WARNER BROS MAKING ANOTHER STAND. THE STAND - Page 2

Olyphant was definitely my first thought when it came to fancasting Stu. Old enough to be a vet of Desert Storm or young looking enough to be a vet of either Afghanistan or Iraq (not that Stu's service has anything to do with the story).  Has charisma out the ass, can do a drawl, looks like a real movie star. He's supposed to be older than Fran to the point that it's a little weird, I think, but not outright creepy.

Speaking of, I think Winstead is a great choice for Fran. She's young, likable, and talented, not to mention totally the girl that Harold Lauder would want.

Harold is kind of hard, because the reflex action is to go for Eisenberg, but Eisenberg might be too old. He's supposed to be 17 or so, as I recall. Usually that sort of thing doesn't matter a lot, but the dynamic between Fran and Harold sort of depends on them being younger than most of the rest of the cast, and Harold the younger of the duo. While I'd be eager to see, say, Michael Cera's turn as a complete creep/subversion of his typecast role that one also seems too easy. I'll have to think about this.

Will Patton as Ralph sounds great, assuming they don't cut him for time.

There's no dearth of cool old guys for Glen, or the judge for that matter. (I wouldn't be shocked if Glen and the judge are combined)

Larry is, for me, the hardest part to cast because he's my favorite character. Somebody between Fran and Stu agewise, with moderate singing ability and the ability to pull off Larry's character arc convincingly. I'm stumped.

Flagg should probably be not just a well-known actor, but an actor known mostly for nice-guy roles. He has to be able to convince the audience that people would pick him over Mother Abagail, despite being obviously evil. Tom Cruise would work well, with his public image helping to put forth his character as a cultist. Jeff Bridges, minus 20 or even 10 years could work. I've heard Terry O' Quinn mentioned as fancasting but having never watched Lost, I don't have an opinion on him one way or another. If a well known actor is unavailable, maybe William Fichtner.

 

Olyphant is inspired casting for Stu. Really like that.

 

Harold's difficult not just because of age but because he starts out fat and really socially maladjusted, and ends much fitter and more self-aware.

 

And they can't combine Glen with the Judge, as the Judge meets his end trying to scout for the Boulderians before the Five start out for LV.

Speaking of attempted theatrical remakes of dreadful miniseries, whatever happened to that It movie that was supposed to be made? I need to see Michael Keaton as Pennywise.

I think it died on the vine. The IT movie in my head with Mike Myers as Pennywise will never be realized!

 

I don't have anything else to add except third on the Olyphant casting. That's too damn good.

 

It's been awhile since I've read The Stand, but would it be necessary to have Harold start off overweight? Isn't there a way to write around that; like replace obesity with really bad skin or something? For the sake of practicality.

A friend of mine suggested Colin Farrell for Larry Underwood. I think that would be pretty great, and would give more star power and screen presence against someone like Olyphant and whomever they cast as Flagg.

 

Heather Morris for Julie Lawry - too obvious?

Like I said in my post, I don't think the weight thing is actually a big deal. Parker Lewis Can't Lose was a decent enough PG Harold and stayed skinny throughout. A guy doesn't have to be fat to play socially maladjusted. A scrawny kid getting into better shape is probably as effective as a fat kid getting skinny, to show the physical change accompanying his personal change.

I was thinking that they might combine Glen and the Judge to kill Glen off earlier to save time. From a miniseries perspective you don't really have to account for time, since 8-10 hours is probably enough time to keep all of the main beats and characters, but a 150 minute film is another beast entirely. I wouldn't be shocked if they were combined (even if Glen is just given a few of his lines), but I'd be even less shocked if Glen was cut.
 

How about Justin Timberlake as Larry Underwood? I loathe his music, but I've read nothing but great things about him in The Social Network. His name could sell tickets.

I am actually totally onboard with the Timberlake idea. I really liked his performance in Black Snake Moan and he was just great in The Social Network. He's even about the right age.

