MovieChat Forums > The Stand (2020) Discussion > Global warming

Global warming

posted 3 years ago by BullSchmidt (3189)
8 replies | jump to latest

(My policy on spoilers here is that I assume everyone reading has read the novel and/or seen the 1994 miniseries, so I only cover up things that are unique to this new miniseries. With that said, this particular spoiler is so mild that I don't think it will ruin anything for anyone.)

I guess global warming is here. Just before Stu et al depart on the long walk west, Fran asks him how long it will take. He muses that they've got 800 to 900 miles to cover and might do 25 to 30 miles per day. So we can figure it will be about a month, give or take a week.

Stu then says they should get there around the end of February. So they're probably leaving in late January. Yet the massive snows that played an important part in King's novel (and also in The Shining) are nowhere to be seen. We do see some snow at various times in the episode, but never more than patches of it which are maybe 1/2" deep.

So I guess climate change is real in this setting. Or more likely, just sloppy writing. Either way, weird.

[–] Gary O. (997) 3 years ago

2 So, how are you liking it over-all?

Is it as good as the 1994 mini-series?

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

Overall, meh. Not as good as I'd hoped, not as bad as I'd feared. 5/10.

The biggest problem for me is that they've changed characters so much that it's difficult to relate to them. And I find myself thinking of a passage from the novel, where Lucy muses that a person can't change the past and that's a good thing -- otherwise most people would spend their whole lives trying to redo their teenage years. Well, how many times has King redone The Stand now? Three different books and two miniseries. I wonder if he's ever read that passage while preparing a "new" Stand and thought, whoa, what am I doing?

There are a few nice surprises along the way. For example, it's set in the present day, but they don't whack us in the face with it. The Internet and some other things are mentioned briefly in Ep. 1, but that's it. By the end of one of the later eps it's easy for viewers to have forgotten that there are other possible consequences of modernizing the story ... but we find out Harold hasn't forgotten and is using new opportunities.

It's been a while since I've seen the '94 miniseries, but I remember understanding the characters' motives and thoughts better than with this one. What I don't remember is how much of that was inherent in the '94 miniseries itself and how much was because it was mostly faithful to the book. But with this version, the people seem to just do what they're supposed to without any exploration of inner thoughts. For example, Fran first dislikes Harold, then likes him, then distrusts him -- why? And when Nick finds the bomb there's none of the frantic terror in the original story; rather, it's as if he thinks "the script says I'm supposed to stand here and die now."

On the whole I liked '94 better than this. But at least Mick Garris isn't directing this miniseries, and that's an improvement.

[–] Gary O. (997) 3 years ago

2 I read your comments about Mick Garris with a bit of amusement. Many people seem to feel the same way that you do about him.

I have no problem with his work that I have seen, (The Stand, The Shining, Sleepwalkers, etc.) so I wonder why the dislike of him?

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

I looked at Garris's IMDB directing credits, and the only three things I remember much about are The Stand, The Shining, and Psycho IV. The Shining is the reason I have, as a conditioned Pavlovian reflex, an immediate colon clench when I see his name attached to anything. Some of the "horror" elements were laughable -- doors slamming shut by themselves after people left a room, that sort of thing. Sometimes he drew what were supposed to be tense moments out far too long, destroying the effect.

And I disliked what that miniseries did to the Jack Torrance character. I'll agree with King in disliking what Kubrick did -- his Torrance was already cracking from the opening credits, whereas in the novel he arrives at the Overlook a sane man, badly beaten but with a lot of fight left in him. The Garris version is the worst of both worlds, a weak, sniveling man who has neither the crazy je ne sais quoi of the Kubrick version or the strength of the book's. It took the hotel's demons to break the novel's Jack Torrance. In Garris's version the hotel isn't even necessary, Jack could have been broken by a feather duster. It might be tempting to blame Steven Weber for that, but I had no complaints about his performance as acting -- I didn't find the portrayal unrealistic at all, for example. And actors commonly say their job is to do the part the way the director wants it done, so although I'm inferring I think it's fair to put this on Garris.

Psycho IV wasn't bad, but was a poor successor to the prior three movies. And although the Norman Bates story has some icky Oedipal overtones, there are good ways and bad ways to approach any idea, but two of the scenes in the movie were absolutely cringeworthy.

I've got the least complaints about The Stand (94), although it's been a while since I've seen it. But I did think Garris's techniques, composition of shots, and so on were straightforward, mundane, and unimaginative. Not good for a part-horror story.

[–] sawzaw (68) 3 years ago

3 versions of the book???

[–] Gary O. (997) 3 years ago

3 versions of the book???

1978 hardback set in 1980, 1980 paperback set in 1985, and the 1988 Complete & Uncut (HB and PB) set in 1990.

The 1980 version is the same as the 1978 edition except for the dates and Harold's candy bar changes to a Milky Way instead of Payday. It changes back to Payday in the 1988 C&U for some reason.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

There's also a comic book version I had forgotten about, a six volume series. It's faithful to the novel, more so than the 1994 miniseries was. Here's volume 1: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AWR04HK/

[–] asom (6504) 3 years ago

There's a HUGE difference between redoing the past over and over and trying to improve your product in the normal way, going forward.

Improving the product happens every time. Honda is releasing Honda Civic with improvements each year (or 5 years) for decades already, as an example. That's the natural way to do it.