Asimov violently oscilates in his grave.

[Lint of Death]

Originally Posted by Wolvie

Probably less coincidental then we think. Perhaps the movie studio knew that the Velociraptor's in the movie were actually Deinonychuses, and decided to throw that joke in there to make fun of themselves... or perhaps I'm reading to much into this.

No, it's a coincidence. I'm certain. IIRC, when Jurassic Park came out, it still wasn't quite determined that velociraptors had feathers. Deinonychus almost undoubtedly did, too, you know! The reference to being 'more bird-like', as I think they clarify in the movie, refers to their bone structures. You can tell it's still an error rather than an in-joke because the line does say 'six foot turkey'.

However, I am of the opinion that they all went with the name 'velociraptor' because it sounds scarier and the factual accuracy simply was not important.

In any case, knowledge of dinosaurs has increased tremendously since the release of that movie. For example, in late 2007 it was concluded that Tyrannosaurus Rex had three fingers, not two.

[Squidbot]

I am compelled to post this at this juncture.

[Wolvie]

Originally Posted by Lint of Death

No, it's a coincidence. I'm certain. IIRC, when Jurassic Park came out, it still wasn't quite determined that velociraptors had feathers. Deinonychus almost undoubtedly did, too, you know! The reference to being 'more bird-like', as I think they clarify in the movie, refers to their bone structures. You can tell it's still an error rather than an in-joke because the line does say 'six foot turkey'.

However, I am of the opinion that they all went with the name 'velociraptor' because it sounds scarier and the factual accuracy simply was not important.

In any case, knowledge of dinosaurs has increased tremendously since the release of that movie. For example, in late 2007 it was concluded that Tyrannosaurus Rex had three fingers, not two.

Yeah I think you're right. And I was thinking the same thing, the name does sound scarier, so it makes sense.

[VerseD]

Emmerich seems like a weird choice for this sort of project. I've only read the first Foundation book, but I don't remember any explosions. Regardless, maybe they'll pick a different director after the first movie comes out, or maybe they'll jam the whole trilogy into one film -- although I kind of doubt that, after how much Columbia paid for the rights.

[zarathstra]

I don't think Foundation will make that great of a movie. Its too...expansive. Stuff happens over hundreds of years, and there isn't a consistent cast of characters other than Seldon (who spends most of the books dead).

We'll see, I guess.

[Telefrog]

So will Emmerich's Foundation movie adaptation eventually loop back into the Will Smith I, Robot film like the books did?

When I was a kid, I thought that it was the coolest thing ever that Asimov eventually tied the whole series back into the robot mysteries.

[Virtual Machine]

I'm gonna throw this out there - i'm fucking excited! I'll be the first to admit that i actually REALLY enjoy Emmerich's work (Stargate is one of my favorites - and i even enjoyed Godzilla, though i freely admit it's craptacular). He and Paul W.S. Anderson are guilty pleasures in my book. What they do, they do very very well, and Emmerich in particular, does in fact have a pretty level head on his shoulders. He knows exactly what kind of films he;'s making, and attempts to put a little bit of "message" into everything he does in the hopes of getting the drooling masses thinking. He's not making movies for the Wim Wenders/Akira Kruosawa/Orson Welles watching moviephiles. He doesn't really fit the Michael "I just like to blow shit up cause it's AWESOME!" Bay mold.

I'd really like to see what he does with some hard sci-fi. I think the guy is definitely capable. I'd love to see he and Dean Devlin back together on this one.

[Voodoo]

I put all associated variables into the formula and the result is fail.

[Tron]

Originally Posted by Virtual Machine

He knows exactly what kind of films he;'s making, and attempts to put a little bit of "message" into everything he does in the hopes of getting the drooling masses thinking.

You're joking right? A message? What message is there other than "Hey I'm a complete hack of a director!!"

The fact that he makes tons of money only demonstrates that Americans like shitty movies along side their fast food.

[Telefrog]

Oooh. I just thought of this. Will The Mule get revealed the same way as in the books? Better yet, do we get to see his nickname's origin all Boogie Nights style?

[Lint of Death]

Originally Posted by VerseD

Emmerich seems like a weird choice for this sort of project. I've only read the first Foundation book, but I don't remember any explosions.

