Apple’s “Foundation”: Part 1 - Failure IS an option
This is the first part of a two part essay. The first part tries to explain, why the series fails to capture the spirit of the original and does not bring any alternative to the table. In the second part analyses the reasons and what it means for todays streaming business.
The Book
Isaac Asimovs Foundation trilogy is a classic of modern science fiction. First written in the early 1950s under the impression of Gibbon’s “History of the decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” it tells the storty of the decline and fall of an intergalactic empire where the namesake foundation is seeded as the starting point for a new second empire.
Foundation is in the same category like Dune and Watchmen, as it was always seen as almost impossible to film. While the latter ones needed an army of SFX specialists and copious amount of computing power to come to life, the former had a different problem: it almost completly consists of exposition. One could make a theater play out of foundation and not much would be lost. And it’s not just that people talk a lot, they talk about abstract things like the loss of technology, politics and math (cursory), that are fiendishly difficult to translate to entertaining pictures. Asimovs characters are proxies that look at the overall picture while struggeling how to take action. As a result the characters themselves look quite pale. Add the fact that the stories jump decades, each time with new protagonists and you get an screen writers nightmare.
But that’s not all. As a worldbuilding work, it has a kind of inner mechanics, that keeps the stories going. The rules are:
No. 1: Psychohistory predicts the downfall of the empire
No. 2: Psychohistory only works for large bodies of people
No. 3: Psychohistory cannot make predictions about people that know psychohistory
Now you can play with the rules: Is Psychohistory true?, Does the foundation have to be active or will it work out itself? What happens if a single Person becomes relevant? What if the foundation tries to learn about psychohistory?
The questions are the basis for each of Asimovs stories, leading the reader to the impression that he gains some form of insight about the workings of the plan. Which makes the read quite rewarding despite the lack of action.
What about the series?
We see the problems David S. Goyer has been confronted with. They were severe, but not unsolvable. He had to tell stories in the foundation universe that replace the exposition. He had to slow down the change of cast otherwise it would be too difficult to get emotionally attached to the characters. The new stories could themselves play with the rules, but had to contain some form of action and drama. Each series would end either showing the decline of the empire or an remarkable ascend of the foundation to indicate the progress and relevance of the plan. Now sprinkle the original stories in as a fanservice and you get a reasonably well crafted show that may not stand out, but would keep watchers entertained
This article would not exist if he had done that.
The first and second episodes start promising as they follow the original story quite well. A couple of additions like the space elevator and the cloned emperors add color and replace exposition. The exiling of the foundation has its problems (a laundry on a spaceship?) but overall plays out very well.
Then the series starts to derail. It is obvious that Goyer has no trust in the original mechanic and instead invents new plot devices again and again on a staggering scale. Here we have a religion of the water worlds, spacers, an ‘alien’ artefact, a planet killer, nanobots that replicate people, another religion, mind copying, personal force fields, ESP, etc. This is not bad in itself, as long as they are consistent. But they all break previous assumptions and kill the worldbuilding. The casual viewer might like the spectacle that each creates, but no feeling of understanding is created.
The cast is ridiculous. Due to rule no. 3 Hari Seldon should have been out of the picture after the second episode. Instead the writers not only revived him, but made him immortal so he can play a major role in future episodes. The same holds for the genetic dynasty that only makes sense as it employs the same actors. Demerzel is an android, so no problems there. Other characters are literally put on ice in order to reappear episode after episode. The episodes span about 170 years, yet the main cast does not change a bit. Comfortable for the writers, desastrous for the progression of the story.
One can guess, why that is: contractual obligations, the simplification of casting, maybe the only way to get some of the better known actors on board. And it has one main advantage: Time to flesh out the characters, to make them identifiable and likable. Yet Salvor Hardin is so wooden that one could think of her as a Major Burnham copy from Star Trek. Seldon is smug and noninteracting like he is alone on the set. The genetic dynasty has a shakesperian vibe — as long as you do not listen to the farmer calendar nonsense they utter all the time. To be clear: I do not think it is the actors fault. You can only play the cards you have been given.
That the actors do not resemble the characters of the book — who cares. But the casting had to be divers, so hello black female young athletic (autistic?) Salvor Hardin, instead of middle aged white male politician Salvor Hardin. What makes it idiotic is, that the screen character has absolutely no connection to the book character, so no damage would have been done if another name had been used. But we paid for the name, so we use it…
Rule No 2 is difficult for screen writers, since it implies that the protagonists cannot or must not have an effect on the outcome of the overall plan. Goyer found a perfect solution: He ignores the rule completely, letting his heroes have not only extraordinary adventures, but also changing the outcome of large events singlehandedly.
Which leads to rule No 1: Psychohistory does not work in these circumstances. And the authors prepare for this, as they keep Seldon alive, playing deus ex machina every time a reason for a new world shattering story is needed , Psychohistory being a sham and the foundation a copverup for machinations of its inventor. Cheap, but effective.
On the plus side: The special effects team did a marvelous job. The scenery is believable and the CGI astounding with many nice touches like the pixel 3d displays. Much money has been put into the production and it shows.
Which leaves the question: Why? Goyer knew what he was getting into. Looking at his previous production of DC and Marvel films it is likely, that he is a comic book and SF nerd and that he read Foundation already as a teen. And he has a track record of box office successes, that show that he knows the trade. The sobering answer is the mix up of the classic film industry with modern streaming services. But thats for part 2.
Conclusion
Foundation is overall an adventure series with SF touch. It has nothing to do with the original and it is already at a point where it is very difficult to get back to Asimovs original ideas. Which the viewer would be fine with, if a serious attempt had been made to tell another compelling story arc. Instead it is an unconnected rehash of tropes with high production value.