I'm on board with the show runners of Lost getting a crack at this.  Yeah the finale was a bit of a disappointment (mainly the alt universe stuff) but these guys seem to get it.   Tied for the director/writing spot would be Frank Daranbont.   The guy just nails Stephen King like nobody else out there.

Darabont directing a two-film adaptation would be too much to hope for. But I'd love it, too.

Absolutely not. If he were cast as Larry (my favourite character from the book) I wouldn't watch it. He isn't Larry Underwood. Actually, I hope they don't feel like they should cast a musician in the role.

For what it's worth, the casting of the mini was the least of its problems.   In fact I would venture to say alot of it was spot on except for Fran and Flagg.   Rob Lowe IMHO was a bit of inspired casting and the dude from Coach was perfect in his role.

Just out of curiosity, what's your objection to Timberlake as Larry? I mean, he's not Bruce Springsteen circa the late 1970s, but that's beyond all of our control.
 

 

People will freak if the movie ends the way the book does.

I'd never classify myself as a big fan of the book's climax, but from a strictly conceptual point of view the idea of all of our heroes walking into Mordor to bear witness isn't all that terrible. The problem is, in my opinion, one of execution. For example, literally having Flagg throw a ball of lightning, which then literally turns into a hand, while Ralph and Larry are literally on crosses...it's too much. The linkage between the nuclear weapon and Flagg as the last magician of technology is sadly underplayed. Unless you guys are talking about Stu and Tom Cullen working their way back to Boulder, which I actually think is pretty good for the most part. 

I'm talking about the hand of God nonsense. Tom finding Stu is fine. The are a hell of a lot of spiritual/supernatural stuff in the book, but somehow the hand went over the line for me. 

Huh. I don't have any problems with the book's "end" (it's really more the climax, as we have quite a bit story wrap up after), as it seemed to fit pretty well (IMNSHO) with the rest of the story. King calls this a tale of "dark Christianity" (in the preface to the unabridged version), so I don't think the ending is at odds with that.

 

I have a bigger problem with the epilogue/afterward. I mean, I get what King does there but it almost seems to invalidate the entire book that comes before it.

 

Quote:

In the novel, Stu isn't a vet.  King describes him as having to go to work at the local IBM plant immediately after high school to support his dying mother and siblings. [/King-nerdery]

I'm rereading the book right now and I'm almost dead certain there's a mention of Stu fighting "in the war," though nothing else is mentioned.

Yeah, you guys are right.  I stand corrected.

It's been too long since I read the book. Does King give the reader any sense of satisfaction that the sacrifice of the Free Zoners sent out west was worthwhile? I seem to remember Larry felt redeemed at the end. But does their sacrifice actually mean anything in the books? I suppose the public execution created the excuse to gather all the baddies in one place while the Trashcan Man brings out the atomic warhead. Is it because of their willingness to die that God intervenes? And if so, what a jerk. . . . 

 

I suppose I could dig up my copy of the book (I have the uncut version) and read through it again. It's been more than 15 years since I last read it.

Well Abagail talks about hating God. The plague that kills 99.4% of the population is biblical in scope. The God of The Stand is sort of an Old Testament bastard, in a lot of ways, jealous and manipulative, although still somehow a force for good. I've always read it that the willingness of the four (then the three, then the two) to trust in faith and walk to Vegas to openly challenge Flagg is what God wanted in order to intervene directly. So, short answer, yes, it's because of their willingness to die (or make...wait for it...a stand) that God shows up.

That's kind of what I figured, but with my memory being unreliable on a good day I thought I'd ask. I read The Stand after I had formulated my own philosophical worldview as far as religion is concerned, which just made the God in The Stand seem little better than RF. He was just the God with the bigger gun. Er, hand.

I feel he has a long way still to go to becoming a good actor. Yeah, he was pretty good in The Social Network, but that role required him to play a douchebag, and that didn't seem like much of a stretch for him. I feel he's both too boyish to convincingly play the tough and self serving Larry, and too Hollywood to convincingly play Larry's more heroic side. I just can't see him standing outside the Lincoln Tunnel with a guitar on his back.

I really don't understand this argument coming from so many people.

