I’m a bit of a latecomer to the epic Stephen King novel, The Stand, first published in 1978. I’ll admit that I was never a fan of the works that made Stephen King popular in the first place. I don’t love horror or gore.
But I did stumble upon some of his books in the 1990s and then fell in love with his more modern style – more of a “horror light.” Think The Green Mile or 11-22-63 or The Outsider (some of my favorites).
And even though I watched The Stand miniseries back in 1994 (remember how exciting a new miniseries was?), I didn’t feel like I ever gave the novel it’s proper due.
Originally written in 1978, King actually rereleased the book in 1990 set 10 years later. This updated copy was the author’s original cut and made it his longest standalone work at 1152 pages. It was this version that I downloaded from Audible.
After 47 hours of listening, I feel like I’m on a first name basis with Grover Gardner, the narrator of this epic audio adventure. And I also felt the need to revisit that 1994 miniseries.
Unable to find it streaming anywhere, I purchased the Blu-Ray copy of the 1994 miniseries, The Stand (run time 6 hours) for the veritable bargain of $9.99. And I forced my family to watch it with me.
It was cheesy. It was fun. It was dated. And it was the perfect precursor to the Paramount+ reboot of The Stand which started airing in December 2020.
And now starts the inevitable comparisons. I found myself watching both versions and turning to my family saying, “Well, in the book, this part was different…” Yes, I am that annoying person.
After hours and hours and hours of The Stand, I thought it might be time to weigh on on “who wore it best,” or rather which one wore it best, by looking at the casting, the story, and the production of both old and new versions.
The Casting
I am of the opinion that Stephen King writes character-driven stories. And in a story like The Stand, you’re dealing with a lot of major characters and a lot of minor characters and somehow you’re able to keep all of them straight.
In the book, I attribute that exclusively to King’s writing. But on the screen, it’s greatly impacted by the casting. And it’s nearly impossible to not compare the actors for each major role from both versions. Below are some of the most memorable characters and a discussion of who wore it best.
Stu Redman is the main protagonist, a simple man from East Texas who becomes the reluctant hero. In 1994, a relatively unknown actor named Gary Sinise brought Stu to life. In 2020, we find hunky heartthrob James Marsden.
Marsden did a fine job of acting (though his accent felt a little light) but he just didn’t feel enough like the everyman that Stu Redman is. And the story didn’t give him enough opportunity to endear himself to the viewers.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Gary Sinise, 1994
Frannie Goldsmith is the reluctant heroine who’s forced to grow up quickly as she finds her way across the country from small town Maine to a much bigger world. In 1994, Fran is played by 80s It Girl, Molly Ringwald. In 2020, she’s played by Australian actress, Odessa Young.
Honestly, I didn’t love either actress in this role. Ringwald seemed a little too naive and girly for the role. On the other hand, Young put too much of an edge to the role making her rather unlikable.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Molly Ringwald, 1994
Mother Abigail is the reluctant messenger of God (a lot of reluctance in this story). She plays a 100+ year old woman from the middle of the Nebraska cornfields. Ruby Dee brought the 1994 Mother Abigail to life while Whoopi Goldberg played the updated version in 2020.
Ruby Dee brought incredible warmth and wisdom to the role of Mother Abigail while Whoopi Goldberg seemed to bring harshness and judgment, which seemed completely out of character for the role.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Ruby Dee, 1994
Randall Flagg is the antagonist and he’s portrayed in very different ways by Jamey Sheridan (1994) and Alexander Skarsgaard (2020). In both versions, he’s a casually dressed demon with some really memorable hair.
I think both actors brought their own flair to the role, eliciting both fear and adoration. While I think the story worked against the 2020 version of Randall Flagg, Skarsgaard brings a slight edge to the role.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Alexander Skaarsgard, 2020
Larry Underwood is such a complex character that perhaps has the biggest character growth in the book. I always felt like Adam Storke (1994) was a little bit of a lightweight for the role. English actor Jovan Adepo was cast in the 2020 version and finally brought depth to the role.
It helps that the newer version showed his relationship with Rita Blakemoor (Heather Graham) which was key in his character’s development.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Jovan Adepo, 2020
Nadine Cross is the reluctant love interest of Randall Flagg and has been designated his queen. In 1994, Laura San Giacomo plays Nadine as a cross between Rita Blakemoor and the Nadine Cross of the book. Amber Heard appears in the 2020 version with a little more backstory.
