User reviews

It's a nine part TV adaptation of the Stephen King novel of good versus evil. It's not any better than the 1994 version. More money may have been spent but it's not better. The structure is more disjointed which leaves the characters less compelling. I don't like Whoopi Goldberg in this role. The last episode feels stretched out which leaves it without tension. After the climax, the series needs to end. It's an unnecessary update of this material. If it needs doing, it needs some better imagination to bring new life to the story.

Someone needs to edit this back into chronological order, it serves zero purpose to have it jump around all over the place. Whatever hack writer thought this was a good idea needs to slap himself back into sanity.

That's the only point worth making, everyone else has covered the show.

Maybe I'm the target audience for this current adaptation of The Stand. I didn't read the book and didn't see the 1994 mini series so I watched it with no preconceived biases. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it based on the awful reviews. Yeah, none of the actors are going to win an emmy and it seemed to bounce around a bit so there were times I was confused but I just kept watching and everything fell into place eventually. The storyline was good, not great, so I'm guessing the book was better, as many have pointed out. All in all, I'm glad I ignored the 1 star reviews and watched it. Maybe now I'll read the book and compare.

I was very excited to watch this miniseries. It should've been a slam dunk. All they had to do was cast the movie, properly, upgrade it with up to date special effects and you'd have a triumph deluxe. The story portion was already done for them.

But NO, they had to rewrite the story, miscast many roles and totally cheese out on the special effects. Almost all the story changes seem to be for the sake of change. None of the changes are improvements over the novel or '94 version. I doubt whoever wrote this ever read the book. What I think they did is watch the '94 version and read the novel's wiki page. The novel has one of the strongest story lines ever created. That's why it was a breeze to read at its formidable 823 pages. Why screw with that?

I was also excited about Greg Kinnear being cast as Glen Bateman but where Ray Walston came across at world weary but wise, Kinnear is just a cliche' 'whiny liberal'. James Marsden is only adequate as Stu. Amber Heard is atrocious as Nadine Cross. Alexander Skarsgård was a total dud as Randall Flagg. He isn't even the least bit frightening. What they did with Trashcan Man was just grotesque and a total waste of Ezra Miller's talents. Every performance in the '94 version is superior. Bottom line is none of these characters seem like real people. They all seem like badly fleshed out cliche' characters going the through the motions.

There was a real sense of unity in Mother Abigail's group in the '94 version. Here, they just seem like people stuck together by circumstance. In the original Frannie and Harold seemed to have affection for each other even though she had no romantic interest in him. Here Frannie is just plain mean toward Harold. Molly Ringwald was a much more human Frannie Goldsmith.

Finally, the one area where they could've made real improvement, special effects, seems to have been totally overlooked. They have Flagg hanging around on wire. His demon design is boredom incarnate. They also totally missed the point of the climactic 'finger of God' scene.

This was a totally wasted opportunity but the good news is the definitive modern version of 'The Stand' still hasn't been done, yet, so there's hope a better production will be made in the future.

Despite the overwhelmingly negative reviews I've seen here I decided to give episode one a try. I found it engaging and an interesting take on the source material. I have read the book and seen the original mini-series several times respectively, so I am quite familiar with the storyline and I didn't mind the non-linear story telling. I found the acting to be interesting and the characters engaging. Maybe the is better told sequentially, start to finish like in the book, but all the important bits are there and you'll have to pay some attention to put it all together. Not what most folks would expect or like, but I am looking forward to episode 2. In short, don't avoid giving this show a try based on the negative reviews alone. Watch the first episode and who knows, like me, you might find yourself enjoying it.

I don't like making comparisons, but I can't help it in this instance. The 1994 miniseries had it's flaws, but at least it stuck to the main themes of the book; the human beings as pawns in a game of good and evil, who they are and become. Only one episode left of the 2020 version and I feel nothing for any of the characters, simply because I don't know them.

It is based on a massive book, but the 1994 miniseries managed to create a cohesively evolving story and characters. And that in a 6 hour long series. This version has 9 hours and yet the story is so all over the place that so many things don't make sense anymore. As if the writers were puzzling and piecing, cutting and pasting, until they just gave up, rather than working until it made sense.

This version seems to hope it can get by on chock value, but it completely misses the point when turning New Vegas into a Sodom or Gomorrah, rather than a fascist state, for example.

It's a hot mess, and if you're too lazy to read the book, then watch the 1994 version instead.

