El fin de la infancia

Now that the Syfy Channel has released Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" as a six hour miniseries, it is fair to compare it to the classic novel, but it should be judged on its own merits. I am pleased to say that all but one half hour is quite exciting and suspenseful. That half hour, which is near the end, suffers from bad editing.

The story combines science fiction with what could be called elements of supernaturalism, depending up on how you interpret it. Regardless, the story is captivating. With every revelation, there are even greater mysteries to be revealed--something that is unusual in fiction.

I don't want to reveal much of the story and rob anyone of the powerful surprises in "Childhood's End" and the thrill of living the story through the characters, but the story starts with occurrences that affect the lives of everyone on Earth. The narrative follows the lives of a small number of people, showing how their lives are changed and the challenges they face. Clarke's story is rife with religious imagery and symbolism. While he was an atheist, his earlier stories are filled with supernatural elements. "Childhood's End" includes some that are reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey"--the work he is best known for.

How does one grade a work that is 85% awesome? That's a matter of opinion. But I hope the show gets plenty of viewers, because it is provocative--even sixty years after it was written. And it might encourage some to read about Clarke's notable career as a writer.

Science fiction meets religion meets the universe in an unlikely tale that is Childhoods End.

Based on the work of science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke this mini series melds notions of science and religion in a clever apocalyptic tale of human evolution.

Irrespective of whether you like Clarke's work (I personally find him a little too abstract at times) or not, this is a polished series. The premise is well established and the narrative, for the most part faithfully follows Clarke's imaginings.

I personally found this series oddly touching. It taps into the essence of what it means to be human. To be loved, to be remembered, to exist. The choice of cast is spot on. There are some very good actors who commit their talents to this series.

Is there a downside? This is one of those instances where it really depends who much you like or dislike Clarke's work. Unlike 2001 A Space Odyssey, which bored me to tears, this series kept my attention and held it. Its a very human drama as much as its science fiction.

I give this series an eight out of ten. You can make up your own mind.

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 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 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.