Pular para o conteúdo principal

Why the Foundation Series on AppleTV+ is a Disservice to Asimov’s Legacy

It doesn’t matter if you’ve read Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series or if you’re just curious about the TV adaptation for other reasons. My advice is simple: don’t waste your time watching the show. Instead, read Asimov’s books. You’ll enjoy them far more. Let me explain why.

The Foundation series, available on Apple TV+, is supposedly based on Asimov’s books, particularly the trilogy Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. However, it also borrows elements from other books that complement the trilogy, such as The Complete Robot, Foundation’s Edge, and even Foundation and Earth, along with bits of other Asimov works.

As with any TV adaptation, it’s natural for the story to be rewritten and altered—especially for a work like Foundation, which spans centuries and features countless characters. Significant adjustments were to be expected.

But what we see in the series is more than an adaptation: it’s a complete disfigurement of Asimov’s masterpiece. If he were alive, I highly doubt he’d approve of the final product. To be honest, the only things retained from the original work are the title, the names of a few characters, and some locations. The essence of the story—rooted in “psychohistory,” mathematical predictions, and Hari Seldon’s efforts to mitigate the fall of the Empire through the establishment of two “Foundations”—has been reduced to bluffs, coincidences, improvisation, and rebellion. When it comes to the characters, the disfigurement is even worse.

It was understandable that, for a TV adaptation, the story might need to be adjusted to maintain the same characters throughout the episodes. Otherwise, new actors would need to be cast for each episode to reflect the original story’s time jumps. However, the solution the show chose to perpetuate its characters came at the cost of destroying the original narrative. They could have shortened the timeline, rewriting the story to occur over a century or so. It also would have been plausible to claim that, in a distant future, people lived beyond 100 years. Instead, the writers relied on lazy gimmicks like human cloning (of a character who is barely relevant in the original plot), cryogenic chambers, and even the materialization of a human body (with no plausible explanation) from a digital projection based on an AI of someone long dead. I’ll elaborate on this narrative mutilation below.

On top of that, some of the casting choices are unfortunate. Leah Harvey, for instance, delivers an unconvincing performance in every scene. She does improve slightly in the second season, but in the first, her portrayal is almost unbearable to watch. Her lines, expressions, gestures, and even her glances feel forced and unnatural. Her scene partner, Daniel MacPherson, also delivers a weak performance, failing to convince even in emotional moments like crying.

Even Jared Harris, who gave an outstanding performance in Chernobyl, disappoints here. He portrays a caricatured version of Hari Seldon, who lacks depth and seems reduced to a single expression: repeatedly raising his right eyebrow. This might work in a Marvel film, where humor allows for caricatured performances like Tony Stark or Loki, but Foundation tries to take itself seriously. Laura Birn is somewhat convincing, but her character was so distorted that she might as well not even exist. Among the few bright spots, Lou Llobell delivers a solid performance, and Lee Pace is also compelling. However, Pace’s portrayal feels like a repetition of his role as the Elven King in The Hobbit, raising questions about his range as an actor. Terrence Mann might deserve some recognition, but the rest of the cast isn’t worth mentioning.

Because of these weak performances, the show fails to create immersion or build any emotional connection with the characters. Furthermore, the introduction of each character is brief and superficial, making it nearly impossible to empathize with them. This approach might have made sense if new actors were introduced in each episode to stay true to the original timeline. However, since the characters are carried over across episodes, there was plenty of time to develop them better. Instead, the series wastes time on irrelevant subplots.

For example, the episodes revolving around the diplomatic crisis with the Zephyrs could have been entirely cut without affecting the main narrative. There’s only a brief mention of the subplot when Day decides the fate of Dawn after learning that he’s been “corrupted.” But the mention is irrelevant since Demerzel executes Dawn anyway, and all of Day’s supposed growth from the Zephyr subplot is entirely ignored. The way the Second Foundation is introduced is equally ridiculous and not even worth commenting on.