All of you "terrible, abomination, insult, zero star" people are absolutely thrilled by Tenet and other non-linear movies/shows. So why all this hatred toward this one?!? It's not great, but they wanted to try something new with a well known story and did fine. No reason for so many frustrated comments and 1 zero reviews. It s hard to decide whether to watch something based on the imdb rating anymore because you lot have no viable criteria, it's 1 or 10, no middle ground and no valuable input from your comments. Anyway, the show is so far interesting, well done and it's always nice to see James Marsden, Alexander Skarsgard and Greg Kinnear

I understand there are alot of people looking for a letter to letter true to the book kind of series. But that is not how TV works. Sometimes you need to adapt and sometimes you need to erase whole chapters and add new stuff.

Would i enjoy it more if it were more to the book, yes. But it is not junk. I am entertained and am looking forward to the next available episodes. 7/10 with room for improvement.

Anyone who can judge the entire series from the first episode wants to hate this series. The first couple of episodes has done a great job introducing you to the different characters. Yes, the story skips around a bit and you have to pay attention and some people just can't keep up with all of the moving parts. So far I've enjoyed it thoroughly and I'm looking forward to the next episodes. I saw the original stand series and this one is just as good if not better.

That's it. I'm done.

I cannot watch this car crash of a show anymore. Iv never felt so frustrated watching a tv show like this.

The plot is all over the place but the thing that really mucks it up is the character development. By playing with the time, you aren't getting why they are like that or how they are like that with other characters.

And I don't get me started on the Nick Character. The creators should go work in a butchers shop whichh is more suited.

Unlike others who have seen the 1994 version and read the book, I do not completely hate this version, although it is quite mediocre for several reasons, it does have a few merits. I suppose this serves as a decent introductory for the book, but despite it's upgraded production values, it falls short of the 1994 min-series, and doesn't cover much ground the 1994 series does, despite a 4hr longer length, which is just bizarre. I also want to note that people always like to say, who have not read the book, "Your opinion doesn't matter because you read the book, shut up", and vice versa, can we not take a different approach? I think if a movie or series is based on a book, it must please both those who don't know the book, and those who do, or why adapt a work at all?

Adapting Stephen King will always be a mixed bag. King's fans may be difficult to please at times, but "The Shining" is a great example of how you don't have to exactly follow the book to make a good adaptation. I find both merits in the 1980 film and 1997 mini-series of "The Shining". The "Dr. Sleep" movie, however, was not great, it had it's moments, but in being a direct sequel to "The Shining" and relying too heavily on flashbacks, it lost it's power. "The Dead Zone", movie, not TV show, is a fantastic adaptation that, again, gets the gist of the book, but still makes a fair amount of changes, it is very effective. So, for those who don't read King, no, you don't have to be entirely faithful to his works to please. However, "The Stand", to me, is so singular of a work, it does require it to, at the very least, be faithful in tone and to the characters, and the spirit of the book, and for me, this is the primary way the new adaptation misses it's mark.

The sequencing on the series, in my opinion, is largely to blame, and the ridiculous amount of screen time given to Harold, he is just focused on far too much. The sequencing is out of order for about 6 episodes, and what this does, is make it incredibly hard to connect to ANY character. I did not feel any connection to the characters until they began "The Walk". This isn't the completely fault of the script, but rather mostly the sequencing, it really kills the characters and story. The story needs that buildup from pre-super flu to super flu sweeping through the world, to the very end, it gives us an attachment to the characters. This is detrimental to the story because the story IS about the characters and how they cope with the world essentially being reset, and their growth, in some cases from awful people, to okay or really good people. Without the connection to the characters, it feels more like a random sequence of events than anything else.

I don't dislike Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but the script and her interpretation are to blame here. Mother Abigail becomes not a grandmotherly ethereal character, which she is supposed to be, but rather a cranky old woman. It seems they tried to make her more flawed, she isn't perfect in the book or other adaptation, and in doing so, lost the core of her character. They also, for some bizarre reason, entirely changed what Hemmingford Home is. No idea why, and I do believe that is important, Hemmingford Home is an important place in the book, to mother Abigail and the characters. It feels hollow and empty here, almost an aside.

Fran also becomes a morose and obnoxious character, who honestly just is not likeable at all, even if you hated Molly Ringwald's version, I hope we can agree, that Fran should be likeable. Stu is also a paper thin character here, I have read so many complaints of Gary Sinise' version, but really? James Marsden is okay in some roles, but he is not a good Stu, he ads no levity to the character and plays him far too straight. Sinise' Stu was more complex, not because of the script, but because of the emotional depth Sinise gave him. Also, Amber Heard, as Nadine is pretty annoying. They tried to give her character a little more depth, but outside of the final episode she is in, it just came across as annoying, because she essentially is nothing more than a closet satanist in this version, with a weird mother complex, and it actually gives her zero depth, maybe with a better actress who could have fleshed the character out, it would have worked. . I agree with others, in that, taking away the rape aspect was indeed a misfire because Flagg is a despicable person, this is really the first time we see how awful he actually is.

