Brian Vaughn was quoted discussing Under The Dome at zap2it.com. "There's sort of a perhaps slightly different explanation for the dome," Vaughn said.
Often when Hollywood makes major changed to the plot or structure of a King novel, the fans roar disapproval. That's why we like it when King writes the script -- we know at least any changes will have King's blessing.
Needful Things is a prime example. A story that was tense, dark, character driven and gory turned into something that was. . . dull, preachy and pointless. A huge fight scene was reduced to a sermon. I would also argue that the ending of The Mist was so dark, so terrible that it harms the whole story for me. The ending was pointless, simply a means of shocking an audience -- certainly not necessary to the story. The ending of The Mist did not in any way further our understanding of what had happened, it just darkened things.
When Hollywood messes up a King story, you're left defending the written work with your friends who didn't bother to read it. "No, really, you gotta read the book! It was a lot scarier!"
However, I am pretty excited that with Under The Dome, CBS will be changing some of the plot and the source of the dome. Why? Because I think the ending to the novel was weak. Not bad, just not a home run. So it was a really good novel about people, but a really bad explanation of why the dome itself popped up. I'm glad some fresh ideas have been brought to the table. More than that, knowing that there are new answers will make me want to watch the series all the more!
King emphasized when Under The Dome was first released that he was not really interested in HOW the Dome worked. What became evident upon reading the novel is that he was also not real interested in WHY the dome came down to begin with. The answer went something like this, "Well, there are these leatherhead aliens, and they are very very very far beyond us. They do not understand that we too, though we are like ants, have feelings and emotions. But if we can convince them they are hurting us, they might have mercy." Imagine Bill Cosby doing Noah -- "riiiight!"
I'm not the only one who thinks a different ending to UTD is a good idea. Vaughn says, "I nervously pitched Stephen King what a different version of the ending might be ... He said, 'I wish I'd thought of that.'" He then addd, "Which, I suspect, is just Stephen being kind. But he's been great."
Or maybe it's not just King being nice. Maybe they actually thought of an ending better than the one in the novel!
I did enjoy reading Under The Dome quite a bit. But once I got to the end, it did not call me back. The idea was cool, even the characters were good -- mostly -- but the answers didn't work for me. So while I liked the theme and the characters, even the various plot turns are lost on me now. I have a feel for how the novel went, but not a commitment for "that's how it ought to be."
Sometimes Hollywood's reworking of a story actually makes it better. I thought that was true of Secret Window, which was in my opinion a much better movie than novel.
Tell me, what changes to King stories has Hollywood made that you think are just great?
Here are 2 movies Hollywood changed the ending to for the better:
1. Carrie. The hand coming up from the grave -- brilliant!
2. Cujo. Should the kid live or die? I think the movie got it right.
I guess I'm one of the only people who actually likes the alien explanation. I'm a sci-fi fan, though; so it made sense to me. Because really, what other explanation could there have been?
ReplyDeleteMy big problem with the book was that I thought the resolution of the conflict between Big Jim and Dale was really weak. It's that element that I hope Vaughan has an antidote for.
Alien's are an okay explanation. But somehow these super intellectual aliens who were so smart they could build a dome -- but too dumb to know humans had feelings -- seemed like nothing more than a plot devise. The aliens are a mcguffin, as Hitchcock would say. You need them to advance the plot, but they aren't really important.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the conflict was also not dealt with well.
Just started reading Under The Dome, had to borrow the book from a friend, LOL. I'm about half way through, its a very long book. Have really enjoyed it so far, but can tell that many changes were already made to fit the Movie.
DeleteI am sorry to say, that I had to sneak to and read the the ending. I do hope that they make it better than the book. But I love the book so far. Will be watching every episode.
DeleteCount me among the "the ending works" crowd. I think it fits in pretty well with the overall theme/ subtext of Under the Dome, i.e. as a parable for war on terror America. (Without getting into it too, too much, but the "so smart to build a dome/ too dumb to know humans had feelings" part sums it up pretty well! Understandable why they'd want to change that!)
ReplyDeleteI'm with David. The idea of aliens works if clues are incorporated and/or you develop the premise some. King did neither in this book.
ReplyDeleteI thought the ending to UTD was awful. I hated it so much that it has colored my perception of the rest of the novel (which I thought was finely executed).
ReplyDeleteI agree about the ending to Carrie. I think what makes it work is that the ending is delightfully cinematic. I don't think the hand reaching out of the grave would have worked on the page, in the same way, I don't know that the written ending would have worked as well on screen.
I really liked the ending to Kubrick's Shining. I think Jack frozen in the maze was a brilliant image. Coupled with the mystery photo, I think it was a home run. Again, I don't think that would have worked in the novel, and the ending to the novel was perfect (for the novel). What delighted me about the book was how the ending was optimistic w/o being sappy.
I think Cujo dropped the ball in the movie (pun intended). The ending in the book was so bleak and believable. What made the novel so devastating was what a likable kid Tad was and the repeated mantra that Cujo was a "good boy." Sometimes bad things happen and I think the movie took an easy out.
I’m definitely for a changed ending. For me, Under the Dome the novel is the perfect illustration of a a writer losing the narrative thread to the point where the ending is an indefinable haze that more than likely means nothing because there’s nothing there to either think about or work with.
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind the idea of aliens, like others here though I think the way they were handled is too slipshod for the novel’s good. My thinking is if your antagonist can create something like the dome, and can isolate people from one another that easily, then while the villain doesn’t have to be “all-powerful intelligent”, the writer owes to either audience or, in a way, the villains as characters to make them at least cunning and devious enough to both construct the dome and then have a much more nefarious use for it in your story. It’s one of the things to complement a book like Dreamcatcher for. Whatever that book’s flaws, the villains were actually clever in their way. I’m hoping something like that can be the same for the Dome tv series as opposed to the book.
There’s a phrase in this blog that sums up my thinking better than I can: “I have a feel for how the novel went, but not a commitment for "that's how it ought to be."
Right bloody on!
As for the ending to Cujo, I don’t believe, I KNOW the film got “how it ought to be”. As for comment about how Cujo the novel ending is actually good , I disagree on the grounds that such comments are based on a false idea of “Facing up to real life” when it’s always possible most of us still have an incomplete picture of real life, and besides, no story has ever been “True to Life”, even the ones “Based on a True Story” because the basic nature of all fiction, I’d argue, is symbolical.
As for real life, well that’s all a matter of “how it ought to be” I think. It’s sure the way many of us act; however make up your own mind.
ChrisC
I didn´t mind at all the ending of the novel but it won´t work on TV.
ReplyDeleteI read the novel and am OK with the idea of aliens but this idea wasn't explored nearly enough. I really hope the movie delves deeper into this. I'm not interested in HOW the dome was built buy WHY it was built and by whom. Saying "aliens did it" is just not enough. Yes, the novel implies that it was some sort of "ant farm" experiment, but it still leaves you hanging.
ReplyDeleteThe news that some changes will be made to King's story actually makes me want to watch it all the more.