Spoilers* Can those familiar with the book, clear up my show questions?

I've never seen the miniseries, but I've read the book three times. I just finished my third read through a couple of weeks ago. It is in no way tough material. It is quite straight forward and intelligently written - like all of Clarke's work.

However, I can't help you, because most of what you describe didn't take place in the book in the same way - or didn't take place at all. And the characters you name either didn't appear in the novel - or have different names or are simply different in some other way.

Too much has been changed between the book and the miniseries to be able to help you. Perhaps someone who has read the book and seen the TV show can help you. Or you could just go and read the book. After all, the book is usually better than the film or TV series...

ant-mac

In the book Rikki Stormgren is in his sixties, no need to make him sterile or anything. The writers probably thought the audience need someone to connect to (I think it was not one of Clarke's strong points to make characters you can connect to easily), so they changed Rikki to Ricky. In the book Rikki is not even alive when the Overlords reveal their true form (since it happens 50 years later) so there is also no need to get rid of him (by poison) since he is already dead.
I also don't remember any Milo love story (I am in the middle of re-reading the book, so maybe I just forgot it but I don't think so) and his overall story differs quite a bit.
So I think the writers sacrificed some logic in the storytelling in order to strengthen the connection between the characters and the audience (like waiting only a few years instead of 50 so that all the characters we know are still alive and kicking). Didn't work that well for me, the Karellen shotgun scence was pretty stupid in my opinion and also Milo had enough tragic in his life by being the last human, no love story needed.

1. I'm still undecided on whether religion was pointless or not
When Peretta returns to her home, she sees her mother, almost like an angel, who calls to her, she then jumps/falls to her death
Is it possible the aliens really are demons after all? I'm sure there's something in the bible about demons arriving on chariots (space ships?)
Maybe Peretta's reward for being faithful, was to see her mother again and to reunite with her.
I don't know, I think there's a lot in this mini series which is open to interpretation.

2. Just rewatched that scene, no idea where he got it from, was it something to do with the language the aliens speak? hmm
There was a fair amount of pointless things going on in the mini series, like animals having green glowing eyes.

3. The overlords said the one thing that would change, was injustice, meaning, they would deal with criminals themselves I guess
I don't think the overlords meant to kill the drug dealer, they heated up the gun so he dropped it, but he stumbled back and hit his head on the pavement.

4. Dunno, stupid really, didn't like that scene.
And if the aliens can revive a kid who was shot and killed, plus allow him to walk again, why couldn't their ship revive Karellen?

5. I didn't get that part either, there was still TV and such.

6. I think it seared because the necklace was very, very cold, having been in space for decades, along with his girlfriends body.

After reading many threads, it's clear a lot of viewers misunderstood pieces of the show. However, the show can be confusing at times (especially scenes meant to mislead those who haven't read the book). Kudos for the writers and their effort adapting from such tough material. They were bound to confuse some people along the way. I did have some questions since I never read the book, and that it may not have been explained on the show.

1. When Peretta went to visit the Greggson's house, why did the cross on her necklace cause the unborn Jennifer to scream and eventually rip(and destroy) it off Peretta's neck?

In the end, we know religion was, in the lack of a better term, pointless. Why was she affected then?

2. When Milo spoke with Jennifer remotely, what was the red triangle/dot symbol on the napkin he asked about?

3. Speaking of Milo, after he was killed by the drug dealer, why did the Overlord revive and give him the ability to walk? And then killed the dealer?

4. Also curious as to why Ricky chose to revive Karellen after the shotgun blast? The scene wasn't very coherent, especially since he had just learned Karellen had lied, poisoned and ruined his chances at having a family.

5. Another thing not explained, when Hallcross showed the Greggson's around New Athens, he mentioned art, culture and self-expression returning. And that people watched movies, painted, and sang the opera. As a viewer, I didn't realize the world had lost motivation for doing hobbies, or how it got like that. Did I miss something? Was it like that in the book?

6. When Milo returned to Earth and met back up with Karellen, he was shown a dead Rachel. He then turned her over and shattered her frozen body using her necklace. Why did that necklace sear into his palm?

With the drug dealer and Milo, I assumed that the Overlords monitoring the area intended to use their super-technology to zap the dealer into a non-lethal seizure before he fired, but accidentally killed him.

Attempts to just incapacitate people can kill (stun guns, martial arts techniques, etc.). Predicting whether someone is actually going to commit a serious crime or just posture can be hard. I assumed he would shoot because the result would have more dramatic potential and this is a show.

But he could have just as easily decided that child murder in front of his customers and neighbors was bad for business. In fact they might have done him in themselves if he hadn't gotten hit with the blue light.

In any case, I don't think the Overlords can raise the dead, so he stayed dead. But they can cure just about any disease or injury so the logical thing to do was to keep Milo alive and while they're at it make him walk. The whole benevolent ruler thing, you know.

see what the following response says. Your questions concern scenes and characters that were all made up by the filmmakers and have nothing to do with the story or the novel. The scriptwriter was not concerned with actually using the book as source material; it was merely a title to gather viewers since it is a well known novel. All scenes that have anything similar to the book are done superficially, without much explanation, and in a boring way. They focused on creating all new scenes, characters, ideas and it completely altered the entire focus, tone and intent of the novel. A real travesty since the novel has fascinating concepts which were not explored and also had opportunities for wonderful special fx which also were not done.

RE # 5- it is the OPPOSITE from the novel. New Athens was where people went to BE artists, NOT to escape the overlords. Since they knew the world was ending, they wanted to use the time to engage in essential human activities such as art science, etc.
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are entirely the creation of the filmmakers.

Read the book and if you want to see better sci-f, watch the numerous original films - from which they tried to rip-off scenes and pretend they were homages, but they were pathetic attempts due to lack of creativity.