riverworld TV series?

[showboat]

Seems to be a try on a Tv series with

Riverworld is a fictional universe and the setting for a series of science fiction books written by Philip José Farmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld

maybe by the people produced fringe or lost: a long ride on a mystery horse with no clear ending and maybe canceled through lack of watchers interest.

[showboat]

Behind the Walls of Terra (World of Tiers 2) might be a better series.

[mike alexander]

I started watching it. To borrow Twain's observation, two hours later twenty minutes had passed. I turned it off and found a book.

[Daffy]

I didn't last 10 minutes with it. I can only assume Syfy is run by incredible ego maniacs who think they can "improve" literary classics. This was as bad or worse than the Earthsea abomination they produced. I mean even the landscape was entirely wrong!!!!

[showboat]

I started watching it. To borrow Twain's observation, two hours later twenty minutes had passed. I turned it off and found a book.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/...s-of-terra.htm

[swampyankee]

I didn't last 10 minutes with it. I can only assume Syfy is run by incredible ego maniacs who think they can "improve" literary classics. This was as bad or worse than the Earthsea abomination they produced. I mean even the landscape was entirely wrong!!!!

Wow! You must have an incredibly strong stomach; I lasted about 5 minutes, and I was watching TV while washing dishes. The SyFy (Spectaculary, Fearfully execrable network) has managed to make some of the worst adaptations of good sf ever seen. The people running it are probably so egotistical they even think they have good taste.

[Daffy]

Wow! You must have an incredibly strong stomach; I lasted about 5 minutes, and I was watching TV while washing dishes. The SyFy (Spectaculary, Fearfully execrable network) has managed to make some of the worst adaptations of good sf ever seen. The people running it are probably so egotistical they even think they have good taste.

Some of the changes they make don't even make twisted sense! If they are so convinced the books they license are garbage, why do they buy them in the first place? I have to say my favorite remains Earthsea where they reversed Ged's "Use Name" and "True Name" for no apparent reason. What kind of an ego would one have to have to do that?!?!

But, still, with Riverworld I really couldn't last long enough for even that level of detail. The most basic part of the series is that it is impossible to scale the sheer cliffs around the river...with this version, the gently slopping hills looked like a fantastic place to take the whole family for a backpacking trip or a picnic. Bleccch.

edited to add
Slopping hills, Gracie? One of my more amusing misspellings.

[showboat]

Sin city as tV series is a good comic try.

[Krel]

It is hard to believe, but they managed to make an even worse version, than they did the first time.

David.

[Jim]

I managed a few minutes here and there... wishful thinking it would get better coupled with slack-jawed wonder that it was really that bad. Like, making the book's main good guy the movie's main bad guy.

[swampyankee]

I do hope his estate got enough money to assuage their guilt feelings at causing Philip Jose Farmer to spin very, very rapidly in his grave.

[Solfe]

Darn it! I wanted to try this one because Tahmoh Penikett was in it. I really liked him in BSG.

The first try at Riverworld was a little painful, likely because I didn't realize they were killing a good book.

Solfe

[Van Rijn]

It is hard to believe, but they managed to make an even worse version, than they did the first time.

David.

I thought it was a little better than the last version (from 2003 or so). That isn't to say it was good. The acting was pretty bad.

It's been a very long time since I read any of the Riverworld books, and I don't think I finished the series. I remember the general concept but few details, so the issue for me is more about the show rather than how it compares to the book series.

Now if they did the World of Tiers series, I might notice more (I liked that more, and read it more recently).

[showboat]

i agree with everyone.

The only good thing about it is a movie was never produced based on individual personal favorite.

I won't tell you mine, but like some says spending[12] hours of viewing time watching the actors figure the situation out might have worked in Lost.

And if in prison for 2o years and smoking marijuana might have a interest.

but I given up on any idea a movie is going do mine[favorite author] and thankful for it.

[mike alexander]

I thought it was a little better than the last version (from 2003 or so). That isn't to say it was good. The acting was pretty bad.

It's been a very long time since I read any of the Riverworld books, and I don't think I finished the series. I remember the general concept but few details, so the issue for me is more about the show rather than how it compares to the book series.

Now if they did the World of Tiers series, I might notice more (I liked that more, and read it more recently).

I thought the first two books of the series were good. After that it slid downhill for me.

[Paul Beardsley]

I was going to wade in and defend it, thinking you were all talking about the one from 2003 (was it really that long ago?). So, they're remade it already? Wow!

[mike alexander]

I was going to wade in and defend it, thinking you were all talking about the one from 2003 (was it really that long ago?). So, they're remade it already? Wow!

I think 'remade' might be a bit strong.

