The Bookish Binger: The Kill Floor, 11/22/63

My husband and I had a discussion about this episode last night. I think my stance is affected by the fact that I've read the book recently, where as he read it a few years ago. He thinks that it's the right about of cheese, horror and camp that only Franco and Hulu could provide. He thinks in terms of King's adaptations, it's a pretty good one.

Me, on the other hand.... I think this Jake Amberson character is kind of a doofus. An impulsive doofus that makes really horrible and silly mistakes during the course of an episode that leaves you wondering how he ever survived in 2011 where everything made sense? He makes this rash decisions and without a headspace in which to tell it in, me, as the viewer, just feels embarrassed for him and wonder how the heck this guy is going to save President Kennedy.

Now, George Amberson/Jake Epping in the book also makes ill-timed and horrible decisions. But what I thought during the book was that, well, those types of decisions anyone could make. It was realistic, and there were some decisions that occurred that the reader didn't even realize it was a mistake until later.

I think the one flaw about the show so far is the fact that they killed Templeton way too early. I like the flashbacks of them talking, but I liked in the book he had more of a presence. I thought Al prepared him more for the time traveling. I get why Jake and Al had clippings in a book that showed JFK's assassination, but man, Jake was careless with it. It was like he just threw it wherever he wanted too instead of putting it in safe keeping. I thought for sure in the book he kept better care of it.

It was interesting how they combined two characters into one (the bartender and... the older man. I don't remember his name) and had him find the clippings. I'm not sure how they are going to utilize him, but I'm interested to see.

I thought they cast Harry Dunning very well. Mr. Fergie is charming and charismatic with the right amount of dangerous, and I thought he would kill Jake with a smile on his face. I wasn't too fond of Jake going right up to him in the first scene, because affecting the timeline (and changing it for the worse) was a huge part of the book and it just seemed like TV Jake was itching to do that.

However, I had to fast forward through the cow scene. I think the show does horror very well, and whereas the book is spooky, the show is straight up horror.

Overall... I'm not a fan of the show, namely because I really liked the book. I loved how subtle it all was, and how much care and thought Stephen King put into time travel, the time travel paradox, along with all of the research he did. This just seems like... they only had brief amount of time to write the script and just went with the first draft. Then in order to lean into the cheesiness, they cast Franco.

The Bookish Binger: 11/22/63, The Rabbit Hole

I reviewed the book by Stephen King, after I saw the previews for the Hulu miniseries. I was impressed that James Franco was involved, along with JJ Abrams. I figured, at the very least, it would be entertaining, and the miniseries proves that it's not going to go on for 6 seasons (or with Abrams' track record, a good 2 seasons and miserable 2 seasons before cancelling).

Usually what I've done with TV shows is binge watch them after they all have come out, and break it up into a few posts before calling it quits. However, this time, since for the first time I'm actually watching it on schedule, I would post weekly of my reactions, feelings, comparisons between the book and the show, and my hopes for future episodes. 

What I found interesting about the book was the setup that led up to the real conflict of Epping finally thwarting the assassination of JFK. I really liked that King took his time to really sink the reader's teeth into the implications of time travel, and the disastrous outcomes of changing those events. It really foreshadowed what was to come later in the book. 

Now, when I was younger, I definitely was one to complain when movies or TV shows weren't exactly like the book and wondered why script writers didn't just work directly with the author to write something that mirrored the author's vision. Obviously, I understand now that some things can't work for TV, like King's prologue of 11/22/63 leading up to Epping leaving to save the Dunning Family. Unfortunately, it's what I liked most about the book and so for the first episode, I was disappointed because I was looking forward to that part. However, I am fully aware that if the writers just carbon copied the book into the first episode, it wouldn't be effective, and I would have still been disappointed. 

Removing myself from the book, I thought they did a good job of creating the spookiness that King so often has with his books and the theme of time always trying to right itself. The visuals of the car crashing into the telephone pole moments after Epping steps away from it is harrowing, and it conveys that time is a sentient being, and it will do anything to keep time, and its events, on track. In later episodes, due to the shock of the events in this one (the fire, the beetles, etc.), I wonder how they are going to up the ante of preventing Epping from stopping the assassination. 

My husband tells me that there has been some criticism over James Franco's performance as Jake Epping. Considering that 11/22/63 is told in first person, I feel like Franco is going to be at a disadvantage since as the reader, you put yourself as the main character. Watching someone else play Epping, maybe the viewer won't connect as well. I think he does a good job of acting bewildered and out of place, both in 2011 and when he travels back in time. I also liked the montages of Epping walking around in 1960, absolutely loving the time period. Epping in the book romanticizes the 1960s, and it definitely shows that this one does too. 

