# The Stand (1994)



## L. Arkwright (Sep 28, 2003)

*The Stand.*

This has got to be my favourate of the Stephen King book to film conversions, probably because the screenplay was penned by the man himself. It stays true to the book unlike IT which has huge chunks missing from the tv version not to mention a couple of characters as well. The casting is spot on (apart from Molly Ringwald whose acting in this is more wooden than an oak tree) and all in all its a fantastic rendition of good verses evil in a crippled world.


----------



## Spudnik (Oct 20, 2003)

never saw it, but i did read it.

not what i consider his biggest acheivement, tho.

he did better in the dark tower series, imho.

but none the less, the stand is an original thought, by an fantastic writer.

but dood, the gunslinger vs the dark man (been a while since i read it) !

no chance. freaky co-incidence... or is it?


----------



## Lenny (Sep 18, 2007)

Uber-bumpage?

I was told about this around five minutes ago on a different forum, and thought I'd see what others have said about the film version of *The Stand* on here. Pages upon pages, it seems. 

Well? What's it like. I finished the book about a week ago, and I loved it. I was told that there's an eight-hourish film version in four parts, and I want to know more about it.

What are you waiting for? I bid thee reply with all haste!!





Please.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 18, 2007)

I didn't read the book but I saw the movie and yeah, it was pretty good. I thought the ending was kinda quirky though.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 18, 2007)

Not 8 hours, Len, closer to 6. It was a 6-parter, as I recall....

"The Stand" (1994) (mini)

Well, the whole thing was uneven, in my opinion... though predominantly rather good (leaving out various layers of social commentary, though, from what I understand). However, the ending... _eeeuuurrgh!_ But, as the "Hand of God" ending (not to mention the pointlessness of their trip, under the circumstances) is also, I understand, in the novel... well, I'd say that's not the fault of the film, but of the original material.....


----------



## Bant Warick (Sep 18, 2007)

My god I remember watching the stand. I thought it was brilliant!
Until I watched the ending and was shocked by how it made all the events in the mini series seem pointless!
Haven't watched a Stephen King TV production since.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 18, 2007)

Thanks for sayin that J.D., that was actually what I meant when I said the ending was quirky to me. I didn't really buy it and I thought they could have come up with somethin better than that.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 19, 2007)

I read the first chapter of the book and was so bored I never picked it up again, and I still haven't finished it to this day. I never finished the movie, either, I kept falling asleep. Sorry, but this book and movie were not on my list of King favorites. Way to boring and not much going on through either, ever. Just sick people that died and people that didn't get sick walking around not being sick and militant bad guys being militant bad guys. I could go see that at the Los Angeles hospital.

PS: They still play it once every year or so on Sci Fi channel.


----------



## Quokka (Sep 19, 2007)

As others have said up and down, I enjoyed it but then again I'm a fan of the book as well, I'm even a fan of the extended re-released book, as long and waffling as it can be . I thought some of the casting and acting was great particuarly Gary Sinise as Stu Redman and Jamey Sheridan as Randall Flagg and a miniseries was definitely the way to go with such a long story.

I do think the ending is very weak but at the same time it's the ending that means there was some point to the trip in the first place and to be honest it's not the main plot that I enjoy but the journeys the various characters take coming together and the rebuilding of communities that takes place.

If you enjoyed the book Lenny you should find the movie at the very least watchable which is more than can be said for some of King's adaptions.


----------



## Brigitte (Sep 19, 2007)

I saw the movie first before the book and absolutely loved it.  Yes, it's definitely one of King's better book-to-movie productions.  In terms of stylistic performance, somebody struck the nail on the head.  The ending was not very impressive (after the showdown in Las Vegas), but I can't think of a much better way to do so.

I read the book afterwards and enjoyed it too.  The movie actually helped me understand the book (since it's easy to get lost in King's writings).  I'm sure many can agree to that.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 19, 2007)

> Well, the whole thing was uneven, in my opinion... though predominantly rather good (leaving out various layers of social commentary, though, from what I understand). However, the ending... _eeeuuurrgh!_ But, as the "Hand of God" ending (not to mention the pointlessness of their trip, under the circumstances) is also, I understand, in the novel... well, I'd say that's not the fault of the film, but of the original material.....


