MovieChat Forums > The Stand Discussion > This Movie Is Crap

This Movie Is Crap


M-O-O-N... that spells 'Crap'.



































(and apologies to Kevinology_Rises, who I noticed already used the line, but I just had to post it anyway - such a great book, but WTF with this mini-series...)

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

Admittedly, it was not perfect, but I actually liked the mini-series.

reply

I like to pick at it...but that's because I'm so fond of it. I would never call it crap.

reply

As do I There is a big thread on this board concerning goofs. King's firearms errors are Legion as he knows next to nothing about guns.

In spite of my admiration of SK, I do have to admit sometimes that he is a very sloppy writer.

Here is a non-gun example. In the thread on goofs, it was noted that in 1902, Abagail Freemantle was twenty years old and her brothers were 'nearly middle-aged', which to me means that they were in their late thirties. Yet her mother's age was given as forty.

Her youngest brother Luke died, we are told, in 1949 at the age of 'eighty-something'. Let's go with eighty for Luke. That means that he he was born around 1869, and something for us to remember is that Luke was the youngest brother. If the mother was forty in 1902, that means the she was born in 1862 or thereabouts. The problem here is obvious, is it not?

There are many others that are not quite as egregious.

reply

Interesting. I've decided to re-read the book purely out of fascination for the story itself. I started it last night and of course it'll probably take me awhile to finish it. I only read a few moments before going to sleep. Last night, I began to wonder how much older Stu is than Fran because I'm reading the 1990 version and I believe...if I read it correctly, it mentions Stu being in the war. If so, what war? Viet Nam? Sure it's possible that in 1990 he was in Viet Nam but that would put him as much, much older than Fran, am I correct in this?

reply

You picked up on that one too, I see. Very sharp!

IN the 1978 edition set in 1980, Stu was thirty. This would put his birth year at around 1950 or so which would make sense since he saw newsreels in the movies when he was a kid. I was born in 1950 as well, and I remember them. So he was about the right age to have served in the war in SE Asia.

IN the 1988 version set in 1990, he was still thirty and had served in the war. Which war? This is most likely an error in editing. King probably forgot to update the manuscript.

reply

Interesting. I've decided to re-read the book purely out of fascination for the story itself.


Would you mind my engaging in a bit of shameless self-promotion?

There is a book on kindle called "The Pale Horse". It tells the story of a world-wide pandemic that also wipes out the vast majority of humanity. Think of it in terms of "The Stand" without the supernatural stuff.

I wrote it. Kindle put the first pages out as a teaser, so you can see if you like it. I am about to finish up the rough draft of another (much shorter) novel and when that one is done, I'll put it on kindle as well.

Take a look at it if you want.

reply

I will definitely check that out once I'm done with The Stand! How cool!

reply

I bet Kings changes depended on how much coke was in his system at the time. I'm guessing this was one of those times.

reply

Still better than twilight.

reply

I thought it was pretty good. Solid cast. They didn't have the budget to do somethings convincingly, but otherwise it's a fine adaptation.

reply

I think the miniseries is pretty good and faithful to the book in all the stuff that really matters. Text can't and shouldn't be directly translated to the screen, most of the time. They are different mediums and convey ideas and themes in different ways. I think my only real criticism of the miniseries would be that it strips out Harold Lauder's layers and humanity, turning him into a one-note villain without any depth. In book it is critical that we get his backstory and, more important, we get to see him grieve for his family and show some genuine vulnerability and tenderness.

reply

Agreed. Something that works in a book might not work at all on the screen, so complete fidelity to the source material is rarely possible, nonetheless, the script should not deviate TOO much from the original story. Very often Hollywood changes stuff when it isn't needed. One example is the movie 'The Sum of All Fears'. Tom Clancy was not pleased with changes that were made from his novel, the chief one being that the villains were changed from Marxists and Muslim fanatics to--what else?--neo-Nazis. This would have pissed me off as well.

reply