Unlike others who have seen the 1994 version and read the book, I do not completely hate this version, although it is quite mediocre for several reasons, it does have a few merits. I suppose this serves as a decent introductory for the book, but despite it's upgraded production values, it falls short of the 1994 min-series, and doesn't cover much ground the 1994 series does, despite a 4hr longer length, which is just bizarre. I also want to note that people always like to say, who have not read the book, "Your opinion doesn't matter because you read the book, shut up", and vice versa, can we not take a different approach? I think if a movie or series is based on a book, it must please both those who don't know the book, and those who do, or why adapt a work at all?
Adapting Stephen King will always be a mixed bag. King's fans may be difficult to please at times, but "The Shining" is a great example of how you don't have to exactly follow the book to make a good adaptation. I find both merits in the 1980 film and 1997 mini-series of "The Shining". The "Dr. Sleep" movie, however, was not great, it had it's moments, but in being a direct sequel to "The Shining" and relying too heavily on flashbacks, it lost it's power. "The Dead Zone", movie, not TV show, is a fantastic adaptation that, again, gets the gist of the book, but still makes a fair amount of changes, it is very effective. So, for those who don't read King, no, you don't have to be entirely faithful to his works to please. However, "The Stand", to me, is so singular of a work, it does require it to, at the very least, be faithful in tone and to the characters, and the spirit of the book, and for me, this is the primary way the new adaptation misses it's mark.
The sequencing on the series, in my opinion, is largely to blame, and the ridiculous amount of screen time given to Harold, he is just focused on far too much. The sequencing is out of order for about 6 episodes, and what this does, is make it incredibly hard to connect to ANY character. I did not feel any connection to the characters until they began "The Walk". This isn't the completely fault of the script, but rather mostly the sequencing, it really kills the characters and story. The story needs that buildup from pre-super flu to super flu sweeping through the world, to the very end, it gives us an attachment to the characters. This is detrimental to the story because the story IS about the characters and how they cope with the world essentially being reset, and their growth, in some cases from awful people, to okay or really good people. Without the connection to the characters, it feels more like a random sequence of events than anything else.
I don't dislike Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but the script and her interpretation are to blame here. Mother Abigail becomes not a grandmotherly ethereal character, which she is supposed to be, but rather a cranky old woman. It seems they tried to make her more flawed, she isn't perfect in the book or other adaptation, and in doing so, lost the core of her character. They also, for some bizarre reason, entirely changed what Hemmingford Home is. No idea why, and I do believe that is important, Hemmingford Home is an important place in the book, to mother Abigail and the characters. It feels hollow and empty here, almost an aside.
Fran also becomes a morose and obnoxious character, who honestly just is not likeable at all, even if you hated Molly Ringwald's version, I hope we can agree, that Fran should be likeable. Stu is also a paper thin character here, I have read so many complaints of Gary Sinise' version, but really? James Marsden is okay in some roles, but he is not a good Stu, he ads no levity to the character and plays him far too straight. Sinise' Stu was more complex, not because of the script, but because of the emotional depth Sinise gave him. Also, Amber Heard, as Nadine is pretty annoying. They tried to give her character a little more depth, but outside of the final episode she is in, it just came across as annoying, because she essentially is nothing more than a closet satanist in this version, with a weird mother complex, and it actually gives her zero depth, maybe with a better actress who could have fleshed the character out, it would have worked. . I agree with others, in that, taking away the rape aspect was indeed a misfire because Flagg is a despicable person, this is really the first time we see how awful he actually is.
However, the 2 biggest problems, because Mother Abigail, have to be Nick and Tom, this is a REALLY important part of the story, and they do not at all cover this relationship in this version of the stand, not at all. Also, I found the interpretation by Bill Fagerbakke so much more human, whereas Brad William Henke's version borderline offensive and a total caricature. The script is largely to blame by adding in some dialogue that is incredibly annoying, and makes Tom nearly unbearable to watch. Nick's character is also skewered, we don't get to know him, and he comes across as this almost messianic martyr, with absolutely no depth. The parts between Tom and Nick in the old adaptation are some of my favorite parts, they have a fun chemistry and they do some good character building, even without too much background.
Alexander Skarsgaard is not a bad actor, and he does what he can with the role, but I felt it was even more limited here than in the old adaptation, and no less cheesy. The cheese was just as thick here as in the old version, although, a bit less stagey in execution. Despite the Mullet, Jamey Sheridan does a better job with Flagg, and even though the effects are dated, they hold up just fine.
Trash can is also woefully absent, and comes across as far too unhinged, love or hate Matt Frewer's rendition, it is still better than the absurdly ridiculous AND low-screen time version of trash can. In the book, you actually feel some empathy for him, neither version of the book achieves this though, and they had a good opportunity to flesh Trash Can out, they totally missed it, 100%, and again took far too much screen time up on the annoying Harold. Again, Harold may be important, but the worst decision they made was making him more of a focal point than several other characters. I preferred him in in the 1994 version a heck of a lot more, despite it not being totally faithful, it caught the essence of his character.