It's no different than the ending of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you didn't like the ending, you won't like the premise. And many people DO say they didn't like the premise -- they only enjoyed the first half and some even hated the fantasy aspects, not just the religious aspects. It's like going to Aliens and complaining about the military aspects of the film -- scratch that, the Raiders example is perfect. What more need be said?

The thing is that the people who dislike the "hand of God" ending probably didn't believe in the whole religious angle underpinning the book, and were unwilling to go along with it even as fantasy, which is a problem for reading enjoyment if you read fantasy and horror and have a hang up about religion in your fiction -- but not ghouls. The Deus Ex Machina ending was entirely appropriate for what was essentially a Biblical style armageddon story (on a slightly smaller or larger scale, I'm not sure which).

Then again, I guess some CHUDsters (and TBers too) are pretty hostile to religious themes in general making their way into fictional work, which I find strange. If you can suspend disbelief enough to accept Flagg and Mother Abagail, then the ending makes perfect sense.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/24/11 at 11:57pm

Why does everyone keep wishing for emaciated actresses to play Nadine and Fran? They should be played by everyday women. Nadine with slightly more sex appeal in a "repressed late 30s beauty with jet black hair and a few white streaks" sort of way and Fran is the classic girl next door with long brown hair, average build, attractive but not overtly sexy! Obviously hair color is not an issue when casting, but it is when painting an image and that is the whole problem with casting an emaciated ditz in the role.

That being said, this: ... Is genius.

He could TOTALLY do the fat --> skinny thing, too. I hope someone reads this and passes the suggestion on!

Not sure about walton Goggins as Trash. He has a striking face for some part or other, that's for sure.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/25/11 at 12:26am

Too young. Stu is supposed to be a weatherbeaten good ol' boy, at least 10 years older than Fran, but still in his prime.

For Stu, I take your Jenson Ackles and trump you with Jeremy Renner. Now THIS I can see. Still emaciated, like a lot of hollywood starlets, but she actually looks like my image of Fran.

If she actually wears sensible clothes thru the series she could pull off the role of heroine (keep in mind that Nadine's the one with "hard to get" sex appeal, and I think LSG was way too skinny and blatantly supermodel-ish for the role, although she had a great personality I just didn't picture her as a 30-some-year old virgin. Not in the outfits she was wearing! ) I really do think the women in this series should be audience surrogates representing average people caught in great events, not just there for sex appeal for the men in the audience. Heartily agreed, but it might be seen as stunt casting. I can just picture the discussion boards now -- Tom Cruise plays an ageless, megalomaniacal, false messiah in a religiously themed epic!

Bale might be perfect if they could afford him -- he could definitely do both scary and weatherbeaten. And he has an EEERILY PLASTIC face in real life -- I went into The Fighter not knowing he was there and didn't realize it was him until someone told me halfway through. And I didn't believe them.

I mean, the guy looked like he did crack for the role!

Failing that, Serj Tankian as Flagg. See previous post above for an answer. James Frecheville. The guy looks perfect for Harold and has a dark, brooding, "vindictive nerdy ex-boyfriend who was passed over for promotion" countenance. He could even put on pounds and take them off for the role.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/25/11 at 2:32am

Keep in mind that Stu is supposed to be a weatherbeaten guy in his mid-thirties, who has lived a hard life. He's at least yen years older than Fran, maybe 15, and that's part of his characterization. And one of the reasons Harold, who is 5 years younger than Fran, is so angry at Stu. I think Jeremy Renner could pull that off... for Stu, I mean. And James Frecheville for Harold as someone else suggested.

