Avatar has] just shown that if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that's the trick. I think now everybody who does bigger movies has to shoot them in 3-D. I think there's no way around it. I was on the set of ‘Avatar' and I saw how it worked and I really thought, ‘That's the ultimate way of making movies.'I feel fairly ambivalent about a film version of Foundation, but that Emmerich is making it, and his attitude towards it, don't encourage me. I doubt any director could do the full scope of the novels justice, even in a trilogy. The scope of time is so huge, the concepts so theoretical and so critical to the books. The cast of characters is big. If it succeeds and paves the way for a big-screen adaptation of something like the Mars trilogy, I might be more forgiving. I do like me some epic. But I'm not sure I can see that happening. Fully absorbing something like Foundation requires, I think, the sustained experience of reading and concentration that would be interrupted by a multi-year gap between films. Perhaps I'm a pessimist and a provincialist, mired in the land of books on this one. But while in Avatar, James Cameron may have figured out a new way to spend money, he didn't figure out a new way to tell stories.
In 3D For the Money
That's where Roland Emmerich is taking Foundation, apparently, saying: