Page 1 of 1

Stephen King's The Stand

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:49 pm
by Fievel
MARVEL TO ADAPT STEPHEN KING'S "THE STAND"


King wrote:"I did go to Marvel and ask them if they would have any interest in adapting 'The Stand' as a graphic novel and they are going to do that," King told Talk of the Nation. "Marvel is going to do 'The Stand' as a graphic novel."


I just hope it's better than the miniseries.
When King released the expanded version in 1990, he updated the date of the virus as well as some pop-culture references. I hope he (or they) does the same with this.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:15 am
by Chairman Kaga
Why should they update it again? The main reason he changed things in the 90 version was because he was adding in about a 1/4 of the book again that was out of date so he just updated the whole thing. No reason to do that with a GN. Plus updating it would put it out of continuity with Wizard and the Glass.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:22 am
by Fievel
Chairman Kaga wrote:Why should they update it again? The main reason he changed things in the 90 version was because he was adding in about a 1/4 of the book again that was out of date so he just updated the whole thing. No reason to do that with a GN.


Why? Because this is the fourth version of the story..
1. Novel (1978)
2. Expanded Novel (1990)
3. Mini-Series (1994)
4. Graphic Novel (200?)

In each version, the story was written and then rewritten to make it relevant to the time it was released (even though Larry's music in the mini series sounded like it was from 1983). With today being an age of cell phones, internet, etc. I can imagine a few updates might be added. They're not going to be able to put the whole novel into GN form so some changes will be made regardless.

I wonder if Flagg will look like Marten from the Dark Tower comics.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:32 am
by Chairman Kaga
Fievel wrote:Why? Because this is the fourth version of the story..

What does the version of the story have to do with anything? He made the original revisions because he was introducing material he couldn't originally include because of binding and printing constraints. Had he been able to print it the first time the way he wanted they probably would never have bothered.

The only thing different from 1990 revision and the 94 script was the dates (which is no different than the same change in every one of the other mini-series in the 90's since most were made years after the books they were based on) . Nothing about the setting was altered beyond that. Since it is now continuity for the Dark Tower and considering Marvel is printing the Dark Tower comics, which have in no way changed that continuity, there's no reason for King to bother to change it again to 2008. Part of the comics readership is bound to spill over into the Dark Tower novels so why would he create such a problem when the GN can just as easily be a period book that ties into the already established Dark Tower comics?

King is a smart storyteller and simply inserting references to Britney Spears and iPods (unless he is charging for product placement) won't be anything but a distraction from the actual work of truncating the story into a GN format.

Now if you want to see it updated I can understand that but I don't think it will do anything to make the story more impactful especially if they jam in alot of ham handed current political climate like the recent V for Vendetta film.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:59 am
by Fievel
If they're going to adhere to the Dark Tower continuity then they need to put The Stand in the 1980's as the ka-tet passed through Kansas as it was in the original version of The Stand, not the Revised version (when King bumped the date to 1990). Even though yes it's Stephen King, and yes it's the same guy that did the Dark Tower... who that has never heard of/read The Stand is going to want to read about the end of the world as it happened in the 1980's? Seems like a tough sell to me.

As far as updating it, it's not necessarily that I want it to be updated, I merely expect him to. King himself has changed the date on each revision (he did the teleplay for the mini series). I can see him easily changing it again a third time here. Why would he want to revisit this story a fourth time just to set it in the 1980's?

As seen with The Stand and The Gunslinger, King is like the George Lucas of fiction - he loves to tinker with his stuff. King has said a few times that he'd like to revise the entire Dark Tower series to get rid of all the continuity errors. I just can't see him putting out this story again and not changing anything (other than condensing it for the new medium).

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:09 am
by AtomicHyperbole
I've not read The Stand. I'm currently working my way through IT and have it down for giving a shot afterwards. Do people generally think it's King's best, because I heard that's contentious?

What's Starchild on about? Someone gaffney'd something?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:28 am
by Cha-Ka Khan
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Do people generally think it's King's best, because I heard that's contentious?