I was going to agree Colin Farrell would make a really interesting choice, but then I realized that Larry has to be a semi-unknown powerhouse actor. He starts out as a sleazoid who the audience gradually warms up to, and you don't realize he's the hero at the end. Casting a bigger star as Larry than as Stu would spoil the whole dynamic of what happens to Stu, because the audience would write Stu off and he's really the classical protagonist, and what happens to him and Larry at the end would come as no surprise if Stu is not seen by the audience as the CLASSICAL HERO protagonist so... yeah, you'd have big audience expectation problems if Larry were a bigger actor than Stu, even though he needs more chops. Stu on the other hand should be easier to cast, someone like Olyphant or Renner who is not so famous as to immediately shout "I'm one of the main protagonists" -- he should be vulnerable enough that the audience expects him to get whacked in the Stovington Hospital, which is why those passages are so terrifying -- but begins to project leadership after his experience in the hospital. Indeed, the fact that he survived the hospital is precisely the event that should make the audience identify with Stu as the hero, before then he's just another good ol' boy (potential red shirt) who was at the scene of the original wreck.

Timberlake is a great idea, because he'd be playing himself, people go in with mixed feelings about him, and he's apparently a better actor than anyone realizes.
Looks like the spitting image of Larry from the miniseries, one of the best cast guys. (and keep in mind he was basically supposedly a stand-in for a young Bruce Springsteen, while Stu is a stand-in for a middle-aged handsome but weatherbeaten cowboy hero. King's two favorite iconic American males... something to keep in mind).

On the other hand, characters you could get rid of (?) and still develop Larry per the book -- Joe (could be made a minor character or Larry without costing screen time, since he doesn't speak) Larry's wife (combine with Dayna) Rita (combine with Nadine again, much as I hate to see it happen) but then again, there's some latent sexism creeping in here from the fact that King didn't fully develop these female characters...

The other problem is, that if you write all the tertiary characters as faceless extras, the first half of the book loses ALL TENSION. It's the flip side of the point about Stu.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/25/11 at 3:07am

What's the point of doing a remake then? Before we do fan casting, perhaps we should draw up a list of characters that could not be cut, or the story falls apart. My list:

Stu (the designated protagonist)
(but the ensemble needs to be big enough that we don't realize this at first, and think he'll die in Stovington, that's crucial to the tension in the first half)

Larry (the arc protagonist)

Nick (seen in the work as the "goodest" of the good characters, he's an example for the others -- but he needs an eyepatch dammit!)
(we want the audience to root strongly for Nick and hope he'll be on top at the end)

Glen (one of the four, and one of fans' most favorite characters -- if this is King's LOTR, he's basically Gandalf)

Ralph (because he's one of the four - but he could be combined with another character, maybe even Glen, because he doesn't have much characterization in the book. This would require Glen picking up Tom Cullen after he meets Stu, though -- on a side trip from Hemingford Home, maybe? Because Nick, Ralph and Tom are best buds in the book. Interestingly Nick is an atheist with a strong moral code and Ralph is a typical pious Oklahoma farmer type, whereas Glen is a cynical professor with a mystic philosophical bent, who buys into the Mother Abigail thing before anyone else so you have three different personalities there.)

I could see this as Glen: Oh hells yeah!



Michael Caine IS Glen Bateman in Children of Men. He could reprise his role and everything.

Other characters you could not drop --

Harold, Nadine, Fran (obviously)

Tom (obvious)
Abagail, Kojak -- Kojak is central to Glen's characterization, and when Glen and Stu become friends, Kojak becomes tied to Stu as well.
Dayna, because otherwise the LV story would have no tension
(but you could combine her with Susan Stern and put her on the council as Larry's "wife", who survives him in the book -- if you want to get really edgy!)
Judge (just a great minor character, doesn't need too much development to be believable)

Flagg, Lloyd, Trash

If they cut out any of these characters, well, it'd be like the first LOTR script, where they started trying to cut characters. You got like, ten lead secondary characters. This really needs to be marketed as King's LOTR to work -- even if DT fans disagree with TS fans on that.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/25/11 at 1:56am

Wait, don't laugh -- It might actually work!

On my image search for the above, here's a guy who looks like the love child of Tankian and Jamey Sheridan. Perfect, too bad he's probably a russian mobster or something and not an actor.

Just wanted to say, well put, IMNSHO.

 

I've got this weird notion that Robert Downey Jr. would make a good Randall Flagg. He shows up, says some funny stuff, everyone is kinda expecting Tony Stark to join the ensemble... then he turns out to be ultimate evil.It's just fucked up enough to be interesting to me.

