Childhood's End

:

Season 1
  • Network: SyFy
  • Series Premiere Date: Dec 14, 2015
User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 73 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 73
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 73
  3. Negative: 20 out of 73
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. MrPicky
    Dec 24, 2015
    2
    Never read the book so went into this with no expectations aside from hoping for an entertaining 6 hours. Thankfully with FF on a DVR I did not waste 6 hours - even an hour was too much. Slow, confusing, weak acting, over acting, etc. Really disappointed - only finished it to see what happened.
  2. c700
    Dec 23, 2015
    3
    I really tried to like this adaption. The main problem is that Arthur C. Clarke is just a damn good writer and the writers of this show are just so awfully bad. Thats why the episodes are so damn long and boring. If you look at the source material (the book), it contains less than 200 pages and still managed to tell a riveting story. The intention when outlining the series was probablyI really tried to like this adaption. The main problem is that Arthur C. Clarke is just a damn good writer and the writers of this show are just so awfully bad. Thats why the episodes are so damn long and boring. If you look at the source material (the book), it contains less than 200 pages and still managed to tell a riveting story. The intention when outlining the series was probably benevolent, and granted - the visuals don't look half-bad - but the terrible dialogue, the repetition, and the overlength is just killing it for me. With a decent screenplay and some decisive compression of the story - I feel this could have done much better.… Expand
  3. CivilizationAce
    Apr 5, 2016
    0
    I read the book a long time ago. I remember it as very disappointing, but didn't remember the story. I gave the TV series a chance anyway, but it was also very disappointing.

    There's really nothing to this. There's no real story, just imagination transcribed into meaningless drivel. There's no doubt that Arthur C Clarke had foresight and imagination and those carried his inability to    I read the book a long time ago. I remember it as very disappointing, but didn't remember the story. I gave the TV series a chance anyway, but it was also very disappointing.

    There's really nothing to this. There's no real story, just imagination transcribed into meaningless drivel. There's no doubt that Arthur C Clarke had foresight and imagination and those carried his inability to construct a good plot. Sadly like so many of the early successful writers in each genre success did not imply consistent excellence and this is clearly one of his books that should have been identified as substandard and left alone, not turned into this overlong nonsense that doesn't include any hint of the foresight that grounds his better books.

    Save yourself some time you'll never get back and do something more interesting, like watch paint dry.    … Expand
  4. DavidJayne
    Dec 18, 2015
    0
    This is definitely not for fans of the book. While it does manage to hit the broadest points of the overall story arc, the details have been drastically changed, and very much for the worse. Not only that, but a good 50% of the miniseries is entirely new subplots that range from completely unnecessary to utterly ridiculous. And if that isn't bad enough, I can think of at least three iconicThis is definitely not for fans of the book. While it does manage to hit the broadest points of the overall story arc, the details have been drastically changed, and very much for the worse. Not only that, but a good 50% of the miniseries is entirely new subplots that range from completely unnecessary to utterly ridiculous. And if that isn't bad enough, I can think of at least three iconic scenes from the book that were completely left out, scenes that would have made for great television. The biggest mystery of the Overlords is never even explained. I tried very hard to like this. I understand that concessions need to be made for the sake of adaptation, and for the first episode-and-a-half I was able to convince myself that even though it was very different from the book, it still stood on its own as good science fiction. But that quickly went out the door as the plot veered into utter nonsense and ham-fisted religious symbolism. It's like the people who made this had at best a superficial understanding of the source material, and then thought they could improve upon it. Guess what. They couldn't. I can't believe this is getting pretty good reviews overall. Perhaps I just can't divorce myself from the book enough to appreciate it on it's own, but then again I think from the end of episode two on was just plain bad no matter how you look at it. This was a wasted opportunity and a textbook example of how not to adapt a novel.… Expand
  5. PoeticDumpling
    Dec 15, 2015
    8
    I have not read the book so I have no idea what to expect next, but so far, part one is great! I actually wish this was a full-on new series based on tonight. The stylistic look is quality. The story is compelling. Excited for night two and three.
  6. AContext
    Dec 17, 2015
    0
    There is no need to elaborate. I am only enormously grateful I DVD'd this bad student film from, I don't know, Strayer Univ. or some such for profit scam "university." I was able to fast-forward thru the commercials, thereby losing only about five-and-a-quarter hours of my life that I will never get back. I'd go into some detail, but I don't want to lose more time. I'm old, dammit, and myThere is no need to elaborate. I am only enormously grateful I DVD'd this bad student film from, I don't know, Strayer Univ. or some such for profit scam "university." I was able to fast-forward thru the commercials, thereby losing only about five-and-a-quarter hours of my life that I will never get back. I'd go into some detail, but I don't want to lose more time. I'm old, dammit, and my time is increasingly precious. Simply put, the film stunk. Now, I didn't read Mr. Clarke's novel, but based on my familiarity with "2001: A Space Odyssey," I'm sure this piece of dreck did not do Mr. Clarke's work anything resembling justice.… Expand
  7. BogKid
    Dec 16, 2015
    8
    I enjoyed “Childhood’s End”. I wasn’t going to write a review until I read an early “1” review which was little more than a diatribe concerning the fact that the TV show did not follow Clarke’s book precisely enough. It was, even worse, a diatribe against the “Americanization” of the story. I’m certainly sorry about that, but it was a show written in America, produced in America, andI enjoyed “Childhood’s End”. I wasn’t going to write a review until I read an early “1” review which was little more than a diatribe concerning the fact that the TV show did not follow Clarke’s book precisely enough. It was, even worse, a diatribe against the “Americanization” of the story. I’m certainly sorry about that, but it was a show written in America, produced in America, and largely viewed in America. Apparently a transference of that reviewer’s generalized annoyance about America.

