• I think it can be a great movie, if they include the complete story, just from the beginning. The problem is, that, the books them selfs are not full of action. But with good actors, screenplay writer, and director, i think it could be a success. The thing, that it cant be done in just one movie. It needs about five at least. The great thing about Asimovs Science-Fiction work, that its a complete thing. Everything connected some way to the others, like the Foundation fits in Asimovs robot universe. Some of you said that these connecting books and stuff were just for money, and these are worse than the others. Maybe you are right, but when i first read the last book i was truly amazed by the end of the story. I read about R. Daneel before, and i never tought i would "bump" in him. For me than it was a nice moment. I think the main problem witch causes this negative altitude towards the film version that there weren't any good Asimov film-adaptations. The Bicentennial Man is quite nice but really far from the original story (No f***ing love story). The I, Robot movie was made just by putting the ideas in Asimovs same-titled book together. That movie was OK, but had in fact not much to do with Asimovs works, except some ideas. So i hope for the best, because with the necessary things, the Foundation series in movie can just as good as the Star Wars was, but in my opinion there's no chance to do greater films, than the books, witch they are made from. P.S.:Sorry for my bad English, I'm a total foreigner.

•  Foundation would work perfectly as a radio series or something. As a movie, it could still do justice to the book if they made a lot of them, or just made a miniseries.

• Absototalutly flipping right ! Asimov's genius and beauty was in human interaction, psychological tension and impeccable logic. Not much, if any, shoot 'em up action, romance or other banal things to delight the hoi polloi of theater goers. And stuffing that stuff into an adaptation, makes my toes curl. 

• I read the book, and hated the movie.

• no way a 20 minute scene will do any of the stories justice, it needs to have about 3 or 4, 2 hour movies made, the first movie could take place on trantor and the arrival at terminus, etc. if well done it would be a very good piece of cinematic art

• How to do Asimov justice? 1 - Hire a great director - Peter Jackson-calibre (NO EMERICH!!!) 2 - Starting with 'Caves of Steel' get amazing screenplays worked up for a 3-5 movie series (nothing short of amazing will do) 3 - Start promo now (short clips about the 3 laws, the fall of galactic empire, etc)

• I too am a fan of Isacc Asimov for a long long time... I just could not put down the books and he became my #1 writer. I think we need to start from either the story of Asimov's world either from Caves of Steel or Forward the Foundation... Either way the robot R. Daneel Olivaw would have to be explained because he is such a pivital caracter in all his novels... more than Harry Seldon and more than Elijah Bailey. This MOST DEFFINATLY couldn't be pulled off in just one movie but if it were done RIGHT if would be the greatest series of movies ever told.

• If you don't understand the concepts behind psychohistory, perhaps you should not have been reading Azimov.

• Hello, I am anxiously awaiting the release of Foundation (bc I am masochistic). Does anyone know anything for sure??? I read this series as a boy and it remains to this day my favorite SF reading. Asimov was a master. I have less hope this movie will be representative of the book now than I did when I 1st heard about it a yr ago. Having said that, I whole-heartedly disagree that it is impossible to carry Asimov's Foundation to the big screen. Any story that can be told in writing can be told on the screen. Having said that, I don't expect it to happen bc inevitabley the producers want to make a big pile of cash. The problem isn't w/ the medium of the big screen it is w/ the inevitable demands of the producers and short-sightedness of the director and writers. This wonderfully 'thoughtful' story will probably be reduced to a series of space chases, space babes and laser fights resulting in big explosions, space sex and melodrama over insignificant issues. Someone mentioned Keanu Reeves as Hari Seldon...please I hope that was a joke...however Keanu probably would be very good as one of the 'Space Traders'. Your thoughts welcome...

• For what it is worth, I was just rereading the Foundation trilogy and second this division.

• the proposal of this film is obviously the onset another Seldon crisis. Should we do nothing trusting the issue to resolve itself ? Or perhaps persuade our goverment to institute a poll tax? Perhaps in the ensuing chaos the production of this movie would be forgotten.

• It is heartening to see from all of the posts that there is a deep passion for Mr. Asimov's Foundation books. I like to spread my reading around, but the Foundation is my comfort zone, in that I always come back for another bite. I do agree with those of you who prefer to see this as a television "miniseries", but the one or two hours per week should still work out to a whole season, if done fully and completely. The movie option is still a good idea if the director allows a different design team to focus on one planet and area at a time. Asimov made it clear that each planet had different appearances in fashion, design, architecture, and even customs. Amplify this over an entire galaxy and decades, and you can, or cannot, see where this is going. Remember, Kubrick and Clarke's movie encompassed four seemingly disjointed sections into one theme.

