MovieChat Forums > The Stand (1994) Discussion > What has happened with the remake? Why a...

What has happened with the remake? Why all the rumors and then nothing?


I mustered up some loyalty to the 1994 attempt, simply because this is my favorite King book and the miniseries was at that time the only visual depiction of the source. But come on, this can be done better, and should be.

I've heard so many different rumors, none of which have come about. I've heard rumors of a more in depth miniseries for TV. I've heard rumor of one feature length movie, and I've heard rumor of splitting the 4 acts into a big screen movie franchise. I am disappointed regardless that no one is taking this on. This can be done so much better. Big screen or small, I just wish someone would take it on.

All I ask is no Molly Ringworm.

reply

One way to do it would be as a full-season series on one of the premium channels (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) Personally, it wasn't a problem for me but some have spoken of ABC censors being too heavy-handed, and Stephen King having to deal with them to the point where it was a major problem.

Like I say, this was not a problem for me, but this would certainly be much less of an issue if a premium channel were to tackle it.

I didn't watch it on TV because I was working second shift at the time, but I do have the DVD and it is one of my all-time favorite films. And this is also my favorite King book. I have all three versions of the book as well.

BTW, you need not worry about Molly Ringworm. She is 50 now and that rules out another portrayal as Frannie.

All I want is that any other attempts to put this story on film be reasonably faithful to the novel. I don't think that's too much to ask.

reply

I have heard that CBS might do something for their All-Access thing.

reply

> All I ask is no Molly Ringworm.

One of my complaints about the '94 miniseries is the casting. I don't think anyone was terribly wrong for their part, but to me, almost every character was played by someone who wasn't quite right for the role. The cumulative effect of that felt like watching a play where the main cast had all gone on strike and all the parts were being performed by understudies. Just MHO.

Well, if it is redone -- and I haven't heard any rumors -- I suspect we'll see early 21st century political correctness in full force. Expect Boulder to be an idyllic model of Diversity (genuflect when you say that!); and Vegas to be populated by hillbillies and rednecks bearing swastika tattoos and waving Confederate flags ... and they'll probably be driving cars with Trump/Pence bumper stickers. Real subtle, Hollywood is.

But more importantly ... please, no Mick Garris. I gather he and King are buddies or something, but I've been disappointed in every Garris work I've ever seen. He has a real talent for sucking the energy and emotion out of every dramatic moment in a story.

reply

> All I ask is no Molly Ringworm.

One of my complaints about the '94 miniseries is the casting. I don't think anyone was terribly wrong for their part, but to me, almost every character was played by someone who wasn't quite right for the role. The cumulative effect of that felt like watching a play where the main cast had all gone on strike and all the parts were being performed by understudies. Just MHO.

Well, if it is redone -- and I haven't heard any rumors -- I suspect we'll see early 21st century political correctness in full force. Expect Boulder to be an idyllic model of Diversity (genuflect when you say that!); and Vegas to be populated by hillbillies and rednecks bearing swastika tattoos and waving Confederate flags ... and they'll probably be driving cars with Trump/Pence bumper stickers. Real subtle, Hollywood is.

But more importantly ... please, no Mick Garris. I gather he and King are buddies or something, but I've been disappointed in every Garris work I've ever seen. He has a real talent for sucking the energy and emotion out of every dramatic moment in a story.


Actually, I don't think that Garris did a bad job here with this mini-series. I have a few other collaborations that he did with King and for the most part, I think they turned out well. I did not care for The Shining, but that story did not appeal to me and I did not like either the Kubrick version or the book.

As for your feelings about Hollywood, join the club. I agree with you. Which is one reason if my book ever gets made into a movie, I want veto power over the script. They'd change the villains into conservatives and make the commies the good guys. Not that I'll have to sweat it, but it's a nice dream.

reply

We'll just have to disagree about Garris. I'll have to restrict my criticisms of his Shining because of space limits, but there's one that's interestingly relevant to The Stand. There's a wonderful line describing Larry's self-doubts after the bombing of the committee; he reflects that part of the reason he turned Nadine away and stayed with Lucy was that "he sensed it would take only one or two more fades to destroy him as a man for good." That to me is also a great description of Jack Torrance at the beginning of The Shining; someone who has failed morally so much that he's dangerously close to losing any chance of being the man he could have been, but -- like Larry -- still has a shot at it and has a good amount of fight left in him. I don't think either of film/TV versions got that right. Jack Nicholson performance was that of someone clearly headed toward a breakdown from the opening scene, whereas Steven Weber's was of a sniveling, trembling man who could have been broken by a feather duster -- the Overlook Hotel's demons weren't even necessary.

reply

Theres enough story lines in the original unedited book to justify a full series on FX or even Netflix with multiple seasons. Look how long "Walking Dead" has lasted and that is nothing compared to The Stand.

reply