Hi: You are correct. I don’t know Stephen King. Perhaps I should have chosen my words better... Perhaps. “I believe due to what I have observed that Stephen King has let the film industry alter several his books in a way that I consider detrimental to his work”. Actually, since I felt this is a place to post ones beliefs I didn’t feel I did him a disservice. What I previously wrote , which you quoted, is how I feel about many of today’s writers. That I used King’s writing as an example is due to the nature of this section. At any rate, if I have offended you, I’m sorry. But I believe by my observations that King as well as many other writers in today’s literary field let the film industry alter their works. I think it’s a detriment to their art. If you feel differently that’s fine. I think it’s important to note what others believe. And to consider their possibilities.
I appreciate your explanation. "Selling out" is an insult, and to accuse someone of doing so is rude and uncalled for.
You’re not wrong in believing that filmmakers take great liberties with literary properties. But it's been going on as long as they’ve made movies. The film company buys the rights and in most cases they can adapt at will. But I think you’re wrong to use King as an example. For the most part, the movies and TV series based on his works have been pretty faithful to their source. Sure you can cherry-pick an abomination like Lawnmower Man, but all the adaptations of the major works have been pretty straightforward renditions. Even Kubrick’s Shining, which King has blasted for decades, retained most of the major (and minor) plot elements and the altered ending didn’t ruin anything. The series under discussion here has been pretty weakly reviewed, but most of the criticism has centered on the stylistic decision to change the structure which, regardless of how it works out, is different than changing plot or character elements to alter the original author’s intent.
I kind of like the new structure. It took some gett(ng used to after the novel and the earlier mini-series but it does keep you guessing. Jumping forward and backward in time for the story can be a little confusing but as long as there are some stylistic choices to help distinguish them (whether that be color choices, etc.) for the audience otherwise, someone co ing in not knowing the story might be confused.
In looking back over that post I do regret for coming on so strong. But I believe fir the most basic point I’m correct, but I’m being so I was also rude. There are better ways to get a point across. I believe; good or bad, a novel us a work of art. And to sell it with the rights to alter it anyway the purchaser feels warranted seems a shame, as though the author has lessened his self respect. Another point I failed to consider is the contract itself. I suppose there are different contracts which give the author different levels of control. One of great fame such as Stephen King probably maintains much control. And finally, the novel is the author’s to sell. In the end, I suppose I’m an old, stubborn bulldog who has a high respect for the written word.
This is true and in some cases the art does suffer as a result. There are many examples of novels which have been turned into films which do not live up to the source material or change it so much it becomes a separate piece. There are some examples though which work the other way, rare as they might be. Jaws is one I can think of right off the top of my head. A much better film than the book (although I do like the book). Also whilst The Godfather is another good book Coppola and Puzo together turned it into a truly great work of art, IMHO a masterpiece. I think in King's case he has seen so many of his works turned into films, TV series that he has long since accepted that they will be adapted, changed etc. and considers them separate works. Rightly or wrongly. Nothing wrong with that attitude though
I'm trying to keep an open mind about this but man, this series is really poorly executed. I don't think telling the story without constant flashbacks would have saved it.
Total botch job. So, we know everyone who makes it to Boulder safely right off the bat and that destroys any suspense whatsoever in their journey to get there. Not to mention, we know Harold is already a "Bad Guy" - with zero build-up or anything. DUMB. Sure, folks who have read the book know these things already - but I can't imagine anyone unfamiliar with the material thinking this is an effective approach. It's not. It's like they just wanted to be different and ejected a linear approach for style, instead of simply crafting a good story/show. Terrible. That said, I'll watch the rest just to see how badly they continue to screw it up.
I think part of the problem is that the creative team behind the show decided & assumed that everyone that watches this is familiar with the story so they could just tell the story any way they want to. I find as I’m watching it, I’m constantly trying to reference the book in my head to see where this scene fits. I think most people unfamiliar with the story has given up on this by now. A shame to put the time, money & talent into something practically unwatchable.
Unfortunately the creators have jettisoned the first 1/2-2/3 of the book....Basically eliminated the journey to concentrate on the destination. That's nuts, as the book's power comes from the characters, not the story. Sure, the story's important, but it's basically a pseudo-religious G vs. E set in a post-apocalyptic world. It's an oft-told story that becomes wonderful because of the rich characterizations. You have to know who Harold Lauder is to understand his journey. Every single word of King's text about Harold is essential to understanding who he is and why he does what he does. I keep harping on it, but putting the "Hawk" scene in the first episode without knowing everything that's gone before is utterly squandering how powerful that moment is in the book.
I feel like they are expected it to be hardcore King fans like myself watching this with few others taking an interest. And as we all know the book so well we would not need any 'suspense'. Obviously it could just be that the makers have not considered how the flashbacks would work but I feel they really missed a chance to craft a great series. I like the cast, the look and the writing in general, just not how it is being delivered.
Started watching this last night. I like the cast a lot. Skarsgard was amazing in Big Little Lies, and he’s perfect as Flagg. Not a fan of the jumpy structure, but I know the story well enough that I’m not lost. Substituting the sewer for the Holland tunnel in Larry’s escape from New York seemed like a cheap out. Other than that I’m enjoying it.
Latest episode when Frannie and Harold get jacked at gunpoint by the insane trucker is just another example of many. We all know they made it to Boulder, so any suspense is nullified. I don't even remember if that scene is in the book either - it's been decades since I've read it. Tom and Nick in the store with the crazy chick too. They're safe in Boulder so who cares? The creators of the show are being too cute for their own good - it just doesn't work for me at all.
Is there a reason why the telephone pole in the key art is defying gravity? (The wires are not taut, they are still rising up to meet the pole.)
I liked this last episode more & I've reevaluated my opinion on this version of Tom Cullen. I found the character & the actor more realistic & likeable in this episode. Scene by scene, the series is quite good at times. It's the way it's structured that's frustrating. Surprisingly, no Trashcan Man yet.
I thought it was Yvonne Strahoski from Chuck playing Nadine but it's Amber Heard. Tom is ok. Great choice with Flagg and Harold. Is there gonna be a Season 2?
Can't believe we haven't seen Trash yet. The Julie Lowrey scene was great. Losing the spontaneous "America the Beautiful" at the meeting and turning it into a guitar solo was awful. Once again the structure steals everything from Harold.
I think so, too... there’s a line in the book “They’re crucifying people...” that it may be referencing, but if you weren’t really familiar with the book, the image probably just looks weird and nothing explains Flagg standing on top of the RV.
So because it looks like a cross it can also fly, rather than sink down from gravity? The symbolism is obvious, but the artist messed up with the wires rising up to meet it.
