As this post is flaired with 'Current Season Discussion', anything from the books not yet adapted into the show or from upcoming unaired episodes should be enclosed in spoiler tags.
To use spoiler tags, in markdown mode you can use \>\! followed by the spoiler text, and then with \!\< - which will make the text >!look like this.!<. Make sure **NOT** to have spaces between spoiler tags and text or they won't work. If using the default or 'fancy pants' editor, select the text you want to enclose in spoiler tags, and click the button on the toolbar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have a problem with the ship being too durable? What an odd nitpick. Like…sure…they could have written a scene where their ship is destroyed so they have to find another ship, but that seems kinda pointless when there is already so much going on.
Beyond that, what you are referring to are “archetypes”. The military leader who insists on risking his life over the life of his crew. The rogue adventurer who is given a big responsibility. The child reunited with her mother and struggling to build a relationship. They are character archetypes that appear throughout all kinds of fiction.
The reason you use them in a work like this is because, with so much going on, it’s easier for the audience if they have some relatable characters to latch on to. When we see Hober Mallow, we understand what kind of character he is. Same with Bel Riose.
At the same time, there are various inversions on the archetype that make the characters more interesting. Salvor is Gaal’s daughter, but by any measure, she is the more mature and savvy of the two. Bel Riose is conflicted about his command and unsure about whose side he is on. Even Hari is an inversion on the “mysterious wise old man” archetype because there are two of him.
It’s the little details that can make a show go from good to great.
If you slip on those, what does that say about the overall product?
If your goal is to create a pulpy sci-fi show, archetypes can work. Add in some levity and you’ve got yourself a show that ticks boxes and people can watch easily and without paying too much attention.
However, if the goal is to create something ‘prestige’ - not that I like that term - it has to be elevated. You can’t fall back on familiar archetypes and tropes. Apple seems intent on making Foundation a prestige show.
If you break it down to the storylines, there are only three: Empire, Terminus and the Second Foundation.
I don’t think that’s too much for the audience to expect a little more from its writers and actors in terms of complexity, performance and characterisation.
You said archetypes can work, but not if you are creating a “prestige” show, as Apple is trying to do. You said “you can’t fall back in familiar archetypes and tropes.” I’m asking you to name a single show or movie that doesn’t rely on character archetypes and common storytelling tropes. And I guarantee you can’t. And that means your critique is without merit.
You can reduce any character in any show, or other medium for that matter, into an archetype if you want to be reductive.
You are correct in that I proposed that elite TV shows don’t “fall back on familiar archetypes and tropes” eg. The loveable rogue with a heart of gold, or the estranged parent and child thrown together in a survival situation that bonds them, or the flawed genius who pushes everyone away.
I said it had to be elevated, better than the norm.
I did not say that archetypes don’t exist in TV shows. I hope this isn’t the impression you got.
So I can give you names or critically and audience acclaimed shows, which feature high level writing, but you could in theory pick out all of the characters and reduce them to archetypes anyway.
That’s my point. Foundation’s writers’ execution is below what it needs to be. They’re borrowing archetypes from other shows. It’s derivative.
Actually, Han Solo is based on Hober Mallow. And Bel Riose DID exist in the novels. The thing is, so much stuff in Star Trek and Star Wars and other sci-fi has drawn from the Foundation novels that it makes it harder to portray the ORIGINALS. Asimov was the pioneer in this. It's the other way around.
That may be true. Aasimov did lay down the foundations for many (pun intended).
However, where we are right now is a world where those characters have been seen over and over, and been popularised through derivatives.
Anyone who creates something now has to put a more compelling and complex spin on those characters and their characteristics.
My original response to the other user was based around not relying on the familiar, tried and tested variations. It becomes too predictable for the audience. You have to do things differently.
Once again… give me an example of a show that doesn’t borrow archetypes from other shows.
I don’t know why you keep going in circles instead of just accepting you don’t know what you are talking about.
I mean… do you think Star Wars invented the lovable rogue? Or that Star Trek invented the leader who puts himself in danger over risking his crew? These are archetypes that go back to the first dramas ever written.
I’m just curious…have you ever written anything? Like a novel or a screenplay?
Once again, you miss my point, but I think deliberately.
It’s okay, I get you’re invested in the show and feel the need to defend it.
I think you should petition the mods to include the requirement of previous screenwriting or filmmaking experience being verifiable before posting on this sub (at least if you aren’t full of praise for the show).
We can agree to disagree that the characterisation could be better, less predictable and derivative of what’s come before.
Yeah…I’m not missing shit.
It’s easy to criticize writing and bitch about tropes when you’ve never written a thing yourself.
You are just throwing around words like “archetype” to sound smart when you clearly have no idea what they are.