All in all, I am not saying this isn't somewhat enjoyable, it had it's moments, but on the whole, I got bored pretty quick. By not giving enough time to some characters, and then bringing in minor characters, it really becomes a lopsided affair with a narrative style that hurts the story. It virtually tells the same story as the 1994 version, but choppy sequencing that hurts the characters and story, and with little character development, aside from Harold, and turns a story of hope into a story that feels angry and resentful. It's not bad, it's just mediocre.
Adapting Stephen King will always be a mixed bag. King's fans may be difficult to please at times, but "The Shining" is a great example of how you don't have to exactly follow the book to make a good adaptation. I find both merits in the 1980 film and 1997 mini-series of "The Shining". The "Dr. Sleep" movie, however, was not great, it had it's moments, but in being a direct sequel to "The Shining" and relying too heavily on flashbacks, it lost it's power. "The Dead Zone", movie, not TV show, is a fantastic adaptation that, again, gets the gist of the book, but still makes a fair amount of changes, it is very effective. So, for those who don't read King, no, you don't have to be entirely faithful to his works to please. However, "The Stand", to me, is so singular of a work, it does require it to, at the very least, be faithful in tone and to the characters, and the spirit of the book, and for me, this is the primary way the new adaptation misses it's mark.
The sequencing on the series, in my opinion, is largely to blame, and the ridiculous amount of screen time given to Harold, he is just focused on far too much. The sequencing is out of order for about 6 episodes, and what this does, is make it incredibly hard to connect to ANY character. I did not feel any connection to the characters until they began "The Walk". This isn't the completely fault of the script, but rather mostly the sequencing, it really kills the characters and story. The story needs that buildup from pre-super flu to super flu sweeping through the world, to the very end, it gives us an attachment to the characters. This is detrimental to the story because the story IS about the characters and how they cope with the world essentially being reset, and their growth, in some cases from awful people, to okay or really good people. Without the connection to the characters, it feels more like a random sequence of events than anything else.
I don't dislike Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but the script and her interpretation are to blame here. Mother Abigail becomes not a grandmotherly ethereal character, which she is supposed to be, but rather a cranky old woman. It seems they tried to make her more flawed, she isn't perfect in the book or other adaptation, and in doing so, lost the core of her character. They also, for some bizarre reason, entirely changed what Hemmingford Home is. No idea why, and I do believe that is important, Hemmingford Home is an important place in the book, to mother Abigail and the characters. It feels hollow and empty here, almost an aside.
Fran also becomes a morose and obnoxious character, who honestly just is not likeable at all, even if you hated Molly Ringwald's version, I hope we can agree, that Fran should be likeable. Stu is also a paper thin character here, I have read so many complaints of Gary Sinise' version, but really? James Marsden is okay in some roles, but he is not a good Stu, he ads no levity to the character and plays him far too straight. Sinise' Stu was more complex, not because of the script, but because of the emotional depth Sinise gave him. Also, Amber Heard, as Nadine is pretty annoying. They tried to give her character a little more depth, but outside of the final episode she is in, it just came across as annoying, because she essentially is nothing more than a closet satanist in this version, with a weird mother complex, and it actually gives her zero depth, maybe with a better actress who could have fleshed the character out, it would have worked. . I agree with others, in that, taking away the rape aspect was indeed a misfire because Flagg is a despicable person, this is really the first time we see how awful he actually is.
However, the 2 biggest problems, because Mother Abigail, have to be Nick and Tom, this is a REALLY important part of the story, and they do not at all cover this relationship in this version of the stand, not at all. Also, I found the interpretation by Bill Fagerbakke so much more human, whereas Brad William Henke's version borderline offensive and a total caricature. The script is largely to blame by adding in some dialogue that is incredibly annoying, and makes Tom nearly unbearable to watch. Nick's character is also skewered, we don't get to know him, and he comes across as this almost messianic martyr, with absolutely no depth. The parts between Tom and Nick in the old adaptation are some of my favorite parts, they have a fun chemistry and they do some good character building, even without too much background.
Alexander Skarsgaard is not a bad actor, and he does what he can with the role, but I felt it was even more limited here than in the old adaptation, and no less cheesy. The cheese was just as thick here as in the old version, although, a bit less stagey in execution. Despite the Mullet, Jamey Sheridan does a better job with Flagg, and even though the effects are dated, they hold up just fine.
Trash can is also woefully absent, and comes across as far too unhinged, love or hate Matt Frewer's rendition, it is still better than the absurdly ridiculous AND low-screen time version of trash can. In the book, you actually feel some empathy for him, neither version of the book achieves this though, and they had a good opportunity to flesh Trash Can out, they totally missed it, 100%, and again took far too much screen time up on the annoying Harold. Again, Harold may be important, but the worst decision they made was making him more of a focal point than several other characters. I preferred him in in the 1994 version a heck of a lot more, despite it not being totally faithful, it caught the essence of his character.
All in all, I am not saying this isn't somewhat enjoyable, it had it's moments, but on the whole, I got bored pretty quick. By not giving enough time to some characters, and then bringing in minor characters, it really becomes a lopsided affair with a narrative style that hurts the story. It virtually tells the same story as the 1994 version, but choppy sequencing that hurts the characters and story, and with little character development, aside from Harold, and turns a story of hope into a story that feels angry and resentful. It's not bad, it's just mediocre.