• No way - this won't work. Today's directors don't have a clue as to what the masters had in mind when they wrote this. Look what Abbrams did to Trek. Like the series or not, he totally screwed it up. BTW: Actors were good. Some director will get the go ahead on Asimov's work and think he knows it better and rewrite it just like I Robot was rewritten. The masters are gone.

• Keanu? As Seldon,... NOOOOOOOO!

• I love this series. I also think it is well nigh impossible to turn them into movies. Regardless - When a movie is released we are all gonna make a bee line to watch it anyways. In any case below is the order in which the series should be read. This includes works that are not formally the part of the series. EARLY (IN THE NEAR FUTURE) -------------------------- *The End of Eternity *I, robot *The rest of the robots EARTH AND THE SPACERS --------------------- *The Caves of Steel *The Naked Sun *Robots of dawn *Robots and Empire EXPANSION ------------ The Stars Like Dust (the empire novels) TRANTOR, PRE-UNIFICATION ------------------------ The Currents of Space (The Empire Novels) Pebble In The Sky (The Empire Novels) FOUNDATION ----------- * Prelude to Foundation * Forward the Foundation * Foundation * Foundation & Empire Second Foundation ----------------- * Foundation's Edge * Foundation & Earth Post foundation -------------------- *foundation's fear *foundation and chaos *foundation's triumph

• Ok , lots to say here but I will keep it 'essential' Take Home Message - Mobilize !! If WE want this movie to be MADE and made well , get on the forums , get everywhere and sell Quality , the studio - director et al , WILL be listening. Point of debate - Any novel can become a GREAT movie or a CRAP one - the to and fro on this is purile. I'd like to see more discussion about HOW a great movie might come about. Zeroing-in Here's a quote from out 'director' ( I admit it aint good ) "We had to come up with characters that go through [the series], which is very hard." Mmmm . Come up with !! There are a few characters already in the series dude. Oh , that GO THROUGH .. mmm .. lets try the 'Foundations' these are characters in their own right .. basically its there in Asimovs text , you just require the wit to see it. Conclusion - WE can shape this movie. Someone HAS to make it. Please make the movie of the book - thats why you bought the rights. Now fingers crossed ! GA

• After checking Emmerich was the directors I wasn't unsure, then after his comments on 3-D motion film well I didn't like avatar style too much "lights and flashes" which is what asimov stands against in his views, but suddenly realized that maybe this will get more people to actually read the series which is a good end. Definitely wish the movie would be up to the standards of most of us Sci-Fi fans but as long as the story is coherent and "flowing" through time with the feeling of the books and the actors do the job I won't be that bad at all in my opinion. The foundation IS the father of Star Trek and Star wars put together, so it has the most hardcore fans because there isn't a TV series, movie hits or anything to hype the casual sci-fi audience, have a feeling the movie will rock somehow and yeah Im a humanist like Asimov and have a positive view of the future of humanity.

• The Foundation books were wonderful... but I'd have to agree they'd be hard to translate into a full length movie. Many of the stories within each novel are essentially vignettes, with entire casts of characters changing as the story moves on to the next time period. Nevertheless, Asimov's clever turns within his stories were always remarkable and delightful. You never see them coming, yet when they happen, you realize they were just as logical a course of action as you thought you were going to see. These may be lost though on John Q. Public... sigh! jt

• Poor of you, I feel sorry for your ignorance, Rob. Clearly you have no idea about all this, you're just another bored sad guy that has no real reason to live but complain about people better than you.

• Stalone will Hober Mallow and Dakota Fanning will be Arkady Darrel!!!!

• There is no good way to make this into a movie, or even 2 or 3 movies, as the series is a collection of stories inside of each book, you looking at 5 or 6 movies, no no no. mini series, maybe, but since the characters always change, time lines jumps etc., people would get get lost, leaving die-hard fans only, not enough money to make it worth anybodies while. Wanna make a movie from Asimov material, why not Caves of steel, and if that does well, follow up with the Naked Sun and if that makes money, Robots of Dawn.