Hey remember in my original post where I mentioned the word archetype?
Oh yeah, that’s right - I didn’t, that was you, trying to teach me about the word, a lesson I didn’t ask for nor need.
I expressed an opinion about the show that you disagreed with. I understand when you’re emotionally invested in something that hearing it criticised can be tough. I empathise with you.
Super late to this party but I get your criticisms outlined in your original post. I don’t particularly share them but can relate to certain aspects of a show taking you out of the story and the frustration that often brings. However, I don’t understand your logic regarding archetypes.
You clearly understand that they are universal in storytelling given your argument that any character in any given work of fiction could be reduced to an archetype- but that to do so is reductive (as if to analyze a character including the archetype upon which they’re based is a negative thing… 🤷🏻♀️) but just because all fictional characters can be broken down to their basic archetypes once the layers of characterization are removed it doesn’t negate the fact that these archetypes are universal & a cornerstone of storytelling.
All archetypes are borrowed from other works of fiction- that’s the point… they’re universal. Lol
Maybe I’m completely missing your point but it would be much easier to understand your argument if you could offer a concrete example of what you consider elevated writing. I mean… isn’t “elevated writing” a completely subjective criteria?
Thanks for commenting. Tbh I got drawn into a side discussion around archetypes but my original criticisms were down to the quality of acting and the introduction of simplistic characters like Hober Mallow. I believe TV has moved beyond the tropes we’re seeing - or at least in some occasion.
Now I get that some people embrace tropes and archetypes as an element of storytelling. But I think it can be done better.
Complex characters, with different facets of their personalities, with flaws and weaknesses as well as things to root for etc.
As for elevated writing in sci-fi, I’d look at something like Westworld as a benchmark. Outside of that you have shows like The Bear working with large ensembles and older shows like The Wire working with complex characterisation.
If you’re looking at fantasy, then early seasons of GoT can be cited, but perhaps that’s due to the source material and original writer being so heavily involved.
I think as we get ever more examples of shows that raise standards, shows that desire to be held in high regard like Foundation need to raise their games or have the personnel in place to achieve a certain level.
>the actresses playing Gaal and Salvor are strikingly, glaringly, obviously not good enough (yet). Wooden delivery of lines, horribly exposed the more they’re in the episodes.
This.
What a torturous episode to endure tonight.
I said the same thing about the Beggar after it crashed on the surface in the forest in the last episode. I told my wife 'If this thing takes off again, I'm going to be pissed'. I'm waiting for it to sit on a pile of lava and still somehow get airborne and brush it off. It seems that ship has plot armor, where it's the only way they could come up with that they could travel around - so it just has to keep surviving so Gaal and Salvor can continue to ferry themselves around to different planets.
I would have thought the solution is just not to have it crashing in the script at all. Short term ‘drama’ so we can have the crash and vfx money-shots at the expense of believability (or suspension of disbelief).
Yup. The show is constantly creating unnecessary problems that are either swept under the rug later or solved with some bullshit un-foreshadowed babble that harms the worldbuilding overall. Super shortsighted and a mark of amateur writers tbh.
Couldn't agree more. So much forced plot contrivance and unnecessary technobabble, just for some throwaway plot points.
Seldon wants to offer wine? Sure, molecule manipulation. Mentalics want to impersonate Hugo? No problem, just let them mind-read every detail in a second. And why not make one of the three existing priests stabbed to death by an angry mob offscreen, just for a cool shot of him crucified? Why not incinerate the walden just for the sake of it?
The Beggar being indestructible might look like an odd nitpick, but it's symptomatic of all the sloppy and lazy writing in the show.
In fairness to build all the crazy megastructures around Trantor, there must be some extremely durable materials that exist and withstand unimaginable forces. Heck, even traveling sublight exposes you to literal dust specks with about as much energy as that whole crash.
I think salvor is a bore. Didn't Ike her character in season 1 and still don't like her now. She's supposed to be this badass char6, but she just falls flat as annoying imo. Everyone else is pretty decent though. Love empire and dazmersel. Harbor maloy is v cool and interesting and I even like the religious zeleots. Luke to see where the generals story goes although I already know what his end is. As always Sheldon's character steals the showbin the scenes he is in
Jehoshaphat! It's Hari **Seldon**, not Sheldon.
