Sigh-fy.

Judge not this race by empty remains
Do you judge God by his creatures when they are dead?
For now, the lizard's shed its tail
This is the end of man's long union with earth.

Genesis, Watcher Of The Skies

Thanks to the magic of PVR, I've just finished watching the three-part Syfy adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End. Although I'm disappointed by their interpretation of this 1953 SF classic, I can appreciate what they were attempting to do with their changes to the story.  Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that they succeeded.

For the most part, Clarke's writing concentrates on carefully thought out and logical stories dealing with space exploration or science, such as The Fountains of Paradise, A Fall of Moondust, or Rendezvous with Rama.  Sometimes he combines this focus on hard science with an element of metaphysical mysticism - 2001: A Space Odyssey and its ambiguous conclusion would be a good example.

Childhood's End is a bit of a departure for Clarke, in that it deals less with science and more with spirituality.  The story begins with the arrival of gigantic menacing starships that take up strategic positions over all of Earth's major cities à la Independence Day.  However, these visitors are not invaders.  Calling themselves the Overlords, their spokesperson Karellen announces that they are there to take control over human affairs on a global basis, and to channel Mankind's energies into positive pursuits - no more wars, no more crime, no more violence against each other or the innocent creatures with whom humanity shares the planet.

The Overlords graphically demonstrate their ability to enforce their control through episodes like making everyone at a Spanish bullfight feel the picador's spear as it enters the body of the bull, or by blotting out all sunlight over South Africa.

Over time, resistance to their rule comes to an end as the world begins to realize how much better life has become.  However, in spite of all entreaties and demands, the Overlords refuse to reveal their physical appearances until after fifty years on Earth, at which time Karellen takes his first public steps onto the surface.  This first appearance clearly explains the reasons for their long concealment,* but the delay has allowed the people of Earth to become more enlightened and accepting, and the moment of crisis passes.

At this point, humanity has entered a golden age of enlightenment and leisure. But there are always those who are restless, who are unable to ignore the mysteries of the universe.  One of these people is Jan Rodricks, a young man who is fixated on the origins of the Overlords.  By concealing himself in a full-sized model of a whale, Rodricks is able to make his way to the homeworld of the Overlords, albeit by paying a time-debt of 80 years.

Upon his return, he finds humanity as he remembers it to be gone, its children having evolved into a new form of life shortly after his departure. The climax of the novel deals with the transition of this new version of humanity into its final state.*

Syfy's adaptation of this tale of evolutionary apotheosis seems to have lost an awful lot in translation. It's a bit like someone read the book while drunk, and then described the plot to the screenwriters a week later.  The sequence of events is altered, characters are added or removed, people keep their names but change drastically otherwise, or lose their names and sort of stay the same.**

It's possible that they were attempting to humanize the story - as a writer, Clarke is not always at his best when dealing with the subtleties of relationships - but to me, the changes added nothing to the original, although I was intrigued by the religious elements that they introduced into the plot.

However, when all was said and done, I was more confused than anything else, either in spite of or because of my knowledge of the book.  Although I think that the strength of the original concept helped to make the adaptation work, ultimately there were just too many holes and inconsistencies.

The next question is: do I want to see what Syfy is doing with - or to - the Expanse series? Perhaps - but I may well be happier just letting sleeping adaptations lie.

- Sid

* Dorothy, I know you already know the story, but I'm still doing my best to avoid spoilers for the rest of the world.

** Why on earth - no pun intended - would they feel the need to change Jan Rodricks to Milo Rodricks? Or change one of the final fathers of humanity from George to Jake, and from a set designer to a golf course architect?  Not to mention making an American farmer the sole direct contact with the Overlords rather than the secretary general of the United Nations - although they did at least keep his name the same.

First Contact.

 

It's December 24th, and while the rest of the world celebrates Christmas Eve, my gorgeous girlfriend Karli and I are also commemorating the start of our correspondence through blog comments which would eventually lead to our first date - not exactly Tinder™, but it worked for us.

- Sid

Insert Android OS joke here.

It's December 17th and tomorrow marks the North American release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  (To describe this event as "eagerly awaited" would be redundant.)

A fortunate few have attended press screenings and midnight showings, whereas the rest of us have had to remain content with the trailers.  Fortunately, the trailers have struck a good balance between revelation and suggestion - there have been broad hints, but very little in the way of specifics.

However, the visuals themselves are wonderful:  crashed Imperial cruisers, battles with the next generation of stormtroopers, the Millennium Falcon in flight, epic aerial dogfights between the iconic ships from the original trilogy...wait, what?

Okay, let's assume that the time lapse in the Star Wars universe is congruent to the years gone by in the real world - in other words, Han Solo is about 40 years older* than he was during the events of the first film.

Compare the technology of 1914 with that of 1945, or 1945 to 1985: Sopwith Camels to Spitfires, Spitfires to F18s.  War is one of the great drivers of technological development, and yet the previews show what appears to be X-Wings locked in aerial combat with TIE fighters.**

How odd that in four decades, nothing has changed!   Even the despised prequels acknowledge that there was different technology in the days when Obi-Wan Kenobi was a young man, and yet, under the relentless lash of armed conflict, neither the Rebellion or the Empire (if that's still what the duelling polities call themselves, the trailers aren't explicit) has improved on their hardware? Other than through the introduction of plasma quillons for lightsabers?

For that matter, I gather that C-3PO is in the new movie.  My god, C-3PO was built by the young Anakin Skywalker - by the contemporary standards of The Force Awakens, he might as well be steam powered.  Let's see, it's generally assumed that Darth Vader was 45 when he died...he built C-3PO when he was nine... Computers from 25 years ago are useless antiques in our world, how would they be able to maintain a homemade 76 year old android?

- Sid

* And he certainly looks it in the previews.  Nothing personal, Harrison.

** This is odd all on its own.  Generally civil wars are fought with more or less the same weapons on both sides, although not always - interestingly, the American Civil War supports both sides of this argument.  How is it that the Rebellion has such completely different spaceships?

Also for wearing those outfits.

 

Cowards die many times before their deaths,
The valiant never taste of death but once.

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

I'd like to pay tribute to Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, two women of such incredible confidence and courage that, given all of time itself from which to make their selection, chose to release their latest movie in head-to-head competition with Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Ladies, you have my respect.

- Sid