I do. To qualify, I'd say it's the best of the "old" Stephen King, pre-Dark Tower days. I read everything King wrote up to Cujo, and then gave up on him because I thought that book sucked hard and I was sort of "done" with his particular style. I tried getting into Insomnia a few years ago but just couldn't buy into it and dropped it. But The Stand is easily my favorite book of all time. Why it's not considered more of a modern "The Great American Novel" like Huck Finn, I don't know.

And then I've talked to others who hated it.

And now you guys are all talking about continuity with the Dark Tower series. I'd be curious to know how the two works tie in.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:41 am
by AtomicHyperbole
I tried reading the Gunslinger but damn it was heavy work. Even for someone who did English lit.

I quite liked Insomnia, I think I read it whilst ill from school aaaages ago. Then again I seem to have read most of the later King and none of the early stuff, which is why I'm catching up now...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:47 am
by Cha-Ka Khan
I'd like to know what you think of his earlier work, since you started reading his later work first.

My top 4 favorties were The Stand, The Shining, Salem's Lot, and The Dead Zone. I think those were his most focused works back in the day.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:06 am
by AtomicHyperbole
I already did Salems Lot! It's impressively tight. Somehow I wasn't creeped out by it though, maybe it's because I'm rather jaded by horror.

In terms of reading an actual nightmare Dreamcatcher was the closest in terms of feeling like being really feverishly sick, which I believe he was when he wrote it. It's possibly the bizarrest piece of media I've ever laid eyes on.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:44 am
by so sorry
I think this is great news. I LOVE the Stand. Read it every other year. An i like the "updated" version just fine. The problems I had with the miniseries were the special effects and the acting (Gary Sinese aside)... I think the adaptation was pretty good.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:46 am
by unikrunk
I did not realize there was an updated version of The Stand; I have read only the original edit of the book.

This should make for some fun comics reading, but I would really dig it if King decided to do something completely original in the comic book medium.

How great would that be? Brand-spanking-new King stories in comic book format. Shit, why not continue with the Creepshow stuff, and forge a new era for EC type stuff?

Oh, wait, that would not be completely original, but you get where I am going.

I digress; looking forward to this project very much.

/Starchild, s'cool bro. Relax a little, and the zone, she will open up to you. You cannot force the petals of the rose, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:57 am
by Fawst
The Stand was on TV again recently, and I have to say... it does NOT hold up. At all. There's a certain texture to the King television miniseries of the 90s that just doesn't jive well with the books. There were certainly moments of greatness in the TV version, particularly Dobber as ... uh... Tom Coughlin was it? Yah, it's been a while.

I've never read the entire book, but I did get quite far into it. I can say with complete certainty that there was PLENTY of backstory exposition left over that the TV version didn't use to make a GN that will work well. The spread of the virus, in particular, was brushed aside, whereas in the novel, it describes the early spread in great detail. That would make for some good visuals in the GN!

Image

And Flagg better look something like that. Possibly the greatest rendering of the character I've seen yet.

Well, other than the OTHER painting of him in The Dark Tower... the one that comes after this one... and was torn straight from my greatest nightmares. Yah, THAT one.

Anyways, I'm psyched for this, though I would much prefer an IT GN. Or 'salem's Lot. That is possibly my favorite oldschool King book. One of the better vampire stories out there. And the ENDING, why can't they get that right in the fucking movie versions?! It was so perfectly simple and effective! Fools.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:06 am
by unikrunk
Fawst wrote:
Image

And Flagg better look something like that. Possibly the greatest rendering of the character I've seen yet.


I have always thought that this version of The Smiling Man was based on actor Charles Dance...Sardo Numspa...Dear Brother Numpsy.

Image

Anyone else ever get that vibe?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:21 am
by Fievel
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I tried reading the Gunslinger but damn it was heavy work. Even for someone who did English lit.

I quite liked Insomnia, I think I read it whilst ill from school aaaages ago. Then again I seem to have read most of the later King and none of the early stuff, which is why I'm catching up now...


Insomnia had a huge nod to the Dark Tower series. Push through The Gunslinger and then get to the second book (The Drawing Of The Three). It's smooth sailing from there on to the end.

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:And now you guys are all talking about continuity with the Dark Tower series. I'd be curious to know how the two works tie in.