• Well, he made Stargate, which was pretty good in it's own way. And The Patriot, which I thought was excellent...so there is hope. I think if they follow four primary rules this could actually be ok... 1) No shameless marketing of products (as in iRobot) 2) Hire some Asimov aficionados to fact check and guide the screenwriters (as Peter Jackson did) 3) Get a GOOD COMPOSER. Music will be key in telling this story and keeping the audience enthralled through "period changes" etc. John Williams would be ideal, but Elfman could be good too. 4) Follow the casting model set forth by Star Wars and Lord of the Rings (or even X-Men)...don't waste millions of budget on a few popular A list actors. Get more seasoned actors to play supporting roles with a mix of lesser known (if known at all) actors to fill the pivotal characters. I don't mean cameos, per se, but think about X-men for example. I personally think James Earl Jones would make a great Seldon... Anyhow, I think if they follow those rules, they'll be ok...Bicentennial Man was made when Robins was trying to redefine his failing career, and the film carries that. I, Robot was made when Will Smith was at a peak of popularity and marketability, and the film carries that. Still think it would translate better to a miniseries format rather than a movie...but... I'm not holding my breath, but until I read the cast, I'm still hopeful.

• Dune the Directors cut was better, but the whole movie didn't make much sense if you hadn't read the book. Now, if you read the book, it was fantastic. But that's because you could fill in the movies plot holes and shallow characters yourself.

• The foundation books are actually pretty terrible? So is your taste for good literature.

• I've only read Prelude to Foundation and I think that those who say the story would make a bad movie are being unnecessarily negative. If it's made into a crap movie then its a crap movie, if its made into a good movie, then its good. Poorly chosen directors aside, if Asimov were here he would love to see his stories hit "holovision". Especially while CGI is so evolved. They should make Prelude into a movie and get a following going, then make the rest as demand calls. It would be interesting if George Lucas pulled in as director.

• Dont forget that The books will all be reprinted directly after the movie is released and Asimov will perhaps not have written in vain.

• I think the Charlie dude from the tv series "numbers" as seldon. He already knows how to play a mathemetician.

• Dune the movie was excellent by and in itself. A total classic. By your logic, Foundation should be really cool on the silver screen.

• Haha still the alien firewall must have been temporarily disabled to run wamp on port 80 or something. Cos their firewall should really be inpenetrable.

• Foundation would make a terrible movie, and hearing Roland Emmerich is directing it is sad. I think it could make a good series if done by say, the creators of Babylon 5. But I wouldn't trust anyone else to handle it. Battlestar Galactica went to crap in season 3. Totally disjointed retconned POS storyline. Heroes became incoherent after season 1 (and it's 'pontification' was about as sophomoric as you can get.) Joss Whedon would just turn it into a soap opera with lots of lesbian sex and unrequited juvenile crushes. Gene Roddenberry is dead.

• Imagine, Kevin Costner as Hari Seldon. That bunch of idiots are very capable to do something like that

• Don´t do it please!!!, new generations will think that this crap they are about to do is Asimov´s Master Work. That is gonna be very sad. Maybe if Hollywood is aware of our disagreement will think it two times and decide not to do it. I hope to see unknown actors to play the principal characters, I would hate to see Tom Cruise playing as Salvor Hardin or Jhonny Deep as Hober Malow. Please don´t do it!!!!

• If Asimov is quite terrible I think you can not understant SF...

• I have only one comment. Will someone get J. Michael Straczyski involved before something horrible happens to the fabric of the space/time continuum?

• I would love to see a movie series based on the Foundation. It is not hard to get a ton of no name actors (like the latest Star Trek movie) and span the hundreds of years needed to bring life to this epic saga. Personally I would have movie one cover the begining up to the Mule, then movie 2 dedicaqted to the Mule then movie 3 from the Mule to the conclusion. I heard Robert Rodat (Saving Private Ryan) is actually doing the writing. I agree Brent Spinner as Hari.

• First and foremost, I love all that is Asimov. He literally changed my literary world, rocking it in the process. (My wife and I have already agreed to name our first son Isaac, or our first daughter Arkady.) That being said, the God I believe in wouldn't allow this movie / these movies to be made. Don't get me wrong, when I read that LOTR was chosen to be a trilogy over Foundation, I felt cheated. After all, Foundation did beat LOTR for a Hugo in '65. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that Asimov employed too much logic and semantics for a movie to do it justice. I'm reminded of Sphere by Michael Crighton (don't judge me). In the novel you have these two superbrained characters fighting each other via telepathy. It was a great scene, but was never even hinted at in the movie. I have a feeling this is going to be the same thing, but knowing myself as I do, I'll still be first in line to see it. We all have our weaknesses I guess, mine being an almost unhealthy reverence to Asimov.

