I'm not a stickler for the books, but when they had Hari Seldon hit someone on the head with something heavy, it kind of lost me.  Season 3 has actually gotten better, but I feel like they made so many odd choices.  They took the major relveals from the books and just glossed over them.  I totally get that things had to change in many ways, but they went too far.  The most interesting parts of the show is based on something that isn't even in the books at all (the cloned empire).  

They are missing the entire theme of the books.  The Mule is actually well done (great actor), but WHY the Mule is a threat to the plan is really glossed over.  In the show, the plan jumps off the rails and Hari comes in and fixes it.  There was no second foundation until they made one, kind of by chance?  

I get that they wanted consistent characters to span time and not follow that, and they actually did that fairly well.  The problem is that the main character being the key to everything is exactly not what the books are about.  The Mule is the one variable that could not be predicted.  

Don't even get me started on the weird wrist thing they need to do to somehow make math happen.  You better not get carpal tunnel or sprain a wrist, of the future is doomed!  

Revealing the 2nd foundation and the Mule would have been great moments on the show along with the books.  

I'm on the 3rd season now and must say I like the show overall.  I read most of the Foundation series 15+ years ago so don't remember it exactly, but I don't expect the show to follow the books verbatim anyway.  Screenplays are often quite different from the actual books.

Unfortunately, TV shows and movies nowadays are rife with social engineering, "woke" ideology, and subtle, or not so subtle, political themes and messages, which forces them to diverge even further from the original story.

Dave

1 hour ago, kerosene31 said:

Don't even get me started on the weird wrist thing they need to do to somehow make math happen.  You better not get carpal tunnel or sprain a wrist, of the future is doomed!  

 

🤣 That made me chuckle.

That's just to activate the device that displays the data, of course. 

To be honest, not having read the books, I'm free to enjoy it for what it is, without comparison to the books. 

Edited August 15, 2025Aug 15 by martin-w

Based on a Youtube review: Gaal was not one of the main characters in the book. The movie changed this character's sex, race, and a big promotion into becoming the lead in the series.

Edited August 17, 2025Aug 17 by Fielder

11 hours ago, Fielder said:

The movie changed this character's sex, race, and a big promotion into becoming the lead in the series.

It's yet another in a long string of attempts at social engineering by entertainment producers and executives.  What's amusing is that these folks really believe that they are fooling people, whereas in reality most ordinary people get that a lot of it is unrealistic and exaggerated.  As long as the show is good, though, it doesn't really matter, which IMO is the case with Foundation.

It's a weird time we're living in, for sure.

Dave

Don't belive all you hear online. 

The reality is these 3 books were written in the 1950s by a man who died in 1992.  We're talking nearly 3/4 of a century.  Things written in the 1950s will be very different.  A modern show around that will also look different.  

The funny thing is, Asimov had a strong female character in the books.  The latter half of the triligy has a female character who's a huge part of the story.  However, many of the leaders of worlds were men.  I mean, we're talking 1950s here.  

People saying "they added a woman and that's bad" are flat out misrepresenting the books.  To make things more complex, Asimov was often accused of not treating women well.  Again, the guy died in 1992, so what is anyone going to do about it?  

He wrote some of the greatest science fiction in our lifetimes.  Unlike classics like 1984, this isn't political at all.  People trying to make it that are missing the point.  

The problem with the Gaal character isn't that she's a "she".  That character is basically taking some of the role of that female character from the books (although even that's complex).

The problem is that in the show one person represents what is really an entire 2nd foundation of people.  That's where the show gets into trouble.  The story in the books spans centuries and countless lifetimes.  Characters simply come and go over time.  They obviously felt they wanted consistent actors in those roles and they pushed that into the story.  What they've done is made a single hero from a series of books where no hero would simply have lived long enough to have that kind of impact.  

If anything, it is dumbed down for the masses.  They think people couldn't grasp that there are new characters coming and going.  

" People saying "they added a woman and that's bad" are flat out misrepresenting the books.  To make things more complex, Asimov was often accused of not treating women well.  Again, the guy died in 1992, so what is anyone going to do about it? "

If they want to help the program to succeed, then what they could about it is nothing at all. Foundation is an old story, and all the characters could be presented as written. Old culture, old values. Asimov's story. They could honor that. Otherwise, its a new story, and this will limit its success to a lower level.

If the modern version then it can succeed. But not as much success as if all was the same except they kept the original culture and values. Like Jackson did with Lord of the Rings. Jackson said, "We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that." Jackson's ring was a huge success.

To present big successful movies on old themes with modern values, then make all new creations, instead of new versions of old. Like Game of Thrones. It was an all new world and so George Martin could insert modern values galore and not limit its success in doing so. The modern Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Marvel, and DC versions had modern values relevant to modern culture inserted and this limited their chance of making money and being popular compared to the older original versions which had made far more money and sold way more tickets. 

 

16 hours ago, Fielder said:

" People saying "they added a woman and that's bad" are flat out misrepresenting the books.  To make things more complex, Asimov was often accused of not treating women well.  Again, the guy died in 1992, so what is anyone going to do about it? "

If they want to help the program to succeed, then what they could about it is nothing at all. Foundation is an old story, and all the characters could be presented as written. Old culture, old values. Asimov's story. They could honor that. Otherwise, its a new story, and this will limit its success to a lower level.

If the modern version then it can succeed. But not as much success as if all was the same except they kept the original culture and values. Like Jackson did with Lord of the Rings. Jackson said, "We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that." Jackson's ring was a huge success.

To present big successful movies on old themes with modern values, then make all new creations, instead of new versions of old. Like Game of Thrones. It was an all new world and so George Martin could insert modern values galore and not limit its success in doing so. The modern Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Marvel, and DC versions had modern values relevant to modern culture inserted and this limited their chance of making money and being popular compared to the older original versions which had made far more money and sold way more tickets. 

 

You're missing the part about the 1950s books having a female main character for the 2nd half of the trilogy.  The funny thing is, nobody cared back in the 50s.  Today?  It seems to be an issue for some.  Think about that.

It is kind of obvious that these "youtubers" have never read the books.  

4 hours ago, kerosene31 said:

You're missing the part about the 1950s books having a female main character for the 2nd half of the trilogy.

The issue is not that the lead character is female, although I will say that these TV shows and movies lately with these superwomen who can kick 3 guys' butts at the same time are getting a bit old and silly.  It's bad enough when they depict men performing this superhuman stuff, but with women, who have much less physical strength than a man and are generally less violent by nature, it's even more ridiculous.

The issue has to do with unrealistic "woke" themes and social engineering being injected into today's entertainment and advertising.  Everyone knows that it doesn't reflect reality, but they keep doing it anyway. 

It is a delicate and sometimes nuanced issue, but real all the same.  I'm not imagining it as many other people see it, too.

Dave

The box office reception of Disney's Marvel films, and Dell Comics from Warner illustrates the success or failure which comes with cobbling modern themes onto old movie franchises. 

All that... all without ever having read the books.  That's quite... something!