Epping in the book, makes a ton of stupid mistakes that come back later to bite him in the ass. However, it's over a period of time, so it comes off more realistic and believable. My only problem with this Epping, and it's not to the fault of Franco, is that I think the writers wanted him to make all the stupid moves in the first episode in order for them to bite him in later episodes. There is a ton of foreshadowing in the first episode, which seems rushed, but then again, the book was 800 pages and could afford to take it's time.  

I am anxious to see how they are going to portray the Dunning family murder, and if Jake will go back through the rabbit hole to see the changed outcome. I wish they hadn't killed of Templeton so quickly because there seemed to be some more story there, but maybe it'll right itself later on. 

There is another episode night, so check out my next post this week! 

Which is Better? Death Comes to Pemberley

Alright, I wanted to wait until I finished the book to do a proper comparison between the BBC miniseries and the book by P.D James. However, what I didn't anticipate was the length of time it would take me to get through the book! My review of the book is here, so if you haven't done so already, click the link to read! Please also post any comments you have about the book, and if you agree or disagree with my review!

Now, onto the Which is Better? So, like I said before, I stumbled onto the miniseries when I was looking for something to watch on Netflixs. BAE wasn't home and "Death Comes to Pemberley" seems to be a "Just Jordan" viewing instead of an "US" viewing. We like much of the same things and we get upset when the other starts something that one of us had an interest in seeing. SO! "Death Comes to Pemberley" was definitely a Jordan only viewing. It also caught my attention because Matthew Rhys's face, one of the stars of The Americans, was plastered across the wallpaper of Netflix when I was browsing. I just got more excited as I watched because a lot of people were in this series!

I will come out and say it: the miniseries is way better than the book. Now let's all pack up and go home! Just kidding, but I am very glad that I saw the miniseries first before reading the book because I was given context on characters and was able to visualize them more when I was reading P.D James' book. I feel like the director and the screenwriters for the show did a great job of bringing beloved characters to life and correctly characterizing them based off of Austen's book (for the most part). I also thought they did a great job of showing the relationship between characters, which I think was lacking in James' book.

What I also liked about the miniseries was that they filled in some of the blanks with how characters interacted with each other. It's strange to say that because usually the book has the details that the movie or show chose to emit because there isn't enough time. Strangely the miniseries added color and context on the characters, such as Georgiana and Colonel Fitzwilliams. In the book, Colonel Fitzwilliams just kind of appears with the backstory that his elder brother passed and now he is the heir to the... Hartlep castle (right? Is that the family name?) and Darcy is sizing him up to marry Georgiana. Elizabeth mentions maybe that Georgiana may like Alastar, but Darcy just shrugs her off and before the reader's know it, they are knee deep in the woods trying to find Denny and Wickam.

In the show, however, the actor does a good job of showing motive underneath his decisive actions and the show also does a good job of showing disagreement between Darcy, Elizabeth, Wickham and Georgiana. In the book, there is nothing to show Georgiana's feelings (other than wanting to help and desire to not be seen as a child) or Darcy's desire to ensure that Georgiana is taken care of. The miniseries has a few scenes between Colonel Fitzwilliams and Darcy, Elizabeth and Darcy, Elizabeth, Darcy and Georgiana and Colonel Fitzwilliams to show the conflict and the resolution.

Also! The miniseries clarifies who Mrs. Young is! Or at least, assumes? I'm not sure, but the book, other than the fact that Mrs. Young shows the art of scamming to a young George Wickham and then later is willing to help him, Mrs. Young has no connection to Wickham! Or was there, and I misread the book? Anyway, the miniseries clearly draw a line from Wickham to Young and makes the connection that they are family. The book? Not so much.

Overall, if you have the time or the inclination, watch the miniseries. It's only 3 episodes and if you like the Edwardian era or historical era movies or shows, you would enjoy it. If you are an Austen purist, you may not want to watch it, but if you don't mind sequels, by all means, take a few hours! I would pass on the book though unless you are like me, and you are interested in comparing the two, but the show adds much more depth than the book, which is strange because usually it's the opposite.

Oh! One final thing. In the book there is this long monologue by Darcy. It's campy and so out of character that I found myself rolling my eyes. Thankfully in the series there is a conclusion, but both Darcy and Elizabeth are standing there (instead of Elizabeth sitting there like a dullard in the book listening to Darcy drone on) and the series actually changed a bit of the ending, which personally, I like more.