S01.E01: Steven Sees a Ghost

[Cigale]

Quote

While investigating a ghost story for his latest novel, a skeptical Steven receives a call from his sister that triggers a chain of fateful events.

[yourdreamer]

I thought Steven would see the wife’s dead husband not Nell so that was a fun twist. I thought an interesting choice to start with the most skeptical kid, the eldest, first. 

[HollyG]

I didn't see that coming either. I think I jumped a few feet off my bed!

Very creepy so far. Oh, and you couldn't pay me enough money to step foot in that house!

Edited October 13, 2018 by HollyG

[Whimsy]

I don’t like “horror”, but the previews made this look really intriguing to me. This episode pulled me right in. The cast is terrific!

[BeeBop88]

No way I would ever buy that house. Looks so creepy. I have watched Steven sees a ghost 3 times now. I just want to take it all in what was happening and didn't want to miss anything. Great 1st episode. The actors are really good. It was good to see Henry Thomas from ET fame all grown up. This is literally the 1st time I have seen him as a grownup.  I like the way they are doing a "now and then" concept of telling the story.  Sometimes flashbacks can go wrong, but not here so far. 

[millennium]

I deeply resent the bastardization of one of the great novels of horror, but then I remember this is America where creativity means recycling someone else's genius and flattering yourself that you're an artist.

I am livid that they swiped Shirley Jackson's words -- the most famous quote of the book -- and attributed them to a fictional character.   How does that serve anything but the principles of plagiarism and piracy of intellectual property?   How does it inspire viewers to learn more about Shirley Jackson, maybe get them to go to a library or bookstore and actually READ something she wrote?

I don't fully understand why they had to call it Hill House, other than borrowed interest.   The story would work the same if they invented a new haunted mansion with a previously unknown name.    Does the cachet of a novel that most people alive today have never heard of, let alone bothered to read, really add that much to the production?  Or did they have to do that to sell it to Netflix: "Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

Even the opening sequence is highly reminiscent of another show -- Netflix's Daredevil.

Phooey on all of it.

[Nancy Drew]

I really enjoyed this episode. I usually DESPISE Elizabeth Reaser in everything she ever shows up in, but I think she's so, so good here. I also think Carla Gugino doesn't age. I'm even okay with the fact that this has basically nothing to do with the plot of Hill House as Jackson wrote it. It somehow feels like a Jackson story. What does anger me and make reluctant to totally sit back and enjoy it is that they made Steven the author of Hill House, and it looks like some of his plotline is lifted from Jackson's own experiences as a writer. That's maddening. Jackson's career was so shaped by her biological sex. To give that over to a male character is ridiculous. They could have easily given this story to Reaser's Shirley.

[Cheezwiz]

First episode was reasonably entertaining. But because this really has nothing to do with the original novel,  I'm kind of wishing they hadn't included any Shirley Jackson references in this, and had simply created a whole new haunted house story.

8 hours ago, millennium said:

The story would work the same if they invented a new haunted mansion with a previously unknown name.    Does the cachet of a novel that most people alive today have never heard of, let alone bothered to read, really add that much to the production?  Or did they have to do that to sell it to Netflix: "Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

Agreed! and I laughed out loud at your imaginary Hollywood pitch - because that's probably exactly how it went down! Still giggle-snorting!

I think the casting of both the young kid and present-day adult actors is well done. And it's nice to see Henry Thomas again - he only seems to work very sporadically, and he's always been quite good on the rare occasions that I've seen him.

The little guy who plays young Luke is adorable. I think the scene where he was drawing the scary girl in his treehouse was one of the creepiest so far.

Were there any scenes showing Theodora as a youngster? I got confused when they introduced her as an adult, because I initially thought there were only four kids in the family: Steve, Shirley, Nell & Luke.

I see that a lot of character names either reference the book, or Shirley Jackson herself. I guess the show-runners think these are fun hat-tip/easter-eggs, but I personally find it annoying.

There were a couple of good scares, but I'm not actually finding the house itself that scary - there's something a bit sterile looking about all the production design, and I'm never not conscious that I'm looking at sets in this show. It's a shame they couldn't have found a real mansion with character to shoot in.

I'm not blown away so far, but will keep watching because I'm really desperate for some spooky autumn fare.

[Baby Button Eyes]

Anyone else notice Young Luke had an E.T. lunchbox next to him while he was drawing? *wink wink*

[Slovenly Muse]

Just gave this a shot, even though I was not optimistic. Just like Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," this book is one that WORKS because the author had such a unique, precise, and ingenious approach to the story, and the true horror of the novel seems to be completely overlooked or misunderstood by the filmmakers (mostly men) who try to adapt it, and think hideous monsters are where the scares are. I wasn't as disappointed as I expected to be, so I'll give it that, but ITA that it is UNFORGIVABLE to take Jackson's brilliant words and attribute them to a fictional male author. (Apart from the slight to Jackson, just think, anyone who loves the series so much that they decide to read the book will forever be picturing Stephen as the writer.) That rubbed me the wrong way immediately, and the show never really recovered from it. (Plus the fact that the main POV character is a man, and everyone who dies in this episode is a woman, demonstrates that Mike Flanagan is not thinking too hard about the gender politics of his adaptation.)

That said, I DID like the format, showing how the house has pervasively affected the family throughout their lives, and the creepy allure of the house that Nell was unable to resist... it shows Flanagan at least understands what sets Hill House apart from your standard haunted house story, even if he doesn't understand, as Jackson did, that NOT showing/naming/describing the spooks lets the real horror come through. Much of it did have that Jackson sort of feel, and I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that creepy girl in the woods that Young Luke drew reminded me IMMEDIATELY of Merricat Blackwood from "We Have Always Lived in The Castle." As a Jackson fan, I know nothing can ever live up to her books, but this show concept could have been much worse than it was, and while it's far from perfect, it is a pretty effective adaptation. And in all likelihood... no one will come any closer than that.

In the night.

In the dark.

[Dobian]

I decided to try this one out being that it's Halloween time.  As if I don't have enough already on my plate to watch.  Well the first episode had some genuinely scary moments.  I actually did read The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson in my youth and the movie adaptation The Haunting (the original, not the remake with Catherine Zeta-Jones) was terrific.  So I also thought it strange that they made the novel itself a part of this story and have it be written by a fictional character.  Did Jackson get a mention in the credits?  I see they named one of the main characters after her.  I'll have to look.  And did anyone find the opening credits suspiciously reminiscent of Westworld's?

Edited October 14, 2018 by Dobian

[millennium]

It's comforting to be among intelligent, well-read people.   I fear our days are numbered.

[Darian]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:18 PM, millennium said:

I deeply resent the bastardization of one of the great novels of horror, but then I remember this is America where creativity means recycling someone else's genius and flattering yourself that you're an artist.

I am livid that they swiped Shirley Jackson's words -- the most famous quote of the book -- and attributed them to a fictional character.   How does that serve anything but the principles of plagiarism and piracy of intellectual property?   How does it inspire viewers to learn more about Shirley Jackson, maybe get them to go to a library or bookstore and actually READ something she wrote?

I don't fully understand why they had to call it Hill House, other than borrowed interest.   The story would work the same if they invented a new haunted mansion with a previously unknown name.    Does the cachet of a novel that most people alive today have never heard of, let alone bothered to read, really add that much to the production?  Or did they have to do that to sell it to Netflix: "Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

Even the opening sequence is highly reminiscent of another show -- Netflix's Daredevil.

Phooey on all of it.

I want to bake cookies for you and all who share this view. This is well-said. Thank you. 

[Yokosmom]

I gave up after the first ten minutes as my screen was so dark that I couldn't see much of what was happening.  Do they ever turn the lights on?  Are there any scenes in daylight?

[Cheezwiz]

9 hours ago, Yokosmom said:

I gave up after the first ten minutes as my screen was so dark that I couldn't see much of what was happening.  Do they ever turn the lights on?  Are there any scenes in daylight?

Oh man, I thought it was just me! I have to turn all the ambient lighting off in my apartment to watch this otherwise nothing shows up on screen!