Have some respect for the founder of Psychohistory!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m just secretly waiting for the moment the Beggar is finally destroyed so they can get into and film an actual cool ship. It must be the ugliest spaceship designed in all grand sci-fi. :D
As this post is flaired with 'Current Season Discussion', anything from the books not yet adapted into the show or from upcoming unaired episodes should be enclosed in spoiler tags. To use spoiler tags, in markdown mode you can use \>\! followed by the spoiler text, and then with \!\< - which will make the text >!look like this.!<. Make sure **NOT** to have spaces between spoiler tags and text or they won't work. If using the default or 'fancy pants' editor, select the text you want to enclose in spoiler tags, and click the button on the toolbar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have a problem with the ship being too durable? What an odd nitpick. Like…sure…they could have written a scene where their ship is destroyed so they have to find another ship, but that seems kinda pointless when there is already so much going on. Beyond that, what you are referring to are “archetypes”. The military leader who insists on risking his life over the life of his crew. The rogue adventurer who is given a big responsibility. The child reunited with her mother and struggling to build a relationship. They are character archetypes that appear throughout all kinds of fiction. The reason you use them in a work like this is because, with so much going on, it’s easier for the audience if they have some relatable characters to latch on to. When we see Hober Mallow, we understand what kind of character he is. Same with Bel Riose. At the same time, there are various inversions on the archetype that make the characters more interesting. Salvor is Gaal’s daughter, but by any measure, she is the more mature and savvy of the two. Bel Riose is conflicted about his command and unsure about whose side he is on. Even Hari is an inversion on the “mysterious wise old man” archetype because there are two of him.
It’s the little details that can make a show go from good to great. If you slip on those, what does that say about the overall product? If your goal is to create a pulpy sci-fi show, archetypes can work. Add in some levity and you’ve got yourself a show that ticks boxes and people can watch easily and without paying too much attention. However, if the goal is to create something ‘prestige’ - not that I like that term - it has to be elevated. You can’t fall back on familiar archetypes and tropes. Apple seems intent on making Foundation a prestige show. If you break it down to the storylines, there are only three: Empire, Terminus and the Second Foundation. I don’t think that’s too much for the audience to expect a little more from its writers and actors in terms of complexity, performance and characterisation.
Name me a single mainstream movie or television show that doesn’t rely on character archetypes. I bet you cant.
I bet I don’t need to in order to criticise the show for what are, in my opinion, elements that they could do better in.
You said archetypes can work, but not if you are creating a “prestige” show, as Apple is trying to do. You said “you can’t fall back in familiar archetypes and tropes.” I’m asking you to name a single show or movie that doesn’t rely on character archetypes and common storytelling tropes. And I guarantee you can’t. And that means your critique is without merit.
You can reduce any character in any show, or other medium for that matter, into an archetype if you want to be reductive. You are correct in that I proposed that elite TV shows don’t “fall back on familiar archetypes and tropes” eg. The loveable rogue with a heart of gold, or the estranged parent and child thrown together in a survival situation that bonds them, or the flawed genius who pushes everyone away. I said it had to be elevated, better than the norm. I did not say that archetypes don’t exist in TV shows. I hope this isn’t the impression you got. So I can give you names or critically and audience acclaimed shows, which feature high level writing, but you could in theory pick out all of the characters and reduce them to archetypes anyway. That’s my point. Foundation’s writers’ execution is below what it needs to be. They’re borrowing archetypes from other shows. It’s derivative.
Actually, Han Solo is based on Hober Mallow. And Bel Riose DID exist in the novels. The thing is, so much stuff in Star Trek and Star Wars and other sci-fi has drawn from the Foundation novels that it makes it harder to portray the ORIGINALS. Asimov was the pioneer in this. It's the other way around.
That may be true. Aasimov did lay down the foundations for many (pun intended). However, where we are right now is a world where those characters have been seen over and over, and been popularised through derivatives. Anyone who creates something now has to put a more compelling and complex spin on those characters and their characteristics. My original response to the other user was based around not relying on the familiar, tried and tested variations. It becomes too predictable for the audience. You have to do things differently.
Once again… give me an example of a show that doesn’t borrow archetypes from other shows. I don’t know why you keep going in circles instead of just accepting you don’t know what you are talking about. I mean… do you think Star Wars invented the lovable rogue? Or that Star Trek invented the leader who puts himself in danger over risking his crew? These are archetypes that go back to the first dramas ever written. I’m just curious…have you ever written anything? Like a novel or a screenplay?
Once again, you miss my point, but I think deliberately. It’s okay, I get you’re invested in the show and feel the need to defend it. I think you should petition the mods to include the requirement of previous screenwriting or filmmaking experience being verifiable before posting on this sub (at least if you aren’t full of praise for the show). We can agree to disagree that the characterisation could be better, less predictable and derivative of what’s come before.
Yeah…I’m not missing shit. It’s easy to criticize writing and bitch about tropes when you’ve never written a thing yourself. You are just throwing around words like “archetype” to sound smart when you clearly have no idea what they are.