    I was frankly surprised by the first two hours of the show. Let’s be honest. SyFy Channel original programming is rarely first rate. I felt that this show was. I was waiting for it to go sour with an eventually stupid ending. I did not find that. I think viewing this program has given me impetus to seek out Mr. Clarke’s book to compare the effect on me of the TV show and the book.    … Expand
  8. slayde11
    Dec 17, 2015
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A surprisingly stylish and quasi-faithful retelling of Arthur C. Clarke's seminal classic, whose masterful themes re-defined the genre -- while not easily lending themselves to a visual medium. The screenwriters did a deft job of updating key story details for the 21st century. Unfortunately, I think they also fell victim to the generally thankless task of interweaving first-person melodrama via extended romantic arcs for characters like Ricky and Milo. I'm guessing their goal was to make the relatively dispassionate, clinical tone of Clarke's source material more palatable for a TV audience. I actually found both of these arcs to be touching, even heartbreaking -- but they did distract from some of the main story beats (for instance, worldwide parental despair at the loss of all children). I also think some of the resolution (and especially Overmind) scenes in Part Three were far too literal to have their intended impact. But again, I don't believe this material easily lends itself to a literal/visual medium. In all, I was surprisingly impressed by the excellent effects, the truly haunting imagery, and the degree of story power that managed to remain intact. Hoping this heralds a lasting (and long-overdue) change in programming philosophy for the SyFy channel.… Expand
  9. badlorenzo
    Dec 18, 2015
    0
    So disappointed, I hardly finished the first episode. The fight between good and evil is so cliché, I can't find the words. All the reviews I read don't give me the slightest desire to watch episode 2.
  10. MelancholicAlc
    Dec 1, 2016
    0
    This is a textbook example how to rape-murder an honored SF classic. The point of SF is NOT charachter development, but how any change, impacts society in general, as well as present moral dilemma's. Battlestar while great at presenting compelling characters, is STILL a cowboys vs injuns story at heart.

    This series is loaded up with a lot of emo crap, totally unneccesay romantic    This is a textbook example how to rape-murder an honored SF classic. The point of SF is NOT charachter development, but how any change, impacts society in general, as well as present moral dilemma's. Battlestar while great at presenting compelling characters, is STILL a cowboys vs injuns story at heart.

    This series is loaded up with a lot of emo crap, totally unneccesay romantic subplots, stupid deviations from the original that create plotholes, or are just stupid: In the original, Jennifer is a baby, and never ever talks or becomes human. In the show, she's a 10 year old faking to be 4 year old who is somehow the Fearless Nazi Fascist Leader of all children.
    Then, it tries to shove the ideologal crap down our throats that some "regular" boy farmer is at any level a better ambassador than a professional. (See: Trump. Sadly, he will screw up the world badly, but of course he will get re-elected because of whites looking to regain power, you can call that racism and that people don't like to admit they're wrong)