If memory serves me well, there is precisely one explosion, and it's pretty awesome. Not awesome as in collateraltacular, but because

the antagonistic leader of a foreign power finds his war against the Foundation so futile that he blows his own head off. Conclusion: Mayor Salvor Hardin is the fucking man.

[Rogue_hunter]

Originally Posted by Telefrog

So will Emmerich's Foundation movie adaptation eventually loop back into the Will Smith I, Robot film like the books did?

When I was a kid, I thought that it was the coolest thing ever that Asimov eventually tied the whole series back into the robot mysteries.

Knowing Hollywood, there will be no connection whatsoever. I, Robot may have well taken place in Teletubby land, for all it will matter to the Foundation series.

[Bad Buddha]

Originally Posted by muddi900

I could've been Michael Bay.

It could have been Uwe Boll.

[Froghourt]

Originally Posted by Bad Buddha

It could have been Uwe Boll.

Don't even joke about stuff like that!

[KSmitty]

Judging from I Robot, the movie will probably be a hacked and chewed mish-mash of sub plots/characters from the first book, to make one linear story with a hero and nicely packaged ending that can be told in 90 minutes.

[Virtual Machine]

Originally Posted by Tron

You're joking right? A message? What message is there other than "Hey I'm a complete hack of a director!!"

The fact that he makes tons of money only demonstrates that Americans like shitty movies along side their fast food.

No, he does quite often preach environmental concerns and the consequences of human tampering in nature - most of his films have had some form of simple message he's wanted to pass along. He's just about as subtle in execution as a bag of hammers to the head and shoulders, and someone like you or I may be offended by his "up front - narrow minded" presentation of said messages. His films are obviously not marketed at you, and that's fine. Either way he's far from a "hack". Because his films don't appeal to you, that doesn't make him a flawed creative mind. A "hack" as you call it would be a director who DOESN'T develop his own properties, could care less about what he's filming, purely there to get the job done, and seldom injects any matter of personal interest in his projects. There are a number of directors out there who fit that bill, Emmerich isn't one of them.

[Froghourt]

Even if I were to agree that Emmerich is anything but a hack, Foundation is still not a project for him. There isn't any overblown scenes full of CGI, nor is there any real action.

I don't think Emmerich could ever hope to make a movie that is at all faithful to the books. He will probably focus on the few referenced space battles and leave out all the important characters. He will probably make the mole a 2 meter high kung fu secret agent, who isn't subtle or manipulative at all.

What I am trying to say is, Emmerich can't make a faithful Foundation movie, because he is a ham-fisted director that only knows explosions and overblown CGI. Neither of which is what Foundation is about.

[Virtual Machine]

Originally Posted by Froghourt

Even if I were to agree that Emmerich is anything but a hack, Foundation is still not a project for him. There isn't any overblown scenes full of CGI, nor is there any real action.

I don't think Emmerich could ever hope to make a movie that is at all faithful to the books. He will probably focus on the few referenced space battles and leave out all the important characters. He will probably make the mole a 2 meter high kung fu secret agent, who isn't subtle or manipulative at all.

What I am trying to say is, Emmerich can't make a faithful Foundation movie, because he is a ham-fisted director that only knows explosions and overblown CGI. Neither of which is what Foundation is about.

Emmerich is an action director first and foremost, so yeah, i can definitely see what you're saying there. I highly doubt it's going to be a faithful adaptation of Foundation. That said, i think it's going to be light years beyond I, Robot.

[Arphahat]

While I am sure it will be a horrible, horrible disappointment, I can't help but think how cool it could actually be. What I'd love to see is attention to the detail of the vision of technology in the books. I've read the books about a year or so ago, and the communication system was clearly an advanced version of the message tubes for the early part of the 20th century.

Also, it would be awesome to see everyone, I mean everyone, smoking all the time.

[Vandabo]

I never thought the Foundation series would be a good candidate for a movie remake. I think the Robot books starting with Caves of Steel would be better. I also think the intertwining of the two series was very interesting, but I think I read in the liner notes that it wasn't originally his intent, but he was requested to write the last two books much after the original trilogy and got the idea then.

BTW, I haven't read most of the thread, so sorry if someone has already mentioned this.