The 2020 Nadine seems to embody more of what the book characterized her as. But more importantly, for reasons I’ll get into with the story below, 1994 Nadine feels truer.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Laura San Giacomo, 1994
Harold Lauder is the other surviving resident of Ogonquit, Maine, and clearly an unsocialized nerd. While Corin Nemec (1994) showed Harold’s insecurities and changes, he played more of a caricature of the role. Owen Teague (2020) brought a little more depth to the role for me.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Owen Teague, 2020
When reading the book, I had a very distinct image of Nick Andros in my head. And it wasn’t Rob Lowe (1994). He was a little too “pretty” for the role – and where was his eye patch? Although Nick was characterized very differently in the 2020 version (see my thoughts on story below), Henry Zaga (2020) matched the essence of who Nick was supposed to be.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Henry Zaga, 2020
Tom Cullen is the simpleton that befriends Nick on his way to Nebraska. Bill Fagerbakke (1994) plays Tom as an innocent child-like man. Brad William Henke (2020) worked to bring his own interpretation to the role but failed to bring the innocence to the character that made Tom so lovable.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Bill Fagerbakke, 1994
Glen Bateman is an talkative, philosophical, overthinking intellectual and plays a wonderful contrast to the down home Stu Redman from East Texas. Ray Walston (1994) played the role as an older, wiser companion but Greg Kinnear (2020) seemed to capture the spirit of who Glen was.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Greg Kinnear, 2020
Lloyd Henried was the sidekick criminal who quickly was anointed the #2 spot alongside the Dark Man. Miguel Ferrer (1994) plays Lloyd as a reluctant henchman who is conflicted by his loyalty to the dark side. Nat Wolff (2020) portrays Lloyd as a young and stupid wannabe who’s happy to live a life of debauchery in New Vegas. Unfortunately, the story leads the characters a bit astray and the Lloyd of 1994 is closer to the book.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Miguel Ferrer, 1994
Julie Lawry is a relatively small character (more so in the 1994 version) but I love Shawnee Smith’s 1994 version so much that I had to include it here. She plays the right level of dark insanity in a smaller role that outshined the pink-haired Katherine McNamara in the 2020 version.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Shawnee Smith, 1994
Trashcan Man is another small but important role in this story. Matt Frewer (1994) shows us the journey and evolution of Trashcan Man and why he makes the choices he makes. Ezra Miller (2020), well, doesn’t. His version is somewhere between a pervert, a mentally challenged man, and a psychopath. And he was just plain weird.
WHO WORE IT BEST? Matt Frewer, 1994
The Story
Casting aside, there were plenty of changes to the story from the book to the 1994 television version to the 2020 incarnation. And there were some good and bad for each.
I actually listened to the audiobook version of The Stand and the unabridged version came in at 47 hours. That’s 47 hours of telling, not showing. Now cut that down to 6-10 hours and you’ve got to take a LOT of story out. Here’s what they got right and wrong.
Stu and Frannie and Harold
In the 1994 version, we see an important scene where Stu assures Harold that he’s not moving in on his woman. And we also see Stu and Frannie develop their relationship. In the new version, none of that really happens and we’re missing the driving motivation behind Harold’s fall from grace.
In fact, we’re missing a lot of the emotional connections between the characters which was one of the major downfalls in this updated version of The Stand.
Nadine and Randall and Larry and Lucy
In the new version, I love that they actually showed Nadine’s backstory. They played out the scene where Nadine first encounters the Planchette and learns that she must keep herself pure for her role as queen.
But they missed the encounters between Larry and Nadine, where she’s conflicted about her role with the Dark Man. And they cut out Lucy Swan entirely. By doing both of these things, the new version fails to convey Nadine’s last minute desperation and why Larry was tempted but refused to help her.
I also really took exception to Nadine’s fall (figuratively, not literally) in the 2020 version. In 1994, Nadine makes love to Randall Flagg and truly sees him for what he is – a demon. It’s at that point that she realizes what she’s done. In the 2020 version, Nadine seems completely fine to be a demon queen until she realizes that she won’t be needed after the birth of the dark prince.
Nick and Tom
One of the things I loved about the original story was the unlikely friendship between Nick and Tom. Nick, as a deaf mute, spends most of his time writing his thoughts and befriends Tom, a soft-in-the-head man who can’t read. Between the two, we learn so much about tenderness and loyalty and the strengths that each man can provide.
Ultimately, Nick becomes a close confidante to Mother Abigail and Tom is hypnotized into working as a spy. But in this latest version, Mother Abigail admonishes Nick and becomes angry at him. Tom gets a nice talking to. And the friendship is glossed over. A missed opportunity for an important relationship.
