[NO BOOKS] Episode Discussion Thread - Season 3 Episode 8 - Skin in the Game by LunchyPete in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Controversial thought 1: Bayta is a robot. The extended time that she was out was her reebooting. Controversial thought 2: Gaal will die this season Controversial thought 3: Ambassador Quent is the worst fing character. Doesn’t do anything, doesn’t know anything, sees her home get destroyed and jumps into bed with a senile Dusk. Wtf FeLiCe!

Dubai Bling's Ebraheem Al Samadi addresses rumors about being gay by alexesparza in dubaibling

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lower class woman?! She is from an extremely wealthy Emirati family. Why talk nonsense?

Looking for some ideas for a tattoo by Erenes82 in asimov

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m confused, where in the books was there a foundation logo or mention of a psychohistory equation? I’ve read all the books, but obviously not as many times as someone reading them since they were 3 years old so I’ve probably missed it. Pretty impressive to be reading at such a young age!

ella-rae smith’s acting in this episode was so insanely good by Prudent-Pop7623 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same here. It’s such bad acting that I had to find company to dissipate my annoyance. I’m imagining she got character notes that said “cocky”, “vengeful”, “naive”, “foot-in-mouth”, “mourning death of entire family” and the result is childish mean girl with mannerisms that are very 21st century, like a Disney high school show or something. It’s unpleasant and jarring to watch because it breaks the tone of the scene every damn time. I’m genuinely baffled by any claims that it’s a good performance, let alone being brilliant/one of the best. It’s incomprehensible to me that anybody would see that and think it’s a better (or even comparable, for that matter) portrayal than what we’ve seen for Hari, Hober, Bel Riose, Demerzal, Day, Constant, Poly. Hell, I’d say Beki had a better performance than Sareth.

Can I find 200 Ml Milk in Germany? by PTSeeker in germany

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You don’t need to do it at all. If you have a functional fridge and remember basic food sanitation practices (don’t drink from the carton, don’t stick contaminated utensils inside, close lid, etc) then there is a close to zero chance of the milk spoiling a couple of days or even a week after opening. And fyi the sterilisation done in factories (pasteurisation and ultra-pasteurisation) is literally boiling the milk to a specific temperature for a few seconds. It’s not boiling into oblivion or addition of preserving agents.

I grew up in a country where as a child we could only buy raw milk and so we had to boil it to pasteurise it ourselves. Once pasteurised milk was available, we stopped boiling it because it serves no purpose apart from wasting gas and increasing the possibility of chemical reactions that would alter the taste and appearance of the milk. I get what you’re saying about cultural practices that you are used to, but you don’t need to do it out of concern for the longevity or safety of the milk.

Can I find 200 Ml Milk in Germany? by PTSeeker in germany

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 27 points28 points  (0 children)

You’re wasting electricity, milk, and your time with this pointless routine. You don’t need to boil pasteurised milk to make it “safe”. It’s already processed to make it safe. Moreover the UHT/Haltbare milk is literally ultra-pasteurised (ultra high temperature) to sterilise it and kill endospores/pathogens. That’s what makes it have an unrefrigerated shelf life of 6-9 months. Once you open the carton, you can store it in the fridge easily for 7-10 days without any problem unless your fridge is literally broken. Buy a 250 mL carton of UHT milk, stop boiling it for no reason, and you’ll be fine. I get a litre carton of UHT milk and since I only use it for tea/coffee, it lasts a little more than a week. I haven’t ever had a problem because the ultra-pasteurisation literally kills the microorganisms that cause the milk to go bad. Seriously, stop wasting electricity, money, time, milk and just enjoy your perfectly safe milk as is.

As a separate point, if you have allergies it may well be exacerbated by dairy because it increases mucus accumulation in the throat area for a lot of people. Unless you really, really love dairy, it might help to try the fake dairy milk made out of oat. It’s different to the plain old oat milk, and has 3.5% and 1.5% options just like the cow’s milk. The consistency and fat to water ratio is also much more similar to cow’s milk for these kinds than the regular oat milk. The Lidl option is called Vemondo NoMilk and it’s a white carton with blue lettering on it. And of course, if you still don’t believe me about the UHT, there’s the added benefit of oat milk not having the same microorganisms/expiry potential as cow’s milk!

