Talk:Foundation (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Connections and comparisons to Asimov series: present and future.

This article explains a notable development in the history of the Foundation series. As such, connections between this development and the original series are highly relevant.

Over time, new information will presumably be added as it is revealed. There may naturally be comparisons to the original series whenever this happens.

Right now, an obvious comparison to make is between Apple’s description of the premise of the series, i.e., the purpose of the Foundation(s), and Asimov’s own. I have added such a comment, which user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.77.195.51 reverted, apparently against the guideline: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

I won’t re-revert at the moment. But I invite editors’ views before I (or others) go further down this path of noting comparisons.

Thoughts?

Please sign your comments using ~~~~

Please note WP:CRYSTAL and don't speculate about a show that hasn't aired yet.

Please note WP:RS, edits should be based on reliable sources. Edits should not be your own comments, which would be WP:OR original research.

Your comments were reverted by another editor, who claimed they were vandalism. It was clearly not vandalism but adding your own commentary is not appropriate either.

You would need to find reliable sources that discuss the writing and development of the series. -- 109.78.200.221 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

All good points, but the only comment I originally made was taken from one of our own (sourced) articles, it was not OR. And it was based solely on quoted content already in this article, not speculation about the unaired series (which would be a jarring violation for any encyclopedia).

[Thanks for reminnder about signing, BTW: For some reason, I had thought that the signature was automatically added when logged in. (I wonder why it isn't.)] Jmacwiki (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Brothers?

Are we to understand that Brother Day is the title of the Emperor? If so, it would be helpful to explain that. The title, and related Dawn and Dusk titles, do not appear in Asimov’s own works (the “canon”) in any association with the Emperor, so this usage is unclear at best. Besides the Orwellian connotation with a supreme ruler, the title of brother is religious, a Foundation connection that does arise until a few episodes into the saga. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Check the sources. The source used in the casting section isn't entirely clear,[1] but it does point to a previous Variety casting announcement which more clearly states: "Pace will star as Brother Day, the current Emperor of the Galaxy." [2] I will update the article based on the information in the available sources.

Don't speculate, wait until more information becomes available. -- 109.78.200.221 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Release date

I don't know how to copy in a refference when used twice. But in the Loving Malta interview, it is also revealed that its planned release is fall of 2021. [3]

Could someone please update 2021 to be fall of 2021? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saofeld (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this propaganda?

The intro to the article ends with "The series has received a generally positive critical response.", of course with no referance. Wouldnt it be nice if we could stay away from baseless propaganda-like statements like these in a lexicon? Any person not head deep in apple products will tell you that it has at best recieved mixed critical responses. Calling the responses "generally positive" is just classic blatant social constructivism!--46.212.36.106 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could read the entire article, specifically the "Reception" section which has two references: the Rotten Tomatoes ref gives a score of "70% favorable" reviews, while the Metacritic ref explicitly says "Generally favorable reviews." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you friend. I took the liberty to add a quote there from Rob Bricken's article. Since it seems to be the only representation of someone who disapproved, whereas the 70% favorable is backed by 80 reviews. This is giving off an impression that there was only one noteable person who disapproved, which we can bother agree is not true. Besides, if it is such a noteable person it certainly should be noted that he disapproves to the point where he states that the books are unrecognizeable after 2 episodes. Now. When we are talking about a tv series that is supposedly based on books ("based on" having become a broader and broader expression over the past years) we certainly dont want to be doing a lexicon as great as the wikipedia itself the grave favor of not informing the reader that a noteable person states that the books are unrecognizeable after only 2 episodes would we? Thank you for your answer friend.--46.212.36.106 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with making the quote more specific. I haven't read anything saying that the series is particularly faithful to the books, but absolute fidelity to source material isn't the only way to evaluate the merits of a show. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References aren't in lede usually. RIKEARENA (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Added a redirect!

Just added a redirect to this from the beginning of the article Foundation (Asimov novel). Pikiwedia98461 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Great RIKEARENA (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Adaptation of books or just loosely based on it?

It's obvious to anyone who has read both the Foundation trilogy of books, and the six episodes of the show released so far, that the show is not an adaptation, but a reimagined story.

Quoting from [1] - https://gizmodo.com/they-said-foundation-couldnt-be-filmed-and-it-still-ha-1847731204 Goyer’s Foundation isn’t Asimov’s Foundation. It’s not an adaptation, and it’s so different that calling it “inspired by the works of Isaac Asimov” still feels like a stretch.

(I'm not a wikipedia editor, but rather a subject matter expert on the Foundation series, since I've read all of Asimov's works. And my view is the same as that of the writer in the Gizmodo article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.17.21 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That's one critic's opinion, based on their interpretation of what constitutes an adaptation. We go by what the show uses, which is the traditional term adaptation. One critic and your self-described expertise arent sufficient to do otherwise. Please stop forcing the edit in until you have consensus for it. (Note: new edits go at the bottom of the page.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 12:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Source for "we go by what the show uses"? The show is not a neutral party here, but rather a biased party looking to capitalize on Asimov's popularity. We don't go by the opinion of biased parties. -- 71.172.17.21

Here's a really good example of consensus on this. On rotten tomatoes, roughly 4 times as many audience reviewers who read the books suggested that the show is extremely different from Asimov's story and is not a real adaptation, compared to those who thought of the show as an adaptation. 71.172.17.21

User generated content isn't generally notable or reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an approved adaptation by the Asimov estate. This series has been signed off by them as an adaptation, so I'm not sure if it matters what individuals think on this matter. Rmaloney3 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

They’re in it for the money, so their opinion doesn’t count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.54.41 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's arguable whether "adaptation" is even an appropriate term. Almost nothing in the first season matches the events of the book, indeed the first appearance of hologram Hari in the vault happens after only 55 pages in the latter. The series is, indeed, well-made and enjoyable, but "Foundation" it is not. --AlisonW (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• It is extremely important to consider that people involved with the TV show and related studios might try to force a biased perspective in this article. Some of them might even be present in this very discussion thread (look for who edits TV show pages frequently and adds bias to it), attempting to make irrational arguments for why this show should be called an adaptation. 2600:4041:44b9:cb00:1cbb:915a:a39:a780

Are armillary spheres engines some tribute to Carl Sagan?

Hello (sorry for my english). I don't remember in Asimov novels that "space jump engines" on spaceships were described as armillary spheres. However, in Carl Sagan's Contact story (and the adapted movie), they sure are. I don't think that it could be just some kind of coincidence. I haven't found yet any confirmation about my theory, that let me think I'm wrong. I would however like to have the opinion of best researchers than me. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:5A:E000:B9AB:C045:A094:5DEE (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

They probably are, but probably don't need to be included in the article. JungleEntity (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. All things considered, my theory is of little use indeed. 91.169.222.10 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Spoiler in cast list?

I’ve not read the books, so the comment in the cast list about the identity of Salvor’s mother spoilt my enjoyment a bit. Not a big deal but maybe would be better without it? 31.185.58.122 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:SPOILER is clear; we don't avoid spoilers, and we don't post warnings. I've learned the hard way to be very cautious reading about shows here or in fandom pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)