Kevin's Watch

Well, so far, (1 episode in), I've been pretty pleasantly surprised. (Except maybe for the casting of Stu Redman...)

Was surprised at it starting in the middle, but looks like they're being pretty true to the book at the moment.

Watched it under sufferance but enjoyed it more than I thought.

Also, lots of nice little details and call-outs to other stuff, like in "Castle Rock."

The "Darkman" movie poster (somewhere), the album art for King Crimson's album In the Court of the Crimson King on Harold's wall, couple other things that I can't remember right now.

Seems pretty promising...

--A

First episode wasn't enough to hook me, but it wasn't enough to turn me away, either. I will give it a few more eps to prove it's worth my time.

(Fortitude was the best Stephen King adaptation I have seen in a long time. It wasn't written by King -- but it sure feels like it.)

mmm... sounds interesting enough to give it a crack ... will reserve judgement till I’ve seen it. Is it on Betclix or HBO

Uh, CBS All Access I think. Coming to Amazon Prime in Jan apparently if that helps.

Well, I'm still not hating it. I was a little annoyed that they cast Larry as a black guy (and what's with the huge bag of drugs?) but only 'cause his whiteness is made an issue of in the book. It's not really a fundamentally significant change, and King didn't really write many black characters for them to work with...

Flag shouldn't be that blonde, or have a beard, but otherwise not hating him either. (And Nadine specifically wasn't blonde either...)

Realised that by starting in Boulder, they can do character stories as flashbacks, and sacrifice a lot of the detail while still capturing a précis of each character's backstory. It's probably critical because of the length of the book...I mean, King probably dedicated a couple hundred pages to Lloyds backstory for example, which they can't really cover as much as I might like.

So, still willing to watch the next episode and see how it goes...

--A

But Molly Ringwald is not in it.

Heather Graham was if that helps...

--A

Avatar wrote:Heather Graham was if that helps...

--A

No.

Quentin Tarantino has ruined storytelling. The non-linear approach to this adaptation ruins it. My wife has not read the book nor seen the original miniseries, and she's utterly lost. Why on Earth did the showrunners think this was the way to hook people who were unfamiliar with the source material?

The kid playing Harold is nailing it. Across the board, the acting is solid. But Harold in particular has a journey, so when we see him get called, "Hawk" in the first episode, it's nearly meaningless.

I caught up to episode 3.

I have to agree that the non-linear format is not only extremely confusing, but it ruins just about everything that was good about the first half of the book -- while adding nothing.

That being said, it has improved somewhat since the first episode. The emergence of the Walking Dude, Mother Abigail, Glen Bateman, and especially Tom Cullen have added some much needed "grab". Nick Andros seems like a misfire, and Larry Underwood is as well.

M-O-O-N, that spells meh.

I guess it all turns on the Trash-can Man. He'll make it or break it.

wayfriend wrote:I have to agree that the non-linear format is not only extremely confusing, but it ruins just about everything that was good about the first half of the book -- while adding nothing.

Exactly. I don't get how anyone involved with the project thought this was a good idea.

It rips the entire story up, and completely destroys Harold's journey. The "Hawk" moment in Boulder is such a crucial point in the story, and it's just sort of tossed off in the first episode. Every bit of power and tragedy in that moment is gone.

Edited to add - Just watched episode 3. Holy crow the guy playing Tom Cullen absolutely kills the part. Nearly moved me to tears. Greg Kinnear is channeling Glen really well. In fact, with the exceptions of Larry, Lloyd, Nick, and Flagg, the performances are great.

Which makes me that much madder at the way the story's being told. It's all about the final confrontation rather than the various paths that got them there. WF's spot-on, it loses everything wonderful about the first half to two-thirds of the book.

I discovered a couple of things on the Stephen King wiki that I'll share:

Initially, it was hoped that "The Stand" would be made into a theatrical release. For over a decade the project was in "development hell" while various directors (Ben Affleck, Paul Greengrass and David Yates) were attached to the project, only to drop out and move on. Eventually, Josh Boone ("The Fault in Our Stars") took on the project and stayed on when it moved from the big screen back to television. CBS All Access took over and made it into a ten hour mini-series with nine episodes directed by Boone.

Well, that explains why it is such a mess.

According to news reports, Stephen King has written an entirely different ending to the final chapter of the series that is also different than the book as well as a coda.

Oh boy. Can't wait.

There've been so many attempts to bring it to the big screen, going back to the original one by George Romero. I'm not going to say it's unfilmable, but it's certainly looking that way.

I can sorta see why they're telling it that way...I don't like it, but as I said, each character origin has so much detail that they're putting them in a single place, and then flash-backing to pivotal moments in their arc.

(Agree about the Harold thing though...no impact at all.)

Flag should have been Matthew Mcconaughey...

Not hating Nick, Lloyd was a bit meh, and Larry is acceptable, although not great. (Also, I found a much worse adaptation of something to go and rail about, so excuse me...)

--A

wayfriend wrote:

According to news reports, Stephen King has written an entirely different ending to the final chapter of the series that is also different than the book as well as a coda.

Oh boy. Can't wait.

Well, I might just finish the series then. I loved the book until the ending, which absolutely ruined it for me.

As for breaking up the story like this, it reminds me a lot of Lost, where each episode focused on one or two characters. I like the style but agree that Harold's journey is really being glossed; he's full-on creep from the beginning. In the book he had a much more significant journey and a chance at redemption that just isn't there in the show.

Is the Elvis kid in the series?

Rigel wrote:Harold's journey is really being glossed; he's full-on creep from the beginning. In the book he had a much more significant journey and a chance at redemption that just isn't there in the show.

Having been familiar with the story since the late '70s, I'm just now realizing that Harold's the most important character in the story.

What's being done to his journey is inexcusable.

Yeah, over the years I've come to feel similarly, perhaps not the most (don't know if there is one most important one), but certainly one of the few who are most important.

Every time I read it, it almost kills me to think how close he comes to that redemption...to being able to just let it all go and move on.

(Come to think of it, perhaps one of the most important requirements.)

sgt.null wrote:Is the Elvis kid in the series?

Not yet, but given the penchant for short, punchy bits that don't go anywhere, he probably will be. Briefly.

--A

Your reviews so far are not making me want to watch the series.

I'm really enjoying it myself...

Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Having been familiar with the story since the late '70s, I'm just now realizing that Harold's the most important character in the story.

Well if you define "story" (and many people don't!) as interesting people making interesting choices, most of the characters are straight-forward in the decisions they make. There are very few who have real moments of crisis that could go either way. Harold, Larry, and (possibly) Nadine are the ones that come to mind.