As for the characters, the show’s version of Hari Seldon bears no resemblance to the one in the books. The series presents a character who is insecure, occasionally claiming mastery over psychohistory, but other times seeming utterly lost. His predictions matter only in the beginning and are then entirely forgotten. Subsequent events are driven by chance and character reactions, with no real planning. The psychohistory that is central to the original work becomes a mere afterthought. The “plan” is quickly derailed and left to random, heroic efforts by characters who hardly understand what they’re doing. At times, individual paranormal premonitions even become the key to solving crises.

In the books, crises are resolved with intelligence, strategy, and suspense, delving into themes like politics, diplomacy, religion, commerce, and technology. In the series, everything is resolved in random, shallow ways. The characters behave like children in the middle of a tantrum.

Want to have fun? Forget the show and read the books.

Comentários

Postagens mais visitadas deste blog

Como comprar na Internet com segurança e traquilidade

Você costuma fazer compras na Internet? Com que frequência? Comprar na Internet, além de cômodo, pode ser muito mais eficaz. Isso ocorre porque existem várias ferramentas para compararmos produtos e encontrarmos o melhor preço. Além disso, em geral as informações disponibilizadas pelas lojas da Internet são mais seguras do que aquele "papo de bom vendedor". Mesmo assim, muitos deixam de comprar na Internet porque têm medo de que seus dados, em especial os de cartão de crédito, sejam utilizados por criminosos. Para evitar que isso aconteça, eis algumas dicas muito úteis para você comprar na Internet com toda a segurança e tranquilidade. Tenha um cartão de crédito especialmente para isso Ao invés de ficar utilizando vários cartões, concentre suas compras em um cartão de crédito específico para isso. Muitos bancos oferecem cartões adicionais sem o menor custo. O importante é ter um número de cartão de crédito específico para suas compras na Internet. A grande sacada é c...

Engenharia de Software Conference - 22 e 23 de Maio, Lapa, São Paulo

Vou fazer um breve intervalo na série de artigos Desmistificando o MPS.BR para divulgar um importante evento. Nos dias 22 e 23 de maio, a DevMedia realiza, em São Paulo, a Engenharia de Software Conference. Serão três tracks simultâneos, onde os mais graduados especialistas do ramo discutirão os principais temas da Engenharia de Software atual, entre eles o MPS.Br. Uma metodologia de gerenciamento desenvolvida especialmente para as empresas brasileras.  As explanações vão desde o projeto até os últimos testes de um software, passando pelos diversos conceitos de gerenciamento. Serão 40 horas de conteúdo, distribuídas em 30 palestras. O evento conta com a presença de palestrantes renomados, como Ana Regina Rocha, que será a keynote da conferência. Ela foi uma das idealizadoras do Modelo Mps.Br (Melhoria de Processos do Software Brasileiro), além de ser implementadora e avaliadora credenciada pela SOFTEX e membro do grupo de pesquisa em Engenharia de Software da Universidade Federal ...

Futuro dos celulares

Como serão os aparelhos celulares daqui a cinco ou dez anos? Não acho que seja uma previsão díficil de acertar. Mas também não é algo tão óbvio. Venho acompanhando as tendências dessa tecnologia a algum tempo e me arrisco a dar alguns palpites. Tamanho Como diz o ditado, tamanho não é documento. De fato os celulares pararam de diminuir. Finalmente perceberam que celulares muito pequenos são extremamente desconfortáveis de usar. Lembro de um celular da Samsung, que mais parecia um chaveiro e era horrível de acertar os botões. Acredito que a corrida por celulares pequenos acabou. O tamanho dos celulares atuais, com exceção do Blackberry (que é ridiculamente grande), parece adequado. Um bom celular não pode ser muito pequeno, nem muito fino. Exageros comprometem o manuseio. Peso O peso dos celulares atuais também parece estar adequado. Talvez fique um pouco mais leve, mas não há muito o que se fazer nessa área. Não que não exista tecnologia disponível. Mas simplesmente não é necessário. U...