MovieChat Forums > Riverworld (2003) Discussion > Books are brilliant, movie terrible

Books are brilliant, movie terrible

posted 21 years ago by PBDogs
20 replies | jump to latest

Here's how to ruin a brilliant book. Produce it on the Sci-Fi channel. Hire hack writers(more than one, please). Make them wear costumes that have been used in other Sci-Fi type adventure B movies(villagers with dreads?). Hire actors no one has ever heard of(except Emily Llyod - hair extensions). Take the best parts of the book and don't use them in the movie. Oh I forgot the bad wigs and makeup. This is a travesty. It's like taking The Catcher in the Rye and animating it, but all the characters are dogs from New York(Holden is a Golden retriever). Why do it if you're not going to do it right? The way it was originally meant to be told. You can successfully take a book and do it justice, there is a structured story there already. Riverworld could've been amazing for a TV series minus everything I mentioned above. The only good thing about this is if it makes people want to read the books, there are five of them, including a few short stories that take place on Riverworld. Anyone who has read the books and have seen this badly executed movie would laugh at how unlike the books they really are. Not to mention Philip Jose Farmer is probably turning in his grave.

[–] DMcD-2 21 years ago

Fortunately, Phil Farmer isn't dead yet. He is pretty old, yes; Farmer was born in 1918. He hasn't published much in the last ten years except introductions and the occasional essay, but that's understandable, him being 75-85 during that period. A good source of information, though its entry page is hard to look at, is The Official Philip Jose Farmer Home Page at http://www.pjfarmer.com. It is remarkably detailed and makes Ellison Webderland (http//www.harlanellison.com)look positively bare. Of course, Harlan's only seventy now (HOLY $#!T), give his webmaster time.

[–] glennstg 20 years ago

I am a big fan of the books. And I liked the movie. But then, I don't expect a movie based on a book to be 100% faithful to the source material. Movies are a different medium of expression, a different way of storytelling, and what works in a book doesn't necessarily translate well into film. The movie kept the same basic concept as the book, as well as some of the plotlines, and told a decent story. Truth to tell, I would suspect that a Riverworld movie that stayed 100% faithful to the book would be rather dull.

[–] crazy_old_days 20 years ago

The movie kept the same basic concept as the book, as well as some of the plotlines, and told a decent story. Truth to tell, I would suspect that a Riverworld movie that stayed 100% faithful to the book would be rather dull.

Hello. I'm just getting into the riverworld series and I'm glad this movie/tv-pilot was made, or else I would have never known such a wonderful author as Farmer.

For just the first book they'd have to break it down into a four part mini-series and I think Clemens and Joe Miller should be in the last episode to hint at more to come. They'd have to dedicate one whole episode to Burton killing himself 777 times, LOL.

I'm loving the books and I'm nearly half way through the Fabulous Riverboat. Good thing my local used bookstore is all stocked up with Farmers books, though I feel a bit sad that people would actually give them up.

No matter how this movie turned out at least it didn't completely ruin the whole concept. It would have been great to see the grails being rejuvenated in the grailstones at least. Or to not have the ethicals in those stupid black phantom robes floating around.

I got a question, if any of you can answer this it'd be most helpful.... Clemens said that it had been 20 years since rebirth on riverworld, do the people age or stay at 25ish? Because the first book says that all the children have finally grown up and that there is no way to reproduce since their sterile, so I'm thinking that when the people die they go back to their young bald-bodied selfs around the age of 25ish again. The experiment might last up to 1,000 years.

-Julie

----------
Quick Obi Wan Kanobi! My Life Sabre is stuck to the bathroom wall!

[–] tb349-1 20 years ago

Julie:

It's been a while since I read the series, but my recollection is that adults do not physically age, other than abusive-type changes like what Goering goes through. I'm reluctant to get any more specific because of plot-spoiler stuff. Enjoy the books!

Tom

[–] michellebrat77 18 years ago

I had never heard of Farmer or Riverworld until I saw this movie. It was on at 11pm on a saturday on Scifi. Now I want to pick up the books and read them. If the movie isnt as good as the books at least it could be a way for people like me to get exposed to Riverworld.

[–] at_tezeu 18 years ago

I hope you?re joking. I mean, when I saw that Riverworld (the movie) appeared I was overloaded with joy but except the name it has nothing to do with the book or with Farmar's interesting universe. I can understand why there?s no nudity and sex scenes, but where is the old man that Burton thought was God? Where is the reanimation chamber? Where are the individual cylinders and daily ratios of normal food? etc. etc. etc.
I hope someone can someday do a better job because this is...!

[–] zeta1983-1 15 years ago

"It's like taking The Catcher in the Rye and animating it, but all the characters are dogs from New York(Holden is a Golden retriever)."

Funny as I'm re-reading that right now and that image is gonna be stuck in my mind lol. It might make an interesting comedy parody, I've never seen one done of Catcher in the Rye.

"the funniest part was this: an astronaut wins a swordfight against the emperor of rome. HAHAHAHAHAHA"

Yes I thought that pretty funny too. Even if Nero wasn't the best fighter they were fighting with weapons people from his era were more fgamiliar with, not the 21st century weapons an astronaunt/Air Force pilot would be accostumed too. But for the reasons another poster pointed out I guess it's not too unbelievable, even without modern weapons you gotta figure modern military training has to count for something in a fight with someone from ancient Rome.

[–] koliokolev 19 years ago

I do not agree with you. The movie kept 1% of the books' atmosphere. Mali was sexy. Nero had certain arrogance. Monat and Sam could have been worse.
That said, this movie really sucked.

[–] baikonoer 19 years ago

Mali might have been sexy, but she was absolutely not credible as an African medicine woman/witch. I mean: the girl is almost white!! I'm pretty sure Yoruba women in the 17th/18th century did not look like her at all.

