Adapting well-known sci-fi novels is a no-win scenario, which is probably why we rarely see it attempted. Simply put, the imagination of your average sci-fi writer still outstrips anything that can be reasonably produced given today's limitations of special effects and budgets. Add to the mix the fact that you're making a TV movie for a cable company, and you do have to ask yourself "why do they bother?" since such a venture is guaranteed to anger fans of the book.
Looking at the reviews here, it is safe to say that those familiar with the books are not satisfied, while those who have never read the books seem on the whole to enjoy it.
I fall into the latter category. I had heard of Riverworld, but had never read the books until after seeing this movie. I thought the film was entertaining, well-acted, and with enough action to keep it interesting. It has "pilot" written all over it, though it will be hard-pressed to avoid being called a Lost World clone.
Having now read the first Riverworld novel, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, I can see where the producers have taken considerable liberties. Some changes were necessary - in the book, most characters are naked throughout; some changes are understandable - the American astronaut in the film replaces Richard Burton the author in order to Americanize the tale for US audiences, and the alien in the film is not responsible for destroying Earth as the alien in the novel is. Some changes make less sense, such as killing off the caveman early on - in the book he's a major character, and adding the perhaps more-dramatic aspect of people being "reborn" in the water.
But I've seen worse, less-faithful adaptations of science fiction novels. Riverworld isn't a classic, but it is entertaining and worth watching whether you have read the books or not.
Most importantly, as a scan of the IMDb reviews along with my own experience indicate, the movie has done good in that it has inspired people to seek out Farmer's novels. That makes the film worthy right there.
Looking at the reviews here, it is safe to say that those familiar with the books are not satisfied, while those who have never read the books seem on the whole to enjoy it.
I fall into the latter category. I had heard of Riverworld, but had never read the books until after seeing this movie. I thought the film was entertaining, well-acted, and with enough action to keep it interesting. It has "pilot" written all over it, though it will be hard-pressed to avoid being called a Lost World clone.
Having now read the first Riverworld novel, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, I can see where the producers have taken considerable liberties. Some changes were necessary - in the book, most characters are naked throughout; some changes are understandable - the American astronaut in the film replaces Richard Burton the author in order to Americanize the tale for US audiences, and the alien in the film is not responsible for destroying Earth as the alien in the novel is. Some changes make less sense, such as killing off the caveman early on - in the book he's a major character, and adding the perhaps more-dramatic aspect of people being "reborn" in the water.
But I've seen worse, less-faithful adaptations of science fiction novels. Riverworld isn't a classic, but it is entertaining and worth watching whether you have read the books or not.
Most importantly, as a scan of the IMDb reviews along with my own experience indicate, the movie has done good in that it has inspired people to seek out Farmer's novels. That makes the film worthy right there.