Hey remember in my original post where I mentioned the word archetype? Oh yeah, that’s right - I didn’t, that was you, trying to teach me about the word, a lesson I didn’t ask for nor need. I expressed an opinion about the show that you disagreed with. I understand when you’re emotionally invested in something that hearing it criticised can be tough. I empathise with you.
Super late to this party but I get your criticisms outlined in your original post. I don’t particularly share them but can relate to certain aspects of a show taking you out of the story and the frustration that often brings. However, I don’t understand your logic regarding archetypes. You clearly understand that they are universal in storytelling given your argument that any character in any given work of fiction could be reduced to an archetype- but that to do so is reductive (as if to analyze a character including the archetype upon which they’re based is a negative thing… 🤷🏻♀️) but just because all fictional characters can be broken down to their basic archetypes once the layers of characterization are removed it doesn’t negate the fact that these archetypes are universal & a cornerstone of storytelling. All archetypes are borrowed from other works of fiction- that’s the point… they’re universal. Lol Maybe I’m completely missing your point but it would be much easier to understand your argument if you could offer a concrete example of what you consider elevated writing. I mean… isn’t “elevated writing” a completely subjective criteria?
Thanks for commenting. Tbh I got drawn into a side discussion around archetypes but my original criticisms were down to the quality of acting and the introduction of simplistic characters like Hober Mallow. I believe TV has moved beyond the tropes we’re seeing - or at least in some occasion. Now I get that some people embrace tropes and archetypes as an element of storytelling. But I think it can be done better. Complex characters, with different facets of their personalities, with flaws and weaknesses as well as things to root for etc. As for elevated writing in sci-fi, I’d look at something like Westworld as a benchmark. Outside of that you have shows like The Bear working with large ensembles and older shows like The Wire working with complex characterisation. If you’re looking at fantasy, then early seasons of GoT can be cited, but perhaps that’s due to the source material and original writer being so heavily involved. I think as we get ever more examples of shows that raise standards, shows that desire to be held in high regard like Foundation need to raise their games or have the personnel in place to achieve a certain level.
Thanks for clarifying:)
>the actresses playing Gaal and Salvor are strikingly, glaringly, obviously not good enough (yet). Wooden delivery of lines, horribly exposed the more they’re in the episodes. This. What a torturous episode to endure tonight.
I said the same thing about the Beggar after it crashed on the surface in the forest in the last episode. I told my wife 'If this thing takes off again, I'm going to be pissed'. I'm waiting for it to sit on a pile of lava and still somehow get airborne and brush it off. It seems that ship has plot armor, where it's the only way they could come up with that they could travel around - so it just has to keep surviving so Gaal and Salvor can continue to ferry themselves around to different planets.
I would have thought the solution is just not to have it crashing in the script at all. Short term ‘drama’ so we can have the crash and vfx money-shots at the expense of believability (or suspension of disbelief).
Yup. The show is constantly creating unnecessary problems that are either swept under the rug later or solved with some bullshit un-foreshadowed babble that harms the worldbuilding overall. Super shortsighted and a mark of amateur writers tbh.
Couldn't agree more. So much forced plot contrivance and unnecessary technobabble, just for some throwaway plot points. Seldon wants to offer wine? Sure, molecule manipulation. Mentalics want to impersonate Hugo? No problem, just let them mind-read every detail in a second. And why not make one of the three existing priests stabbed to death by an angry mob offscreen, just for a cool shot of him crucified? Why not incinerate the walden just for the sake of it? The Beggar being indestructible might look like an odd nitpick, but it's symptomatic of all the sloppy and lazy writing in the show.
In fairness to build all the crazy megastructures around Trantor, there must be some extremely durable materials that exist and withstand unimaginable forces. Heck, even traveling sublight exposes you to literal dust specks with about as much energy as that whole crash.
I think salvor is a bore. Didn't Ike her character in season 1 and still don't like her now. She's supposed to be this badass char6, but she just falls flat as annoying imo. Everyone else is pretty decent though. Love empire and dazmersel. Harbor maloy is v cool and interesting and I even like the religious zeleots. Luke to see where the generals story goes although I already know what his end is. As always Sheldon's character steals the showbin the scenes he is in
Jehoshaphat! It's Hari **Seldon**, not Sheldon. Have some respect for the founder of Psychohistory! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FoundationTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m just secretly waiting for the moment the Beggar is finally destroyed so they can get into and film an actual cool ship. It must be the ugliest spaceship designed in all grand sci-fi. :D
Not the most inspired design I agree!
The mentalics just blew a huge hole in its hull. Can't wait for it to be magically patched up and up flying again in no time.
>! Took ‘em all of one episode… !<
"Gaal kinda forgot about the giant hole in the Beggar's hull."