The Stand

[returnofjakedog]

I was excited about this and read the book again a few months ago to refresh my memory. I will get a preview of CBS All Access and binge it soon.

From what I hear both from here and review wise is that watching it for free may be the way to go. The first was passable, good first half / bad second half but overall was a disappointment. This one sounds like a mess.

Before it came out I read a few places that the first miniseries felt rushed and they could pace this version better. From what I read it is as rushed or more. So why not make longer episodes or more episodes and do it right, or more right. I wonder if the network heard some of the early casting and or script and got cold feet.

Its literally been decades since I've read the book (once in the '80s, once in the '90s). Give us a rundown from a fresh read comparison when you've seen the shows if you get a chance.

 

[Comeds]

Its literally been decades since I've read the book (once in the '80s, once in the '90s). Give us a rundown from a fresh read comparison when you've seen the shows if you get a chance.

Sure, will do. Before I recently ready the book, it had been decades for me too. Because of COVID I figured I had the time time to read it again.

 

[PatsFan2003]

Sure, will do. Before I recently ready the book, it had been decades for me too. Because of COVID I figured I had the time time to read it again.

Everything I know about infectious diseases I learned from the Stand..

 

[PolarVortex]

They have failed The Stand mini series twice now. Time to give Swan Song a shot. And, if you liked The Stand but haven't read Swan Song, then do it. Great, great book. I've read each one three times and still don't have a favorite.

 

[Comeds]

They have failed The Stand mini series twice now. Time to give Swan Song a shot. And, if you liked The Stand but haven't read Swan Song, then do it. Great, great book. I've read each one three times and still don't have a favorite.

Havent read that in decades but loved that too.

 

[Comeds]

They have failed The Stand mini series twice now. Time to give Swan Song a shot. And, if you liked The Stand but haven't read Swan Song, then do it. Great, great book. I've read each one three times and still don't have a favorite.

For a while when I was growing up I liked McCammon almost as much as I liked King. His early stuff us pulpy fun but then he hit his stride and had a really good run of books before he had a breakdown of some sort and stopped writing for years. I tried some of his newer historical fiction. It was OK.

 

[PolarVortex]

For a while when I was growing up I liked McCammon almost as much as I liked King. His early stuff us pulpy fun but then he hit his stride and had a really good run of books before he had a breakdown of some sort and stopped writing for years. I tried some of his newer historical fiction. It was OK.

I read Boy's Life twice also. The book is not my usual genre preference but I gave it a try because McCammon wrote it. I really liked it.

 

[BeaReylo]

Just watched both mini series. So far I dig the Paramount/CBS one more. The beginning of the story kind of dragged on to long, for my liking so the time jumps really really helped.

There were bits of pieces from both that I liked more than the other and some actors brought their characters more to life than their counterparts. Both versions of Stuart were OK. Skarsgaard was a tad better than Sheridan but not by much. Stuart Owen's was better as Harold and made him more three dimensional. Heard (keep in mind I'm separating the artist from her art) was good as Nadine. Her performance really showed how tragic a character Cross really is. Both Nick's were equally impressive. Paramount's Tom Cullen was executed slightly better and Fiona Dourif made the Rat character far more memorable than the ABC version.

Both have their plus and minuses and are enjoyable in their own way.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Just watched both mini series. So far I dig the Paramount/CBS one more. The beginning of the story kind of dragged on to long, for my liking so the time jumps really really helped.

There were bits of pieces from both that I liked more than the other and some actors brought their characters more to life than their counterparts. Both versions of Stuart were OK. Skarsgaard was a tad better than Sheridan but not by much. Stuart Owen's was better as Harold and made him more three dimensional. Heard (keep in mind I'm separating the artist from her art) was good as Nadine. Her performance really showed how tragic a character Cross really is. Both Nick's were equally impressive. Paramount's Tom Cullen was executed slightly better and Fiona Dourif made the Rat character far more memorable than the ABC version.

Both have their plus and minuses and are enjoyable in their own way.

