# Steven King's The Stand.....Spoilers! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 27, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785 "2006-01-27T00:01:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Draelin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@Draelin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Draelin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/41 "2006-03-01T16:00:14Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > What, nothing but love for Rob Lowe as Nick Andros? I don’t know who I saw as Nick, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Rob Lowe. I’ll admit he wasn’t who I saw in the part, but I didn’t think he did a bad job of it. And dammit, I’m totally going to have to watch the miniseries again now. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/42 "2006-03-01T16:14:18Z")
_The Stand_ certainly had the makings of being one of King’s best, perhaps his very best. If only he’d had some sense of how to end it. Instead, like Mother Abigail, it kind of dried up and wandered around in the freaking desert and got lost and then sort of died. He had the same problem with _It_ shortly after that, another book with an incredible build-up that he couldn’t make good on. If you really want to read the very best of King, get a copy of _The Shining_. That book by itself makes him one of the best 20th century authors and redeems him for a lot of his shortcomings. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/43 "2006-03-01T16:23:10Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Nah, that was one of the books that he published as Richard Bachman. True. Although, to be fair, it [_The Running Man_] _was_ republished as part of the four-in-one volume _The Bachman Books_, so **Ellis** wasn’t totally off-base. > [@](#): > > _Ahnold?_ WTF? He could just as credibly have been cast as _Carrie_ Heh heh. Now that I’d like to see. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/44 "2006-03-01T17:33:22Z")
> [@Draelin](#): > > I’ll admit he wasn’t who I saw in the part, but I didn’t think he did a bad job of it. Well, as one critic said, “At least they cast Rob Lowe so he wouldn’t have any lines.” I don’t know, he just didn’t fit with me. I can see Gary Sinise as the poor country hick, and Bill as Tom Cullen, but Rob Lowe was a “they could have done that better.” Jamey Sheridan wasn’t cheerily sinister enough, either. And Harold was supposed to be fat, then lose weight and become Hawk. I can see how, for logistic purposes, Rita and Nadine would have to be combined. Larry’s relationship with Rita was too subtle, I think, to translate well into the small screen. I would have liked to see Leo properly with Nadine and not Lucy. Nadine’s abandonment of that small boy was a key part of her slide into madness, as she slowly but surely turns to evil. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/45 "2006-03-01T17:57:09Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > I only ever read the original. (Multiple times.) Did the extended version start with all hell breaking loose on page one? That was one of my very favorite aspects of The Stand, which is definitely my favorite King book. The Uncut opens with Charlie Campion, the military base guard, frantically waking up his family and getting out before lockdown setting everything in motion. > [@](#): > > I though Carrie found a largish size audience. > > The Body (Stand By Me) and Shawshank Redemption – both from the same four novella collection – were fairly well received. I was under the impression they both did big numbers at the box office. Yeah, you’re probably right. In my mind I have a distinction between “Steven King movies” and movies inspired by a King book. _Carrie_ is the former, _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_ are the latter. One big factor is the cost, _The Stand_ would have to be a big sFX blockbuster type movie, all the other successful movies are fairly simple movies. _The Green Mile_, _Shawshank_, _It_ for exmple, all were fairly small casts with essentially one setting and no effects. To do _The Stand_ it’d have to be Kings most successful movie by a factor of 2 to be profitable. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/46 "2006-03-01T18:01:46Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I think he meant 400 manuscript pages, not 400 printed pages. Yeah, it does say that, but **Ellis Dee** confirmed that the same number of pages were missing from the paperback versions. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/47 "2006-03-01T18:35:04Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Yeah, you’re probably right. In my mind I have a distinction between “Steven King movies” and movies inspired by a King book. _Carrie_ is the former, _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_ are the latter. Wha?? _Stand by Me_ is from the short story _The Body_. It’s not “based on,” it _is_ the story. They just changed the title. It’s not a full-lengthed novel, (neither is _Shawshank_), both are from a book of four stories called “Different Seasons.” I’m not sure I understand your distinction. