Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Under the Dome' started by mjs9153, Aug 27, 2015.
That could be it now that you mention it.
Wow! I would love to have those cards.
At the very least, are their illustrations available to see online? I would settle for seeing them.
Scroll down the page and you can see them here.
I love how some descriptions have spoilers that a new reader will not even realize are spoilers until s/he reads them again after finishing the book.
Some look very close to what I imagined, although a few definitely don't. I see Junior as no longer so built, and more dark-blond-haired. And Piper's face and attitude seem spot on, but I think her hair should be longer (I may be wrong, but I think the book mentions her hair reaching the sides of her face or something).
All of the expressions are really great. And even with a sweatshirt we can see Scarecrow Joe is tall and thin.
Well I finally got through Season 3 on Netflix today.
The TV show premiered while I had just begun reading the novel. Naturally, I didn't want to start watching without finishing the book first. Knowing it was made for network TV, I figured it would be a heavily sanitised adaptation of the book at best. I started watching just before the end of the first season. The kindest thing I can say about the show is it is tepid. I stuck with it because a few months before I had completed binge-watching the entire of Breaking Bad so I was glad to see Dean Norris again. But man, I can't recall a show going from being just average to flat-out bad in such a short space of time. The paradox here is that while UTD is a really big book, I think it would have benefited from being a high-profile mini-series on cable TV where many of the darker elements could have been retained. A ten-hour adaptation would have packed more of a punch than a watered-down 3 seasons for television. I am also disappointed that a science-fiction writer of Brian K. Vaughn's calibre rendered the source of the Dome to mere cliché, rather than going for the random act of cosmic cruelty that King wrote so well.
This is yet another weak Stephen King adaptation to add to the pile. Even for the worst adaptations (and there are worse, mind you), I still tell SK fans to take a look and make up their own minds. But this series is such a pale imitation of the book that I would advise interested viewers to take it or leave it, but don't get your hopes up if it's the former.
It got so weird and crazy at the end that we just stopped recording it; too bad - compared to this, 11/22/63 miniseries is Emmy material!
Same thing happened to Haven....started out good...by the end I just stopped watching.
I was just thinking about this subject today,watching the first episode of The Hobbit on tv,which was chopped up into three movies.I know people say well,take the movie for what it is and the book for what it is,the artists have different takes and license to change or make it theirs..to that I say bullcrap.When you have a very good or excellent product,and take it to the screen,why not go for the excellence that was achieved in written form? And I think that was achieved in the Lord of the Rings trilogy,they stuck pretty close to the book,while the Hobbit was just a weird mishmash of the book.Same thing with SK's works,what are his favorite movies by fans? Likely Shawshank or Stand by Me,and again,they stuck close to the book versions..when you have a great product,why muck it up..kinda like ESPN has gone to hell..
Exactly. If it works in the book, why change it. What do they say the coaches say, KISS.
Yes,and what do they end up with when they stick to the plot? Oscars for best actors/actresses,screenplay,etc,etc..
I liked it when it first came out on television. The first two seasons on Channel/Network TEN, here. Then they changed the times which is stupid for a start.
For the most part, I agree with your comment....BUT...The Shining is one of the best adaptations of a SK story, which did not stick to the book.
Under the Dome - Network Ten
That is interesting because I happen to agree with you, but as I understand it Mr. King himself hated that interpretation of The Shining.. I thought the start showing the VW bug going up into the mountains was one of the best openings to a horror movie ever, with the perfect soundtrack.. it really showed how alone they would be, and the mountains themselves just looming up so ancient and forbidding.. And I thought it stuck with the book for quite a bit it just went off the rails towards the end.. obviously they can't stick with most books for the entire movie, because there is just too much,like they left out the whole Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights episode in Lord of the Rings.. so some license has to be taken that's understood.. It's just when it is unrecognizable from the original book that I take exception to..
I can understand where King is coming from because it's his baby, but I still like Kubrick's movie. I like the start with the music. I do agree that they portray the character of Jack as a bit loopy from the start and I think that is a negative.
I liked the first few episodes but then it got boring to tell you the truth. Stuff just started happening that I didn't remember in the book, or was added to stretch the series out.
Ok I just started the tv ships today. I have not read the book, it seems interesting, if I only watch the show will I basically get the same depth story as the book? The book seems a bit to huge
The book is huge, but I much preferred the book to the TV series - you just have to devote a lot more time to reading I guess, which isn't always possible