[tennisgurl]

I really would like to know why they bothered to use the name and some references from the original novel, considering it basically has nothing to do with the actual work. I read the original book in high school, and have seen both versions of the movie (the original is really good. The remake...is not) so I am decently familiar with the story, so, I really dont get why they bothered with using the name. Is it so recognizable that they thought it would draw people in? Because anyone who would know the original story would probably just be pissed or annoyed with all the changes, and people who just want a ghost story wouldn't care. Why not just make it a new story at this point, with maybe just some shout outs if your just a fan?

That being said, I enjoyed the first episode. I am so in on spooky stories this time of year, and this seems like the kind of horror that I enjoy. Not a million jump scares or gore moments, but scares based on atmosphere and character, which I find much more unsettling and interesting than people getting eaten or jumping out and yelling BOO. I like the cast so far, and I was actually surprised by the twist at the end, so I will just go along and just watch the old The Haunting movie to appreciate the original story. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

"Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

Bwah! You nailed it.

I didn't think it was very good. Granted, there was a lot of table setting that had to be done, but I thought the format was a little confusing. I had no trouble discerning that we were watching both "past" scenes when the characters were kids and "present" scenes with them as adults but I did have trouble following who was who. I don't know where the heck Theo came from: they only showed four kids in the opening scene. And it sounded like a baby crying, not a five-year old. That was weird. 

I'm not sure a story like this lends itself to series format, but I'm pre-disposed to like this sort of show so I'm going to give it as much of a chance as I can. I just wasn't terribly impressed with the first episode, and that doesn't bode well.

Quote

No way I would ever buy that house. Looks so creepy.

I would totally buy that house if I had the money, and I wouldn't care how many people thought it was haunted. I bet you could get it for a song, too. I just love those great big open wide hallways and those extra wide doorways. 

[Cheezwiz]

36 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I didn't think it was very good. Granted, there was a lot of table setting that had to be done, but I thought the format was a little confusing. I had no trouble discerning that we were watching both "past" scenes when the characters were kids and "present" scenes with them as adults but I did have trouble following who was who. I don't know where the heck Theo came from: they only showed four kids in the opening scene. And it sounded like a baby crying, not a five-year old. That was weird. 

I recommend sticking with it - it does get better as it goes along, and you'll start to discern the different characters . I had the same problem in that I initially thought there were only four kids and had no idea who Theo was or where she came from. I was iffy after Episode 1, but have now just finished episode 4 and am now fully invested.

[Cardie]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, Dobian said:

Did Jackson get a mention in the credits?

Yes, before the writing and directing credits it says "Based on [ha!] the novel by Shirley Jackson."

[Ms Lark]

On 10/15/2018 at 1:52 PM, Darian said:

I want to bake cookies for you and all who share this view. This is well-said. Thank you. 

Just leave out the sugar, MmmK?

[Anela]

I wasn't sure what to expect - I thought it was going to be a re-do of the the movie, just as a series (I've never read the book, which is weird, considering how much I love to read, so I have them on hold at the library). 

I'm enjoying it, though. I know I'll want to watch it again. I was looking forward to this, and my internet had been broken for weeks, but it's fine now. So I showered at 4am, and settled in to watch this, with a hot mug of tea, and a pumpkin candle burning on the mantelpiece. I haven't been in the mood for Halloween, my dog dying last month, being the latest upsetting thing, but I've been trying to get into the mood. I love spooky stories, no matter the time of year, but the movies are usually bad now. 

The one problem I had, like others here, is their attributing the novel to a man. They couldn't just have him as a paranormal investigator, due to their time in the house, and the things his siblings saw? It would have been enough.

I did think that Nell was dead, when she was just standing in his living room, and not speaking, so that wasn't a surprise. 

[Yokosmom]

Quote

Oh man, I thought it was just me! I have to turn all the ambient lighting off in my apartment to watch this otherwise nothing shows up on screen!

