MovieChat Forums > The Stand (1994) Discussion > Thoughts on seeing this the first time

Thoughts on seeing this the first time

posted 3 years ago by Jes' Sayin' (5990)
17 replies | jump to latest

- The first half seems a lot more entertaining than the second. There are a lot more interesting ideas and situations in the first half. Part 3 in particular really seemed like they were just stretching the story out to fill up the time. On the other hand, they suddenly introduce Lucy and they're already in a relationship without their showing us any of its development. They certainly could have used some of the extra time in part 3 to show us that.

- I've never seen anyone say so, but Twin Peaks would seem to owe a lot to this show. The conflict between good and evil forces, large ensemble cast, cross country trips, pure evil characters, Miguel Ferrer, and so on.

- Sort of bothered that the characters don't seem to have much agency. People who get the good dreams are the chosen ones and those who get the bad dreams are doomed? Not very fair.

- Since the deity character is taking such an active role, why bother to have the humans go on all these quests and get killed? Why not just take out Flagg from the start and be done with it.

- The author Stephen King seemed to go through an atlas and pick towns not so much because of their locations, but from their names. Copperfield, Ax, and so on. Funny to see him here as an actor, though not a particularly good one.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8317) 3 years ago

I went through a phase a couple of years ago where I was catching up on Stephen King mini-series and The Stand was among them. I don't remember much in the way of details, but one thing I do specifically remember is that, yes, the first half is much better. In the back half, I thought it got very ridiculous and silly and was really struggling to finish it.

During this King-A-Thon I also watched Storm of the Century. If you haven't seen that one, I highly recommend it. In my opinion, it's much better than The Stand and it's also great to watch during the winter months.

As for Stephen King's acting, I don't remember him, but I did see him in IT Chapter II and thought he was actually quite good in his cameo. Perhaps he has improved as a thespian.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5990) 3 years ago

Interesting. Appreciate the reply! :)

[–] Redsfan001 (6015) 3 years ago

The TV adaptation is good, but the book is great. I remember reading it in my 20's and couldn't put it down.

Much more insight info on certain characters (Trashcan man)

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5990) 3 years ago

Good to know, thanks!

[–] Gary O. (999) 3 years ago

The TV adaptation is good, but the book is great. I remember reading it in my 20's and couldn't put it down.

Much more insight info on certain characters (Trashcan man)

Agreed.

In addition, the 1994 mini-series follows the book pretty closely as well. This is my favorite King story by far.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

" I've never seen anyone say so, but Twin Peaks would seem to owe a lot to this show.

Twin Peaks was released four years before the Stand Mini Series.

"The conflict between good and evil forces"

Is a mainstay of 10,000s of dramatic works..

"large ensemble cast, cross country trips, pure evil characters, Miguel Ferrer, and so on."

None of that is unique to either product.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5990) 3 years ago

But the book is older, no?

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

Sure the OP was talking about the Mini Series not the book.

It makes even less sense to argue that Twin Peaks owes anything to The Stand book.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5990) 3 years ago

Anyway, I was talking about the recent instance of Twin Peaks, of course. There isn't much cross-country travel in that one of, what, thirty years ago.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

"The first half seems a lot more entertaining than the second."

That is true to form with the book. The first third of the book is the best part. It lags like crazy in the middle third but still has a lot of greatness and the final third is really goes off the rails, but still have a lot of great parts.

" Since the deity character is taking such an active role, why bother to have the humans go on all these quests and get killed? Why not just take out Flagg from the start and be done with it."

The best part of the book is the spread of Tube Neck and the collapse of society. Once that ends and the mother Abigail and Randal Flagg takes over the book gets worse and worse the longer it goes on. How Flagg is dispatched is the worst use of Deux Ex Machina ever written. Thing is there is about 100 pages of story that takes place after that is awesome.

[–] ExTechOp (2757) 3 years ago

Agree 100% w/ Esterhouse's assessment of the book

BUT I thought the series was only OK ... basically a low-TV-quality effort.

That said, the main title, showing the dead scientists to Blue Oyster Cult's song, blew me away.

It's up there with "Tank Girl" for killer opening credit sequences (for films that went on to disappoint)

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

Oh yeah, the hype for this mini series was huge! The Stand was King most popular books up to that point.

> BUT I thought the series was only OK ... basically a low-TV-quality effort.

Agreed. They didn't have the budget that they needed and they got most of the casting right.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 3 years ago

Well if it's not good enough for CBS to broadcast it goes straight to your little box.

The 1994 TV epic mini-series should not have been touched.

[–] Gary O. (999) 3 years ago

- Since the deity character is taking such an active role, why bother to have the humans go on all these quests and get killed? Why not just take out Flagg from the start and be done with it.

This is a good question and I believe that the answer is God (the deity character) primarily works through other people. Direct divine intervention in human events is rare. Here are a few examples from the Bible.

--Samson and the temple of Dagon. God could easily have destroyed the temple himself, but Samson pulled it down after he was blinded and killed himself along with the Philistines.

--David and Goliath. God could have killed Goliath Himself rather than putting David in danger of death, so why didn't He?

--Charity. God could very easily create wealth for the poor, but He commands those who are well-off to provide for them instead.

--Satan. Satan is identified in the Scriptures as the primary source of evil and conflict in the world so why does He allow Satan to continue his activities? He could very quickly dispatch Satan this very instant if He wanted, so why not do it?

I don't pretend to know the answers here, but you are asking a very good question.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2652) 3 years ago

I wondered if it had something to do with thought/belief manifestation. So many of the survivors wondering if they were there for a reason. More people believing in god giving mother more power until it got to the point where she could manifest the hand of god. Though I suppose everyone getting the same/similar dreams helped people get on board with believing.

[–] Gary O. (999) 3 years ago

The Hand of God did not come from Mother Abagail. She was dead long before it showed.

I wondered if it had something to do with thought/belief manifestation. So many of the survivors wondering if they were there for a reason. More people believing in god giving mother more power until it got to the point where she could manifest the hand of god. Though I suppose everyone getting the same/similar dreams helped people get on board with believing.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2652) 3 years ago

I guess it depends on how you interpret gods, prophets etc. I gather some religious people think god and Jesus is the same being or entity for instance.

It's not a stretch to consider mother as being part of god even if her Human existence is no more. At the end of the day, she was the face/conduit to god for everyone that met her.