Childhood's End

This mini-series by the SyFy channel is from the book Childhood's End by Author C. Clarke. I have never read the book and I think that's why I liked the show so much. I LOVED it. (Most of the negative reviews are from those who read the book.)

Once I heard of the changes I realized why they occurred. They had Ricky be a humble farmer instead of a big shot diplomat because it would make him seem more like a Jesus like character. The emotional mining and discovery that Ricky did about himself and his feelings over his ex were incredibly intense and well done and not delved into in the book. Presumably this was because Clarke wasn't very good with the ladies and didn't care much for romance nor feelings and was more of a technical details kind of guy. The reasons why the children evolved in the book are stupid and make no sense. I know I might catch some flak for that but I'm sorry fanboys. What we know about evolution and diet and adaptation just come together to disprove his theory. I'm glad the show writers didn't go with what was in the book because it would have made everything laughable.

Right before I watched this I was talking to my friends about the validity of communism. Questions arose as to what would be the purpose of life without a way to feel progress? If you are always in one class and there's no going up or down forever, how would that make people feel? If they didn't have to work, would they? Would people go crazy? How would this affect our creativity in terms of art or science? Pain and suffering are necessary parts of the puzzle when driving creativity and efficiency and growth. If you're happy and content why change anything?

These questions are all discussed in the show and more.

I freaking loved Charles Dance as Karellen. He was amazing and always is. The effects for him were mostly make-up and not special effects which I found impressive and made his facial expressions much more realistic looking and expressive.

This goes in my Top 10 of the Best Science Fiction shows/movies I've ever seen. You need to see this. Caution: It is depressing and the scene at the end with the song made my heart want to break into a million pieces while I silently cried inside, but it is so good.

One of my favorite scenes was where the head of the Freedom League scoffs and accuses the aliens of pretending they want to "Buy the World a Coke". I think of that now every time I see a Coke ad.

The use of a Twitter campaign and TV ads that comically resemble political smear campaigns were hilarious and awesome. If you like dark humor and have sado-masochistic tenancies in your TV viewing then you need to check this out!

I have read and loved the book long time ago so was excited to see this production. It is uneven and has a bit of missed potential but still worth a viewing.

Part 1 - 8/10 Has all the elements of good sci-fi and took a decent take on the marvelous Arthur C Clarke novel. It had philosophical issues, clever dialogue ("you are my world'), situations and good visual effects. It had both emotional resonance and distance

Part 2 - 7/10 Starts brilliantly with the boy now being an astrophysicist and the appropriately chosen Imagine song (Eva Cassiy version of John Lennon masterpiece) with the visual montage and narration at the beginning that are as idyllic as the utopia it portrays. It falters with the introduction of a new family and their problem child. It focuses too much on religion and starts to become too much like the Exorcist, Stigmata, Da Vinci Code or any movie too focused on Devil/Evil parables and paranormal. The bond between the astrophysicist and his friend is great and their acting. The setting in he South Africa party is also a good ambiance. The Overlord powers are downplayed here versus part 1 when their power is almost infinite. The line that humans are deceiving themselves (in answer to the part 2 title) is priceless! Some good moments to be had with a few faux pas.

Part 3 - 7/10 Has a good relationship angle between the astrophysicist and his girlfriend as well as his/their journey. The love triangle with the main character continues to be well written and acted. The ending is strong in the way that it is daring and unexpected, however the whole children aspect is played out rather poorly in my view. A fitting ending but that could have been done much better with more dramatic tension and better screenplay. The last video-recording of the scientist feels out of place and scope. Pop tarts? Pop art?

Almost.

I will try very hard not to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the first episode. (Incidentally, the introduction in the Kindle version of Childhood's end -- and probably the latest print edition as well -- includes a major spoiler, which is a criminal act. Should you buy the book, skip the introduction until AFTER you've read the book and/or seen the series.) As other people have said, the premise revolves around some apparently benevolent aliens who invade, declaring an end of war, hunger, climate change, hatred, and the other banes of 21st century society. Most people love the idea, but pockets of opposition rise up from people who feel threatened in one way or another.

The twists and turns in the plot are complex, complicated, and often subtle. The surprise is that the series manages them very well.

The script was quite remarkable, adapting the 60-year-old novel and weaving its complexities more deftly than I had expected. The romantic aspects were largely invented for the series. Like most of Clarke's science fiction contemporaries, 20-something "boys" in the science fiction world were geeks (we called them nerds) who had little understanding and less experience with "girls". Simple ignorance explains why they had so few strong women characters. The film version brings the story into the present and at least attempts to restore the balance.

Many factors worked against this film. The film is visual to some degree, but it is mostly dialog and atmosphere. For some of us, it was an amazing novel that raised some provocative questions and didn't answer them. For me, when I heard that someone was turning the long-loved book into a movie, I reacted with skepticism, uttering my mantra over such things. It would be good or it would be terrible. It was unlikely to fall anywhere in between.

I suspect it was a difficult film to sell to advertisers -- the lifeblood of the industry. There was a lot of mystery and adventure, but little or no pyrotechnics. It might not draw a sufficient audience to justify such ambitious projects. I noticed a large number of house ads and station promos in the breaks instead of paying commercials. To the credit of the producers, writers, and director, they didn't compromise the material to draw a bigger audience. As a result, the story takes time to unfold, and some audience members might not be patient enough to stick it out. But if you want to see a genuine attempt to put a seminal and unconventional novel on the home screen, give this a try. It isn't perfect, but it was well worth the effort -- and it's well worth your time.

I just watched the first episode, and, all I can say is 'Wow'.

First of all, the story is sixty years old. Many of the 'tropes' came from this story, so accusing it of being a blatant ripoff of x, y and z isn't going to work.

Second of all, Syfy made this. I had to double check. Seriously. This combined with "The Expanse" hopefully marks a shift towards good... no, great, content in Syfy's future.

As for the story? Epic, heartwarming, goosebump raising. Think back fifty years to a time of optimism for the future. Put yourself in that mindset, leave your jaded selves at the door and enjoy yourself for a short time.

I loved the book back then when I first read it, and still remember how impressed I was. So was looking forward to watching the series.

My overall impression is - it should have been a movie. The first episode works, next two seem a bit dragged out.

Whoever wrote the plot didn't make a good job out of it because everything is patchy and I think for those who are not familiar with the book it may be hard to follow what is going on. Main negative is unnecessary romantic lines that are done just to fill time. And the message the book tries to send get lost somewhere in the process...

At the plus side, cast is great, visual effects are OK, there are many wonderful moments, 'Imagine' sequence is wonderfully done, and soundtrack is good all around. It's obvious filmmakers put a lot of thought in it and it shows.

So overall I recommend to watch it, but probably read the book first. It's better anyway.