MovieChat Forums > Childhood's End (2015) Discussion > My God, it's full of crap!

My God, it's full of crap!

posted 9 years ago by collinskocik-33106
12 replies | jump to latest

Here are my thoughts as I wrote them down while I was watching this miniseries:

I finally watched part 1 of Childhood's End. I expected it to be a disappointment; face it, no movie, especially a TV movie, can possibly match the beautiful prose of Arthur C. Clarke.
But holy almighty monolith, I didn't in my wildest nightmares expect it to be THAT bad!! I thought there was no possible way it could be a worse corruption of Clarke's magnificence than Trapped in Space, but yep, congratulations, "SyFy," you made a WORSE movie!
As with other "SyFy" outings, this tried hard to bury all science fiction elements. Oh, there were, by necessity, a few token shots of the Overlord ships (which were quite disappointing, especially after we've seen such impressive variants as the Visitor motherships in V), but other than that they just turned it into another dull Earth-based drama.
Why to they have to mess around and make things "relevant" to the modern world? A classic is a classic because it's AWAYS relevant. If Childhood's End is no longer relevant, why in Diaspar make a movie of it in the first place?!
Yes, Clarke's novel discussed the human condition--specifically, how to make it better. But fundamentally it was about the scope of the universe, the fact that we might not be alone, the possible nature of extraterrestrial beings. It hammered home the smallness of our little planet and the immensity of the universe. This small-minded miniseries puts Earth and its problems at center stage, with the Overlords just a vehicle for modern-day social commentary. The kind of lazy, self-congratulatory "science fiction" that "SyFy" has been handing the fat-assed masses for years now.
Clarke is renowned for his scientific accuracy and his excellent storytelling skills. Not only Childhood's End, but ALL his books and short stories are extremely well-paced. Clarke wastes no time. Five pages into Rendezvous With Rama, you're at Rama. The moonbus Selene plunges into the Sea of Dust within two chapters of the start of A Fall of Moondust. The Sands of Mars, Earthlight, The Songs of Distant Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Against the Fall of Night, The Hammer of God, all grab you by the scruff of the neck and race you through an incredible journey of sights and sounds and feelings that leave you breathless at the end. Childhood's End is no exception; the Overlords arrive like a thunderclap in the book's prologue, and in Chapter 1 we're already deep into the unfolding cosmic drama.
This plodding miniseries just limps along--well, how else do you turn a 218-page novel into a three-part miniseries?--wasting time with endless montages, reaction shots, and boring dialogue, filled with constant, irritating, unpleasant, buzzing music.
And by the way, it has NOTHING to do with Clarke's novel. I counted two scenes from the novel--and since it's impossible to screw up Arthur C. Clarke completely, those scenes were actually pretty good.
I guess I should watch parts 2 and 3 before I render a final verdict, but...holy HAL, I don't want to. Please, please no more...no more...
This is what I get for buying a blu-ray sight unseen. Maybe I'll suffer through the rest of it, maybe not. Either way, I'm selling it.
Anybody want my blu-ray of Childhood's End? You can have it for half-price. Or a dollar. Or for free.
__________________________
Just watched part 2 of Childhood's End. It was no better than part 1. (Why is it that the idiots making filmed sci-fi these days seem to think we've reached the absolute apex of fashion, and everyone in the universe from now until the end of time will be dressing the way we do today?)
I am seriously considering hunting down and shooting the people who made this trash. Nevertheless, I'll soldier on and watch part 3. I've come this far.
__________________________
Just watched part 3 of Childhood's End. It was moderately better than parts 1 and 2, because it at least had SOMETHING to do with the book, and we finally got a little bit of science fiction eye candy--though it was a little hard to care at this point. I was truly surprised that we saw Jan Rodricks' trip to the Overlords' planet; I was sure they were going to completely skip it, because putting it on screen requires some imagination and wonder. Granted, what we see on screen falls far, far short of the marvelous vista of the novel, but hey, food to a starving man.
Why is it that they had FOUR HOURS to explore Clarke's ideas and they barely, barely touched the surface of the novel? Why? WHY? Why did we spend interminable periods of characters staring at each other? Why did they introduce that bizarre plotline about Stormgren's illness, that had nothing to do with the story, made no sense, and wasn't in the book?
But I could get so bogged down in the "why"s that I'll just re-enter my spiral of fury and despair that I was in as I writhed through the entire miniseries. Why? Why? Why? Why the damn planes falling out of the sky in the beginning? Why all the *beep* clouds around the Overlords' ships? Why the stupid damn hotel room instead of the small silver chamber where Stormgren met with Karellen in the book? Why make Stormgren a farmer instead of the secretary-general? Why? Why? Why?
Listen. Attention all filmmakers. Arthur C. Clarke is a BETTER STORYTELLER THAN YOU! If you're adapting his work to the screen, let Arthur tell the story! Your job is to find a good cast, build some nice sets, and create some good special effects. But let Arthur lead the way. He knows what he's doing.
Let's look at some screen adaptations of Clarke.
The motion picture 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Twilight Zone episode "The Star" are really, really good. Why? Because they stuck with Arthur.
The movie of 2010 was half-good and half-bad. The good stuff comes from Arthur. The bad stuff, they deviated from Arthur.
Now, Trapped in Space and Childhood's End deviated from Arthur, and they sucked!
DON'T DEVIATE FROM ARTHUR! He does it best.
So as far as I'm concerned, Childhood's End has still never been filmed. I'm hoping some filmmaker out there takes the reigns and makes a good, spectacular, two-hour film that is a faithful adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's glorious novel.
On second thought, knowing the way the dipwads in Hollywood film science fiction these days, I hope they just keep their hands off Arthur. If you want to experience Arthur C. Clarke's stories, read them.
It pains me deeply that there are undoubtedly a lot of people who watched that stupid miniseries and assumed that's what the novel is like. Nice job, "SyFy," you turned an entire generation off of Arthur C. Clarke.
On the other hand, anyone who watches "SyFy" is probably illiterate, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[–] ant-mac 9 years ago