I hadn't read The Stand when the connection to The Dark Tower series was revealed (Book 4). I had only seen the mini-series so I could at least understand the impact when I read the connection. Luckily, Book 5 of the Tower series hadn't come out yet so I used that gap (brief for me) to catch up on some of the connected books, including The Stand.

It's definitely a :shock: WHOA! moment.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:21 am
by TonyWilson
Holy shit a Golden Child ref and a Last Action Hero ref in the same post!!!

Kudos, Uni, kudos.

On a related note I always that weird contact lens affectation was the shit, no?


I guess a graphic novel is a cool idea, but I think a but pointless, the "author's cut" version I have, with The Kid in it is superb and it has it's own illustrations anyway.
The miniseries made 2 unforgivable mistakes in my opinion, one was cutting out Harold Emery Lauder (possibly King's most fully realised character) the second was skipping Tom Cullen rescuing Dan and nursing him back to health with the help of Nick's ghost. And I don't think they even had Mother Abigail fighting of the weasels either, did they? Probably one of the tensest, scariest sequences ever written.

In conclusion, just read the book!!!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:23 am
by Fievel
StarchildAD wrote:This is ridiculous... I post a story about a bunch of avatar announcements to some really cool new things and someone posts a story about a stephen king series at marvel and hes not banned and the post is not erased. This is bullshit.. im sorry, it is.


I was in band in high school and a couple semesters in college.
Marching band, concert band, jazz band, etc.
Good times indeed. Thanks for jogging those memories!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:31 am
by Fawst
TonyWilson wrote:And I don't think they even had Mother Abigail fighting of the weasels either, did they? Probably one of the tensest, scariest sequences ever written.

In conclusion, just read the book!!!


Oh shit! I totally forgot about that! Wasn't there a badass painting of that scene in the 90 hardcover?? Or at least a drawing of it? Fuck, I really do need to read it again.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:34 am
by TonyWilson
Fawst wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:And I don't think they even had Mother Abigail fighting of the weasels either, did they? Probably one of the tensest, scariest sequences ever written.

In conclusion, just read the book!!!


Oh shit! I totally forgot about that! Wasn't there a badass painting of that scene in the 90 hardcover?? Or at least a drawing of it? Fuck, I really do need to read it again


Yup, I'm looking at it right now and it is AWESOME.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:47 am
by unikrunk
TonyWilson wrote:Holy shit a Golden Child ref and a Last Action Hero ref in the same post!!!

Kudos, Uni, kudos.

On a related note I always that weird contact lens affectation was the shit, no?


I guess a graphic novel is a cool idea, but I think a but pointless, the "author's cut" version I have, with The Kid in it is superb and it has it's own illustrations anyway.
The miniseries made 2 unforgivable mistakes in my opinion, one was cutting out Harold Emery Lauder (possibly King's most fully realised character) the second was skipping Tom Cullen rescuing Dan and nursing him back to health with the help of Nick's ghost. And I don't think they even had Mother Abigail fighting of the weasels either, did they? Probably one of the tensest, scariest sequences ever written.

In conclusion, just read the book!!!


LOL. Yeah, I totally dug the contact lens thing he had going on in Last Action Hero. I love this guy; he's probably my favorite character in Alien 3...well, with the exception of the alien.

On that mini-series; I tired to watch it when it original aired, and again recently when TNT was showing it. It sucks. Badly. Sorry to be hatin', but that entire thing is a fucking abortion. Even if I had not read the book, I am fairly certain I still would have hated it. It was just all sorts of wrong. The acting was so lackluster or over the top that I could not deal with it. Both times I have tried to watch it I felt embarrassed for everyone involved...the kind of empathy that does not allow me to watch confrontation programs like Maury or Springer when he was around.

The book is great, but has it's share of problems as well...I am not sure if this was addressed in later publication, but King's editor should have reeled him in a bit; some of the writing was a little too loose, and needed to be trimmed, IMO. But, please, balance my opinion with the fact that I am not a writer or editor, so this is all just armchair QBing.