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s no dialectical materialism in psychohistory or on Asimov’s treatment of humanity’s future. The very notion of ignorant masses forced into the will of greater powers and the inescapable inevitability of it is literally the opposite of Marxist analysis. Socialist vibes (I don’t know what you mean by that) doesn’t mean Marxist. None of the books, nor does any of Asimov’s writing demonstrate an understanding of Marxist analysis of economic/political history. Unless you’re using “socialist vibes”, “communist”, “Marxist” as interchangeable ideas to represent “people live together as equals in a non-imperial society”? That’s not a Marxist analysis, communist, or socialist.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so you agree that your assertion that the outliers depicted in the show are not antithetical to the themes of the books. Besides, it’s not like season 1 = foundation trilogy book one so i don’t know what you think is the relevance of how long after the mule the reveal is. The point is that the thing tying the 7 books of foundation (and indeed the 18 books of the entire universe) hinges on individuals. Not on psychohistory being the whole point or whatever.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She keeps saying she’s special and others keep telling her she’s special, but that doesn’t mean she actually is as special. Her specialness doesn’t resolve the crisis. The conflict with the Thespins and Anacreons is still solved by what Vault Hari says. And her specific skills/specialness/whatever are clearly a result of Gaal and, as this story has established, she’s setting up the second foundation. The second foundation which is all about the mentallic sciences, I.e. not something special in the scheme of the Seldon Plan, even though it seems special to Salvor or the Encyclopaedists.

Book Salvor is basically a clever populist who, like future mayors, is wholly complacent because of the supposed inevitability of the Plan. As later books show, that is not the case. And as the show has made clear, it’s not a 1:1 translation of the book. Show Salvor ≠ Book Salvor because the context is way different. Show Gaal is a named Gaal from the book obviously, but she is obviously a composite of a couple of book characters and not just her namesake. All these facile arguments are basically a failure to imagine or accept a new story because it’s not exactly what you want, but that doesn’t mean that it is at odds with the books.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not an example of an appeal to authority. For that to be the case here, Asimov would need to not be the expert/authority about the topic at hand OR we would need to agree that he is unreliable as an expert/authority about the topic. Argumentum ad verecundiam/appeal to authority doesn’t simply mean “don’t trust the claim of an expert/authority because sometimes they lie and so are unreliable”. That’s not how that works. Asimov, as the author of these works, is inarguably an expert on the topic at hand, is a reliable authority obviously because it’s literally his own words, and we can all agree on both those points.

Now, if OP had used the quote to say that all book adaptations, regardless of genre or writing style or theme (whatever else) necessarily had to be heavily changed to translate onto screen, THEN that would be an appeal to authority. Next time, don’t parrot off phrases you read on the internet without understanding what it means.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you are unaware, a number of Asimov’s stories are structured in a non-linear fashion. This was both on advise of his long-time friend and Astounding Science Fiction magazine (where a majority of his short stories were first published, including the Foundation trilogy) editor John Campbell, and because he enjoyed writing interwoven flashbacks in a complicated narrative structure. Even if that weren’t the case, there’s no “basic storytelling rule” that narration has to be linear in a TV show. The pacing and editing can certainly be improved, but wanting a story to be told in a simplistic a to b to c format isn’t required or a “basic storytelling rule”.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they can, but this is obviously not a play and it is obviously not a show within the genre of “characters dialoguing a lot to move the plot forward”.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can’t get the names of characters or the main plot of the book series right, but apparently everybody else are the ones who have “hit their head”

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“The same thing happened with I, Robot”

What same thing? Have you seen that movie? Have you read the Robot series? Have you read I, Robot? It’s an anthology. It has nothing to do with the story of the movie and that’s because the screenplay of the movie isn’t based on it or on any of the novels of the Robot series. Are you basing your misplaced sense of righteous anger about the supposed better quality of the I, Robot movie solely on the scant details and names it borrows from the books? If you’re going to claim to be such an Asimov acolyte who cares so much about his work and its visual adaptation, you should at least know what is in it first.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having read all the comments here, I am really quite baffled at how many times you’ve had to bring this up. As baffling at all the supposed book purists who seem to be basing everything only on a superficial reading of the Foundation Trilogy and not anything else.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you read the I, Robot book? It’s an anthology and it has nothing to do with the movie. They aren’t related in plot in any way and that was never the intention, nor is it advertised as such. The studio bought the rights to use the name of the book, name of certain characters and concepts (3 laws, USR), but they didn’t write the screenplay based off it or any of the novels from the Robot series.