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/48 "2006-03-01T18:38:14Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I’ve just started reading _The Stand - Complete and Uncut Edition_ by Steven King in the next step of my slow discovery of “classic” and “popular” books. This is the first book of King’s I’ve ever picked up and I don’t have a wide range of authors under my belt for comparison. My advice: Don’t start with _The Stand._ It is fundamentally unsatisfying. I would recommend you make your first King book _'Salem’s Lot_ or _The Dead Zone._ Or one of his early short-story collections – _Night Shift_ or _Skeleton Crew._ ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/49 "2006-03-01T19:52:38Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > Wha?? _Stand by Me_ is from the short story _The Body_. It’s not “based on,” it _is_ the story. They just changed the title. It’s not a full-lengthed novel, (neither is _Shawshank_), both are from a book of four stories called “Different Seasons.” > > I’m not sure I understand your distinction. Like I said, it’s all in my head and probably doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not sure what it is, but some of his movies are heavily branded as Steven King movies. They all seem to have a certain quality about them that’s different from _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_. Maybe it’s just the difference between ones based on short stories and ones based on novels, I don’t know. When I saw _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_ I didn’t know they are even King stories, they seemed more Hollywood than _The Shining_, _Carrie_, _Cujo_ and _Misery_. Like I said, it’s probably just some ethereal structure in my own mind that defies close inspection. In retrospect, maybe it’s the distinction between King’s “horror” stories and the rest. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/50 "2006-03-01T20:02:50Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Like I said, it’s all in my head and probably doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not sure what it is, but some of his movies are heavily branded as Steven King movies. They all seem to have a certain quality about them that’s different from _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_. Maybe it’s just the difference between ones based on short stories and ones based on novels, I don’t know. Granted, I think his psychological horrors translate better to film than his monsters and things that go bump in the night. I was terrifed after reading _It_, but the mini-series disappointed. Your mind can conjure up much more scarier stuff than is dreamt of in Hollywood. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/51 "2006-03-01T20:41:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t start with _The Stand._ It is fundamentally unsatisfying. I would recommend you make your first King book _'Salem’s Lot_ or _The Dead Zone._ :eek: Different strokes, I guess. To me, _The Stand_ is proper capital “L” Literature – a compelling epic with some of the most developed characters King has ever produced, and perfectly balanced between the creepily supernatural and the spookily plausible – and _'Salem’s Lot_ and _The Dead Zone_ are among the principal reasons that King has the “hack” label hung on him. _'Salem’s Lot_ struck me as a poor imitation of H.P. Lovecraft that was so hokey and dull I had a really hard time getting through it. _The Dead Zone_ was better, and certainly readable, but still eye-rollingly corny much of the time. It hasn’t aged well, that’s for sure. Nowhere near the quality of _The Stand_ or _The Shining_, which are really too good to fit into King’s niche of “supermarket fiction,” (or, as he called it, “the literary equivalent of a cheeseburger and fries.”) **Silentgoldfish** , the poster was changed in the novella? I don’t remember that at all. How embarrassing. I’ve been griping about that for years. > [@ivylass](#): > > What, nothing but love for Rob Lowe as Nick Andros? I don’t know who I saw as Nick, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Rob Lowe. Eh, Lowe was a bit too mature and beefy to be cast as Nick, who was supposed to be in his early twenties but be baby-faced enough to be mistaken for a teenager – but that was easy to take, and may have actually worked better than keeping him as a man-boy. I’m not exactly a fan of Rob Lowe, but I think he turned in a good enough performance as Nick that he didn’t stand out too much as conspicuously wrong. Certainly not like Harold and Flagg, who were just _wrong, wrong, wrong_ – not just with the casting, but also the wardrobe and makeup. I mean, Harold’s zits were fake-looking enough without them wandering all over his face from scene to scene, and I’m pretty sure that the Hardcase wouldn’t use a blow-dryer and rely quite so heavily on Nivea for Men. 😃 > [@Omniscient](#): > > In retrospect, maybe it’s the distinction between King’s “horror” stories and the rest. Stephen King sometimes seems like two different writers to me. He can write unapologetic schlock horror that revels in what it is and can be a lot of fun. “Go for the gross-out!” And then he can turn around and write stuff that seems so much more serious. He says that the Bachman pseudonym was required simply because his publishers worried that he was saturating the market with his ridiculously prolific output – but I think when you look at those novels it’s clear that he just wanted to write things without the pressure to write a “Stephen King” novel. Some of his best work, in my opinion. When Dick died, it seems that he gained a bit more flexibility in what people would accept as “Stephen King.” I still wish that someone would adapt _Rage_ for the screen. Of course, real world events that transpired after it was published pretty much ensure that it ain’t _never_ gonna happen. About as much chance as someone making a faithful version of _The Running Man_. Damn you, world, for becoming as dark as Steve-O’s twisted imagination! ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/52 "2006-03-01T20:57:18Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > I still wish that someone would adapt Rage for the screen. Of course, real world events that transpired after it was published pretty much ensure that it ain’t never gonna happen. Funny, I’ve said this exact thing, almost word for word. Rage is one of the best things Stephen King ever wrote (and I’ve read a lot of his work). Once the school shootings started becoming commonplace, and especially after Columbine, fate was sealed - Rage will forever be just a phenomenally good short story. It would console me a bit if they’d figure out a good way to make “The Long Walk”, which ranks right below Rage in my opinion, into a viable movie. Doubt it could happen though, I don’t think it would translate very well into a movie. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/53 "2006-03-01T21:18:34Z")
For those who didn’t like the miniseries: [This page](http://www.subcin.com/stand.html) links to an unproduced script for _The Stand_, which was to be a 2-hour film produced by George Romero. It’s an unusual treatment, with Larry, Stu, and Nadine (and for some reason, Joe/Leo) the only characters who are flushed-out, and nearly all other characters and subplots pushed to the background or eliminated entirely. King pulled _Rage_ from circulation after a high school shooter turned out to have a copy in his locker, so it’s highly unlikely that he’ll ever sell the film rights to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/54 "2006-03-02T00:15:58Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Like I said, it’s all in my head and probably doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not sure what it is, but some of his movies are heavily branded as Steven King movies. They all seem to have a certain quality about them that’s different from _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_. Maybe it’s just the difference between ones based on short stories and ones based on novels, I don’t know. > > When I saw _Shawshank_ and _Stand By Me_ I didn’t know they are even King stories, they seemed more Hollywood than _The Shining_, _Carrie_, _Cujo_ and _Misery_. > > Like I said, it’s probably just some ethereal structure in my own mind that defies close inspection. In retrospect, maybe it’s the distinction between King’s “horror” stories and the rest. You’re exactly right. King’s horror stories are heavily billed as Stephen King movies. But his non-horror movies – even if they involve the supernatural – are usually released with nary a mention of King. The biggest exception was Apt Pupil, which was not supernatural at all but was still billed as a King flick. (Likely because the movie sucked.) The other downplayed release was Hearts In Atlantis. The problem with Hearts was the same problem with K-Pax, which wasn’t a King book: immediately aftyer 9/11, studios were rushing out “feel good” movies as fast as they possibly could, and all the movies suffered for it. Schlocky in the extreme. As for the short story vs. novel distinction, I don’t know. There is an endless parade of crap based on his full length novels, but so too is there an endless list of crappy movies based on short stories. (Although Creepshow was good, but that was multiple shorts put together into one movie.) I think his novellas have generally held up the best on translation to the big screen. ---
**Author:** ![SSG\_Schwartz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@SSG\_Schwartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSG_Schwartz)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/55 "2006-03-02T08:40:46Z")
I really liked the original when it was first published, and I have read the longer version more times than I have the first printing. I am now rereading the original version and have found some areas that I can’t believe were left out. I really missed the deaths that were not related to the superflu. The whole “No Great Loss” theme. I also missed the televised execution scene that Frannie was watching. (The names were being drawn from a barrel by the revolutionaries.) The substitution of the old man for “The Kid” didn’t bother me as much as the removal of many of the story lines of how the people got to Boulder. I liked the extra details of the trip (appendicitis, the gun battle for the women) and there seemed to be something missing without that. Campion’s escape was abbreviated to the point of seeming almost like SOP for the base. The thing I found most disturbing to be deleted was the bull session between Baldy and East Texas (Stu and Glenn) was when Glenn convinced Stu that full planes do not crash. When I first read the novel, I belived that so much that I actually looked for the study. A minor detail, that does nothing for the plot, but does so much for the book as a whole. Overall, after rereading the abridged version, I don’t think I will do it again. The longer one is so much better for the details IMHO. Sgt Schwartz ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785/56 "2006-03-02T15:38:32Z")
> [@Sgt Schwartz](#): > > Overall, after rereading the abridged version, I don’t think I will do it again. The longer one is so much better for the details IMHO. > > Sgt Schwartz I’ve not read the original, but based on how the uncut flowed and was developed I totally agree. I just can’t quite imagine the abridged version being better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-kings-the-stand-spoilers/341785.md?page=2)