[–] saint-andrew 19 years ago

Its been a while since I read the books,but I do remember that Richard Burton was the focal character in this and not an American astronaut.
The whole bloody thing is laughable.
Either make it in depth or don't bother.
It smacks of being on the cheap and catering for American audiences (no offence guys).

[–] ctizon 19 years ago

the funniest part was this: an astronaut wins a swordfight against the emperor of rome. HAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.xanga.com/MoonlightSonata13/

[–] farscapechicka 18 years ago

"the funniest part was this: an astronaut wins a swordfight against the emperor of rome. HAHAHAHAHAHA"
____________________________

Know anything about Nero? The astonaut was in the US air force. They are trained in everything and they are trained hard. Also he was in a younger even stronger body. Nero was a coward who once participated in the olympic games and "won" because he bribed and killed his way to the top. Don't give me the bs that a trained air force officer couldn't beat a pampered and crazy emperor who brought down the entire Roman empire.

Just because he was an emperor doesn't make him a good warrior like Julius Caesar. It was a mistake on the part of the movie to portray him as a warrior.

Get your facts straight lost pplz.

[–] wadecollins 18 years ago

Actually, a lot of audiences in non-English speaking countries would probably like this movie, while audiences in the USA are becoming a lot more sophisticated (read: nerds) than you might think. I'm guessing the majority of angry fans tearing apart SF&F movies lately on the 'net would be from the US or UK.

Sign me: proud to hate this movie in the USA

[–] Oldguypo8 18 years ago

The best thing about the movie is that it calls attention to the novels. When you have a cast of characters which can include the greatest lovers, writers,creeps,angels, and mythic figures of the past the literate fun just rolls on. Like Harry Turtledove's alternate history series, Farmer's River World
gives us a chance to see what might happen if. But by mixing everyone from the cave to rocket scientists, Farmer gave us the chance to see things as wild as Tom Mix meeting Genghis Kahn or Groucho Marx meeting Mark Twain. Farmer's actual pairings are pretty strange and iteresting, and people like Mark Twain don't turn out the way we thought they might.
The problem with really epic books is they demand a great deal of the readers. Really good authors manage to put in history and historical people and incredible layers of allusions in such a way that readers can buzz on whether they know who Herman Goering was or not. We are just lucky that big budgets helped Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia look and sound epic.
Gulliver's Travels in Swift's complete edition is one of the wittiest satires ever written, but it can be enjoyed by young readers as well. When it was finally adapted in a high priced production, it was so cereberal that it lost some of the audience. The great tragedy of this pilot may be that has trashed a set of books which could make a great series. At least they tried.
We live in a world with so many channels of schlock that we despair to find anything to watch and buy dvds. Remember that Star Trek TOS was misunderstood by NBC and nearly destroyed. When the Next Generation and the clones appeared they were taken up by independent networks and stuck in hideous time slots which would have killed the original.
Independent channels and low budget producers have a heck of a challenge. Sometimes they produce winners. The sad truth is most of what is filmed is schlock. Some of us keep urging people to write about the movie which was made, not the one which should have been. Of course, a turkey run through a lawn mower makes it difficult appreciate Thanksgiving dinner. Gobble, gobble.
READ THE BOOKS and hope somebody with bucks tries again.

[–] gangreenday 18 years ago

It smacks of being on the cheap and catering for American audiences (no offence guys).

Ok.. just because you say no offense, doesn't mean I'm not going to take it that way. I'm totally tired of that cheap shot at the American audience. I mean for crying out loud, the book was written by an American! This film was catered to a SCI-FI audience. It tries to be faithful to the concept, but it tries to be Stargate. It has nothing to do with Americans. It has to do with the Sci-fi channel.

Jeez...

[–] wj-n3 18 years ago

"It has nothing to do with Americans. It has to do with the Sci-fi channel."

I'm Irish/British (depending on my mood) and I wanted to say that that I totally agree with you. Without question some of the best TV in the world is produced in the US though mainly on HBO. Sure there's a lot of crap but 90% of everything is crap.

[–] waltcosmos 18 years ago

Your review was hilarious. One particular series (wildly, WILDLY different from the Riverworld series, to be sure, all of which I've read, in addition to his Dayworld universe...) that I would have like to have seen produced in a miniseries would be McCaffrey's PERN series (it would need a minimum of three episodes per book, about 60 shows) . OR, barring that, an Orson Scott Card Theater, where stories from his books were reproduced in exacting detail. Can you imagine seeing Treason, The Worthing Saga, The Hatrack River Trilogy or Enchantment? My God. These books are beyond brilliant. Why didn't Gates donate some of his money to the arts with a stipulation being that a large chunk of it go to producing everything mentioned above?

[–] lastyear11 18 years ago

The movie version of Riverworld is terrible.A typical cheap cheap cheap SFchannel production.Bad direction,bad script,bad acting.On a par with an episode of Lost in Space.Since this they have also ruined LeGuin's Earthsea.As far as doing Pern-you must be kidding-these are just SF books for girls who outgrew there Black Stallion books.
TV always ruins SF adaptations-Remember the botch of Bradburys The Martian Chronicles years ago.
I would love to see good adaptations of SF books on TV-but Im not holding my breath.Somebody like HBO needs to do this-with the same quality they bring to Deadwood,Sopranos and The Wire.

[–] jeswilcan 18 years ago

I'd love to read the books, but the reprint is a fortune per book for smallish print and a low page count... at least from BN and Amazon's listed Page counts. I'd love to find a NEW copy of every book, and by them, for the decent going prive for a minus 400 page book... all 5-6 actually. And I loved the movie which made me want the books even more.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]