Same here.  Well put, DrTerwilliker.  I, for one, loved King's unabashed use of Old Testament-y elements.  Admittedly, I may have been primed for it more than the average reader.

 

[wordy derail]

Since my teens in 80's I've been a big fan of eschatological fiction.  While sparse at first, as the millennium approached the volume escalated as both the religious right got noisier and more and more apocalyptic evangelists turned from head on preaching to the more marketable  avenue of fiction.  Most of it has been garbage as far as literary quality goes (Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, Larry Burkett), leaning heavily on naked proselytizing, yet it never ceased to be intriguing (one of the reasons I can't knock people who read trash like Harlequin and Star Wars novels).  One thing that can be said for this genre though, most books bear a strong resemblance to THE STAND.  Sharing nearly identical strengths and weaknesses, they ride on a millennial anxiety that almost forces an ending akin to King's polarizing 'Hand Of God' device.

 

King was actually ahead of the curve in the late 70s.  A little later, McCammon's SWAN SONG certainly took a page out of THE STAND's playbook but ultimately lacked the nerve to smack the reader in the face with the cold brutality of the Testaments, Old and New.

[/wordy derail]

 

As far as a big screen STAND goes, I expect this will end up in that same limbo as DUNE.  It's such a large and sprawling work with a great deal of inner monologues it almost seems to defy a satisfactory translation.  Just look at the diversity of 'needs to be in there' scenes that folks in the forum have mentioned.

 

My greatest concern would be Larry.  He's the backbone of the story, the easiest one to identify with and the one whose personal journey is the real star of the narrative.  For me, he underlines the idea that Captain Tripps was a violent baptism that, to a great degree, allowed the protagonists to be born again...for better (Larry) or worse (Harold).  Even Lloyd is bent slightly more towards the good by his trans-epidemic experience.  I believe Larry is the most crucial bit of casting in the whole damn thing.  Flagg and Lloyd being right behind.

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with the religious aspects of the story, that doesn't mean I have to accept the incredibly cheap and lazy ending of The Stand.  You could tell the same story, with the same overarching theme of faith and sacrifice in the face of almost certain death, without a giant deus ex machina.  I'm sure if King took the time to plot out in advance where this story was gonna go, he could have come up with an ending that doesn't involve a giant mystical ball of energy turning into a hand and saving the day.  If you like the ending, that's fine, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but please don't assume the reason people don't like the conclusion was because of an aversion to any religious or Christian overtones.  That's certainly not the case for me. 

 

ETA- Another thought, responding to the post that DrTerwilliker  was originally responding to, I like the book, but even if you take aside the ending, there are still some pretty big problems.  The story starts spinning its wheels in a big way once everyone arrives at boulder.  It didn't surprise me at all to hear King suffered from writers block as to where to take the story after that point.  I'm looking forward to the movie, or movies, but I just hope it's not a slavishly loyal to the book adaptation. 