• "For "Foundation" to be done properly take the example of the "Harry Potter" movies. JKR had a hand in all phases of the script as the Brits always do it right and it worked." Are you suggesting bringing Isaac Asimov back from the dead? I don't object to that idea per se, it's just that raising a Zombie Asimov for a movie directed by Roland Emmerich is kind of like bringing Einstein back from the dead to watch an episode of Mythbusters. Guest hosted by Michael Bay.

• For "Foundation" to be done properly take the example of the "Harry Potter" movies. JKR had a hand in all phases of the script as the Brits always do it right and it worked. The final book has so much that it is split into two movies. Hollywood will just take all three original books and make one movie out of them when they should make one movie, or mini-series, per book.

• Emmerich !? I suppose, I could start a 'think tank' unorder to come up with the words to express how incredibly horrified I am at the prospect of Emmerich directing a Foundation film. Instead, I think I will just be sad and powerless. I couldn't stop a remake of 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' with Kanoo. Berg will most likely destroy 'Dune' for another generation. 'Hitchhikers Guide' was better as a BBC series! 'I Robot' was.... Oh Fuck it.... I'm just tired and powerless.

• First of all, this announcement may mean that there is about a 10-15% chance the project will ever come to fruition. More likely it will join Ender's game and many others as a failed project. I agree that it seems next to impossible to make the trilogy into a movie. It might have a better chance as a TV mini-series. If it is made, I don't expect much, but I have no problem with it being made, and I might even be entertained at some level. There are bad and good productions of Shakespeare, none of which diminish the original work

• I think the 3 Foundation novels would work as a trilogy. There's a lot of good cinematic concepts in there: the power struggle with Anacreon, the hocus-pocus technology 'religion' with its nuclear 'temples', the Foundation's struggles for survival...it would just require a 'narrator' character to live these events. Likewise the Mule would make a whole movie, and Second Foundation would make another. The second-foundationers would be cool, wizardly characters with their 'mentalic' speech. A central character in each of these movies would be the way to personalize the concepts. I do hope they have a good script-writer! And heck, I'd go & see it even if it sucked. Couldn't be any worse than Star Wars.

• This would have been a good movie for Cameron, if he wasn't already working on Avatar, among other things. He does a good job with relatively complex, nuanced sci-fi themes.

• Christ, this sounds terrible. I'm reading foundation and empire at the moment, and so far I think the foundation trillogy is a masterpiece. I have thought about a foundation movie for a while now, and it just wouldn't work! And why the F did they get Emmerich when there are so many good directors out there like Ridley Scott, Spielberg and JJ Abrams?? Another thing I was thinking about was, instead of a movie, to do a tv show. Each episode would be about an hour in length and would be about each stage in the foundation history. This way they could get as much as possible out of the book instead of stuffing a 1000 year timeline into 2 hours which obviously will be a pile of horseshit. In any case, I'm convinced Brent Spiner would be brilliant as Hari Seldon.

• I think it could be done in 2 hrs, if you had around 6 20 minute mini-scenes, much like how Frank Miller would have done it. But this would take a director of the caliber of Coppola or Scorsese to pull this off. Don't take this one, Roland.

• Uh, Can anyone remember Dune (movie of 1984)? Even David Lynch has dry heaves when it's mentioned and for good reason as it was a disaster! (NB: the movie theaters had to hand out cheat notes to "help" everyone figure out what the *Bleep* was going on...like the majority of the movie public will even know who Asimov is much less half the terminology? ) Remember that Dune did not fail because it was dumbed down on purpose, but because it was TOO MUCH material to stick into a 120 minute framework. And Herbert's books had action...How much shoot em up can this movie have without really going off the story? It really is Dune all over again. (...And even the Sci-Fi Channel version in miniseries for Dune was not great)

• I don't think the original series can be adapted into 2 films. No way. But the Second Foundation trilogy by 3 different authors could be put into 3 different motion pictures. Although not Asimov's work, the trilogy allows for a better explanation of what happened to <b> Hari Seldon</b>'s life during the Foundation book. Prelude to Foundation explained what happened when he came to Trantor and how his work was upcoming but Second Foundation is created as a filler for the time when he became first minister and tells his tales up until the moment he dies. If you Asimov fans haven't taken a moment to look into it, this series is a good read.

