Header Ads

Roland Emmerich Versus Asimov's Foundation

How much do you trust Roland Emmerich? The answer to that question will tell you whether you'll like his up-coming adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Originally a collection of short stories about an organization trying to rebuild after the collapse of the "Galactic Empire".

Roland says that the challenge will be to find a common thread to tell the story.
"There's not one character going through, so Bob Rodat came to me and ... He said, 'We have to consolidate the characters.' And that's what we did, and that's what's worked really, really well in the context. And I think that if Asimov ... would have ... conceived this as a science fiction trilogy or series from the very beginning, he would have done that, too... I think in spirit [the movie is] totally Foundation..."

If you haven't read it, please do, since it's brilliant and has influenced science-fiction for decades since it's original publication in 1952. If you have read it, then you know it hasn't aged well, and while influential is flawed in spots and confusing at times. Still, we can only imagine the three hour mess that anyone would make trying to string it all into a coherent narrative. Much like Frank Herbert's often-tried "Dune" series, there are some stories that work best as books and fair poorly on the screen.


  1. Dear Sir,

    I think you're wrong. A collection of Asimov's short stories can be turned into a coherent and faithful movie. And I'll star in the new "Foundation" movie.

    Will Smith

  2. You get the idea. Seriously, the Foundation series cannot be turned into a movie as is. For one thing, he's right. There are no continuous characters except for the Mule, ostensibly the villain of the series. Plus, there's no ending. But I have to say that I think turning the series into a single, coherent story could be done. But the creator of such scientifically accurate films as "2012" and "Day After Tomorrow" won't be the one to do it.


Thanks for commenting!.