Thanks for the suggestion, Cheezwiz, I did just that.  Now that I can see what is going on, I think that I'll stick with it a few more episodes.  This was definitely a "set-up" episode, but with this many characters, they pretty much had to do it that way.  I wonder if there is going to be any explanation of why the ghosts seem so malevolent--or is it only the ghosts of those who commit suicide?  Definitely got a Mrs. Danvers (from Rebecca) vibe from the housekeeper in the flashback.  The only confusion that I had was getting Theo and Shirl mixed up (as adults).  I'm sure that I'll be able to differentiate them as the series goes on.

So mom commits suicide and Dad's reaction is to frantically get them all in the car and out of the house?  And this is suspicious as hell and it gets splashed all over the tabloids? No wonder they are all messed up.  Feeling sorry for little Nell, who is seeing creepy ghosts and no one believes her.  

[laurakaye]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:18 PM, millennium said:

 Or did they have to do that to sell it to Netflix: "Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

This is Us wishes it were in the same realm as Hill House.

I started watching TIU for one reason - I wanted to see believable interactions between siblings.  It failed miserably, so now I snark watch it.

With Hill House, same thing.  I wanted to see how the siblings related to each other.  And that's what hooked me...the adult actors are all good, and the kid actors are fantastic.  I too was less than thrilled with the author being male and I don't see any real reasons why it had to be done that way, but I will keep watching.

[OoogleEyes]

I did love the cast iron spiral staircase in the library, tho... That was a nice touch 

[Lady Calypso]

So, not knowing anything about the book, I was able to come into this with fresh eyes. I am always look for a good horror series, as there are so few ones, let alone good ones, but I thought this did a decent job. Not an amazing job, mind you, since I came out of the pilot annoyed by a couple of the characters, but I think they did a good job setting the story up. I think they didn't spend nearly enough time on the kids like Theo and Nell, but I figure with a bigger cast and with it jumping back and forth between the past and the present, some characters in some timelines were bound to be left out for this first episode, especially if they're intentionally doing it to build suspense.  

Some moments did make me jump so they got the atmosphere right, and the ending did somewhat surprise me. Otherwise, I'm willing to keep going. The cinematography was pretty damn good as well. I am hoping for some more answers sooner rather than later. 

[FENJI]

Holy Shit, thought this was a movie. watched the episode, thinking it was a movie. Is this the next American Horror Story murder house? Is this a new seriously amazing horror epic in serial format?

On 10/13/2018 at 12:52 PM, Whimsy said:

I don’t like “horror”, but the previews made this look really intriguing to me. This episode pulled me right in. The cast is terrific!

welcome to liking horror lol. It's like the most insidious drug hehe. I don't like horror only lasts until you get hooked :P welcome to the family!

[FENJI]

On 10/13/2018 at 12:52 PM, Whimsy said:

I don’t like “horror”, but the previews made this look really intriguing to me. This episode pulled me right in. The cast is terrific!

welcome to liking horror lol. It's like the most insidious drug hehe. I don't like horror only lasts until you get hooked :P welcome to the family! Then you get to re watch, or watch things you used to ignore and realize you missed a whole genre of amazing stuff.

[Whimsy]

7 hours ago, FENJI said:

welcome to liking horror lol. It's like the most insidious drug hehe. I don't like horror only lasts until you get hooked :P welcome to the family! Then you get to re watch, or watch things you used to ignore and realize you missed a whole genre of amazing stuff.

I like jump-scares.  Still don't like gory stuff.  ;)

[JenE4]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:18 PM, millennium said:

I deeply resent the bastardization of one of the great novels of horror, but then I remember this is America where creativity means recycling someone else's genius and flattering yourself that you're an artist.

I am livid that they swiped Shirley Jackson's words -- the most famous quote of the book -- and attributed them to a fictional character.   How does that serve anything but the principles of plagiarism and piracy of intellectual property?   How does it inspire viewers to learn more about Shirley Jackson, maybe get them to go to a library or bookstore and actually READ something she wrote?

I don't fully understand why they had to call it Hill House, other than borrowed interest.   The story would work the same if they invented a new haunted mansion with a previously unknown name.    Does the cachet of a novel that most people alive today have never heard of, let alone bothered to read, really add that much to the production?  Or did they have to do that to sell it to Netflix: "Think of it as 'The Haunting of Hill House' meets 'This Is Us' ..."