Anyway, this ramble does have at least one point; I am looking forward to this take on the material, and I love Charles Dance.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:12 am
by so sorry
unikrunk wrote:On that mini-series; I tired to watch it when it original aired, and again recently when TNT was showing it. It sucks. Badly. Sorry to be hatin', but that entire thing is a fucking abortion. Even if I had not read the book, I am fairly certain I still would have hated it. It was just all sorts of wrong. The acting was so lackluster or over the top that I could not deal with it. Both times I have tried to watch it I felt embarrassed for everyone involved...the kind of empathy that does not allow me to watch confrontation programs like Maury or Springer when he was around.


Agreed, but the miniseries shortcomings (IMO) arene't with the script or book adaptation... it was all about the acting and ALF effects.

unikrunk wrote:The book is great, but has it's share of problems as well...I am not sure if this was addressed in later publication, but King's editor should have reeled him in a bit; some of the writing was a little too loose, and needed to be trimmed, IMO. But, please, balance my opinion with the fact that I am not a writer or editor, so this is all just armchair QBing.


Reeling him in a bit? Ha, that's funny. Especially considering that the 1990 book was LONGER than the original publication (by quite a bit, too).

unikrunk wrote:Anyway, this ramble does have at least one point; I am looking forward to this take on the material, and I love Charles Dance.


Me too. I haven't bought a comic book in probably over a decade, but this might be worth my time if done well.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:49 am
by unikrunk
@so sorry -

Regarding the mini; yeah, my thoughts exactly. I found the plot lines alone flowed well, and that the written dialogue was pretty 'Kingesque', if you will. I agree that the acting is where things start to slide. Characters are either completely boring, or so over the top it's like Road Warrior on shrooms and PCP. The only one that really worked for me was Garbage Man, and even that had some problems. Max Headroom did not have a straight man to act off of, due to Flagg being a friggin idiot rather than a cool ass Walkin' Dude.

Also, seconded on the f/x.

On your second bullet - HA! I have only read the original printing; that's pretty funny. Was the extra stuff any good? If it was good, and added some weight or additional context to the piece, it makes sense. If it's 45 more pages of M-O-O-N...well, you know. Not so hot an idea, I would think.


By the by, you should pick up the trade hardcover of Gunslinger Born from your local bookstore; great comic. Also, the next arc in the GS comics just started, and is fantastic as well. I highly recommend it. The Dark Tower stuff translates to the comic medium incredibly well, plus there are great appendices to each issue, offering more and more detail into Roland’s world, its history and the days it ‘moved on’.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:55 am
by Chairman Kaga
Fievel wrote:If they're going to adhere to the Dark Tower continuity then they need to put The Stand in the 1980's as the ka-tet passed through Kansas as it was in the original version of The Stand, not the Revised version (when King bumped the date to 1990).

Incorrect and correct. The original Stand took place in 1980 while the revision was to 1990. I just checked and the Kansas from Wizard and the Glass was from '86 (just before Eddie "left" New York and they question him as to if this had ever happened etc) so it can't be either. Wikipedia apparently also has this incorrect stating that the Wizard and the Glass Kansas section takes place during the first version which isn't possible since the infection didn't take 6 years. So then it must be a third a version. As Jake says "There are other worlds than than these".

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:01 pm
by The Vicar
so sorry wrote:I think this is great news. I LOVE the Stand. Read it every other year. An i like the "updated" version just fine. The problems I had with the miniseries were the special effects and the acting (Gary Sinese aside)... I think the adaptation was pretty good.


What I was thinking as well.
I'm looking forward to this.
Hoping.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:02 pm
by The Vicar
Fievel wrote:
StarchildAD wrote:This is ridiculous... I post a story about a bunch of avatar announcements to some really cool new things and someone posts a story about a stephen king series at marvel and hes not banned and the post is not erased. This is bullshit.. im sorry, it is.


I was in band in high school and a couple semesters in college.
Marching band, concert band, jazz band, etc.
Good times indeed. Thanks for jogging those memories!


Is that sarcasm?
Is it?
I'll bet it is.
Stop abusing the n00bs, rodent.... ;)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:08 pm
by Chairman Kaga
As for The Stand I need to read the original as I have only read the '90 revised extended version. (I like the extended ending).

