MovieChat Forums > Riverworld (2010) Discussion > So much hate before the release?

So much hate before the release?


I understand that the last one didn't have a very good reception. I personally liked the original, but many people had made it very clear that they didn't like it. If this is so shouldn't new attitude for this vast majority be one of someone looking forward to a movie that only can be better than the original? I would hope that the producers that are funding this film, who have produced a vast amount of mini-series and movies that I have really enjoyed, have looked at the criticisms and have encouraged the appropriate corrections. The only thing that worries me is that the script, that people in the reviews I have seen apparently read, seems to be for the most part a waste of ink and paper. I may have to take a look at this said script because this worries me. I would love to see a show stemmed from the reception of this remake, and if it doesn't receive a positive reception I fear this may never come to fruition.

Now that I have tossed in my two cents, I was wondering if I could get a few questions answered. My first question is, are these gripes warranted? Also, have they followed the books, which I haven't read, closer than the original? Do you foresee a show stemming from this or did they miss the mark again from your view?

I only hope your insight quells my worries, because if it doesn't I may just remove my schedule recording of its premiere... meanwhile I will be looking for this script.

reply

hate is the correct word. after what the scifi channel did to riverworld the first time, there is no wonder people who love the books so much are upset at hearing that the scifi channel is (quite possibly) DESTROYING the story a second time.

i wont be watching this new adaptation. ive refused to watch the scifi channel since they crapped all over a story i love. ill never watch the scifi channel again.

you have not read the books? why not?

reply

The "film" leaked onto the web months ago. Many have already seen this cannibalization of Farmer's novels and stories. It's as if the LOTR movies were produced and directed by Ed Wood for comparison... Have you read Tolkein?

I'm so tired of the club scene... So are the baby seals.

reply


Because it became painfully apparent before the release that is basically pissed all over the Farmer novels.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

Yeah, I guess I will just have to read the books then.

reply

they are only following the books in the very broadest sense of the word.

reply

After watching it I'd say it's a moderately entertaining action adventure story. They've changed a good bit from the books but that's not necessarily a bad thing as those books were a tad long winded and boring.

Yes Richard Burton is now a villain but from history he sounds like he wasn't exactly Mr. Likable so that's not such a stretch. They do appear from the river clothed. So what? Unless your really hard up for some gratuitous nudity it has little impact on the story.

All in all it's okay. Not great not horrendous just okay.

reply


I did not find the books long-winded and boring and I am not even an avid reader! I really enjoyed the books and am sad that syfy used that same horrible production company that made "Alice" and "Tin Man'. I tried to watch the movie as it's own separate thing since there was nothing else to watch and I knew it had ruined the story from the books already. Even as a story on it's own, taken completely separately from the books I thought it was superficial, badly paced and unbelievable from the start. I thought it was agony.

reply

What history have you been reading? The politically corrected history or the actual history based on facts like log journals of his travels, and other explorers who accompanied him on his journeys?

Besides if you got impaled by a javelin through your jaw, having to escape being killed by Somali warriors with said javelin still in your skull, you might not be the most agreeable person, since it left him with a pronounced scar on his face, as well as being blamed for the failure of the expedition, even after being cleared, Burton's career suffered for the rest of his life.

You obviously haven't read anything about Richard Burton, try reading his book "First Footsteps in East Africa" about the ordeal or his book on his second expedition to Africa called "Lake Regions of Equatorial Africa"

Not to mention the fact that Speke came back from the second expedition first and took credit for discovering what was then believed to be the source of the Nile River, leaving little credit for Burton, who had organized and gotten the funding for the second expedition. Burton didn't believe that what Speke claimed to be the source of the Nile river, but the Royal Geographical Society awarded Speke its Gold Medal.

Speke, who was suppose to debate Burton on this subject matter abruptly walked out of the debate before it even started, and went to go hunting and was killed in a hunting accident although some suspected that he committed suicide because he didn't want to debate Burton or that he felt guilty about how he had treated Burton.

The reason Mr. Farmer chose Richard Burton as the hero in his "Riverworld" stories, is because he knew his history, and the facts regarding Richard Burton's explorations, as well as his many travel books for future explorers and travelers, his writings on various customs of the peoples of Africa and Southern Asia earned him a Knighthood.