 
A fine try (loved the very beginning with Blue Oyster Cult on the Jukebox) but the ending also made me cringe. It was a terrible conclusion. What made it worse was at the time I watched it in the UK, there was a National Lottery ad campaign with a giant hand and booming voice saying 'It's Youhooo!'. 

I kept expecting the voice at the conclusion.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 19, 2007)

I thought it was excellent - I have the whole series on VHS (been trying to get a R2 DVD of it for ages).  Yes, the ending is a bit weak and the hand of God looked pants, but the story as a whole is brilliant and all the main characters go on their own specific journeys are and are all changed dramatically as the story unfolds.  As well as those that have already been mentioned, I thought Adam Storke as Larry was excellent too, along with Miguel Ferrer as Lloyd.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 20, 2007)

Yeah, like I said, I liked the movie but didn't like the ending. As a former big fan of Stephen King I've noticed that the whole reference to God is a recurring theme with him and it kinda bugs me. In The Dead Zone he makes Johnny's whole clairevoyance a gift from God, in Carrie Carrie's mother is a religious fanatic, in Needful Things he ties the whole thing into something spiritual at the end of the movie and even more so in the book, and I'm sure there are many more references like these that I'm not rememberin at the moment.
  I really think Stephen King should leave that subject alone. If I want a dissertation on something spiritual or theological I'm certainly not gonna go to Stephen King for it. I'll go to someone who knows what their talkin about. I think Stephen King tries to walk two streets at the same time. He wants to write creepy scary stuff that freaks people out but he also wants to tie it into something spiritual as well. I'm not interested in listenin to someone who writes about a monster eating children in the sewer tell me about his conception of God and spirituality. Just my opinion.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 20, 2007)

Actually on the whole religious subject, I think King's writing is quite interesting because he is one of those rare writers who in some books will show religion in a good light and others in a damn right bad light.  It echoes man's own age old struggle with religion and higher powers.  

Religion is a big part of millions of people's lives, so it would be naive of a writer to leave that out (especially one so prolific as King).

Just for reference, I'm not religious at all.


----------



## Anomander (Sep 20, 2007)

I 
Loved
The 
Movie


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 20, 2007)

Anomander said:


> I
> Loved
> The
> Movie


 
LOL... I like it. Nice and succinct....

On the subject of his including the spiritual aspect... well, that's pervasive through a lot of King's work... and in itself, that doesn't bother me, as the entire metaphysics of a world such as he posits in his writing hinges on exactly the same ideas lying behind such religious concepts; so it's natural that he would explore that. My problem with it is how shallow it often is, how stereotyped... and how clumsily it is introduced at times. (Other times he actually does quite well with depicting it, how it works in these people's lives -- both good and bad -- and sometimes his writing shows he is genuinely pondering questions important to him.)

My wish is that he'd use a good bit more care in going back over his work... tighten it up, cut some of the fat, and think through some of his concepts more thoroughly... weave the fabric a bit better, if you will. I think, from some of his work, he has it in him to really do a good job at both writing entertainment-level creepy stories, and work that also probes this and other aspects of the human condition; and all worthwhile horror does just that... that's one of the reasons it lasts: because it looks at these parts of being human, which remains relevant and hits on an emotional level no matter how dated other aspects may become. *sigh* I just wish King would do a better job with that, and tighten the writing at times....


----------



## Urien (Sep 20, 2007)

King's work is usually ordinary people meeting the extraordinary, most frequently the supernatural. I suspect that if most people encountered the supernatural, whether it be a force of evil or good, or somewhere in between they too would speculate on the forces behind it. 

It seems almost necessary to include some thoughts of god(s) in these speculations as one's whole belief system would be thrown into disarray. If supernatural creatures can exist then why not the greatest supernatural creature of all? Also if the supernatural event one encounters (say Salem's Lot) is malign what does that say about the nature of god(s).