Probably unfair to judge 4 hours from the first 15-20 minutes, but if I see the can is bulging the peaches inside are probably bad.

[Fazor]

I'm not familiar with Riverworld, other than I knew it was a fairly well known Scifi novel. It was just funny that when we saw the commercial for it, me and my g/f had the same thought at the same time; wouldn't a world of rivers just be a regular world, as in order to have a river one must have land for the river to pass through?

And just because I don't want to start a new thread, and because I love SyFy bashing ("Mega Piranha"? Really??); I was quite concerned to find they had picked up a series we actually watch, which is "Merlin". I like the actors and I like the different look at the whole Merlin / King Arthur (as young Merlin the wizard in training, hiding a regime that oppresses magic, and the young prince Arthur). Even if it's not how the legend goes, it was a good show. So far it's still on the rails, from the new episodes I've seen anyway. I'm not expecting it to stay that way though.

[Daffy]

I'm not familiar with Riverworld, other than I knew it was a fairly well known Scifi novel. It was just funny that when we saw the commercial for it, me and my g/f had the same thought at the same time; wouldn't a world of rivers just be a regular world, as in order to have a river one must have land for the river to pass through?

It's an artificially created world of one river that meanders back and forth across the globe; it has sheer cliffs that are absolutely impossible to climb. So, basically, the entire planet is one one big river canyon, where all of humanity has been placed after death to confront their karmic flaws. It all sounds boring but isn't at all. As one critic astutely observed, with the Riverworld series it's not the destination, it's the journey along the way. That's referring to the series of books, btw, which are literary classics. The mini-series is a sad joke, poorly told.

As an aside, Farmer, tried for an intellectual, off beat ending with "The Magic Labyrinth," then thought better of it and had a more exciting ending in "The Gods of Riverworld." One which would be absolutely impossible to pull off with the changes SyFy already made to the story. I wonder if they even read the whole series? I am guessing not. Probably they merely read the dust cover blurbs.

[Fazor]

I wonder if they even read the whole series? I am guessing not. Probably they merely read the dust cover blurbs.

I think our mistake is thinking of SyFy as a network that's actually interested in the genre of science fiction. That may be our flaw, rather than theirs. My bet is that they just licensed the name because they knew it was a popular series--they couldn't care less about the story itself--they just bought the name for the sake of name recognition.

[Daffy]

I think our mistake is thinking of SyFy as a network that's actually interested in the genre of science fiction. That may be our flaw, rather than theirs. My bet is that they just licensed the name because they knew it was a popular series--they couldn't care less about the story itself--they just bought the name for the sake of name recognition.

That would certainly explain it!

[vonmazur]

I watched it, and was disguisted by their inability to tell Burton from Speake------ yuppie idiots!! They would have messed up Dune, but the heirs would not let them....

I wish they would do "J C on the Dude Ranch" and "Jungle Rot Kid on the Nod" not to mention "The Henry Miller Dawn Patrol"

I also wish that Hollywood yuppies would have to pass a Literary IQ test to produce this stuff....

Dale

[Fazor]

I also wish that Hollywood yuppies would have to pass a Literary IQ test to produce this stuff....
Dale

Well, I think you just secured MY vote should you ever decide to run for president.

[JustAFriend]

I kinda liked the previous version, but couldn't watch this one.

[Daffy]

I watched it, and was disguisted by their inability to tell Burton from Speake------ yuppie idiots!! They would have messed up Dune, but the heirs would not let them....

I wish they would do "J C on the Dude Ranch" and "Jungle Rot Kid on the Nod" not to mention "The Henry Miller Dawn Patrol"

I also wish that Hollywood yuppies would have to pass a Literary IQ test to produce this stuff....

Dale

I think Ron Jeremy would have to star in the Henry Miller Dawn Patrol!

[Swordsman]

If there is one thing I have learned on these forums it's that for people that are supposed to be open minded and consider all possibilitys, a lot of si fi people are staid and closed minded when it comes to tv/movies versus books. There are very few tv shows or movies that resemble the original written vehicles. The last one that comes to mind is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most are very loosely based on premise and accuracy of the original. The series Legend of the Seeker bears minimal resemblance to the Sword of Truth series storyline...Merlin is very loosely is based on "The Crystal Cave and it's sequels This is true for most literary works turned into visual media. Tv shows and movies are not geared for the written devotees but for the masses who probably never heard of the original story. Recognizing what this mini-series was produced and filmed for did entertain me and I would watch more of it as a series. Was I satisfied with all aspects...no. just as the redo of Battlestar Galactica and other remakes and treatments has left me scratching my head in some respects but they have all had merit. Mainly I am not a believer in cliffhanger endings especially of a production that is uncertain of it's continuation but that's just me. But through it all I refuse to close off my mind and and put a lock on anyone else's creative efforts.

