[lucianbr]

> it's not exactly like the book

It's very, _very_ far from the books. There's no point calling it "The Foundation". It's not even the same genre - how much action is in Asimov?

It's fine to judge it on its own and say it's good or bad, but then why the name? Basically for the tv show equivalent of clickbait. Which is why I hate it.

[Larrikin]

>It's not even the same genre - how much action is in Asimov?

An entire season of characters just talking about what happened instead of actually showing what happened would be painfully boring to watch.

I've only completed the first book, but thought the show did a decent enough job of having action while condensing the characters down so they could be available over multiple arcs for consistency for the contents of the first book.

[boppo1]

People make a similar defense of Paramount's Halo.

>An emotionless supersoldier mary sue? It would never work as a TV series, we need to explore the spartans' emotions!

And so we get some garbage that misses what was beloved by fans and features Master Chief with his helmet off, being sad on the subway. Feels like it's written by people totally unconcerned with the source material, just like Apple-Foundation.

Unlike Apple-foundation, glimpses of what a proper Halo adaptation could have been exist:

https://youtu.be/XRMUYpH7bQk https://youtu.be/SyOAdrxlPVs https://youtu.be/40jdpzrpIps https://youtu.be/P63er_GRH1o

I'd trade the whole apple-foundation series for two minutes of content by people who cared about the books.

[lucianbr]

> An entire season of characters just talking about what happened instead of actually showing what happened would be painfully boring to watch.

Is this an argument that the series is the same as the books? "Any changes that are necessary are not really changes" or such? I didn't argue that the changes are unnnecessary, or even bad. Just that they exist, and they are many. Sure sounds like you agree with me.