Yeah, I can see that. The concept is great, I think it's the execution that might come across as abrupt on-screen if not properly led up to. I think the way the miniseries wrapped it up with the voice of Mother Abigail and all the people in Las Vegas decked out like an episode of Metalocalypse was incredibly cheesy. Although I suppose they could play up that angle to explain Flagg's appeal... because you can't kill the METAL... (Serj Tankian as Flagg!) There are ways of doing it that are slightly more, um, subtle. But what fascinated me about the ending was the chain of events leading up to it, because:
...Because the way the whole third book unravels, it's open to interpretation because it's kind of like pieces of a puzzle. You can see it that way, which is still kind of fascinatingly hard-core in a way. But you could also see it as the whole "bear witness" thing where Trash is the real "hero", and if the heroes hadn't arrived then Flagg would have put more of his energies into finding Trash or finding Tom. He was pretty distracted by everything that was going on, and he might not have even been in LV if the heroes hadn't basically staged a sit-in. Plus, at least in the miniseries (I'm pretty sure this is in the books, but I'm too lazy to look up) IIRC Abigail says that God didn't bring them to Boulder to form a Free Zone, it was all a set-up job to send four of them further west... which is kind of a mind-fuck because it means that the whole thing was a chess game between the Higher Powers, sort of like the DT series.
I hear ya, but I think it's the leadup that's important. If they can keep everyone guessing as to what happens, in many ways it could be framed as a more ironic end than a lot of similar epics where evil dies at the end because, well, what your choices are... duel with the hero (mostly mental here, especially since Flagg's power over LV is mostly fear & despotism), betrayed by an underling, or undone by his own magic... The end has potential elements of all three in place, depending on how it's played. So you could play the existing ending for drama instead of fireworks. There's not too much room for some shocking twist unless, say, they nuke Boulder (which I was afraid would happen when I read the book -- Don't you think it's worth making the movie watcher expect Boulder to get nuked in the end?) As for going up in a direct duel, did anyone notice Glen was the one who got to do that in the end? He confronted Flagg and he even tried to get Lloyd to kill Flagg. Good reason to play up Glen's character as the wise elder of the bunch.
If we look at the third book as a big foreshadowing with all the pieces falling into place for the ending somewhat like the book (instead of it all working up to a "big battle" that disappoints) then I think the third book would certainly keep the viewer satisfied if it all seems to lead up to the ending, you know? As long as the viewer is kept guessing (presenting it as a real possibility that Boulder would get nuked, as I certainly expected when I red the book, is key I think.)

But for the Middle book, I think a JJ Abrams approach might be best. Turn the Middle section into a big puzzle thriller that skips between the two cities with everyone trying to figure out what everyone else is thinking and doing, especially since it's leading up to a bomb plot on one side and a spy mission on the other. There's a lot of that in the Boulder part, once you get past the chapters where King seemed to be... flagging.

After all, there's not much difference between being trapped on an island and being sequestered in the middle of a depopulated wilderness surrounded by roving bandits. And they can't drop the whole "animals spying for Flagg" angle -- you need threat from the wildlife, lest the visuals look too tame -- a lot of stuff in the miniseries looked like they were on vacation in the Catskills and there were no people because of the off-season.
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/27/11 at 9:43pm

Sorry for the long post, this book is a favorite that I always hoped would be remade, so when I heard about this news it was off to CHUD! Too bad that it's WB and they will probably screw it up in inventive new ways, rendering this whole thread appear quaint by the first casting news.

Actually, if they really wanted to throw the audience for a loop, they could have Tom and Stu arrive back over the last mountain pass to find out that Boulder HAD been nuked. unlike in the book, Flagg got off a rocket... but Fran and her baby survived? Hmmmmm... people would riot. Enough to make them think it'll happen?
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/27/11 at 9:25pm

Maybe that's the best thing to do in terms of adapting the story itself, is to adapt the themes so that they correspond with a three film story arc. Rather than an overly literal adaptation, an adaptation in spirit that retains most of the plot points by allowing the story to breathe over the course of three films, and each one could have a different focus...

1. The Plague and the journey west, with the focus being on survival. Larry's journey thru the Lincoln Tunnel and Trash's journey thru the Eisenhower tunnel could serve as bookends for the film... and to have a big ending Trash could blow something up a bit nearer to the end of book 1. Get John Hillcoat or Niell Blomkamp to direct. perhaps someone with a more "epic" sensibility but the same penchant for violence, sympathetic character portraits, and lingering shots on scnes of devastation... who?

Maybe have the dreams and the characters just begin to coalesce at the end (save for Stu, Trash and a few others early on) so that the dreams appear isolated cases of nuttery at first, making Harold appear more sympathetic, and give extra time for the early parts of the book where each character is all alone in the darkened towns.

2. The two cities, with the focus being on a JJ Abrams style puzzle plotting as a sort of political suspense thriller set as a series of interconnecting plot threads set in two discrete towns across a hostile wilderness, a la Lost or the current Game of Thrones series on HBO. There's a lot of character interactions, conversations about the apocalypse, momentous unresolved hanging plot threads where the characters could JUST figure out the whole thing if they asked the right question or came home at the right time. Get JJ Abrams to direct.

