Also, Amber Heard, as Nadine is pretty annoying. Sinise' Stu was more complex, not because of the script, but because of the emotional depth Sinise gave him. 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. 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. It feels hollow and empty here, almost an aside. 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. They also, for some bizarre reason, entirely changed what Hemmingford Home is. 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. Mother Abigail becomes not a grandmotherly ethereal character, which she is supposed to be, but rather a cranky old woman. I don't dislike Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but the script and her interpretation are to blame here. Without the connection to the characters, it feels more like a random sequence of events than anything else. 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. 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 isn't the completely fault of the script, but rather mostly the sequencing, it really kills the characters and story. I did not feel any connection to the characters until they began "The Walk". The sequencing is out of order for about 6 episodes, and what this does, is make it incredibly hard to connect to ANY character. 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.
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. So, for those who don't read King, no, you don't have to be entirely faithful to his works to please.
#2020 episodes tv#
"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. 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. I find both merits in the 1980 film and 1997 mini-series of "The Shining". 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.
#2020 episodes movie#
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. 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. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