----------



## unclejack (Sep 20, 2007)

Well, I'll kinda go along with what everyone else has said. It's not so much that I'm against him gracin the subject, it's just that he does such a horrible job at it. It always comes off as something extreme or bizzarre and reads to me as being so far off the wall that there is no way I can relate to it at all. Alot of it reads to me as fly by the seat of your pants, ecumenicalism that just pops into his mind randomly and I'm not interested in that in what I read and watch in movies and tv.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 22, 2007)

Well  , I enjoyed the series - it wasn't as good as the book (unsuprisingly) , but it was a good adaptation - and the music ' Fear The Reaper' was a nice touch at the beginning

Regarding the ending , yes it is weak , but I consider this to be a fault attributable to King in many of his novels. They start off great, they build up a cohesive enjoyable storyline with interesting characters - but it seems to me that he finds it hard to let go , to finish with , his creations (as can be seen the resurrection of many in his Dark Tower novels) and the stories tend to fizzle out to an anti-climax.

 And for a writer of (supposedly) horror , he tends to have far too many happy endings (albeit with a few deaths to 'good' characters along the way)

Tbh though , how else would you have ended The Stand? With a climatic battle between the opposing forces , would that have been more satisfying?


----------



## unclejack (Sep 22, 2007)

To be perfectly honest I don't even really understand the premise of the stand. I mean what in the world was the darkman or whatever they called him supposed to be about. So, it's like all the evil people wanna throw a party in the desert and all the good people wanna turn on the electricity and get back to their lives? I just didn't get it. The darkness of the enemy in the film and his purpose was very unclear and I had alot of trouble getting emotianally involved in a conflict that I felt was very unexplained and which made little sense to me.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 23, 2007)

It's very simple - in fact THE most simple plot - simply good against evil.  Mother Abigail drawing the good to her and Flagg drawing the evil to him to decide whether good or evil would rule over humanity.  I don't understand why you found that hard to grasp.  Or were you trying to read more into it than that?


----------



## unclejack (Sep 23, 2007)

It seems a little trivial to me and I didn't see any real clear identifiable evil versus good in the film. There wasn't much conception of what Stephen King's perception of what society should be like versus what the intended corruption of that society was going to be. I suppose if I didn't already have a firm theological grasp on things and know what I believe then I would find it easier to embrace such a simplistic and meaningless plot but hey it is what it is.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 24, 2007)

Well, one of the things that makes that aspect of it confusing is that a fair amount of time is spent setting up the "evil" side as represented by modern technology, and the "good" represented by a more "natural", somewhat primitive lifestyle, etc. But then the "good" also utilize technology, and they eventually go back to reestablishing almost precisely the sort of life that caused the situation in the first place... yet (unlike A Canticle for Leibowitz, for example) there's no feeling of censure or even of them repeating patterns there.

I'd agree that it's intended as a rather simple "good-vs.-evil" tale, but the problem is that King has never really defined for himself the difference between the two, and if you're going to do that sort of tale well, you need to have those concepts firmly established in your own mind, otherwise they tend to bleed into one another, as they do here. Which, in a more nuanced, relativistic sort of tale, can work to its advantage; but with something that even he stated was of the more mythical, simpler type, tends to lead to severe let-down, especially when you approach the _denouement_ -- as here.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 24, 2007)

roddglenn said:


> It's very simple - in fact THE most simple plot - simply good against evil. Mother Abigail drawing the good to her and Flagg drawing the evil to him to decide whether good or evil would rule over humanity. I don't understand why you found that hard to grasp. Or were you trying to read more into it than that?


 

I'm not sure about that - okay Flagg was evil , but it seemed to me that many that were drawn to him weren't


----------



## unclejack (Sep 24, 2007)

Well said J.D., that's exactly what I was tryin to say, I just wasn't quite as eloquent as you. lol. Stephen King just doesn't do a good job of identifying Flagg's purpose and goal outside of wanting to kill everyone who isn't with him. I mean, yeah, I get that, but what is the point? That society was so good before the plague that he didn't have a chance to come against mankind? Society has always been corrupt so I don't really understand makin this whole premise a "God" thing as if society is being purged and it can be rebuilt after the plague and somehow that's a threat to evil or somethin. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 25, 2007)

Marvin, the point was that humans made the choice whether to go to Flagg or to go to Mother Abigail.  Everyone is cabable of good or evil acts, so it just came down to choice and to which part of your sole you listened to.