However, the 2 biggest problems, because Mother Abigail, have to be Nick and Tom, this is a REALLY important part of the story, and they do not at all cover this relationship in this version of the stand, not at all. Also, I found the interpretation by Bill Fagerbakke so much more human, whereas Brad William Henke's version borderline offensive and a total caricature. The script is largely to blame by adding in some dialogue that is incredibly annoying, and makes Tom nearly unbearable to watch. Nick's character is also skewered, we don't get to know him, and he comes across as this almost messianic martyr, with absolutely no depth. The parts between Tom and Nick in the old adaptation are some of my favorite parts, they have a fun chemistry and they do some good character building, even without too much background.

Alexander Skarsgaard is not a bad actor, and he does what he can with the role, but I felt it was even more limited here than in the old adaptation, and no less cheesy. The cheese was just as thick here as in the old version, although, a bit less stagey in execution. Despite the Mullet, Jamey Sheridan does a better job with Flagg, and even though the effects are dated, they hold up just fine.

Trash can is also woefully absent, and comes across as far too unhinged, love or hate Matt Frewer's rendition, it is still better than the absurdly ridiculous AND low-screen time version of trash can. In the book, you actually feel some empathy for him, neither version of the book achieves this though, and they had a good opportunity to flesh Trash Can out, they totally missed it, 100%, and again took far too much screen time up on the annoying Harold. Again, Harold may be important, but the worst decision they made was making him more of a focal point than several other characters. I preferred him in in the 1994 version a heck of a lot more, despite it not being totally faithful, it caught the essence of his character.

All in all, I am not saying this isn't somewhat enjoyable, it had it's moments, but on the whole, I got bored pretty quick. By not giving enough time to some characters, and then bringing in minor characters, it really becomes a lopsided affair with a narrative style that hurts the story. It virtually tells the same story as the 1994 version, but choppy sequencing that hurts the characters and story, and with little character development, aside from Harold, and turns a story of hope into a story that feels angry and resentful. It's not bad, it's just mediocre.

So the show is great. It's extremely well acted, beautiful sets and cinematography. The story is essentially the same, with some adjustments, and it's told differently (think how the lord of the rings books were told, as opposed to the movie). It's a great show, and it's clear it's going to stay very faithful to the book, numerous lines were ripped straight from the book to the screen.

What's disappointing to see, is the hate the project is getting because of Amber Heard, I don't agree with her or what she did but that doesn't mean you slander everyone else's work because of her. This isn't Amber Heard featuring The Stand. Her character is not even in the first episode, and if her portrayal of Nadine anything like the Nadine in the book, you'll revel in the chance to hate her even more. Watch the dang show. You won't be sorry.

Why does everyone think they can rewrite King and make it better? I can't think of one time this worked out but they still insist on rewriting King just in case THEIR version is better. It isn't. I'm 15 minutes in on episode one and it's a confused mess. I know the novel well and read both the abridged and unabridged version. There's an ocean of material to work with so if you're tossing it all and making up your own story it's pure ego! And I might say it isn;t a tenth as good. I doubt I'll watch anymore. I'm expending too much energy trying to untangle their mess with my memories of the novels. The original mini series sucked but at least they vaguely followed the story! Why pay a fortune for King rights then rewrite the story??? All they care about is a sellable name, they don;t even want his story, they just want his name and a concept then they'll write their own script that won;t be a tenth as good as if they followed the novel but hey, they got their ego stroked and people will still watch it even if it's incoherent garbage.

Decide for yourselves. Some people just like to criticize. I'm enjoying it so far.

This new adaptation of The Stand was something I was really looking forward to but I haven't been let down this badly since the last season of Game of Thrones.

Something went seriously wrong with this production and whoever greenlight the badly misjudged decision to mess about with the running order of the story, should seriously be fired from their job. It just doesn't work and just because it's a cool trend right now, doesn't mean you should try be like bloody West World. I mean who decided this? Have you even read the book? Do you understand how storytelling works? Stop embracing a trend which kills all tension and eliminates any chance of character development or emotional connections with your viewing audience.

Now look, off the bat, I enjoyed the ABC 1994 version, it was a decent adaptation for the time, a bit cheesy sure, but it was fun and had good casting with characters who had solid arcs and it was enjoyable and at least watchable, but it was, as others have rightly said, very much of its time in terms of tone, style and content. A more up to date remake was most welcome, even timely considering the subject matter.

