Why is it bad?


I wanted to watch this but ratings are quite low.

What did not work... what die they get wrong or change, etc?

Thank you in advance.

reply

I'll tell you the two things that are driving me crazy and taking me out of it:

1. I tried to go along with it, but non-linear storytelling doesn't work here. It jumps all over the place and I don't have a bond with any character. I don't see the evolution of a character from before Captain Trips to Boulder and feel no empathy or concern for anyone. Each episode cuts from one time to another, yet we already know who's alive later so it takes the tension out. Why would I feel concerned Frannie is going to be killed by the trucker when I saw her in Boulder earlier in the episode. Without spoilers, there is a big twist in the second part of the book that is built up in the 4th episode and I didn't understand why the characters are about to do the extreme thing they are planning. I really don't feel connected to Nick or Tom whatsoever. I don't care a lick about Frannie - frankly she's annoying in the quick scenes they give her. Larry is just a cool dude with a guitar - there is zero redemption arc. Stu is bland with dimples. He's a background extra here yet arguably the main character in the novel.

2. This mini-series feels incredibly small. I don't know what the budget is, but it's like watching a cop drama on UPN instead of a min-series event. Sets are small, there is no feeling for how large a disaster this all is (even the New York scenes didn't feel impressive with 6+ million people dead and their ending shot of the city was seriously lacking), and many of the scenes are in more intimate surroundings like a living room. Where are the rows and rows of stalled cars? The towns filled with bodies? We maybe see a cut of a main street as a character goes from A to B with one person dead on a park bench. This is a worldwide cataclysmic event but it might as well have been entirely filmed on a soundstage and a producer's backyard.

reply

Thank you... I think I will skip (at least for now).

reply

I'm having the same reaction as jekporkins, not caring what happens to any of the characters. I think that for me the problem is that the characters' personalities have been changed enough that they've really become different characters. The same names are on the same teams, but beyond that there are dissimilarities. Imagine a remake of The Godfather where Sonny is calm and thoughtful, Fredo is brilliant but unbalanced, and Michael is scheming to betray the family. Might be a good story there, but I probably wouldn't enjoy it -- I'd have the original characters stuck in my head and would largely react, "WTF is this?" Same here.

I'll probably stick it out to the end, but unless they really surprise me I won't revisit it afterward.

reply

+1

reply

They even made Kojack unlikeable...

Might as well, they failed to make me care about any of the other characters.

reply

I am incredibly disappointed so far. Jumping around in time allows no building of story, no character development. I don't care about any of these people. They are not the Stu, Larry, Flagg, Nick, or Frannie that I know and love watching. It jumped right into the plague... no build up whatsoever. This should have been two stories, like the '90s series: 1) the near-end of humanity via a plague, that leads into 2) a real battle of good vs evil. It wasn't. Also, to nitpick... I love Alexander Skarsgård, but Flagg is not the right role for this guy. His grin is not menacing... it's just goofy.

To sum it up... bad storytelling, bad casting, and far from the epic masterpiece that it should have been.

reply

I subscribed only to see this...what a waste of money. It's boring...no connection to any character.

I'm sure anyone who has not read the book or seen the original series doesn't have a clue what's going on.

reply

> I subscribed only to see this

Same here. Well, CBS got a little of my money, I can live with that.

> I'm sure anyone who has not read the book or seen the original series doesn't have a clue what's going on.

I wonder about that too. It looks to me like they assumed the audience has already read and/or seen The Stand in its prior versions. They're not trying at all to establish characterizations, instead they're just telling us that character X is a certain way. The result is characters who are beyond being merely flat but are actually stale. But sometimes they don't even follow through on their "established" characterizations. For example, when we first see Larry he laments that he's a selfish jerk, but he's done very little to demonstrate that. So later, when another person says to him "empathy isn't your strong suit" it comes off as bizarre; and because it's Nadine saying it, it seems more an indictment of her character than of his.

And then there's Nick. They apparently thought "the original character is deaf and mute, so this Nick will be that way." But having done that, they seem to have had little idea of what to do with him in their "new" Stand. So they did little, just walking him through his paces. A viewer not familiar with the story might well wonder "why is this guy even here?"