Unclejack, I think the plague was a biblical way of purging humanity then the survivors were left to decide whether to go down an evil path or good.  Flagg is Satan (in this adaption) and Mother Abigail is a prophet being able to speak the word of God.  Incidentally, in the Dark Tower series we actually find out that Flagg is the sorcerer Marten (the Dark Tower series has crossovers with most of King's work, including Salem's Lot, Hearts in Atlantis and many more).


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 26, 2007)

roddglenn said:


> Marvin, the point was that humans made the choice whether to go to Flagg or to go to Mother Abigail. Everyone is cabable of good or evil acts, so it just came down to choice and to which part of your sole you listened to.
> 
> Unclejack, I think the plague was a biblical way of purging humanity then the survivors were left to decide whether to go down an evil path or good. Flagg is Satan (in this adaption) and Mother Abigail is a prophet being able to speak the word of God. Incidentally, in the Dark Tower series we actually find out that Flagg is the sorcerer Marten (the Dark Tower series has crossovers with most of King's work, including Salem's Lot, Hearts in Atlantis and many more).


 
but weren't they _compelled _to go to one or the other? We didn't see any instances of Flagg encouraging  the 'good guys' to come over to his side. Surely if he was a representation of evil , he would at least have attempted to seduce them ? 
Perhaps those who did end up with Flagg's group knew nothing of Mother abigail , or indeed that their leader was an evil being ; after all he can quite easily disguise himself as a good natured fellow 

It seems to me that it was pre-determined who was to go where , in the same way that it was decided who would survive , and who would perish from the plague. To wipe out possiby half the population of the US for simply being in the wrong place seems rather harsh to me


----------



## Lenny (Sep 26, 2007)

*warning: possible spoilers*

I don't know how well it came across in the adaptation, but in the book there is a quite an emphasis on dreams. The 'good guys' (people like Larry Underword, Stu Redman, Nick Andros) dream primarily of Mother Abigail - at first the golden corn, her old hut, before following her as she leaves her home. The 'bad guys' (The Kid, Trashcan Man) dream primarily of Randal Flagg. However, both sets of people have both sets of dreams - some folk are scared witless by the Flagg dreams, whilst the other folk absolute despise the Mother Abigail dreams. Depending on their character and personality and all that jazz, one dream becomes dominant, eventually forcing the other out.

Those that ended up with Flagg were scared of him. Again, I don't know how it's shown in the adaptation, but the book describes how all the people in Vegas are scared of Flagg. They won't say his name, they freeze with fear when they see him. And if that doesn't clinche it, then the cruxifictions his orders surely does!

As far as we can tell, in the book each side is aware of the other, and the other figurehead.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 29, 2007)

You beat me to it, Lenny.  In the mini series it does cover the fact that everyone has both sets of dreams and that the good guys say they are terrified of the Flagg dreams.


----------



## Vincent Tauscher (Sep 29, 2007)

That is true, roddglenn.  The book just put a whole lot more emphasis and added a little more "brutallness" to them.


----------



## roddglenn (Oct 1, 2007)

Yes I totally agree.  But like with virtually every book to screen adaption it is impossible to shoehorn everything in.  At just over 6 hours they had tried to cram as much as they could in, but still had to leave out a lot.  I'd guess they managed to get about 60% of the book into it.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Oct 2, 2007)

I loved this as a book and whilst I did see it, I thought it was actually a mini series, my recollections are vague.  I do recall however thinking that it didn't come anywhere near matching the book.  

I am not a Stephen King fan but The Stand remains as one of my favorite books.


----------



## roddglenn (Oct 2, 2007)

Yes, it was screened as a mini series.


----------