Also AH if you tried reading the original Gunslinger and found it too uneven pick up the revised version of that from a few years ago. It's much better since the original version was slapped together from a multi part magazine series. He reworked it to better fit it into the Dark Tower series and streamlined it in the process.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:21 pm
by Fievel
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Fievel wrote:If they're going to adhere to the Dark Tower continuity then they need to put The Stand in the 1980's as the ka-tet passed through Kansas as it was in the original version of The Stand, not the Revised version (when King bumped the date to 1990).

Incorrect and correct. The original Stand took place in 1980 while the revision was to 1990. I just checked and the Kansas from Wizard and the Glass was from '86 (just before Eddie "left" New York and they question him as to if this had ever happened etc) so it can't be either. Wikipedia apparently also has this incorrect stating that the Wizard and the Glass Kansas section takes place during the first version which isn't possible since the infection didn't take 6 years. So then it must be a third a version. As Jake says "There are other worlds than than these".


Innnteresting!
I'll fully admit to using teh Internets as my date source. Almost all of my books are at my Mom's house, including my copies of The Stand and the DT books. Odd, but not surprising that he'd "split the difference" on the two dates like that.

As Jake says "There are other worlds than than these"


The best ass-covering quote of King's entire catalogue that he wrote!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:29 pm
by Fievel
The Vicar wrote:
Fievel wrote:
StarchildAD wrote:This is ridiculous... I post a story about a bunch of avatar announcements to some really cool new things and someone posts a story about a stephen king series at marvel and hes not banned and the post is not erased. This is bullshit.. im sorry, it is.


I was in band in high school and a couple semesters in college.
Marching band, concert band, jazz band, etc.
Good times indeed. Thanks for jogging those memories!


Is that sarcasm?
Is it?
I'll bet it is.
Stop abusing the n00bs, rodent.... ;)


Hardly!
I was a Marching Cardinal at SVSU in '93!!! GO CARDS!!!





Yes, it was sarcasm. 10 demerits.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:41 pm
by The Vicar
I did a play out at SVSU, back in 1976.
Wasn't even called SVSU then.

10 demerits?
You're a cruel bastard sometimes....

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:55 pm
by Fawst
I wouldn't be too worried about the DT connection continuity. The Stand is connected to DT, but the world of The Stand always seemed to exist outside of the typical King-dom (ha ha, I rule). For example, does anyone really think that that world is the same world that something like Dreamcatcher took place in?

Other worlds, indeed... and yes, the most ass-catching-est phrase ever written!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:10 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Chairman Kaga wrote:The original Stand took place in 1980


Iffa the Dino's memory, she serves him, a the original novel, she took a place inna the 1985, no? Although the Dino, he has a not read a the original since it was a first a published, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:17 pm
by AtomicHyperbole
Chairman Kaga wrote:As for The Stand I need to read the original as I have only read the '90 revised extended version. (I like the extended ending).

Also AH if you tried reading the original Gunslinger and found it too uneven pick up the revised version of that from a few years ago. It's much better since the original version was slapped together from a multi part magazine series. He reworked it to better fit it into the Dark Tower series and streamlined it in the process.


Yeah I believe that's the version I have. For some reason it's not on my shelf next to me, wonder where it's gone? Anyway I just find it a bit of a grind. The whole village scene didn't particularly enamour me to the Gunslinger, so it was hard to give a shit after about the halfway point... I'll give it a shot after It.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:27 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
This is a gonna to be a the tricky to stay onna the topic, eh? A 'cos a we alla'ready gotta the topics for a the Stephen King anna the Dark Tower inna particular inna the Books room, no?

Anna we gotta some topics inna the Coaxial room a to discuss a the mini-series as a well...

Just a the friendly reminder a to discuss a the funny book adaptation inna here anna the other topics inna the appropriate rooms, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:45 pm
by AtomicHyperbole
It's ok, we were just making conversation. There's not much to talk about yet, anyway...

... but I will say if that picture DOES look like Charles Dance, it's kinda obvious.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:47 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
AtomicHyperbole wrote:It's ok, we were just making conversation.