The plot follows various American characters as an unknown virus wipes out 95% of the human race while the remaining others are immune. The survivors gravitate towards two opposing forces - one side led by Mother Abigail (the force of good and cool hair) or Randall Flag (The force of bad, but with more drugs and swingers parties taken to eleven) and eventually things are set for a showdown between them. Good vs Evil, lots of religious symbolism, none of which I have an issue with. Mixed in with this are the lives of various characters on both sides of the equation some of whom cross from one side to the other.

This new non linear approach to the story is a classic example of: if it isn't broke don't try and fix it. None of the changes that deviate from the narrative of the book work here and the casting all feels off for some reason. Listen there's some good actors in this thing, but the tone, pace and story all fail because of the disjointed narrative and the constant jumping around of timelines destroys any chance of you becoming really invested in any of them. Some of the most important progression dramatic beats and character arcs are completely lost here and it just doesn't work, at all, on any level. So many roles feel so miscast and the actors performances don't really gel nor have any emotive impact because we don't feel nor see a sense of progression. One moment we're in the past, then present, then the future, then back somewhere else, by which time I was wishing for Gary Sinse and Rob Lowe to turn up from the original.

The production design feels off too. Yeah dream sequences, can feel weird and out of place, but some of the actual scenes do too. Either one person was given too much power on this show and no one thought to rein them in or it was the extremely opposite and it was too many cooks or pulling the narrative and design all over the place. the entire production lacks a cohesive vision. I mean you can literally hear the Producer meetings 'Oh we should do this with the timeline, it worked so well in that other show... people will love it." Well I've got news for you. Stephen King has been around a long long time, and his fanbase were brought up on productions like Salems Lot and Christine, which followed traditional storytelling modus operandi and you know what - it worked.

This doesn't. What a colossal waste of talent. There's some good performances here but I honestly will not be tuning in for the future episodes, you lost me on episode three. Massively disappointing.

After watching the first episode I was really surprised to read so many bad reviews. I understand that the story doesn't happen in the same chronological order, but from my point of view it adds to the story and creates the suspense which totally lacks in the original version. In comparison this version has good actors who actually perfo well, it has more speed (did someone actually write the miniseries was more exciting? I mean, did you really watch it or is it your memory from the 90ies? ;) and a way better edit. And before you ask, I'm a King reader. Really looking forward to the next episode.

What the hell was CBS thinking??!?? Who oversaw the making of this?!?! I'm so angry at the mess the created! They butchered what could have been brilliant. What a freakin disappointment. The editing, the stupid time jumps, the terrible writing and directing - all awful!! No storytelling, no character development, no emotional depth of any kind. Not even a soundtrack. The ONLY good thing were a few of the actors - Greg Kinnear, James Marsden and Alexander Skarsgard. They were brilliant and did the best they could with what they were given. One star for each of those amazing actors. But that's it.

Why all the hate? I never read the book. Have no intention to and I'm glad. I did watch the miniseries and it was good. I really enjoy this series and I really don't understand the low rates and eviscerating comments. It's not hard to follow if you are paying attention, I mean they tell you when it's past and present, all you need to do is read. Way too hard on a show aired at the end of 2020's pandemic.

Did not know anything going in. Watched 2 episodes so far. Solid performance, production value, really not a bad show. Story is intriguing, at this point the main characters are just being revealed and developped, the opposing forces has not been properly set up yet but it's slowly getting there. Being an post apocalyptic show, it has very little tension, some of the characters smile and waltz around an extremely abrupt end to the world like they expected it. People are extremely composed and cool as everyone is dying around them. Story telling likes to jump around a lot. Showing different characters acorss different times. Some of the plot branches will develop normally, then jump years down the road, showing you the result then jump back to the current. Not hard to follow but it would have been better to proceed chronologically in my opinion. Any fan of post apocalyptic/zombie/disaster genre could consider giving it a shot.

Change the style, begin in the middle and tell all the story before via flashbacks,so to kill any suspense. Unnecessary character and story changes fill out the "how to" not to do it.

Hideous adaptation of Stephen King's sprawling novel stupidly breaks up the narrative into flashbacks and flash forwards, thus destroying any dramatic tension that might have existed. But I doubt there was any anyway under the lousy direction by a whole bunch of people. Was King involved in this mess?

Narrative aside, most of the cast is awful. Whoopi Goldberg and James Marsden are good. Everyone else stinks. I've never seen so much hammy overacting in one show. And all the blonde girls looks alike.

The timing of this mini-series is probably off. Showing a mini about the end of civilization in the midst of a pandemic might not have been the best idea. It leaves a sour taste.

The show runners here turned King's serious novel into a comic book.