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?
Admittedly, it was not perfect, but I actually liked the mini-series.
shareI like to pick at it...but that's because I'm so fond of it. I would never call it crap.
shareAs 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.
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?
shareYou 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.
Interesting. I've decided to re-read the book purely out of fascination for the story itself.
I will definitely check that out once I'm done with The Stand! How cool!
shareI bet Kings changes depended on how much coke was in his system at the time. I'm guessing this was one of those times.
shareStill better than twilight.
shareI thought it was pretty good. Solid cast. They didn't have the budget to do somethings convincingly, but otherwise it's a fine adaptation.
shareI 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.
shareAgreed. 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.
shareI actually enjoyed Harold’s trajectory in the mini-series. He goes from goofy nerd with a crush - almost a comic relief character - to bitter and twisted villain.
He starts off in a red and white track suit with comedy acne and fake enlarged butt and gut, to slimmed-down black leather clad greaser on a bike, blowing up innocent people with dynamite. It’s a believable transition too because of how jealous he is.
I’ve never read the book but the mini-series Harold always struck me as a great example of how ‘people change’.
Fun to watch after reading
shareStill vastly superior to the Woke new series
shareThis seems to be a widely-held view. Still, I'll get the DVD/Blu-ray of the new series when it comes out, as I want to add to my "Stand" collection.
Still vastly superior to the Woke new seriesshare
10 hours of my life I wish I could get back. They bastardized every character
shareI picked up the Blu-Ray boxed set of both mini-series Gary. I figured why not?
share