Even the opening sequence is highly reminiscent of another show -- Netflix's Daredevil.

Phooey on all of it.

Without getting too off topic, how does this show differ from the book? Does the book at least focus on siblings in this past/present timelines? Or, not even? But, yeah, that’s exactly how I described this show to my daughter as a recommendation: It’s like “This Is Us” if the Pearsons lived in a haunted house. I haven’t read the book. I’ve spent my life avoiding horror books and movies at all costs. I do, however, like shows that mostly focus on characterization with one or two creepy scenes or jump scares per episode max—this show, Castle Rock, American Horror Story. If the novel also focuses on characters mostly, I might give it a shot. I’m also still working up the nerve to read Stephen King after watching Castle Rock. Juuuust not quite there yet, lol.

Edited October 24, 2018 by JenE4

[millennium]

1 hour ago, JenE4 said:

Without getting too off topic, how does this show differ from the book? Does the book at least focus on siblings in this past/present timelines? Or, not even? But, yeah, that’s exactly how I described this show to my daughter as a recommendation: It’s like “This Is Us” if the Pearsons lived in a haunted house. I haven’t read the book. I’ve spent my life avoiding horror books and movies at all costs. I do, however, like shows that mostly focus on characterization with one or two creepy scenes or jump scares per episode max—this show, Castle Rock, American Horror Story. If the novel also focuses on characters mostly, I might give it a shot. I’m also still working up the nerve to read Stephen King after watching Castle Rock. Juuuust not quite there yet, lol.

In brief, the cast of characters is very different.   A psychologist wants to conduct a study into fear and the human psyche, so he puts an ad in the paper soliciting volunteers.   He gathers them at Hill House, hoping the dramatic setting will act as a catalyst.   The main character, a volunteer named Eleanor, is a mousy, introverted woman who until now has had no life.   She sees the study as a chance to get away, almost like a vacation.   There is another woman volunteer named Theodora  ... this should give you an idea of what the show did.  In other words, there is no family, just different characters with the same names.

Stephen King's work is also very unlike Castle Rock.   My advice: stick with his early stuff: Carrie, Salem's Lot, Night Shift, Firestarter, Different Seasons, Pet Sematary.    Beyond that, there is nothing worth reading,

[JenE4]

3 hours ago, millennium said:

In brief, the cast of characters is very different.   A psychologist wants to conduct a study into fear and the human psyche, so he puts an ad in the paper soliciting volunteers.   He gathers them at Hill House, hoping the dramatic setting will act as a catalyst.   The main character, a volunteer named Eleanor, is a mousy, introverted woman who until now has had no life.   She sees the study as a chance to get away, almost like a vacation.   There is another woman volunteer named Theodora  ... this should give you an idea of what the show did.  In other words, there is no family, just different characters with the same names.

Stephen King's work is also very unlike Castle Rock.   My advice: stick with his early stuff: Carrie, Salem's Lot, Night Shift, Firestarter, Different Seasons, Pet Sematary.    Beyond that, there is nothing worth reading,

Thanks, Millenium! Boy, I can understand why the novel fans are upset! Why use the house and character names if nothing about the plot is the same?! I appreciate the book recommendations!

[Mabinogia]

I adore the book, one of my all time favorite books, but I also loved this series as a loose interpretation of the feeling of the book. It's not the book but for me it was a nice addition to the book. I get why others are bothered by it being so different, but given how shitty the last Hill House movie turned out, I'm quite happy this was a totally different beast that merely paid homage to the source material. 

[millennium]

Despite some of my earlier comments, I have come to like this series.   I explain why in the thread for the episode "Eulogy"

[FENJI]

5 hours ago, millennium said:

In brief, the cast of characters is very different.   A psychologist wants to conduct a study into fear and the human psyche, so he puts an ad in the paper soliciting volunteers.   He gathers them at Hill House, hoping the dramatic setting will act as a catalyst.   The main character, a volunteer named Eleanor, is a mousy, introverted woman who until now has had no life.   She sees the study as a chance to get away, almost like a vacation.   There is another woman volunteer named Theodora  ... this should give you an idea of what the show did.  In other words, there is no family, just different characters with the same names.