New Vegas
Although New Vegas seems like the kind of place that the Dark Man would preside over, the book tells a different story. Randall Flagg is a leader and brings in hardworking people to get the town up and running. These aren’t the dregs of the earth looking for a life of debauchery. In fact, Flagg crucifies people for excess vices like drinking and drugs. So the Mad Max Thunderdome-ish city in 2020 didn’t seem like the right setting for the story, although it did make things visually interesting.
The Ending
There were definitely some changes to the ending in this newer version and I honestly didn’t mind. In 1994, we follow Stu on his journey back to Boulder with the help of Tom Cullen and the ghost of Nick Andros. Although I loved that in the original series, I didn’t mind that they cut that to give us more time with Stu and Frannie.
Originally, we see Frannie mentioning she’d like to make it back to Maine. In 2020, they actually pack up and leave. Along the way, they have a strange encounter in Nebraska with the Dark Man and with a young Mother Abigail who ultimately heals Fran and sheds light on her future path.
Having Frannie completely healed was what convinced the fearsome four to head to Vegas to do God’s will. It always bothered me that that was left out of the original miniseries. In this new version, they brought it back in a different way and as a nice contrast to the temptation that Flagg still holds.
The story ends with them making it to the coast of Maine and we get a sense that new life will begin again. And we see Flagg will begin again as well, much like in the novel.
The Production
Changes to the story and changes to the cast are to be expected. Some worked and some didn’t but there’s one primary complaint I have about the 2020 version of The Stand.
The Timeline
The original miniseries actually has a runtime of 6 hours (television in the 90s had to account for commercials). That’s a pretty short window and yet they seemed to hit most of the key elements of the book and made it flow in a pretty seamless manner.
For this latest version, it appeared that someone took the entire script, threw it up in the air, scooped all the pages back together, and then started filming. Because the timeline was a mess.
The book and the 1994 version are both told in a linear fashion. We jump back and forth between the stories of the main characters until they all converge in Nebraska and then in Boulder. We grow with the characters.
Had I not already known the story of The Stand when watching this latest version, I probably would have been thoroughly confused and given up. They gave no indication as to time or location as they randomly jumped back and forth between Fran and Harold and a very pregnant Fran with Stu.
At the end, the story seemed to adhere more to the linear timeline so why they jumbled it up in the beginning is beyond me.
Excessive Gore
Maybe the producers thought that they’d need some gore to attract Stephen King fans. Or maybe they wanted to prove that Paramount+ is different! than what you get on network TV. But it was graphic and unnecessarily gross. From large necks to excessive snot to blood splatter, I had to look away more than once.
And as if to prove that this was adult content, they threw in the F word about every other line. That also felt excessive.
For an example of how to make good Stephen King content for television, check out The Outsider on HBO.
Production Value
The Stand is a good story and one worth sharing on the screen. It’s too long to make it a movie but I think this could easily have been a longer series.
The 1994 version was short and sweet. Almost a little saccharine (which is how I felt about some of the cast). And it looked like a 90s drama with its sets and filming style. And some of it was downright cheesy. It was ripe for a remake.
The 2020 version delivered on production value with beautiful scenery and visuals but they missed the mark with some of the story elements, the casting, the gore, and that godawful timeline.
Final Thoughts on The Stand
If you can, read or listen to The Stand in its entirety. It is a masterpiece and a great study in character development.
If you’re not into reading and would rather see an adaptation, the 1994 version stills hold up quite well to the original story. In fact, my teenage son is studying the Hero’s Journey in English class and watching the 1994 version together was great example of this literary template.
But by the time we made it to the 10 episode modern version of The Stand on CBS All Access, my son chose to sit it out. He might have been the wisest of us all.
18 comments
I agree with you on almost every point you made. The novel is a masterpiece; the ’94 version, while flawed, was truer to the book. I’m not quite finished with the 2020 version, but from the outset, I was not happy with the flashback style (I think your description of how that timeline happened is much more appropriate than “flashback,” which implies a lot more forethought and planning than seems obvious) or a lot of the casting; and the loss of rounding to the characters makes me care less about them. Like you, were I not familiar with the book already, I would be largely lost. And I HATE the Las Vegas in the 2020 version. So much of King’s message and intent is lost.
I love flashback it keeps you thinking. I have been a King fan for about 45 years I like Salems Lot read the book more time than I will admit .I am bin watching the stand I like it so far but I am more of a fan than a critic.