I've never read anything that would suggest he was not likable, he was prone to anger easy as time went by, but look at how was treated by Speke and the rest of Royal Geographical Society, and some of his peers for his work and achievements.

If someone is accused of wrong doing of any kind, it will always follow them for the rest of their life, even when they're completely exonerated like Richard Burton, the allegations never really went away. With people constantly whispering about failed expeditions or the fact that they didn't like the detailed sexual descriptions of other civilizations and cultures, which is talked about quite openly these days on talk shows, magazines and news programs, when it comes to talking about sex he was actually quite a head of his time, he had a disdain for the prudish Victorian era in which he lived.

As for the SyFy productions they changed the characters of the books, and that's probably why neither the movie or the mini series did very well, although most people probably have not read the books, and wouldn't know anything about Richard Burton the explorer or any of the other characters in the books that are based on real historical figures to some extent.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

Ok, it is after the release. Yes, your worries were justified.

reply

My first question is, are these gripes warranted?
Yes. While this one is better than the first adaptation, it is still bad.

Also, have they followed the books, which I haven't read, closer than the original?
They gave the books a passing glance though imo. I wasn't happy with Burton's personality change, but I get and understand he was a jerk irl. However, I was pleased with Clemens personality change because in the books he just came off as a whiney b!tch.

Do you foresee a show stemming from this or did they miss the mark again from your view?
If I had not read the books before, I would say this could quite possibly have a show stem from it. As I have read the books, they totally missed the mark--but landed a helluva lot closer than the first adaptation.

------
I'll come over there and slap you with an Altoids can...You'll be in pain, but minty fresh!

reply

The books are long winded and boring?? They're like a 150 pages long.

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/the-middle-word-in-life-20100 406

reply

A ten page story can still be long winded and boring. Besides this is one story stretched over 5 books that could have been told in one book. Aliens resurrect humans on strange planet. Humans go on a long journey to find the aliens and find out why. There's your story. The rest is just filler.

reply

I must say I disagree with those who feel the 2010 version is an improvement. Perhaps you have to be innocent of the novels to feel that way. This adaptation abandons the pretense of following the original work or even making sense. The resurrectees pop out of the river complete with their characteristic earthly clothing? Minutes after resurrection they're cooking with a handy iron cauldron? No one slaps Matt and tells him to just shut up about Jessie? Virtually nothing about the mechanics or purpose of the Riverworld are explained. Case in point - it's said in a couple of meager lines that the Suicide Express is a bad idea, but why that is (and how it's known!) are ignored.

reply

god is this ..


A W E F U L !

riverworld is supposed to be reborn naked ... instead we get "keystone cop" conquestadors with readymade swords and pikes on top of horses

please explain to us ... where the flying f##k did the horses come from??????


.

reply

Heh heh. A bit of a stretch there. Of course building a steamship and a blimp with primitive tools is unlikely as well. Maybe some of the soldiers were on their horses when they died and the horses like their clothes came with them.

reply

My guess is like the power sources they were given to them for some reason, because the horses were mechanical.

reply

Awful movie ! Avoid !

reply

I had never heard about neither books nor previous movie.

I liked this one, not amazing but pretty decent.

Mark Deklin was really good.

Sure there was some odd stuff we never got answers to but it wasn't as bad as the IMDB score indicated IMO.

reply

I agree. Not GREAT, but pretty interesting. I never read the books either, so take that at its worth. I saw the original and was intrigued by the concept and felt it was a pilot also, at the time. I didn't know about the books so I was hoping it would be picked up as a series, but I could see why it didn't. I thought it was an interesting "new" concept and wanted to see more. I found out, at the end, it was a series of books and wanted to read them, but never made much an effort to do it as I'm not really an avid reader. I was excited to see this new one, hoping they'd start a new series and it was definitely set up as a pilot, but nothing came of this either. I liked it better than the first one. It seemed more...full. It told a little more, although didn't explain everything 'cause it was setting up for a series.

I don't think it's NEARLY as bad as the IMDB score would make it out to be. It was most likely scored mostly by readers of the books, which tend to be the harshest critics of anything for many understandable reasons.

reply

Yeah, I've never unerstood the concept of scoring a movie because of a book. It seems off to me.

reply