Stephen King's work is also very unlike Castle Rock.   My advice: stick with his early stuff: Carrie, Salem's Lot, Night Shift, Firestarter, Different Seasons, Pet Sematary.    Beyond that, there is nothing worth reading,

Let's not mention the green mile, IT, or the mist -.- or any of his less pulpy non-horror stuff like the entire dark tower series.

[millennium]

1 hour ago, FENJI said:

Let's not mention the green mile, IT, or the mist -.- or any of his less pulpy non-horror stuff like the entire dark tower series.

I forgot not only The Mist but the Shining too, and a short story called The Raft.

I personally think the Dark Tower is dreadful (the man added HIMSELF as a character, need I say more?), as were his collaborations with Peter Straub.    Regarding IT:

 

IT was just a mess -- a mess with a scene where the kiddie heroes engage in kiddie sex to defeat the monster (and you know I'm not making that up)

It pains me to say these things.   King inspired me to become a writer myself.  But I think his work from about Firestarter forward has been a grand disappointment.   I still read his novels but it has been a long, long time since I have parted with a dime for something he wrote -- and I'm someone who used to be at the bookstore the day his novels came out in the late 70s and early 80s.   I have a personal note he wrote me, the first-ever Castle Rock newsletter, all the early Stephen King calendars ... oh yeah, I was a fan.

Edited October 25, 2018 by millennium

[Racj82]

On 10/14/2018 at 11:00 AM, millennium said:

It's comforting to be among intelligent, well-read people.   I fear our days are numbered.

Ha. I didn't even know this was thing people were angry about. I know nothing about the original source. Wouldn't change things for me if I did and I don't do much reading. I'm a visual person.

This show has hit the ground running for me. I'm locked in for the duration. Daredevil shall wait.

[Rap541]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 7:09 PM, millennium said:

It pains me to say these things.   King inspired me to become a writer myself.  But I think his work from about Firestarter forward has been a grand disappointment.   I still read his novels but it has been a long, long time since I have parted with a dime for something he wrote -- and I'm someone who used to be at the bookstore the day his novels came out in the late 70s and early 80s.   I have a personal note he wrote me, the first-ever Castle Rock newsletter, all the early Stephen King calendars ... oh yeah, I was a fan.

It pains me to say it but yeah. With a couple of exceptions, most of the books written past Needful Things weren't that good and the exceptions to me? Tended to be nostalgia pieces like Doctor Sleep, 1963 (neither of which was outstanding) and Under The Dome, which was so clearly begun and partly written in the 1970s.

Glad I am not the only one who thought the Dark Tower series was dreadful.

I would add The Stand and the Bachman Books to the rec list.

I don't mind that the Haunting of Hill House didn't closely follow the book but I do dislike attributing quotes from the book to Stephen the author character and not to Shirley Jackson who actually wrote them. 

[Bobcatkitten]

I had a little trouble following who was who in the first episode and some of the second. But it's so worth it. I'm halfway through and both want to watch it all and don't want it to end. 

[millennium]

16 hours ago, Rap541 said:

It pains me to say it but yeah. With a couple of exceptions, most of the books written past Needful Things weren't that good and the exceptions to me? Tended to be nostalgia pieces like Doctor Sleep, 1963 (neither of which was outstanding) and Under The Dome, which was so clearly begun and partly written in the 1970s.

Glad I am not the only one who thought the Dark Tower series was dreadful.

I would add The Stand and the Bachman Books to the rec list.

I don't mind that the Haunting of Hill House didn't closely follow the book but I do dislike attributing quotes from the book to Stephen the author character and not to Shirley Jackson who actually wrote them. 

I don't want to go too far off topic but I can't help but connect the decline in the quality of King's work to him getting clean.

[Rap541]

7 hours ago, millennium said:

I don't want to go too far off topic but I can't help but connect the decline in the quality of King's work to him getting clean.