Part two would be an ensemble piece set in newly re-settled town for the most part. in the book it's framed by Fran's diary so its seen mostly thru her eyes, so the intro to part 2 could breeze thru the main journeys along the freeway west, where everyone realizes Mother Abagail and Flagg exist, and the second part could be where the plot settles down in two locations and becomes more of a single-location thriller (bomb plot, the plans of the council, figuring out what Flagg really is about, etc.)

The actual journey to Boulder (once the three main groups are assembled) is more scenery than anything, punctuated by only brief flashes of drama such as the woman zoo, following other people on the radio, and bouts of deadly illness. To keep the focus on the two towns, you could hold off on meeting anyone new until they reach Boulder, with only Nick's group meeting at Abagail's house. And they could frame it a little better than the miniseries did by not revealing where Abagail and Nick's group were headed. And did you notice the meeting of the protagonists was completely glossed over in the miniseries? if part 2 is a thriller, you might have it set up so the three main groups all assemble in Boulder but the protagonists don't immediately know or like each other (they don't realize the other guys are main characters in a novel, what with everyone else arriving in town) and are only brought together because of the council.

3. The journey to Las Vegas and the journey of the three spies / four survivors (remember, the spies arrive about the same time as the four leave, and the latter are on foot, slogging across the mountains, so have plenty of time to cut back and forth to Las Vegas in the meantime.) The Spies are similar to part 2 but more of a straight "avoid detection" plot where the fear is that all three of them will be captured. Maybe have the Judge get farther along towards Las Vegas.

The trick here is that the book set the story mostly in LV, which would mean showing a lot less of it in part 2. Solution: The first major deviation might be to fill in things happening back in Boulder (to avoid the reader getting tired of watching the heroes walk across the desert and/or figuring out where the plot is going.)

So one idea for part 3 would be to play up an aspect unexplored but briefly mentioned in the end of the book, which would be to reveal in part 3 that some of the less-savory Boulderites who struck Stu as the wrong people to lead in Mother Abigail's absence would turn out to be not much better or worse than some of the Las Vegasites. This actually pops up as a theme in the book (why Stu leaves Boulder in the end) but they could really explore it with the extra time needed to flesh out part 3 into a feature length film. The trick then would be not to have the characters back in Boulder appear as shallow pawns of Flagg, because they'd come off as cheap copies of Harold and Julie Lawry.

Far more interesting to explore what would happen to a utopian community if its leader died in an incident shrouded in rumor, shortly after its democratically elected council died in a terror attack and the remaining moral leaders of the community went off on a seemingly doomed last-ditch mission into enemy territory. What would the people left behind in Boulder do or think? No (further) direct motivation by Flagg would be needed... Might be interesting to make that part of the movie, if Boulder is seemingly falling apart because of weak minded individuals, at the same time Flagg's empire is crumbling from within... Heck, if we look at it as an Old Testament style plot, look at what Moses has to put up with every time he goes up the mountain: rebellious israelites whom he has to bitch-slap. The realization that there is no way to divide the population into two groups of all-good guys and all-bad guys and that the people will continue to go off and make mistakes on their own (as they realize about the Las Vegasites in the book) even if the folks leading each group really are the personification of good and evil. Would make a great intelligent thriller if framed that way, with cut-backs to what is happening in Boulder to keep people off guard.

Chris Nolan or Paul Thomas Anderson would dig this sort of angle if they were to direct the Third film. (one can dream...) Anyway, that was a long post...
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/29/11 at 12:03pm

tl;dr version:

Part 1 = The Road / The Quiet Earth / 28 Days without zombies; Part 2 = Jericho; Part 3 = Return of the King IN LAS VEGAS!

...

28 Days without Zombies might make a good film title... I'm thinking "A Day Without a Mexican", but with (out) zombies.
 
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/29/11 at 12:07pm

Quote:

This looks like a job for Sawyer!

