Errant of Patha
GateFans Member
Personally I do not mind the minor changes and shorted timeline, the story and meaning from the book remained the same.
Childhood's End on SyFy - A mixed bag
- Thread starter Joelist
- Start date
Personally I do not mind the minor changes and shorted timeline, the story and meaning from the book remained the same.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
We're still trying to figure out the "story" and "meaning". Seriously dude, what the hell was that show about???
We're still trying to figure out the "story" and "meaning". Seriously dude, what the hell was that show about???
You really owe it to yourself to read the books. Imagine an epic-scale story something like Independence Day, only the aliens do not come to destroy earth they come to control it (like the way the United States controls weaker nations it considers to be a threat). The Overlords dictate to earth what is acceptable and what is not. The whole thing takes place after World War II but before the modern era of computers (it was written in the early 1950s). It is similar to Earth Final Conflict in that way. The Overlords do not reveal themselves physically for decades. Human children start displaying strange powers after the arrival of the Overlords too.
Telekenetic powers. When the overlords reveal themselves, they look like demons with hooves and shit. Then it comes to light that the overlords themselves are controlled by the Overmind which is an extremely powerful and nearly omnipotent force, yet not really the concept of "God". They keep this purposely vague and never quite explain it, but it is fascinating to try and understand the motivations of the Overmind. I am not watching this series because these novels have a special meaning for me and seeing a dumb shortened version of it would just disgust me.
Trivia:
Childhood's End and 2001: A Space Odyssey are closely related in concept (even if Kubrick had his own take on the concept).
That's the thing. I understand Shaved's problem here. The miniseries by compressing the timeline messed up the plot somewhat as the notion of the Overlords not revealing themselves until most of those alive had either been born after their arrival or were just little kids at the time is lost - and it was key.
Add in that they explain the Overmind even less in the mini than the book, losing the detached tone with all the melodrama around Ricky Stromgren (in the mini) the ham handed religion plot in the mini and confusion ensues.
Add in that they explain the Overmind even less in the mini than the book, losing the detached tone with all the melodrama around Ricky Stromgren (in the mini) the ham handed religion plot in the mini and confusion ensues.
Errant of Patha
GateFans Member
We're still trying to figure out the "story" and "meaning". Seriously dude, what the hell was that show about???
Look to the imagery Clarke portrayed in the Overmind and Overlords. The Overmind as stated in the mini and book is the creator of life in the universe, the cosmic mind of the universe, sending out its plan(aka God). On Earth the plan was interpreted as Religion. As humans evolved the interpretation changed to finally we get the Overlords from Angels to demons, that signaled to the Overmind it was time to harvest humanity. This is where the Brouhaha from the Religious minded comes from, why did Clarke use Christian imagery in the book about the end of the Earth with the Devil working with God to end humanity. The Religious minded will use all manner of deflection to say Clark did not mean it as Christian imagery.
IMO the shorting of the mini a generation does not take away from the meaning of the book, in the mini all of humanity accepts the Overlords with a few dissenting, same as the book. Both in the mini and book the Overlords wanted to get rid of human curiosity and intellect, have just blind faith in the Overminds plan, this through the Overminds helpers the Overlords. (think, the Garden of Eden, live in ignorance with blind faith, or question all with intelligence) When the Overlords first arrived Karellen says it's your choice to do or not to do. (I'm paraphrasing) When in the barn in the mini Karellen was asked by Peretta why have you done this, Karellen answers, you did this to yourselves.
The Meaning(as least to me) is Clarke's asking a what if. What if we got Religion wrong? Would have choosing knowledge saved Earth and humanity?
Hi!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Back to the topic....
I have the book too. And it simply does not dive as deeply into this as you are doing. The "religious" reaction took up a single sentence. And yes the generational timeline was a part of the overall narrative, as it made the pretty easy reception of the revelation of the Overlords sensible in the context of the story.
Also, if one just goes by the mini without the book it makes even less sense. This is where them giving into the desire for personal drama hurts the mini. The book was quite specific about the reason they waited fifty years. The mini having them wait fifteen years made no sense at all especially as the question of "why" was not addressed really at all.
Did Clarke use "Christian" (more specifically Catholic / Anglican) imagery? Of course he did. Was it central to the story? That's more debatable. The story (in the book) was much more about mankind entering as new stage in its development where it shed physical form (joining the Overmind) and the Overlords role in this event. A side story was the Overlords serving the Overmind despite knowing they never will be able to join it.
Was it "okay"? I guess so. It was okay to watch once. I can't see myself watching it again.
Errant of Patha
GateFans Member
Happy new Year to you.
I was going to do a word-y reply, but decided not to. With Clarke's use of Christian imagery many believed he was bashing their Religion for turning the beliefs upside down. The book is not anti-Christian, but a look at Gods plan in a different light.
Overmind= creator of all life
Heaven= joining with the Overmind
Garden of Eden= Free will exposed
The Overlords= What happens when beings choose knowledge
As for the mini, how many people in this day and age have read the book?
I reckon that very few today have read the book. I have. I even had to do a paper on it. That's why I am cautious about taking things from the book further than Clarke did in the book. It also may be why the compressed timeline and ham handed handling of "religious reaction" stuck out as badly to me as they did, although I would note several of us here noted the same issues and come to it from different perspectives.
Errant of Patha
GateFans Member
This is why Clarke is one of the best writers, he let the readers imagination fill in the blanks(unlike Tolkien), he used the Christian imagery and the reader did the rest. How many times did Clarke dot the i's and cross the t's for the reader?