Yes, yes... that's alla well anna good, eh? But a the conna'versations, they have a the habit of a the taking off onna their own, anna so's I'm a just a reminding alla the putzes of a the other threads while a you alla bide a your time for a the funny book, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:22 pm
by unikrunk
The Stand can work as a GN or series of GNs, but there are other properties I would rather see adapted. The Talisman and Insomnia would translate perfectly.

/I am sure there are a dozen others...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:27 pm
by Fawst
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:It's ok, we were just making conversation.


Yes, yes... that's alla well anna good, eh? But a the conna'versations, they have a the habit of a the taking off onna their own, anna so's I'm a just a reminding alla the putzes of a the other threads while a you alla bide a your time for a the funny book, eh?


It's true, this happens all the time. The Watchmen thread may as well have been the "300 sucks" thread, or the "Dawn of the Dead Remake sucks" thread for a while there...

Boy, I sure do love that Slush-O!

I'll go home now.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:32 pm
by Chairman Kaga
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:The original Stand took place in 1980


Iffa the Dino's memory, she serves him, a the original novel, she took a place inna the 1985, no? Although the Dino, he has a not read a the original since it was a first a published, eh?

Odd.
I was basing the 1980 date on wikipedia's entry. The novel was first published in '78, so I assumed based on that he updated the extended version to '90 when it was re-published in 90 that the 80 date for the '78 publication was correct. Seems strange he would set it 7 years in the future from '78 and the other contemporary. I should check the original version on my shelf when I get home.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:42 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Anna the extended version, she was inna the '92, no?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:45 pm
by Chairman Kaga
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:Anna the extended version, she was inna the '92, no?

Do you mean setting or publication date?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:37 pm
by bluebottle
ok, i'll bite. i loved the novel (i read the updated version in high school, then re-read it a few times since then) but i've always hated the ending... the literal "hand of god" shit.

i wish they coul fix the ending so it wasn't so lame... but that would piss more people off than if they updated some of the references...

otherwise, it's a brilliant idea... could be really dark... i'd love to see the tunnel sequence done properly.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:19 pm
by MacCready
bluebottle wrote:ok, i'll bite. i loved the novel (i read the updated version in high school, then re-read it a few times since then) but i've always hated the ending... the literal "hand of god" shit.

i wish they coul fix the ending so it wasn't so lame... but that would piss more people off than if they updated some of the references...

otherwise, it's a brilliant idea... could be really dark... i'd love to see the tunnel sequence done properly.


I would be one of the faithful who would love to see that lame assed,
way-to-end-one-hell-of-a-novel-on-a-giant-thud ending shit canned.
Hated it.
For me, everything preceding the great migration to Mother Abigail's crib was gold. Afterwards? Not so much.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:30 pm
by Fievel
Update With Art Samples!

Highlights:

[quote]
Scheduled for a September launch, Marvel’s “The Standâ€

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:36 pm
by so sorry


Flagg looks like a WWE wrestler. Or straight out of a SPAWN comic.

Lame, if you ask me. Flagg had a unique look that I think was described pretty well by King, and although I am hard pressed to point out what that look actually is, I don't think this look is it.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:54 pm
by caruso_stalker217
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I quite liked Insomnia


You're dead to me.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:58 pm
by caruso_stalker217
so sorry wrote:


Flagg looks like a WWE wrestler. Or straight out of a SPAWN comic.

Lame, if you ask me. Flagg had a unique look that I think was described pretty well by King, and although I am hard pressed to point out what that look actually is, I don't think this look is it.


I've been re-reading "The Stand" and I find it irritating as shit. The first half was great, but I forgot how shitty it gets once they get to Boulder and re-start society and whatnot. Where's that goddamn bomb already?

Anyway, Flagg was described as looking like any motherfucker you'd pass on the street. But like he was evil and stuff.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:40 am
by yorrick brown
in the books preface ,king says he thinks robert duvall would make a great flagg as bruce springsteen would make a great larry underwood.



so is it the 1421 page THE STAND that they`re are making into a comic??.damn goodluck to the writter!.

Re: Stephen King's The Stand

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:52 pm
by Fievel

Re: Stephen King's The Stand

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:13 pm
by Raziel
Haven't read the book, so I think I'll give this a miss for now. The Dark Tower comics are beautiful, mind.