 

 

The Viggo Mortenson who played Lucifer in Prophecy is PERFECT for Flagg.

 

This is coming from a guy who kinda groans whenever his name is attached to these kind of project; not because of any lack of talent(which there isn't any). It's just that his name gets thrown around too liberally when it comes to these projects.

Wow, Sawyer would be such a great Stu, I can ignore that he's certainly too old.  Loving this thread, it made me dig out my old soft copy.

Can definitely see Mortenson in Lucifer Mode playing the demonic side of Flagg, but I don't know if he could put across the charm. He has a very intense, stoical air about him as an actor whereas the tricky part of Flagg is that for the most part he is all about otherworldly seductive charm - every man's best buddy and every woman's deepest fantasy. But every now and again he shows his true, demonic nature, which has to be shocking in opposition to the overwhelming charisma most people see.

 

Was thinking about a choice for Flagg - and actors who I think could embody both those aspects - and thought of Sam Rockwell. Kind of a left-of-field choice (He'd have to bulk up a little, not too much but enough to give him some added physical presence) but I think he could capture those different sides.

 

And as for almost-too-obvious-fan-casting favourites... I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Jackie Earle Haley for Trashcan Man yet. Screamingly obvious, but a great fit IMO.

 

Re: Workyticket

Sam Rockwell does have that sort of "Jim Morrison from the Doors" look, doesn't he? Which leads to a thorny issue: Mullet or no mullet?

I mean, this scene might not work effectively if there was no mullet:



You're in a heap of trouble, Son... YOU SCROOOOWED UP SPIDERMAN 3!!!

(one of the few examples of good cinematography in the miniseries, BTW. and yes, that is Sam Raimi)

Speeking of which, Evil Dead-era Bruce Campbell would have been perfect for Flagg.
He can do the whole tall, dark, grinning thing. too bad he's too old now.

How about Bruce Campbell as Ralph (the "Farmer John" type character who survives till near the end?)

That would certainly spice things up. He isn't very fleshed out in the book, so they could go hog wild a bit.
He'd also be a good audience surrogate for scenes with Nick, who can't speak.
 
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/29/11 at 11:54am

When I heard about this, I think a great Flagg would be Aaron Eckhart.  I always envisioned Flagg as a guy flowing with charisma, like Eckhart in "Thank You for Smoking".  Good looking guy, average build, really unimpossing.... but just has this presence that can draw you in. 

I always envisioned Flagg as a guy flowing with charisma, like Eckhart in "Thank You for Smoking". Good looking guy, average build, really unimpossing.... but just has this presence that can draw you in.

I agree on the idea behind casting Aaron Eckhart, but I must say I didn't really buy him as a bad guy at the end of Dark Knight, only as a wounded good guy. Then again, I kind of think that TDK kind of falls apart at the end, story-wise...

On similar lines... is Day-Lewis too old for the part of Flagg? Probably. Not like it would ever happen... I think he's staying away from villains these days. And method-acting a devil (more or less) might cause too much strain. We don't want him to pull a Heath Ledger on us. It would make for fun copy, though...

"Day-Lewis takes up residence with crows in mountain hideout, teaching them to speak; eating roadkill, and walking 30 miles a day in broken-heeled cowboy boots. He assaulted his fellow actors frequently, rounding up extras to haze them by tying them to telephone poles and throwing buckets of cold water on them at 5:30 in the morning. By the end of the shoot, he had assembled a cult of well-armed extras, and began occupation of the trailer village at the former site of the film's second unit, excluding Nevada officials who came to evict them. He inoculated himself with swine flu in preparation for The Stand, and reported seeing debilitating hallucinations of his father, while listening to King Crimson constantly on a loop. Director Darren Aronofsky reportedly carried a revolver on-set to protect himself from Day-Lewis, and allegedly fired it at one point, wounding fellow actor Justin Timberlake, who subsequently left the film..."
Edited by DrTerwilliker - 4/29/11 at 11:43am

I think that was the point of his character though, to be a fallen angel, not a true badguy.  I think Eckhart could be an awesome bad guy, if given the chance.