There is that awkward point, yes. On the other hand, after reading so many of his books with the bitter alcoholic writer character being a giant ass to his family, I'm gonna say he's probably happier clean and if that means only 25 of his what, 75 books are decent reads.... thats still a lot of decent reading. 

I think I read in "On Writing" that he says he doesn't even remember writing Cujo…. and that was a good book. 

Again, to bring it on topic, you know what I'd like? Stephen King doing a Danse Macabre look at A Haunting of Hill House the show - I do remember he was a big Shirley Jackson fan. 

[Peanut6711]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:18 PM, millennium said:

I am livid that they swiped Shirley Jackson's words -- the most famous quote of the book -- and attributed them to a fictional character.   How does that serve anything but the principles of plagiarism and piracy of intellectual property?   How does it inspire viewers to learn more about Shirley Jackson, maybe get them to go to a library or bookstore and actually READ something she wrote?

 

Jackson sold the movie rights back at the time of the first film adaption.  Not sure who owns them now or if the story has come into public domain. but the liberties or artistic license they have taken with this production is on the up and up, and not uncommon.  I think some viewers will seek out the book. You'll always have viewers whose interest is piqued and want to learn/read more while others will be content with what's shown.  To tap into the literary world for a reference, think of the underlying themes/commentary at play in Fahrenheit 451.  ;-)   Hollywood certainly can create a buzz about certain works, though it seems that The Haunting of Hill House (now w/multiple adaptions) might be on the road to becoming more of a brand. 

On 10/16/2018 at 1:54 PM, iMonrey said:

 I don't know where the heck Theo came from: they only showed four kids in the opening scene. And it sounded like a baby crying, not a five-year old. That was weird. 

Theo is shown in the first flashback scene. She's the one in the hall when Steven is headed to the twins's room.  She has one line. Blink and you'll miss her though. Honestly while I knew a sibling  was there, my hubs and I had to go back at the end to confirm if the kid shown was a boy or girl as after they started talking about "Theo" we assumed there were 3 brothers and 2 sisters instead of 3 sisters and 2 brothers.  I too expected a baby instead of a kindergartner(?) The cries did sound off.  I do wish they would be more specific about the kid's ages. And I've played a guessing game with the year the past is taking place. Apparently it's 1992 but you'd never know that from the way they are dressed. Perhaps the show is going for that "timeless" feel that shows like the original Twin Peaks embraced. 

[Paloma]

On 10/30/2018 at 10:05 AM, Peanut6711 said:

Theo is shown in the first flashback scene. She's the one in the hall when Steven is headed to the twins's room.  She has one line. Blink and you'll miss her though. Honestly while I knew a sibling  was there, my hubs and I had to go back at the end to confirm if the kid shown was a boy or girl as after they started talking about "Theo" we assumed there were 3 brothers and 2 sisters instead of 3 sisters and 2 brothers.  I too expected a baby instead of a kindergartner(?) The cries did sound off.  I do wish they would be more specific about the kid's ages. And I've played a guessing game with the year the past is taking place. Apparently it's 1992 but you'd never know that from the way they are dressed. Perhaps the show is going for that "timeless" feel that shows like the original Twin Peaks embraced. 

My husband and I had the same problem with figuring out who Theo was and how many kids of what genders, and we did the same thing as you--when the episode ended, we went back to the beginning. Also agree on the cries sounding like a baby, on confusion about the kids' ages, and confusion about what year(s) the past is taking place. I was getting a 50s-60s vibe from the dad's pajamas and some of girls' clothing (that's when I grew up), but if the present is really the present then the past obviously has to be no earlier than 1980s. Did they say it was 1992 at some point?

Despite the confusion, it is pretty well done and we're glad we decided to try it (especially on Halloween). I didn't read the Jackson novel so am not outraged by whatever liberties they've taken, but I do want to read it after we finish watching this season.

[Peanut6711]

17 hours ago, Paloma said:

My husband and I had the same problem with figuring out who Theo was and how many kids of what genders, and we did the same thing as you--when the episode ended, we went back to the beginning. Also agree on the cries sounding like a baby, on confusion about the kids' ages, and confusion about what year(s) the past is taking place. I was getting a 50s-60s vibe from the dad's pajamas and some of girls' clothing (that's when I grew up), but if the present is really the present then the past obviously has to be no earlier than 1980s. Did they say it was 1992 at some point?

