I had very high expectations for this movie/film/mini-series. I am a huge fan of "Classic" Science Fiction, and "Childhood's End" is my favorite Sci-Fi novel, Ever. I've been waiting 40 years to see this movie. I'm very pleased to have finally seen this story made into a film, and I did enjoy most of it. I found the first part/episode (of three parts/episodes) to be the most true to the original story. After that, the movie slid backwards a little, but not terribly so.
If you've read the book, and especially if you do enjoy the classic, more cerebral style of science fiction, you'll probably have mixed emotions about the movie. The film remains very true (not completely true) to the concept and basic plot of the movie. That was very important to me. I haven't watched a film adaptation of a classic Sci-Fi novel in almost 20 years... ever since I saw that ridiculous abomination, "Starship Troopers." I remember thinking, "I don't think the screenwriters or the director read the book"... and I was right. The director openly admitted that he never read the book. Other than ripping off the title and the names of the characters, "Starship Troopers" is completely unrelated to anything in the book. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I quickly realized that "Childhood's End" was not similarly written and produced by individuals with IQs smaller than their shoe sizes.
If you watch this film thinking it's going to be "Star Wars" or post-Original Series "Star Trek", you're going to be severely disappointed. There's not a single Death Star, Laser, or Photon Torpedo in this movie. Go watch "Transformers 9, the Quest for More Explosions", instead.
The major differences, in my opinion, between the movie and the book are:
1) Personal/Romantic/Family relationships are more detailed in the film, and get a lot of "screen time." Clarke was never particularly good at character development... or maybe he just didn't think that it was necessary to his stories. In the film, there's a lot of time spent on relationship stuff, which is supposed to enhance the dramatic impact of the climax of the story, when the secret of the alien "invasion" is revealed.
2) A lot more attention is given to the Religious aspect of the story. Although the Christian God and The Devil are important concepts in the book, the movie ramps it up a bit.
3) Although it's only for a few moments, the movie gives the impression that the Overlords are directly involved in the evolution of Humanity. The book depicts them as observers and caretakers only. In the book, Humanity is ready to evolve, and the Overlords are on Earth simply to prevent Humanity from interfering with its own evolution, and to observe the process of that evolution. The Overlords, in the book, are essentially Cosmic Guardians and Librarians. They take a more active role in the film.
4) A lot of things are "Dumbed Down" in the film, I suppose to attract at least a few more viewers -- those who like everything to be explained to them. For example, in the film, the only mention made of Why the Overlords appear to be Devils or Demons is one character's statement, "They've been here before." The book's explanation is a bit more intricate... Humans have a "Racial or Species Memory" of the Overlords, and associate that memory with the end of the Human Race. Therefore, Humanity associates the physical appearance of the Overlords as the image of Ultimate Evil. Since Humanity does evolve beyond its 4-dimensional existence, time is meaningless for those "Racial/Species Memories." Humanity, as a Species, subconsciously remembers the Overlords from its own "Future", and the arrival of the Overlords heralds the end of Humanity and the destruction of Earth. It's worth noting that no religious text describes the Devil's physical appearance... that's entirely a construct of writers of fiction.
There are several scenes in the movie which appear to me to be blatant attempts to increase the drama, which is unnecessary, in my opinion.
My personal vote for Best Actor in this film goes to Charles Dance (Karellen). His portrayal of a sad, yet comforting Overlord is very convincing and adds a lot to the story. If you don't really keep up with the story, you'll miss the significance of this. The Overlords are little more than Slaves, who are forever forbidden/prevented from evolving to a higher state of existence. They exist only to serve a higher power, and seem to experience great despair in witnessing the pain and eventual destruction of species like their own -- those who "cannot follow" their children in that higher state. Charles Dance does an exceptional job of expressing this... even his smiles (rare) are somehow sad. He's like a doctor witnessing the last days of a dying cancer patient.
If you've read the book, and especially if you do enjoy the classic, more cerebral style of science fiction, you'll probably have mixed emotions about the movie. The film remains very true (not completely true) to the concept and basic plot of the movie. That was very important to me. I haven't watched a film adaptation of a classic Sci-Fi novel in almost 20 years... ever since I saw that ridiculous abomination, "Starship Troopers." I remember thinking, "I don't think the screenwriters or the director read the book"... and I was right. The director openly admitted that he never read the book. Other than ripping off the title and the names of the characters, "Starship Troopers" is completely unrelated to anything in the book. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I quickly realized that "Childhood's End" was not similarly written and produced by individuals with IQs smaller than their shoe sizes.
If you watch this film thinking it's going to be "Star Wars" or post-Original Series "Star Trek", you're going to be severely disappointed. There's not a single Death Star, Laser, or Photon Torpedo in this movie. Go watch "Transformers 9, the Quest for More Explosions", instead.
The major differences, in my opinion, between the movie and the book are:
1) Personal/Romantic/Family relationships are more detailed in the film, and get a lot of "screen time." Clarke was never particularly good at character development... or maybe he just didn't think that it was necessary to his stories. In the film, there's a lot of time spent on relationship stuff, which is supposed to enhance the dramatic impact of the climax of the story, when the secret of the alien "invasion" is revealed.
2) A lot more attention is given to the Religious aspect of the story. Although the Christian God and The Devil are important concepts in the book, the movie ramps it up a bit.
3) Although it's only for a few moments, the movie gives the impression that the Overlords are directly involved in the evolution of Humanity. The book depicts them as observers and caretakers only. In the book, Humanity is ready to evolve, and the Overlords are on Earth simply to prevent Humanity from interfering with its own evolution, and to observe the process of that evolution. The Overlords, in the book, are essentially Cosmic Guardians and Librarians. They take a more active role in the film.
4) A lot of things are "Dumbed Down" in the film, I suppose to attract at least a few more viewers -- those who like everything to be explained to them. For example, in the film, the only mention made of Why the Overlords appear to be Devils or Demons is one character's statement, "They've been here before." The book's explanation is a bit more intricate... Humans have a "Racial or Species Memory" of the Overlords, and associate that memory with the end of the Human Race. Therefore, Humanity associates the physical appearance of the Overlords as the image of Ultimate Evil. Since Humanity does evolve beyond its 4-dimensional existence, time is meaningless for those "Racial/Species Memories." Humanity, as a Species, subconsciously remembers the Overlords from its own "Future", and the arrival of the Overlords heralds the end of Humanity and the destruction of Earth. It's worth noting that no religious text describes the Devil's physical appearance... that's entirely a construct of writers of fiction.
There are several scenes in the movie which appear to me to be blatant attempts to increase the drama, which is unnecessary, in my opinion.
My personal vote for Best Actor in this film goes to Charles Dance (Karellen). His portrayal of a sad, yet comforting Overlord is very convincing and adds a lot to the story. If you don't really keep up with the story, you'll miss the significance of this. The Overlords are little more than Slaves, who are forever forbidden/prevented from evolving to a higher state of existence. They exist only to serve a higher power, and seem to experience great despair in witnessing the pain and eventual destruction of species like their own -- those who "cannot follow" their children in that higher state. Charles Dance does an exceptional job of expressing this... even his smiles (rare) are somehow sad. He's like a doctor witnessing the last days of a dying cancer patient.