Reed the book, 2nd version. It always be excellent. Movies are for stupides
I might have seen the 1994 version, but if so I clearly don’t remember it. That said, I watched the 2020 version and absolutely hated it. And when the finale aired, I was like “That’s it?!”, it seemed a little abrupt of an ending. I’m re-reading the book now (for like the third time), and that’s the best way to enjoy this story for sure.
My two favorite books by Stephen King. The Stand (I originally read in 1980) and It (read when released). Aside from the really bad special effects from 1994, hands down mini series 1994 much better to follow. Second adaption of It was at least as good as 1st It (excusing the chesey effects on the 1st). Acting was great in the 2020 version, just trying to keep up with most of the undeveloped characters was impossible. Talented actor/actresses with a bad script is just bad.
Although I will not see the 2020 version until next week, your assessment of the book (I read it twice) and the 1994 version is enlightened. I like the 1994 version, have seen it several times, but completely agree it is “cheesy” and had looked forward to it being improved upon. Gary Sinise, Ray Walston, and even Rob Lowe did fine jobs, but Molly Ringwald’s over-acting is so crazy god-awful, I have to fast forward through her scenes. Was she instructed to act so badly or did it come naturally? There is also one other very minor character in the 1994 version whose acting is simply really really bad: Stephen King, who is painful to watch. Mr King, keep the books coming, but please, no more cameos.
OMG, I just watched the 2021 version and it’s a piece of crap! I had thought the 1994 version could be improved upon (Ringwald was awful) and looked forward to a remake. I waited 27 years for this? 2021 was so bad I stopped watching after the first disk. There are three reasons it is God awful. First, I agree with others that the timeline is a disaster. I don’t mind an occasional flashback but the 2021 version jumps around in time so many times it is infuriating and there is no way anyone not already familiar with the storyline could follow it (I wonder if somebody downloaded it and reedited it chronologically if it might be better). Second, the lovable major characters in the book, and arguably in the 1994 version (Stu Redman, Nick Andros, Tom Cullen, Larry Underwood, Glen Bateman, Ralph Brentner) are not lovable in the 2021 version. Some are a-holes. My wife, who had not read the book, thought Henry Zaga, playing the ultra-empathic Nick Andros, was a bad guy! Third, 2021 was not scary (often gory and gross, but not scary) in part because I did not fear for or care about the characters. 2021 is a disappointing confusing mess. Maybe in another 27 years they will remake The Stand yet again and finally do the book justice. FYI, the audience on Rotten Tomatoes gave 1994 a 67%, and 2021 a 24%. Here is how I would grade The Stand:
Book (1978/1990): A
Miniseries (1994): B-
Miniseries (2021): F
The 90s verson did it right. The Whoopie one, nooooooooooo. She was awful, as was trashcan man.
I loved the 1994 version.
When I heard Whoopie as mother Abigal … I thought Nope. Whoopie is a ray/cist. Cant watch her without hearing bad things she has said.
So many other actresses would have been great in the role.
I prefer the original Stu and Flagg.
I read the 1978 The Stand.
I bought and listened to the 1990 audible book…hours and hours and was never bored BUT the F word snd G.Dm was used contantly.
When you’re reading you can kind of make your eyes gloss over that stuff but when you’re listening to an audiobook you can’t stop it.
I personally don’t know people who go around in public saying the f word and GD constantly but apparently Stephen King does also.
Also Stephen King books contain a lot of the N word and really bizarre takes on black people that I had never heard … I don’t know where Stephen King ever heard that stuff. Either Stephen King is trying to say that there are people who think that way but really he’s just giving himself away in my opinion because the first place I really encountered racist talk was in Stephen King books
Good article. Great job.
I loved the 1994 version.
When I heard Whoopie as mother Abigal … I thought Nope. Whoopie is a ray/cist. Cant watch her without hearing bad things she has said.
So many other actresses would have been great in the role.
I prefer the original Stu and Flagg.
I read the 1978 The Stand.
I bought and listened to the 1990 audible book…hours and hours and was never bored BUT the F word snd G.Dm was used contantly.
When you’re reading you can kind of make your eyes gloss over that stuff but when you’re listening to an audiobook you can’t stop it.
I personally don’t know people who go around in public saying the f word and GD constantly but apparently Stephen King does also.