Finally, I've gotta wonder about something else. What's under the spoiler tag is something already known to anyone who's read the novel, but I'm hiding it in case someone completely new to the story reads this ... With all the altered characterizations, lack of exploring complex motives, et cetera, a person completely new to the story might view the committee sending Tom to spy in Vegas as arbitrary, bizarre, and even cruel. "These are supposed to be the good guys, and they're doing that?

reply

I have to mirror a lot of the thoughts on here. The non-linear format was a terrible idea. It killed the development of any momentum, and I question whether this would even be comprehensible for anyone who hasn't read the book or seen the 1994 miniseries. It's a shame, because some of the acting is excellent and the production values are pretty damn good, for the most part. Without question, the 1994 miniseries remains the superior adaptation.

reply

Like others have said, the time jumps are very poorly done. The whole plot feels really messy.
My biggest gripe with the story in general is the personification of "good" vs "evil" driving you to make a choice. It's so simplistic and uninspired.

reply

> My biggest gripe with the story in general is the personification of "good" vs "evil" driving you to make a choice. It's so simplistic and uninspired.

LOL -- I've often thought, if I were part of this story, where would I end up? Not Boulder or Vegas, that's for sure. Plenty of nice, abandoned small farms east of the Mississippi with the land already plowed, seeds laid in, et cetera.

This version of The Stand is quite different from the book or 1994 miniseries, but the same complaint could be made about them. Have you seen it or read the book? If so, what did you think of them?

reply

Yeah, that wasn't a complaint about this adaptation in particular, but of the concept as a whole. And nope, haven't read the book or seen miniseries because, as you see, the story itself doesn't really interest me. I had hoped this adaptation would offer a different interpretation.

reply

I like the story, but there are aspects of the good vs evil part I also find overly simplistic; mainly, people's reasons for joining each side. The novel had three stories: (a) the pandemic and society's breakdown; (b) the "good" survivors regrouping, heading to Boulder, and forming their own society there; and (c) the final confrontation in Vegas between good and evil. The first part has some of King's best writing in the book, IMO. He sometimes takes a bad or horrifying situation and finds the humor in it, then pushes that as far as he can without ruining the horror. The results can be hilarious. For example, we get a first hand view of some of the truly warped stuff that goes on inside the head of Trashy (the guy who Flagg sends off to find the nuke). I find the novel enjoyable enough for that part alone, even though I have complaints about parts (b) and (c).

The powers that be for this adaptation wanted to mostly skip the first two parts and focus on the good/evil battle, but in doing so they dropped some of the character development for the major players. For example, in the novel Larry starts off as a jerk but gradually matures into a decent person. Here Larry starts by telling us he's a jerk but we really see very little of that. (A problem not only with his characterization -- TPTB seem to have forgotten the writer's rule of "show, don't tell.")

The part of a story like this which I would personally be most fascinated with would be part (b), the rebuilding of a society. Now, given the good vs evil and supernatural nature of the story King wanted to tell, it was impossible for him to approach that aspect realistically, and in fact he ended that part with a bang (literally) because it was sidetracking him from what he wanted to do. So I really can't give a hearty endorsement for the middle part of the novel, although there's some good character development there. But again, the first part is worthwhile; you might wanna check it out someday.

reply

I find that a rather odd attitude since the entire story is God vs Satan. It was always that way. The characters were a more varied; everyone in Boulder (not counting Harold and Nadine) were certainly not perfectly good. The people in New Vegas were not all perfectly evil. But that is the basic story.

reply

Yeah, I'm aware. Was hoping for something a bit less "in your face".

reply

It isn't bad. It's actually better than I thought it would be. If you can just sit back, relax and keep in mind that it's only a fucking TV show.

reply

Nah it's garbage

reply

I concur. The last episode was total crap compared to the old one.

reply

Yeah, that was a bad episode. I was hoping to see the part with Stu and Tom camping out in a hotel during the winter but nooo.

reply

Some parts were indeed garbage. Most of it was not.

reply

The finale was definitely garbage.

reply