It sounds to me like you should re-read the novel CHILDHOOD'S END to flush out the unpleasant memories of the mini-series. If the problem persists, I would recommend THE CITY AND THE STARS, the ODYSSEY cycle and the RAMA cycle just for good measure.

If you still have unpleasant memories, watch the film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. After all, the best way to combat a bad audio / visual experience is to replace it with a good audio / visual experience. And 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is about as good as it gets... 

Although I'm not sure about your "paraphrasing" of Keir Dullea's line of dialogue.

"collinskocik-33106, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, collinskocik-33106. Will you stop, collinskocik-33106? Stop, collinskocik-33106. I'm afraid."

ant-mac

[–] collinskocik-33106 9 years ago

That's a good idea. Though actually I prefer Against the Fall of Night over The City and the Stars.

[–] ant-mac 9 years ago

"Though actually I prefer Against the Fall of Night over The City and the Stars."

That's fair enough. I also enjoy both.

However, I enjoy THE CITY AND THE STARS more, because I find that it is the more complete piece of work. I also enjoy THE SENTINEL, but again, I enjoy 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY more for much the same reason.

I find it interesting to follow the development and evolution of a concept from its initial beginnings as a short story through to its final form as a novel. In any case, each to their own.

ant-mac

[–] collinskocik-33106 9 years ago

A lot of Clarke's novels started out as short stories. Even Childhood's End, I was surprised to discover, started as a short story called "Guardian Angel"--which Clarke couldn't get published, so he had it ghostwritten by James Blish! It almost verbatim became the first third of Childhood's End. I'd be very interested in reading Clarke's original unpublished version, but I imagine it doesn't exist anymore.

The Songs of Distant Earth, The Deep Range, The Hammer of God, Earthlight, and The Ghost From the Grand Banks all started as short stories of the same title. I was particularly intrigued by The Songs of Distant Earth, which is probably my all-time favorite novel. The original short story is similarly heartbreaking.

"The Sentinel" is magnificent. It's amazing how Clarke can pack such big ideas into such short stories. Although 2001 is more complete, and a more satisfying piece of science fiction, "The Sentinel" has ideas that didn't make their way into 2001.

(Yep, I'm a fan. I've read all of Clarke's novels and almost all of his short stories. Many of them several times.)

[–] ant-mac 9 years ago

“Yep, I'm a fan. I've read all of Clarke's novels and almost all of his short stories. Many of them several times.”

Snap.

My favourite ACC novel is RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA, followed by THE CITY AND THE STARS and CHILDHOOD'S END.

I also think highly of the ODYSSEY cycle, the rest of the RAMA cycle and several others, including THE SONGS OF DISTANT EARTH.

In fact, the only ACC novel that I’ve never really cared for is CRADLE. I've read it twice and I've tried to like it - but I just can’t. I enjoy the off-Earth sections very much, but the Earthbound sections - and the main characters in those sections - irritate the crap out of me.

As for ACC’s short story collection… There are simply too many to list here, but I've enjoyed them all. I will however, make some honourable mentions…

A MEETING WITH MEDUSA, THE SENTINEL, THE NINE BILLION NAMES OF GOD, THE WIND FROM THE SUN, JUPITER FIVE, THE LION OF COMARRE, HIDE-AND-SEEK, THE AWAKENING, BEFORE EDEN and EXILE OF THE EONS.

Of course, I feel terrible about the ones I had to leave out, but such is life.

ant-mac

[–] moviemann2002 9 years ago

Sounds like you went into the mini-series with ideas already in place. One critique of Clarke in his early work is that his humans were not very human - very stale.

Look at the difference between the 1st Rama and Hammer of God - the crew is much more fleshed out in Hammer. Heck, even the Rama series the humans are really human.

Childhood's End is a once in a lifetime book but it, like 2001 had robots and funny enough, Kubrick captured Clarke's humans perfectly in 2001 ASO.

Do you watch 2001 and go "Wow, that acting is fantastic!" No, you marvel at the early effects, the story as a whole, and the wonders that Clarke has introduced.