• I was idly looking at another producer's page on imdb and quite accidentally came across this insidious plot to ruin the groundbreaking sci-fi work that is Foundation. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that it's fucked up my morning. 1st of all, I cannot believe that it is well enough known to market, based on name recognition. And story-wise, it is like a maze, twisting and turning over thousands of years. There's lots of suspense, but very little action- and LOTS of talk. So why are they doing this? Well, I bet it won't make it to release. Somewhere between the script being written and casting, someone with half a brain will wise up and pull the plug. I-Robot was (incredibly loosely) based on a short story in a book of short stories, where plots and characters can be adjusted SO easily. Foundation on the other hand...well, it just ain't the same. Tell me- why don't they have any movies spanning the entire history of the Roman Empire? (rhetorical question) So why make a movie based on the entire history of the Roman Empire...in space? Duh! I don't care if they cast Will Smith, his wife, dog, three kids and George fucking Clooney- DON'T DO IT!!!! Asimov is dead. Don't give a dead man unnecessary exercise. Rolling over in a cramped box really must suck. P.S. Foundation...the Sci Fi Channel miniseries? That I'd watch. (the 1st episode anyway)

• They should just skip foundation all together as it is seriously not film adaptable. The Foundation should just be referenced or narrarated throughout Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation. Then they can make Edge and Earth, which were fun to read but not as intense.

• Ugh. Please, Roland, don't do this. The possibility that future generations might remember the horrendous movies based on Asimov's books rather than his amazing writing is positively horrifying.

• I think it's fair to point out that Emmerich is responsible(or at least co-responsible) for bringing some good to the world of science fiction: he co-wrote and directed the film Stargate(1994), which was enjoyable and later spawned the in my opinion best sci-fi series to date, Stargate SG-1. Nevertheless, I think the film adaptation will suck ass, because I doubt Emmerich is a fan of Asimov's work, and his main motive is probably to get money.

• I just have read the news and I'm pretty fucked up. I think the Foundation series could be very well adapted if you done it well, I mean if a good (really good) director got the project and worked hard over it (and I admit when I read the book I was all the time thinking in possible scenes and dreaming with making the movies, as I'm a humble amateur director -more exactly, short film recorder). It could be very hard I suppose, it has a lot of dialogues and narration, but the first book has a lot of chapters and stories to be enough dynamic, though it could make it a bit dizzy, and the second and third have quite charismatic characters, like Riose, the Speakes and of course the Mule. There are also apart from the dialogues, great scenes, and anyway this superb trilogy deserves three great movies, no matter if they are long, and not two cash-making movies from a machine-script-writing and masterpiece-desecrating director. (sorry for the last furious lines, if they are not enough clear, my english is not very good :P)

• Prelude to Foundation could be converted into a good movie, I think. The Foundation Trilogy itself however, not. But then, the Prelude to Foundation film would be quite meaningless.

• Correction: this movie will suck as an action film. Adapted correctly can make an excellent epic.

• where's Kubrick, to run the movie?!

• No! No! Noooooooo!

• <i>still an incredibly stupid movie, thanks to the aliens' spaceships running on Mac OS.</i> Weren't you paying attention? The aliens' spaceships weren't running on MacOS. <b>MacOS was reverse-engineered from AlienOS.</b> Sheesh. :)

• If this follows the book exactly the movie will be thirty minutes of people talking about how their race procreates through artificial babies that they grow in test tubes. The books were creative, and very entertaining, but they definitely weren't meant for a movie. Either they won't follow the book and the movie will be full of action, in which case everyone but Asimov fans will like it, or they will follow the book exactly and it will be an incredibly boring movie, in which case no one will be happy.

• God dammit. If a good director like Alex Proyas managed to make I Robot blow, just imagine what a hack Hollywood jerk-off like Roland Emmerich will do to Foundation. There are lots of good directors in Hollywood whose films make bank. How do talentless people like Emmerich, Verbinski, Bay, Ratner, etc. etc. keep getting these huge projects? (That's a rhetorical question. Their films make money because audiences are generally stupid.)

• I thought the original trilogy was pretty good, but books 4 & 5 were such an obvious cash grab and pissed all over the series. (SPOILERS) Books 4 and 5 revealed the whole Foundationverse was part of Asimov's robot universe and I thought that was such a crock of shit. I honestly can't remember why I bothered with book 5...

