be brought to the screen. Not only that, it can be presented in a way that will earn money, win awards, and become a screen classic. Even more important, the actors involved just might regain lost prestige and garner justifiable praise for a job well done! Sadly, I see a downside that mimics the extinction of the dinosaur. After all, we just might witness the trashing of a literary masterpiece along with positive evidence that actors are no longer required to make a movie, any movie. Pax vobiscum.

Harry Gutterman on Jan 5, 2010

31

Dear all, Dear Harry Gutterman,

I carefully read your previous comment. And i totally agree with you and your analysis of this great movie project. Roland Emmerich has been interviewed few weeks ago (In french: http://www.fondation-lefilm.com/news/robert-rodat-avance-sur-le-script). The main points he focused on were:
1: The rewriting of the story (working on it with Robert Rodat) in order to give coherence to the trilogy.
2: Empowering this coherence by strengthening the characters.

Long Life to Earth!

Fondation film on Jan 12, 2010

32

Oh yeah. Roland Emmerich's whole cinematic history is about strong characters and coherent stories!

Feo Amante on Jan 15, 2010

33

Feo Amante,

I do not say coherent stories are the main focus of Emmerich.
I say he thinks this is the best way to deal with this difficult story.

By the way, it's what he tolds…

Fondation film on Jan 29, 2010

34

As I said before, Foundation is a challenge. Can everyone sense the problem already? Robert Rodat is helping to "rewrite" the story "in order to give coherence to the trilogy." That's like trying to rewrite Einstein's equations to make them understandable to the man in the street. Laughable. Bridges and smooth transitions are required, not rewrites. Foundation to F&E to SE; bridges and transitions. Rewrites will likely give all stomach gas.

Harry Gutterman on Jan 29, 2010

35

I've no doubt that Rodat can pull it off. The thing is, Robert has to write a story that is coherent to Roland Emmerich. Roland has a proven, unbroken track record, of not understanding coherent story structure, plot, or even characterization. He's like Michael Bay only without logic. Emmerich only understands the KA-BOOM and doesn't know or understand what leads up to that KA-BOOM.

You only have to watch any of Roland's movies to understand this. Flash bright colors and noise in Roland's face and he'll be msemerized.

My friend, Kelly Parks, enjoys INDEPENDENCE DAY for what he calls "Stupid Fun", yet even as a fan of that specific movie, he sees all of its flaws that make it worse when it could have been better. Roland got lucky for having Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in his picture. Will and Jeff largely made fun of all of their lines - even the serious moments were mocked. Otherwise, the best part of every Emmerich film is the part he doesn't direct, and that's the SFX. The SFX department doesn't need Roland, but he is entirely dependent upon them.

Feo Amante on Jan 31, 2010