[Doodler]

If there is one thing I have learned on these forums it's that for people that are supposed to be open minded and consider all possibilitys, a lot of si fi people are staid and closed minded when it comes to tv/movies versus books. There are very few tv shows or movies that resemble the original written vehicles. The last one that comes to mind is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most are very loosely based on premise and accuracy of the original. The series Legend of the Seeker bears minimal resemblance to the Sword of Truth series storyline...Merlin is very loosely is based on "The Crystal Cave and it's sequels This is true for most literary works turned into visual media. Tv shows and movies are not geared for the written devotees but for the masses who probably never heard of the original story. Recognizing what this mini-series was produced and filmed for did entertain me and I would watch more of it as a series. Was I satisfied with all aspects...no. just as the redo of Battlestar Galactica and other remakes and treatments has left me scratching my head in some respects but they have all had merit. Mainly I am not a believer in cliffhanger endings especially of a production that is uncertain of it's continuation but that's just me. But through it all I refuse to close off my mind and and put a lock on anyone else's creative efforts.

Given the typically secular nature of your average science fiction fan, I have to chuckle at the ironic devotion some people have to the chapter and verse of their chosen works. I'm half expecting to log in here someday and see a forum signature that reads "Behead those who insult Tolkienn!"

[Paul Beardsley]

Welcome to the board, Swordsman.

If there is one thing I have learned on these forums it's that for people that are supposed to be open minded and consider all possibilitys, a lot of si fi people are staid and closed minded when it comes to tv/movies versus books.

I think you're trying to find a double standard that isn't there. Being open minded and considering all possibilities has very little to do with judging the quality of a movie or TV adaptation of a book.

In any case, you will see many discussions where it is acknowledged that what works in one medium does not always work in another.

The film Blade Runner is very different to the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, yet many people hold both in high regard. (I actually prefer the film; the book is not my favourite work of Philip K. Dick.) I love the 1972 version of Solaris - I am especially fond of some of the scenes that do not resemble anything in the novel.

My beef (and that of many others, I think) is not that films fail to be a literal interpretation of the original. My beef is when it fails to capture the essence, or explore the potential, of the original. When someone announces an adaptation of a work you love, you are entitled to expect a certain respect for the work on the part of the film maker.

Tv shows and movies are not geared for the written devotees but for the masses who probably never heard of the original story.

So why name it after the original? Why announce that it is an adaptation of a book that many people love? The obvious answer is, to draw in existing fans - which is dishonest, and deserving of criticism.

If you want to make a film version of Isaac Asimov's I, Robot, then the honest, admirable, creative thing to do is to work out how Asimov's philosophy and ideas would work on screen (in other words use Harlan Ellison's script). But if you just want a brainless series of action scenes with Will Smith, call it The Robot Rebellion or something like that. If pressed, mention that Asimov's works inspired you, but don't pretend there's any more to it than that.

Merlin is very loosely is based on "The Crystal Cave and it's sequels

I didn't know that (or if I did, I'd forgotten). But given that the character and backstory of Merlin has been public domain for a thousand years, and given that the TV series (if that's what you're talking about) doesn't loudly claim to be an adaptation of this, I don't think it's really relevant to the discussion. My personal dislike of it is due to that fact that it is (in my opinion) cheap, childish, badly acted, dramatically weak, and generally doesn't persuade me to suspend disbelief.

[Jim]

Welcome to the board, Swordsman.

Indeed, welcome!

... My beef (and that of many others, I think) is not that films fail to be a literal interpretation of the original. My beef is when it fails to capture the essence, or explore the potential, of the original. When someone announces an adaptation of a work you love, you are entitled to expect a certain respect for the work on the part of the film maker.

So why name it after the original? Why announce that it is an adaptation of a book that many people love? The obvious answer is, to draw in existing fans - which is dishonest, and deserving of criticism.

If you want to make a film version of Isaac Asimov's I, Robot, then the honest, admirable, creative thing to do is to work out how Asimov's philosophy and ideas would work on screen (in other words use Harlan Ellison's script). But if you just want a brainless series of action scenes with Will Smith, call it The Robot Rebellion or something like that. If pressed, mention that Asimov's works inspired you, but don't pretend there's any more to it than that. ...

(emphasis added)

That pretty much covers my concerns.

[HenrikOlsen]

There are very few tv shows or movies that resemble the original written vehicles. The last one that comes to mind is the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

You must either have seen or read a different trilogy than I did, there were several major differences.
I would however say that I understand most of the changes though there are several I disagree with.