BEN AFFLECK MAY TAKE A STAND

Interesting. I wouldn't have pegged AFFLECK for the material, but then again I didn't have much hope that the project would be able to successfully adapt the novel in the first place, so I'm at least glad someone with some talent is getting a crack at it

EDIT: I like all the parts of the book you didn't, just needed to be said

Fair enough. If you don't find a literal hand of God coming down to smoosh the villain to be a massive 'fuck you' to the considerable investment of time it takes to read the novel, nothing I'm going to say will convince you otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Fair enough. If you don't find a literal hand of God coming down to smoosh the villain to be a massive 'fuck you' to the considerable investment of time it takes to read the novel, nothing I'm going to say will convince you otherwise.

I just found the villain to be so evil, and his vision of the future so frightening (crucifying people on telephone poles for doing drugs?), that I got a big kick out of a greater power literally smacking him down. It looked like the heroes were doomed. The poor dog had died, ETC. I liked that that ending said there was a force for good in that universe greater than Flagg, and it had seen enough to decide to act

Plus, to some degree it felt like things had been building to that ending, with Trashcan Man and his desert journey to bring back the bomb. Having the heroes sneak away to activate it or something wouldn't have been much more satisfying, at least for this reader

Affleck would make a great Stu Redman.

And this is wildly ambitious for him, as a director. Not sure how big Argo is gonna be, but The Stand is a potential tentpole -- I really never would have guessed he'd try for something like this, but I have confidence he can pull it off.

   As far as the ending goes, I'm sure a good screenwriter can come up with a way to set off the nuke that doesn't involve the hand of God. Trashcan Man could set it off himself. He would do it because he was pissed Flagg rejected him. Evil always loses in the end because it turns on its self.

   I don't think that the characters are all black and White. King does write Harold with sympathy. Larry is a selfish prick a good chunk of the book.

I don't think they should change the ending. Love it or hate it, it's part of The Stand and a movie adaptation wouldn't be the same without it.

And it's always fun to imagine King cackling and mashing his typewriter insanely as he drives the ending to his magnum opus into the ground.

I would rather he redo Voyage of The Mimi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

I don't think they should change the ending. Love it or hate it, it's part of The Stand and a movie adaptation wouldn't be the same without it.

 

 

Agreed.

Strange I don't know how to feel about Affleck doing this. On the one hand I have liked both his films he has directed on the other I never figured he would be directing Stephen King.

Interesting. Guess I am curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

And this is wildly ambitious for him, as a director. Not sure how big Argo is gonna be, but The Stand is a potential tentpole -- I really never would have guessed he'd try for something like this, but I have confidence he can pull it off.

It was only a matter of time before he accepted Warner Bros constant offers of tentpole films.  I know he turned down Man of Steel and I'm pretty sure they've offered him a handful of other large projects over the past year or two.  Anyway, I'm excited by this news.  I'm also assuming it is still going to be a two-film adaptation (three would be pushing it, I think), as most articles refer to it as WB's "new franchise".

As for Yates & Kloves?  I'm guessing they just moved on to one of the other properties that WB was offering them earlier in the year (Cicero? Fables?)............either because they couldn't come to an agreement on a deal for The Stand or because they just didn't feel like jumping straight into another multi-film effort.  Not surprising really, especially since Yates keeps saying he wants to do a smaller film next.

So my only really questions now are these:

1. Is this going to be a multi-film adaptation?  I hope so, otherwise there isn't much of a point.

2. Is Affleck giving himself a role or will he place his entire focus on making the film instead?

Ben would be a great choice for both Stu or Nick, but he might not want to have to worry about a performance AND managing a tentpole project.  Frankly, I'll be surprised if he takes a leading or supporting role in this.

With Affleck directing this? I can only hope he does the right thing and cast Titus Welliver in this.

2 films sounds good to me. Where would you split them? Probably with the survivors gathering in their respective cities, I would imagine. Make your first film the plague movie and the second about the conflict between the survivors. Problem is there's not much there in the middle of the book that could be used as a climax for the first film. If Affleck could find a way to spice it up somehow, he should probably go for it.

Huh. I could see Affleck directing a re-do of The Dead Zone or Firestarter. The Stand would be a big leap  in terms of the scope of production. He would get the character interaction down, that's for sure.

Oh and I bet we get Matt Damon as Trashcan Man! WIN!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

2 films sounds good to me. Where would you split them? Probably with the survivors gathering in their respective cities

 

 

Maybe. Having these characters reach the Free Zone provides a happy ending, but I think there needs to be something beyond that to hook the viewer into seeing another movie. With The Fellowship of The Ring you had the fellowship split up, Gandalf seemingly dead, Boromir dead and a ring still left in need of being destroyed. Unfortunately the only cliffhangers that could be used happen later on in the book. The explosion at the Ad Hoc meeting being one, and possibly the spies being sent out west another. I think you would have to end the first movie with Flagg. Maybe with him telling Lloyd about his plans in Vegas. I don't know if that would be a big enough hook, though.

Well, I'd say the hook of there being only two cities left of people in the entire country, one evil and one not, and the promise of them doing battle is a pretty great hook.

Of course, it would be nice if they actually did battle a little bit in the movie, rather than just worrying about each other as they mostly do in the novel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

Of course, it would be nice if they actually did battle a little bit in the movie, rather than just worrying about each other as they mostly do in the novel.

This is what makes me wonder if that is strong enough of a hook? Flagg and Lloyd are the only villains set up early on, and even then Lloyd is somewhat sympathetic as a character.  And these two groups don't even come into contact with each other until the end of the story. Stu and co know that Flagg exists, but they haven't actually spoken to him and they know nothing of what is happening out west by that point. So there aren't really any major antagonists for Stu and co to deal with along the way. My point is, if the first movie is about the survivors of a plague trying to get together, and they actually do it by the end of the movie, where does the movie go from there? This is why I think there needs to be a final, specific scene involving Flagg finally setting up Las Vegas as a potential enemy to the free zone. I think we would need to know just how big the stakes are.

You can pretty much guarantee that the ending will get tweaked, so I'm not too worried in that regard.