• *whimper* but, but, but, emmerich made 13th floor and high crusade and, and, maybe he hasn't completely sold out, maybe he wouldn't ruin that great book for years to come? i mean he had something slightly artistic going once. please? i just don't now if i could handle seeing yet another great asimov story reborn disfigured and mutilated and all aching, like barts frog in the halloween episode.

• No Tom, there is a God. He just really hates Sci-Fi. Alot. Like, alot alot. His hatred burns like a raging star, a star where every atom is a tiny universe filled with rage.

• I can't get upset by this. Why? Because as a lad, I was a huge SF reader and considered Asimov to be the pinnacle of all the SF authors. Then one day, in the paper, I saw an ad for "Isaac Asimov's Nightfall," the movie. "GREAT!" I thought, and immediately mobilized a friend and my dad to take us to see it. (This was the 1988 version, I'm old.) And it was the most Godawful thing I'd ever seen in my life. Buncha robe-wearing fucks living in hovels with crows pecking out people's eyes. I knew then that no one would ever make anything by Asimov into a movie that was not insulting to humanity on every level.

• I've been complaining about science fiction movies for years. "Why can't Hollywood make something new? Why don't they make something by Asimov?" Now I'm just wishing I could wake up from this nightmare. It's going to be a big 'ol Cleveland steamer in a bucket of suck... if we're lucky.

• Would you prefer having Frank Miller direct it? "The Spirit" actually managed to make Uwe Boll look slightly talented, in comparison.

• Some of Rolland Emmerich's films are enjoyable in a please-for-the-love-of-god-don't-read-the-source-material way. Of all the series' that could be optioned though, Foundation? Seriously? Who reads that and thinks 'Omg you guys...this would be a great movie.' Nobody. Nobody except Rolland Emmerich. How about instead of making this, somebody give Neil Gaiman $80 million so he can make his vision for a 'Good Omens' film? Pretty please? ...Actually, based on what happened the first time, at this point give him money to do anything other than trying to make 'Don Quixote' again (which he's doing) before somebody ends up dead and/or the universe implodes.

• In a funny way we already know what a movie of "The Foundation" will be like-- it'll be like the worst parts of the Star Wars movies, minus the planet of the Teddy Bears, whatever that was called. "The Foundation" books are actually pretty terrible. If you haven't read them recently maybe you don't remember, but they are mostly blah, blah, blah, and I've never understood how this supposedly advanced mathematical science of "psychohistory" could go completely off the rails as soon as one anomaly cropped up. Or maybe it doesn't-- it gets pretty confusing once Asimov decides to mash in the "I Robot" series.

• I've read the first book and have the next two waiting in the wings...and from what I know of the first book this is an impossible movie to make. I mean the entire series spans something like 100,000 years of galactic history. You've got to be insane to attempt to turn that into a coherent movie...but then insane and incoherent are Rolland Emmerich's specialty.

• hussein, my first thought went to Michael Bay as well, but I think I've come up with one worse... Uwe Boll. I don't think I really need to say much more than that...

• Absolutely hilarious... and sadly, so true. This will be very bad. :(

• Hey now, come on! Bicentennial Man was a decent version of The Positronic Man/Bicentennial Man. Sure, they took liberties with it, but the movie is surprisingly true to the spirit of the book/novella. The problem with Bicentennial Man was that the idiots marketed it as a Robin Williams wacky comedy in the style of Mrs. Doubtfire, and in fact it was a Robin Williams drama. The man CAN act when he's not going haywire on the comedy bits. "I, Robot: Hell Naww" was awful, but "Bicentennial Man" was good.

• I have to admit that this is one of the scariest pieces of news that I have heard in a long time... Knowing what a sucker for punishment I am... I might actually see it when it comes out.

• I suspected before, but now I am certain that there is no God.

• Coming soon: the FOUNDATION casting director announces that Keanu Reeves has agreed to play Hari Seldon.

• <blockquote>There is no one in Hollywood less equipped to handle the Foundation series than Emmerich, who specializes in imbecility.</blockquote> This is probably a question for the philosophers, but isn't Michael Bay worse than Roland Emmerich? Of course, this is like asking if a gunshot wound to the foot is worse than one to the face.

• Aww, come on. The Patriot wasn't that bad. Jason Isaacs was literally stabbed by LIBERTY. Not many movies can make that claim. That said, this movie is doomed to suck.

TotalComments: 75