The Stand Will Be An 8 Part Mini-Series

YES! yes yes yes!
Sorry, I'll try not to be excited.

Jeff Sneider at posted news that The Stand "will take a revolutionary detour to the small screen."  Wait, whats happening?  Warner brothers and CBS are in talks with Showtime to turn the novel into an eight-part miniseries.  But that's not all; it comes to a big massive end with a big screen "big-budget" feature film.

Of course, the miniseries format allows for a bigger story; one more true to the novel.  By going with showtime instead of network TV, the story is more leeway to be a true horror pic than the previous miniseries offering.

Here's the facts as reported by
Josh Boone will write and direct the miniseries.
The miniseries should start shooting early next year "as one cohesive production."
"Boone is expected to set his sights on several A-listers."
WB will handle the theatrical distribution of the movie.  (Which explains why showtime is involved.)

What was great about the 94 version of The Stand: Gary Sinise, and Rob Lowe.
What was not so great: It was very 90's.  Molly Ringwald.  Television.


  1. Hmmmm, very interesting.

    I assume if they're going for an 8 part mini-series, then the theatrical feature film would more or less amount to part 9, and would center around the title "Stand" itself.

    If so, then I have no problem with that. The only things that give me pause are the following:

    No deal has been worked out between CBS and Showtime as yet, and that there's "nothing to discuss".

    As always with "The Stand", the ultimate snag is sort of the ending. I hope Boone is able to come up with a slightly better ending than the book. If he plans for part 9 to be a theatrical film, then this tells me that (a) it'll be mostly focused on Flagg and the four Free-Zoners in Vegas, and that (b) it'll try to be more action oriented.

    I actually won't mind if they go a more action movie route for the finale as long as they don't make it too over the top, and that the writers remember that the one thing worth keeping is Trashcan and the missile going off.

    If this means turning the ending into either a "break for freedom" or "race against the clock" type story, then that's fine so long as it's done in a way that can be respectful to what's gone before.

    One final question. Would it make sense to make the film a period piece? The originally published novel is all about post-Sixties fallout, and that wasn't really altered with the "Complete" version, so I just wondered.

    It almost makes sense to see the "Stand" as a 70s era Charlton Heston post-apocalypse film, or something like that!

    ....I'll go take my meds now.


    1. I'd be down for seeing it as a period piece. If you don't go that route, then you have to commit to fully updating the story to match current times; and I don't know that the slow-but-not-THAT-slow spread of Captain Trips works the same way in the age of social media.

      BUT...commit to that idea fully, and you could get a lot of juice out of it.

      They've just got to make the story match the era, no matter which way they go.

  2. I'm going to go ahead and call it now: this isn't going to happen.

  3. Come on, Bryant, I was working on getting my hopes up and then you go speaking reality and stuff. Knock it off and pretend -- just pretend -- it's going to happen. We both know nothing this cool actually happens in the King world. Instead we get Under The Dome rambling on with the direction of Lost; and we get our hopes up with Dark Tower, only to have them dashed over and over. But for now, for today -- just pretend television and the big screen will come together and tell one big giant story. Just pretend great actors will sign on, and a huge budget. . . alright, forget it. You're right.

    1. Hey, who knows? But I don't see it. There is nothing in that novel that lends itself toward ending the story with a three-hour, big-budget, would-be-blockbuster movie. It'd require a complete rewrite of the final part of the story, and I don't know that that's a good idea. A partial rewrite? Sure. But a total one? Bad idea.

      Even if that rewrite happens and it works, the studio is going to say to themselves, "Hey, what happens if nobody watches the tv version? At that point, we're spending a ton of money on a movie sequel to a failed television series. Does that seem like a good idea?" And they will correctly answer "no."

      Splitting it up like this is a bad idea. It was a good idea for "The Dark Tower," because that was going to have the tv component more or less be filler for the people who were into it enough to invest in a tv version; but the movies would have mostly stood on their own.

      This...? This seems like a bad idea at best. Agents are going to think it's a bad idea, too; which means that getting top-notch actors is going to be difficult.

      But, hey...! I could be wrong! I mean, let's face it, these folks know more about their line of work than I know about it. I'd love to be wrong and for the end result to be awesome, so let's hope for that!

    2. #depressed

    3. Hollywood sucks, but occasional good things happen. I don't know how; coincidence, probably.

      I think they should just do the whole thing as a one-season series for Showtime. Or, better yet, for HBO (since Warner Bros. owns HBO, or they are owned by the same company, or something like that). Or better even than that, do it as a three-season adaptation.

      They're just oddly focused on making it as a theatrical release. Why? It's not going to make $700 million worldwide, which is what they are not merely hoping for, but expecting.

      Do the whole thing for television, though, and you can theoretically turn it into the next "Game of Thrones" or "Walking Dead." And make a TON of money in the process.

    4. Absolutely. As with The Dark Tower, I think Netflix is the way to go here (mainly because I truly think streaming and binge-watching is the way of the future).

      Because it would only be one season, you could still populate the cast with big names, or at least, bigger names than you'd usually see on TV. Netflix can gather big names for their films/series.

  4. I agree with Bryant. It isn't going to happen. So many BIG Stephen King projects are announced and never get off the ground. It seems the task of doing it right is too daunting.

    If Peter Jackson signed on to produce or direct, I'd believe it and look forward to seeing it.

    1. Even that wouldn't be a guarantee. Jackson was supposedly going to direct the second Tintin movie; there's been no news on that in years. A few years ago, Spielberg was theeeeeees close to directing a movie called Robopocalypse, and it got canceled at the last minute.

      Stuff like this happens all the time in Hollywood.

      There's obviously a lot of interest in the industry for seeing some big-time King adaptations. That's good news; it means eventually, one of them -- be it this one or The Dark Tower or It -- WILL catch fire. And if it's a hit, the floodgates will open.

      Until then...? Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.

    2. But sometimes, good things happen. It's happened to King, too. Think The Green Mile, a movie that by all rights should have languished in development hell for years before finally being cancelled. No, it's not a bad movie, but let's face it, Shawshank flopped big, and here's another weepy prison movie from the same literary source directed by the same guy! How on earth did that get greenlit? I'm thinking from a studio suit's perspective here, not as a fan.

      The Green Mile came as close to being a perfect adaptation of an amazing novel as there's ever been. Even LOTR was clearly a shade lesser than its source, but TGM movie was practically the book on film!

      That's why I think if good adaptations of The Stand, the Dark Tower and It are ever gonna happen, Frank Darabont has to be the man in charge, at least as producer.

  5. "How on earth did that get greenlit? I'm thinking from a studio suit's perspective here, not as a fan."

    That's not difficult to understand at all. It was an immensely profitable movie. You don't think of it as a box office success, but it made a profit even theatrically, and THEN it became a cash cow on video.

    Not only that, it earned a lot of Oscar nominations. That sort of pedigree causes producers to want to try and replicate the success, because they think -- rightly or wrongly -- that it increases their odds of putting a statue on their mantle.