I was pleasantly surprised. I imagine it’s true it would make little sense to someone who didn’t know the story but since I do that’s not my problem.
1 Like
Thoughts on the Stand so far.
1.Fantastic, this is exactly how the story should be told. It doesn’t work too well linearly.
2. Focusing on Harold/Fran/Stu in the first episode is super smart. Considering how it all ends, focusing on them as the first surviving people is important.
3. Speaking of focusing, holy shit, male gaze camera, get the hell away from Frannie!
4. The casting is… interesting. I think they did a good job, but Marsden as Stu is weird to me. I know its all outlined in the book, but for some reason I always took Stu as being closer to 20-25 years older than Fran instead of 10, so the age gap here seems off to me. I wonder how much that has to do with Sinese looking much older than Marsden here.
5. "Changes being played during the Harold/Fran scene was chefs kiss
1 Like
2nd half:
-
I was disappointed in Stu’s escape from the facility (except for the marvelous JK Simmons of course.) His escape in the book rivals the Lincoln Tunnel in terms of sheer tense horror. To turn it into essentially an exposition dump really misses the point imo, no matter which great actor you have providing it.
-
I really like the looks of the Captain Trips goiter. Well done, makeup team.
-
I don’t quite understand moving Hemmingford Home from Nebraska to Colorado. Colorado is NOT the first place I think of when I hear “Hundreds of acres of corn”
-
I like the change of Flagg being represented by a wolf instead of a Crow. It makes better visual sense.
-
And of course Harold wants to be Tom Cruise. Fantastic reveal.
-
Flagg allowing Campions escape is also a really good change. (To a point, I get that the idea is that we are so stupid and selfish that we will eventually kill ourselves through our own means, but having a villain set off the events is a pretty good option in a storytelling sense)
-
Bring on Ep 2
1 Like
jackiechanwtf.meme
3 Likes
Obv it sits in her collection next to the shroud of turin and a shard from the crucifix
What Would John Coffey Do
1 Like
That’s disappointing. I love the book. Is near the top of my King favorites and enjoyed the original miniseries.
Not going to lie, still probably going to watch it to remember how much I enjoyed the story.
Keep reading!!! That was a joke.
Read a lot of Crichton and King as a teen.
Dolores Claiborne is the only book that I read that hasn’t been mentioned, other than Insomnia (which I didn’t finish).
I believe the initial impetus of my reading him may have been The Stand miniseries (watched it again immediately after [recorded] and then read the book). Crichton had a somewhat similar motivation where I wanted to read JP before seeing it in the theater (which I didn’t end up doing and saw it on VHS).
I read The Shining before seeing the movie and was also underwhelmed by Kubrick’s take. The whole the book was better has been true in every instance I’ve experienced (never read Puzo). With Claiborne, the movie didn’t go into the molestation of the daughter as a plot point nearly as much (understandably, like the ending being changed with Cujo).
1 Like
Needful things one of my favs. Might be my favorite factoring in enjoyment reading it combined with external factors.
1 Like
I saw The Tommyknockers and The Langoliers miniseries without ever reading the books.
Don’t think those have been mentioned itt either. It too (never read or watched personally).
1 Like
Misery might be my favorite book and adaptation combination. Regardless of people’s thoughts on King’s writing, a massive number of adaptations of his work have been pure garbage.
4 Likes
Whether to read the book first is a tough one. I tend to watch the adaptation first. The book is almost always so differently executed, even if it’s just the internal experience from what was otherwise a faithful adaptation, that for me it’s like going from a great theatrical edition to an OMGGGGGGGG Director’s Cut.
My hesitation is that seeing the movie first can make it tough to escape the manner in which the story was visualized, but I’m okay with that.
1 Like
I recently re-read and re-watched Langoliers and I’m still not sure which one is worse.
1 Like
Right (your last line).
It’s tough to imagine someone else in whatever roles (even if you know they’re cast before it’s not the same as watching the film cement it in your mind).
Tom Cruise was not LeStat, for example. The Stand didn’t suffer too much bc I felt it was cast well. My main thing was the plot twists and turns of a book are drawn out, where a film is over in two hours. I’d rather experience the book in it’s entirety and then see the film’s take than have a longer experience neutered.
I don’t watch movies or read novels much anymore so my take is one of when I was younger fwiw.
1 Like
American Psycho
Fight Club
There’s definitely exceptions to that rule (I find the examples interesting, plz continue). Didn’t read either book fwiw.
I don’t remember the novel that well, but perhaps Rising Sun for Crichton. Was shot well with some good scenes and the casting was great. I appreciate visuals more as I’ve aged and have taken a few film classes too.
A Clockwork Orange is arguably better as a movie, although the book is good too
Jurassic Park and The Lost World for sure. The books broke open the genre but aren’t nearly as good as the movies. The book version of Lost World is fucking TERRIBLE. Crichton murdered everything that made Ian Malcolm a good character.
Despite criticisms of Cruise as Lestat, I adore him in the role and think the movie is infinitely better than the book.
Forrest Gump the book is some goofy shit you hope to erase from your mind.