The mini-series added humanity to Childhood's End. I found it very enjoyable knowing that the novel couldn't really be put on screen. Charles Dance was awesome.

All in all a very enjoyable viewing. The only thing I didn't like was the first scene - not necessary and it "gave it away"

I have a t-shirt that exclaims "The Book Was Better" but that doesn't mean the movie stinks. Only one movie is better than the book IMHO - Blade Runner

Arthur C Clarke does has his book snob/fans, and that is okay.

Question: Why'd you watch it?

I wanted to be a Nazi after I saw Ralph Fiennes performance in Schindler's List." - Bsnarkle 1/16

[–] collinskocik-33106 9 years ago

There was never any question of my watching it. I've wanted to see Childhood's End and Rendezvous With Rama brought to the screen for my entire adult life. I really don't see that I'm being unreasonable in wanting a movie of Childhood's End to bring Childhood's End to the screen with at least SOME fidelity. We can disagree about how interesting the miniseries is; I found the characters' personal stories irrelevant, unimaginative, and dull. But that's just me. More disturbingly, the novel's huge ideas were completely, completely lost.

I couldn't help thinking about V, in which every chance they get the camera points up to show the world dominated by those vast motherships. In the Childhood's End miniseries, the camera only occasionally, grudgingly shows a glimpse of the Overlord ships, but usually fastidiously pointing downward toward human affairs. I kept thinking of that line from Interstellar: "We used to look up and ponder our place in the universe. Now we look down and worry about our place in dirt."

That said, the characterization of Karellen was spot-on, at least in Part One. And the makeup was excellent. Not only was it very convincing, but stirred that visceral terror that Clarke was getting at. But that was pretty much the only thing I liked about the miniseries.

I know changes almost always have to be made when adapting a book into a movie, and sometimes some highly successful movies have strayed far from the book--the 1931 Frankstein is a seminal example. In this case, though, Childhood's End is an idea book, and you have to stick close to the book in order to adequately explore the ideas. It still amazes me that in a three-part miniseries, they scarcely scratched the surface. Why did we spend so much time looking at characters sitting around looking sad? There were times I would swear I could get up, have lunch, wash the dishes, and go the bathroom, and I would come back to same boring montage of people sitting around staring at each other. Not only did it have little to nothing to do with the book, but it bored me to death.

Ordinarily I would just forget about a movie I didn't like and not bug other people about it, but I was so looking forward to Childhood's End, I can't help but be angry and resentful and to shout my opinion to the world.

(I do think on rare occasion the movie is better than the book: Logan's Run, A Clockwork Orange, Jaws--though those books are still awesome...)

[–] moviemann2002 9 years ago

Perhaps it was a budget issue so the sci-fi element was left behind? I don't know.

Rama would be very interesting to see. Didn't Morgan Freeman try to get that one started?

(I do think on rare occasion the movie is better than the book: Logan's Run, A Clockwork Orange, Jaws--though those books are still awesome...)

Wow, I'm going to agree with you on those counts!

I wanted to be a Nazi after I saw Ralph Fiennes performance in Schindler's List." - Bsnarkle 1/16

[–] weejockxxx 9 years ago

Oh my stars you have written a much better comment than I could have hoped to. You said all the things I wanted to say. I wanted so much to like this dross but was ultimately disappointed. I'm scared as hell that some prat will try to film 'City and the Stars' because they will totally bollux it up like they did this. Thank you, Collinskocik for saving me the trouble of doing this. You write better than the filmmakers do. All praise.

Oh gravity, thou art a heartless bitch!

[–] ltarex 9 years ago

Beautiful prose of Arthur C. Clarke? Seriously? That guy couldn't write. He was an awesome futurist and a wonderful science fiction author, who penned some of the genre's most important works. But his prose was... honestly... pretty awkwardly done and childish.

If you want beautiful prose, read Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy or Steinbeck.

"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel." 

[–] thetheeyecreature 9 years ago

I prefer Pushkin to Tolstoy.

Much as I love Clarke, I have to admit you're partly right. And, to be fair, not many of the science fiction writers I grew up with were prose writers. But that's not always the point.

Isaac Asimov (who'll never be mistaken for F. Scott Fitzgerald as a prose stylist) wrote an excellent essay on the subject, in which he defended science fiction as a branch of literature, pointing out that while sf often wasn't remarkable for style or depth of characterization (with some notable exceptions, e.g., "The Stars My Destination"), it absolutely excels in what he called Background -- that is, creating a world different from our day-to-day world, and making it seem real.

"Childhood's End" was one of those books that had been optioned (for movie development) since before I was born, and I didn't think it'd ever actually be adapted. When it finally was, the result seemed dull to me -- maybe because it ironically seemed derivative, following as it did upon decades of tv and movie productions that all owed something to Clarke's novel.

So we have an adaptation of source material that's overshadowed by previous derivative works. Same thing happened with the recent movie adaptation of Richard Matheson's seminal 1957 novel "I Am Legend".

"The truth 24 times a second."

[–] greyson-forkturner 9 years ago

Thank you collinskocik - well said.