    The writers clearly didn't read the source material or it was just too dificult for them....    … Expand
  11. Salvation81
    Dec 23, 2015
    7
    If you haven't read the book like i haven't then chances are you will like the series, if not for its somewhat "typical" plot (bad Aliens a'la Trojan Horse) then certainly for its CGI. Some of the actors who play are also quite nice (Charles Dance as Karellen sits at the top - the ones from the dome not so much) but i do believe that most are simply put bad.
    7 from me because of the CGI,    If you haven't read the book like i haven't then chances are you will like the series, if not for its somewhat "typical" plot (bad Aliens a'la Trojan Horse) then certainly for its CGI. Some of the actors who play are also quite nice (Charles Dance as Karellen sits at the top - the ones from the dome not so much) but i do believe that most are simply put bad.
    7 from me because of the CGI, base material and Charles Dance.    … Expand
  12. Bluesmanuk
    Feb 27, 2016
    9
    This is a mini series that says so much about the problems of humanity but never attempts to make any kind of political commentary about the human race. It builds in a manner that has you wanting to know what comes next. At times it does seem to stray into areas that make little sense at the time but by the time you get to the end, all becomes very clear and worth every minute of viewing.This is a mini series that says so much about the problems of humanity but never attempts to make any kind of political commentary about the human race. It builds in a manner that has you wanting to know what comes next. At times it does seem to stray into areas that make little sense at the time but by the time you get to the end, all becomes very clear and worth every minute of viewing. A gem of a series that could easily get missed.… Expand
  13. pakar
    Dec 20, 2015
    9
    It has some flaws but overall a very good adaptation and a deep breath of true science fiction. Some people of course don't understand that writing a book and writing a script for tv are two different things.
  14. oatstao
    Dec 15, 2015
    1
    I'm going to be extremely frank with this, as I have waited 30 years for a film version. Is this why no one has tackled it as a feature film? Is it so hard to maintain dedication to original story line? Sadly ultimate failure - pro amerikkkann agenda is massively clear. Ricky the main character - no longer spelled Rikki - not a UN ambassador but the 'hard working ladies man' , the mainI'm going to be extremely frank with this, as I have waited 30 years for a film version. Is this why no one has tackled it as a feature film? Is it so hard to maintain dedication to original story line? Sadly ultimate failure - pro amerikkkann agenda is massively clear. Ricky the main character - no longer spelled Rikki - not a UN ambassador but the 'hard working ladies man' , the main man who owns the idealistic farm stead outside of new jersey is chosen as the 'one' to be the human interface between the 'overlords', oh but it was a toss up between him and a 72 year old blind woman from Seoul Korea. Wow he can even work on his tractors engine without a grease stain on his clean ass hands and permanent pressed 'lumberjack' shirt and pants. LOL . Throwing out key character developments and basic plot to drive home PROJECT BLUE BEAM. What's really a shame is it is a parody of itself, as so many science fiction movies and plots have derived from Childhood's end for so long and this series derives from those derivatives to only mesh in a subversive agenda of mind control. But what's new anyways.. your TV is a waste of time. Cliche city of the worst kind. As Ricky states @26:00 into the first part, "i might just take this and chuck it in the river". Speaking of water - the USA HOORAY plans to use Saudi pipe lines to run de-salinated water . LOL . This remix is so dumb.… Expand
  15. RAALee
    Dec 18, 2015
    9
    Visually stunning with feature film effects and solid performances, this TV adaptation deviates from the epic novel in some ways to accommodate a television audience and time frame, yet keeps the essential power and thoughtful themes. If you seek space based warfare and space opera themes you should look elsewhere, but if you are looking for a great story from one of our planet's bestVisually stunning with feature film effects and solid performances, this TV adaptation deviates from the epic novel in some ways to accommodate a television audience and time frame, yet keeps the essential power and thoughtful themes. If you seek space based warfare and space opera themes you should look elsewhere, but if you are looking for a great story from one of our planet's best minds, Childhood's End may be for you.… Expand
  16. quidam
    Jan 11, 2016
    4
    It really pains me to give so a low-ball score to this show. I had such high hopes. I recall reading the book over 30 years ago and really being struck by the various themes all wrapped in to one story... but, that's Asimov for you. Assuming you'd not read the book, the 'Syfy' version doesn't work. Too many plot holes exist and, without going in to all of them, the viewer is left to assumeIt really pains me to give so a low-ball score to this show. I had such high hopes. I recall reading the book over 30 years ago and really being struck by the various themes all wrapped in to one story... but, that's Asimov for you. Assuming you'd not read the book, the 'Syfy' version doesn't work. Too many plot holes exist and, without going in to all of them, the viewer is left to assume that there are rational explanation but the show just doesn't have the time to go in to them. Unfortunately, that's not the case. As an example, much time is wasted on Stormgren and what happens to his character and this adds no value to the story and leaves the viewer baffled. I had such high-hopes for Milo and he ends up being a singleminded mess. I'd like to empathize with him but it was impossible for me to emotionally invest in his character when he never explained what was driving him. The Greggson parents are whiney and I don't know if it was the overall casting (there were some good choices — Charles Dance was great) or the directing but I found most of the characters flat. If you had read the book, you'd be questioning watching this by the end of the 1st part and if you stick around for the 3rd part, you're just abusing yourself. I watched all this on-demand just recently and due to Comcast ('It's Comcastic'...blech) bugs, I finally tried watching the last part via the 'Syfy' website and now I really wished I hadn't. I understand they were trying to compress time but, either they did too much compression, they spent time where they didn't need to (see: Stormgren above) or they should have made the investment in a longer show. 'Syfy' has some really good work going on now ('The Expanse') and to take a classic like Childhood's End and do this to it is just disappointing.… Expand
  17. donelson
    Apr 3, 2016
    8
    Although the second episode is a bit confused, slow and mildly clichéd, the first and last episodes had superb insight into the nature of love, the pain of loss, the hope of renewal, and the ultimate sadness of a society with no hope of children, and thus no purpose. Shining bright in some moments, beautifully produced, and with fine young actors in many roles. The ending is true toAlthough the second episode is a bit confused, slow and mildly clichéd, the first and last episodes had superb insight into the nature of love, the pain of loss, the hope of renewal, and the ultimate sadness of a society with no hope of children, and thus no purpose. Shining bright in some moments, beautifully produced, and with fine young actors in many roles. The ending is true to Clarke's book, but perhaps even more poignant.… Expand
  18. AthanasiosT
    May 4, 2017
    4
    The first part was a well thought modernization of the SF masterpiece. The second part was closer to Children of the Corn and the Exorcist, while the third part was written by people who would probably have drunk a barrel of vodka each (flying children ??? really ??). So I give a 9 for I, a 4 for II and a 0 for III. Total 4.3333333. Stick to the book !!!
  19. temptershell
    Sep 8, 2017
    6
    The first part of this miniseries was a fine version of SF novel masterpiece but then after second episodes I was very upset. Twisted plot with irrational scenes lots of stupid dialogues and very boring. Nice special effects and that’s all. If you want good SF series with alien invasion please check Falling Skies or V.
  20. nilsy
    Sep 20, 2017
    8
    It doesn't need to be as good as the book.
    You can watch this without having read the book