Do you think any of the following would have helped the newer version?:
*Re-cut to keep a generally linear timeline instead of constantly jumping around, often with no reference.
*Show waaaaaayyyy more of the initial outbreak and societal collapse.
*Make specifically the Lloyd character, but also the Julie character to some extent, more serious and intelligent chatacters instead of ridiculous caricatures.

Those would probably be the 3 biggest changes I feel would have improved it.

 

[calsnowskier]

Do you think any of the following would have helped the newer version?:
*Re-cut to keep a generally linear timeline instead of constantly jumping around, often with no reference.
*Show waaaaaayyyy more of the initial outbreak and societal collapse.
*Make specifically the Lloyd character, but also the Julie character to some extent, more serious and intelligent chatacters instead of ridiculous caricatures.

Those would probably be the 3 biggest changes I feel would have improved it.

Ferrar was a great Lloyd. And making him an older, competent lieutenant was a better decision than making him a young stooge.

I realize I remember the original with rose colored tint (it really wasn’t that great due to budgetary issues - King wanted a series of movies but the studios only gave a budget for a modest movie to make 8 hours of TV), but there were some serious enough issues with the remake to make the original better (casting, in particular - Whoopie doesn’t hold a candle to Dee)

 

[BeaReylo]

Do you think any of the following would have helped the newer version?:
*Re-cut to keep a generally linear timeline instead of constantly jumping around, often with no reference.
*Show waaaaaayyyy more of the initial outbreak and societal collapse.
*Make specifically the Lloyd character, but also the Julie character to some extent, more serious and intelligent chatacters instead of ridiculous caricatures.

Those would probably be the 3 biggest changes I feel would have improved it.

The time jump helped me get into the story faster. The plot reallh kicks into gear when both factions are established and start to battle. Watching society collapse was a slow point for me and I personally liked watching the survivors deal with it more than watching the world before fall apart.

I liked how the CBS take differentiated itself from the ABC version and even the book.

 

[returnofjakedog]

The time jump helped me get into the story faster. The plot reallh kicks into gear when both factions are established and start to battle. Watching society collapse was a slow point for me and I personally liked watching the survivors deal with it more than watching the world before fall apart.

I liked how the CBS take differentiated itself from the ABC version and even the book.

An interesting take.

I know a few people who watched it that had no background of the story at all. To a person they found it confusing. I had to constantly explain what was happening to my bro-in-law.

I do admit that they probably did the 2nd half a bit better than the ABC version, but that is faint praise at best. The addition of the Stephen King final last episode complete with the crazy island ending (King's own rejected 1st draft finale from the novel!) was interesting.

Neither version did the book justice though (imo). They need to try again at some point.

 

[BeaReylo]

An interesting take.

I know a few people who watched it that had no background of the story at all. To a person they found it confusing. I had to constantly explain what was happening to my bro-in-law.

I do admit that they probably did the 2nd half a bit better than the ABC version, but that is faint praise at best. The addition of the Stephen King final last episode complete with the crazy island ending (King's own rejected 1st draft finale from the novel!) was interesting.

Neither version did the book justice though (imo). They need to try again at some point.

The new version made me like its source matrial. I tried watching the original mini series and couls never get into it, much. Paramount's version had me gripped from the get go and it made me like ABC's offering immensely. Comparing the two made me appreciate boths differences

I agree the revised ending was an intresting choice to end the series on. Its almost like King was trying to set up a sequel?

 

[returnofjakedog]

The new version made me like its source matrial. I tried watching the original mini series and couls never get into it, much. Paramount's version had me gripped from the get go and it made me like ABC's offering immensely. Comparing the two made me appreciate boths differences

I agree the revised ending was an intresting choice to end the series on. Its almost like King was trying to set up a sequel?

I don't think King was going for a sequel. The island scene with the natives was the original ending to The Stand, and I think it always stuck in his mind and he had an opportunity.

Remember that King has become rather infamous for perceived weak endings. In my mind that is why we got the extra trip back home for Stu and Frannie, and also the Flagg "rebirth".

Just my opinion though......