Also Stephen King books contain a lot of the N word and really bizarre takes on black people that I had never heard … I don’t know where Stephen King ever heard that stuff. Either Stephen King is trying to say that there are people who think that way but really he’s just giving himself away in my opinion because the first place I really encountered racist talk was in Stephen King books
I agree with Fadra’s take on this inevitable comparison. My mind often returns to the deep commentary the novel presents on themes such as faith, belief, truth, attraction, and repulsion — all revolving around good and evil. Flawed as it was, the 94 version captured more of these concepts and tensions, both in the writing and the performances. And the 94 version brought us the beautiful theme by W.G. “Snuffy” Waldron and “Don’t Fear the Reaper” worked into storytelling. I found the 2020 version enjoyable, but the 94 images and music are the ones I connect to when remembering The Stand.
That’s not to say the more recent version didn’t have its strong points — especially Skarsgaard’s portrayal, which conveyed Flagg’s menace so well.
I felt like the extra blood and infection impact made it better. It made the virus more horrifying. It really hit you how brutal Captain Tripps was, how terrifying it must of been to live through and eye opening on how lucky the survivors were.
I also preferred the 1994 Nick and Tom combo. They had a better chemistry. Even though I love the big guy in his role on Grimm, this just wasn’t his best character. I hated the Harley Quinn rip off vibe they gave to Lloyds girl. Lloyd had me torn. I liked the mafiossa leader vibe in 94 but I liked this quirky, flamboyant new feel. He still had his “not a killer” thing Going on but the end could of used a better reaction for him. Like more confusion, to a bigger “fuck it, fuck flagg” moment. I’m neutral on Larry changes, he was portrayed well by both. Except the connection between him and Nadine of course. And I kept expecting to see Pennywise in the sewer lmao jk.
There’s more but this got to long already,sorry!!!
Never really thought of Steven King as writing gore and horror. For me, it was adventure, mystery and intrigue (including The Stand). Thanks for the review, I just re-watched the 1994 version (available online to stream), and was wondering if the newer was worth my time. Still unclear. I think the 1994 version has a lot of heart. Something I find missing from many series. I always found the production wasn’t great, but for 1994 TV, it met my expectations. I’ve also always been impressed that they used songs from the original artist, especially the opening song, ‘Don’t Fear the Reaper’. I was all in, once I heard that.
Currently listening to The Stand on Audible for probably the third time and I know I have read the book at least that many times, probably more. I agree with almost every point made in the original post as well as many of the comments. While the acting talent was overall on a higher level in the more recent miniseries, some of the casting choices were…bizarre. Whoopi as Mother Abigail is just weird, but I also felt that way about Molly Ringwald being cast as Fran in the 1994 version. When I read the book, I still see most of the 94 cast when I picture the characters.
The storytelling style was also a major gripe I had when watching the 2020 version. I also made the comment that, had I not known what was going on, I would not have had a clue what was going on…lol. I keep having high hopes for adaptations of my favorite SK works and usually end up having those hopes dashed, although I agree that The Outsider was really well done.
I read the book twice. The original version and the extended version. I agree with most of your observations but feel like The Stand had two missed opportunities. I could barely watch the second.
Great piece. Everything you said is spot on. I have read/listened to the book more than a dozen times and adore it. And except for Ringwald I love the ā94 miniseries. But the 2020 is such a hot mess-for all the reasons you listed. Crazy timeline. Missing key moments/connections. Completely wrong vegas. Completely wrong Trashy, Nick, and Mother Abigail. I hope someone great redoes it before Iām senile.
I’ve been a King fan for 40 years, read nearly everything he’s written, and I don’t remember much gore. š¤ Are you sure? I mean, all the way back to Salem’s Lot and even earlier, it’s been character-driven psychological horror, not blood and guts.
Years ago, my daughter’s English teacher announced at Open House that for the first time, her students were permitted to submit book reports on Stephen King books. She explained that she previously refused because she was judging them on what passes for horror these days: pulp, second rate chaff without real value. Over the summer she had read one on the highest recommendation (The Green Mile, if memory serves), and thereafter spent her summer devouring them all. She was actively stumping for him, assuring a roomful of parents it was OK to let their kids read Stephen King. Surreal. Even though she wasn’t MY English teacher and my daughter had never shown an interest in reading King, I felt wholly vindicated. Lol
There was one thing that the 2020s version did that I truly appreciate… It made the 1994 version seem so much better.
One of the changes in the newer version that I really disliked was making Hemingford Home a nursing home. For me, mother Abagail’s reluctant willingness to leave the home that she lived in all of her life, added to her strength. Leaving a nursing home/assisted care facility has no emotional power over the character, or over the audience for that matter.