    If you remove the fact its based on a "classic" it is much much better then the average scifi tv show and i quite like the mini tv show format.

    While it is very ambitious and fails to be amazing it still leaves me wishing there were lot more similar scifi out there.

Awards & Rankings

73
#73 Most Discussed TV Season of 2015
52
#52 Most Shared TV Season of 2015

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
61

Generally favorable reviews - based on 19 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 19
  3. Negative: 1 out of 19
  1. IndieWire
    Reviewed by: Ryan Anielski
    Dec 15, 2015
    83
    Ultimately, Childhood's End is a successful adaptation of a much-beloved novel that will satisfy fans and newcomers alike--wrapped nicely at both ends with colorful characters and effects, but faintly lacking a little something in the middle.
    Read full review
  2. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Dec 14, 2015
    50
    At times the production can seem underbudgeted, the direction overwrought. Here and there, the dialogue sounds as if it had been written by an alien who picked up English from broadcasts of B-pictures. As the series' resident alien, Charles Dance--both as a disembodied and later an elaborately embodied, commanding voice--gets the best of this business.
    Read full review
  3. Philadelphia Inquirer
    Reviewed by: Tirdad Derakhshani
    Dec 14, 2015
    80
    The disturbing alien plot unfurls through a wondrous, hours-long act of dramatic magic that draws together elements from ancient religions and modern science. This is heady stuff--but it's relayed with such intensity it'll sweep you along. The last act is a gut punch.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »