44
Foundation’s showrunner explains why big book adaptations start so dang slow
(www.theverge.com)
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]
in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
The whole notion of having short stories spanning centuries with the only common thread or character being the Seldon recordings is the entire point.
Having a revolving cast of characters isn't a problem, Walking Dead has done it for years.
And it would be uninteresting to most people.
They did not make the show for you, me or other Asimov fans. They made it for a general audience who will only know the adaptation. A hologram that arrives at the end of each storyline with a deus ex machina to solve all the problems will not be engaging to the genera public.
And the show, to me, was terrible. Slow, formulaic and boring once the first season ended. So it is not something I would use as an example.
And yet Walking Dead spawned 11 seasons and was wildly popular.
I stopped watching mid-season 2 and haven't thought much about the show in the following decade.
What I like is not the same for everyone.
Now adopt that thought to what you are saying about the TV show. You don't like that it is not word-perfect with the books. I am glad it isn't.
If you don't like where the show is going, stop watching as I did with the boring dead. The books still exist, and you can reread them anytime.