Gary O.'s Replies


[quote]I enjoy seeing her.[/quote] Agreed; she is a lovely woman. [quote]LOL! The AI algorithm saw things like "White attacks Black" and freaked out. You're right, truth is weirder than fiction. [/quote]That is as silly as it comes. When I read the link in the OP, I had to make sure it wasn't from 'The Onion'. Being a skeptic, I checked IMDb, and there is a listing for an apparent remake. My wish is that it follows to novel closer than the 1979 and 2004 versions. Don't be shy, Mr. Miller. Tell us what you really think!! 2 Your point at first glance is a valid one but I don't see it as a violation of the accused's rights. [quote] Lets say someone is accused of murder. Constitutionally, that person is entitled to an impartial jury. In a community this small, everyone would probably know both the accused and the victim. Same goes for the judge and lawyers, assuming you have anyone qualified to fill either role(the only known judge was sent on a foolish suicide mission).[/quote] 2 How is holding someone accountable for criminal activities violating their rights? [quote]Lol that would be incredibly stupid. Ratify a document when you couldn't meet 99% of the requirements laid out. You couldn't even hold people accountable for anything, since you would constantly be violating everyone's "constitutional rights".[/quote] 2 No doubt there are a few genuine votes for 1/10 but I have heard elsewhere of a campaign by Depp fans to trash anything Heard associates with. [quote]How do you know the 1/10s are not simply because crappy show?[/quote] 2 Just FTR, I am most emphatically NOT a part of the Cancel Culture. Not only is it unethical but it is also dangerous in a free society in most cases. [quote]Meant to reply to Footlegger, guess I hit the wrong one[/quote] [quote]Good. She and anyone or anything associated with her must be brought down and dragged thru the mud ...give her a taste of what it is like to be unjustly damned by the masses.[/quote] This is an interesting post. It shows how far some will go to achieve petty revenge. Agreed. Stu Redman from "The Stand". [quote]Captain Tripps was a virus, but there was clearly a supernatural force at work. I think the only way anyone survived is if they were chosen by either side. Hiding in a bunker probably wouldn't save anyone who wasn't meant to survive.[/quote] Agreed. This has been talked about on the old IMDb forum, and a few, including yours truly, believe that the virus was supernaturally enhanced. This is not explicitly stated, but there are allusions to it in the book. The Hand of God did not come from Mother Abagail. She was dead long before it showed. [quote]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. <b>More people believing in god giving mother more power until it got to the point where she could manifest the hand of god.</b> Though I suppose everyone getting the same/similar dreams helped people get on board with believing.[/quote] 2 I have brought this issue up in the Facebook Stand group that I'm in. OTOH, the question was posed in the FB Stand group, as to why not just read the book again if you want the exact same story on film? It's a fair question, I think. [quote]More generally, [b]so much has been changed that this is a quite different story than the original. Fine, but why give it the same title?[/b] Why give the characters the same names? When Bernstein et al moved Romeo and Juliet into a world of 1950s street gangs they didn't pretend they were telling the same tale, but I daresay West Side Story resembles its inspiration more than this miniseries resembles the book.[/quote] [quote]3 versions of the book???[/quote] 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. 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? 2 So, how are you liking it over-all? Is it as good as the 1994 mini-series? [quote] I doubt people would LOVE to see a faithful adaptation of a book consisting of memoirs and letters (if i remember correct) this version is pretty entertaining- so probably my favorite.[/quote] I meant the story that is presented in the book, not the epistolatory form of the book. Not by a long shot. The version closest to the story presented in the book is the 1977 BBC effort "Count Dracula". 2 If you don't mind a bit of shameless self-promotion here, I have a book on kindle that can fairly be described as The Stand without the supernatural stuff. It is called The Pale Horse, and it tells the story of a group of Marxist fanatics that release a virus that kills the majority of the human race. Both the pandemic and the aftermath are reported, but the aftermath is the majority of the story. It is not politically correct, even though I have created a good (and realistic, I think) cast of characters that represent US society in the eary 21st Century. Minorities and females are well-represented as both good and bad guys.