Despite the confusion, it is pretty well done and we're glad we decided to try it (especially on Halloween). I didn't read the Jackson novel so am not outraged by whatever liberties they've taken, but I do want to read it after we finish watching this season.

No, I don't think they've actually said it was '92 (or at least not yet), but we read it in one of the descriptions for the show.  In one of the episodes Theo is dancing to Paula Abdul's "Cold Hearted Snake" video on a VHS tape. The song came out in '89 so it could be a few years later.  Agree that the dad's clothes don't look like they are from the '90's.  We're enjoying it too though. I think it's well done.  We even managed to end up watching the episode set on Halloween night on Halloween night! 

[Kid]

On 10/14/2018 at 3:04 AM, Slovenly Muse said:

Plus the fact that the main POV character is a man, and everyone who dies in this episode is a woman, demonstrates that Mike Flanagan is not thinking too hard about the gender politics of his adaptation.)

This series is excellent. The acting was excellent, and the writing is excellent. This episode is no exception. Why can’t we just have art and not worry about gender politics,  racial politics, sexual politics, and on and on and on it goes.

Good art is about the human condition. This series is very much about the human condition. And that applies to men, women, gay, straight, transgender, everyone and everything that is human.  

In my opinion, this series is about the effects of childhood trauma. This episode, sets all of that up, and that is the thread that permeates through to the end. I was so engrossed in the story and in the characters that I did not have the time to worry about whether or not it was politically correct.  What I did notice, however, is that the strongest characters in the drama, are women.

This is my opinion, of course, and only my opinion.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Kid

[AuntiePam]

Just started watching, and wish I hadn't read the This Is Us comparison.  I'll trust that it's much better than that.

I have just one quibble about the first episode -- Nell's face didn't need to change at the end.  It was frightening enough to hear dad tell Steven that Nell was dead, and for Steven to see her there. 

Jackson's opening paragraph deserved a better narration.  It was done so poorly, I was certain that the words were changed, because they had no impact, none of that wonderful poetry. 

[Josh371982]

On 10/16/2018 at 1:54 PM, iMonrey said:

Bwah! You nailed it.

I didn't think it was very good. Granted, there was a lot of table setting that had to be done, but I thought the format was a little confusing. I had no trouble discerning that we were watching both "past" scenes when the characters were kids and "present" scenes with them as adults but I did have trouble following who was who. I don't know where the heck Theo came from: they only showed four kids in the opening scene. And it sounded like a baby crying, not a five-year old. That was weird. 

I'm not sure a story like this lends itself to series format, but I'm pre-disposed to like this sort of show so I'm going to give it as much of a chance as I can. I just wasn't terribly impressed with the first episode, and that doesn't bode well.

I would totally buy that house if I had the money, and I wouldn't care how many people thought it was haunted. I bet you could get it for a song, too. I just love those great big open wide hallways and those extra wide doorways. 

They showed young Theo in the opening. When the crying Starts her and Steven come out of their rooms almost at the same time. Steven evens say her name before telling her to go back in her room he'll handle it

[Bruinsfan]

On 10/14/2018 at 1:33 AM, Cheezwiz said:

There were a couple of good scares, but I'm not actually finding the house itself that scary - there's something a bit sterile looking about all the production design, and I'm never not conscious that I'm looking at sets in this show. It's a shame they couldn't have found a real mansion with character to shoot in.

I agree, with the exception of Mrs. Walker's house, which gave me intense homeowner's envy. That hallway at the start looked like it was part of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, Luke's treehouse was bigger than the one the Swiss Family Robinson lived in, and Steven's apartment looked like a huge empty art gallery with no ceilings. If they couldn't film in real locations they should have hired a production crew who at least know what those look like.

I did like all the performances though, particularly Huisman's. The story... well bears no resemblance to Shirley Jackson's beyond the names and there being a Hill House, which is very unambiguously haunted in this case. I'll try to appreciate it as its own thing rather than an adaptation.