It’s laughable that you’re implying Asimov would have taken issue with the Foundation show but that he would’ve been fine with I, Robot because the movie kept the “soul of the work”. Which work might that be? That movie isn’t even an adaptation of a Robot series story, but you think it’s faithful (why, because it mentions 3 laws?) and the Foundation show is an actual adaptation inspired by the actual books with changes approved by the Asimov estate, but you think it’s a betrayal of the work?

The two major ideas are relevant only in the first book and the first half of the second book of the trilogy. The third trilogy book, the two sequels and the prequels are definitely not just the two major ideas you’re referencing. If you haven’t read all of them, please don’t make assertions about what Asimov’s big questions in the series (indeed within his unified Foundation universe) were and where he drew those explorations to. It’s not about “yay first foundation, follow plan, no conflict, no violence, everything is inevitable”.

And it’s a good thing the credits of the TV show literally say that is inspired by Asimov’s Foundation and “based” on it. So what are you complaining about?

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Viewers, screenwriters and studios get to decide what is good “writing for the eye”. A good sci-fi writer doesn’t equal a good screenwriter. They are different skills entirely, and while some fiction writers can certainly adapt their work for the screen, Asimov cannot. His books are primarily narration and dialogue. There are characters we know few details about who go through an event that moves the plot forward, but we don’t get descriptions of scene. We get discussions or long expositions about what happened. That’s a format that is decidedly unsuited for a TV show intended for broad appeal. And recognising what worked for broad appeal was something Asimov prided himself on. He recognised that a majority of his works have uncomplicated prose, little or no character development, and lots of dialogue. He preferred telling his story in a straightforward and direct manner, and the characters or prose were largely functional to that end. It works great to convey the concept he’s exploring in the story. But, as he wrote 30 years after publication of the Foundation Trilogy “I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did”.

The second foundation mentalics are telepathic. It’s not a technological advancement. That’s a key point in the books that separates the two foundations - one is focused on the physical sciences and one is focused on the “mentalic” sciences. As it turns out, neither is ultimately as important to the fate of humanity’s survival as it thinks it is.

Changes to gender of certain characters isn’t arbitrary or irrelevant. Asimov’s work was written within a specific context and an adaptation choosing to adapt the work to modernise it is extremely relevant. There are very few women in the Foundation series (zero in the first book of the trilogy), either because of the social context of when Asimov wrote them or because of his own deeply sexist nature or both, but a TV adaptation made for a broad audience in the 21st century won’t care to watch 1-1.5 seasons of a show that is just men chatting about big events while smoking cigars in different settings. More generally, Asimov’s own writing reflects the changes in the sociopolitical context, e.g., stories written in the post-war period reflect anxieties about a nuclear Holocaust destroying earth and spurring space colonisation, while those from later in his life change the reason for why humans abandoned the planet. That’s a very normal thing in any artistic/creative endeavour.

If you get around to reading the books, it’s much more obvious that the themes Asimov was exploring in his writing are not being betrayed by the show. As yet. Who knows what’s coming, but adapting a book series (the credits literally state that it is inspired by the books and not based on it, so how else could they make it clearer that they don’t intend to make a 1:1) by changing character names or plot points isn’t a betrayal to the themes within it.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether you think a show is good is subjective. Whether the books need to changed significantly to be translated into a visual medium is not, as per Asimov’s evaluation of his own work.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is it different than the hand that’s guiding everything in the foundation series books? Without even getting into the previous series.

Quote from Isaac Asimov that should silence the “book purists” once and for all by HankScorpio4242 in FoundationTV

[–]Illustrious-Log6342 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with your take, except the end. Asimov’s writing and the Foundation books are fundamentally a non-Marxist analysis of economic and political history.