That’s probably a reference to its memorable inclusion in the 1994 adaptation being reference in this one.

Yeah, I think she’s 21 and he’s 16 when the book starts.  Stu is IIRC in his 30s at least.

Semi-agreed, although I still love reading the unabridged version from time to time.  However, I think the “No Great Loss” chapter showing a number of unfortunate people who survived the virus only to quickly die by other means is a highlight of the book, and I’d still love to see an adaptation devote a few minutes to…

re: Lauder - I agree.  The vision of “nerdy proto-incel” in 1978 was a fat kid with acne; the 2020 version can look very different and be every bit as effective.

That’s correct in the book as well, but the book also has a brief scene, only a couple of lines, really, where the General does issue an order to release the virus in Europe and Asia.  It’s pretty chilling because it’s almost a throwaway.

“It’s kind of neat to hear that someone had the same thought about The Stand - these novels King have giant casts anchored by an interesting guy (Bill in It, Stu in The Stand) surrounded by much more interesting side characters.”

I think that’s probably true of a lot of fiction when you get right down to it. 

Animation is a medium, not a genre.

Scrolled down until I found someone mention I Am Not Ok With This - what a nice little gem of a show.

I’d also throw in The Umbrella Academy, which I just caught up with/finished.  Great followup to the intriguing first season, and I can’t wait for the third to see what that green cube is.

Sounds like we’re about the same age, then, and my recollection is that by the time this movie came out, the books were absolutely everywhere across media and culture.  One of the things that really drove that was that it wasn’t just kids reading them, not by a long shot.

I think that scene leans more toward stupid, but again, they sell it well enough to get past that.

13's humor was far more goofy than 11's, but still pretty decent.

Ahem.  Cusack has a hot tub for you.

I think it’s totally a joke, seeing as they stop more than once and make him explain what he said to the others.

I’m genuinely curious how old you were, and how well you’re remembering that time.  The only reason we’re discussing this movie here at this moment is because the books were absolutely and increasingly everywhere at that point.

This is true, but the way it’s done also makes the movie irritating, since it’s a constant series of moments where Thing From Book is introduced to a swell of music and a lingering camera shot, making pacing and flow practically non-existent. More subtlety could have kept the lived-in feel, satisfied book readers, and…

Although since he apparently wasn’t Rowling’s first (or 2nd or 3rd, maybe) choice, that kind of hurts the theory.

I don’t know whether you can call it a “breakout role”, but her being cast by Disney in the lead for their gigantic push into remaking their old movies surely is more “movie star” than any of Radcliffe’s post-Potter work (without commenting on the merits of either, both of whom I like).

I watched 11, 12, and 13 back to back to back a few weeks ago, and while the other two definitely aren’t nearly as good as the first, that same charm and chemistry between the actors pulls them both into “still very watchable” territory.

“Comfortably Numb”

“Keeping up with the Calrissians”