Why Stephen King’s Failed ’90s TV Miniseries Got Two Different Endings

This post contains spoilers for “Golden Years.”

It makes sense that a prolific author like Stephen King has inspired countless adaptations of his work since Brian De Palma’s “Carrie” graced everyone’s screens in 1976. Since then, King has been personally involved in several adaptation projects, but his relationship with CBS’ “Golden Years” is a unique one. For starters, “Golden Years” (AKA “Stephen King’s Golden Years”) is not based on a book, but is an original miniseries created and written by King in collaboration with Josef Anderson. It wouldn’t be surprising if you haven’t heard about the show at all; it aired between July and August of 1991 and didn’t receive rave reviews or enough sustained viewership to warrant a reputation of any kind. The original plan was for it to lead up to a regular series, but CBS refused, which led to the seven-part miniseries ending on a cliffhanger.

It’s not difficult to discern why “Golden Years” failed and eventually faded into obscurity. This made-for-television story is not the most thrilling Stephen King joint, and it arrived months after 1990’s “Twin Peaks,” which completely subverted expectations surrounding what constitutes good network television. It’s interesting that King cited “Twin Peaks” as an comparison point for the miniseries when he said “‘Golden Years’ is like ‘Twin Peaks’ without the delirium” (via The New York Times). While this statement hasn’t aged well, I would argue that King’s 1991 miniseries could have bloomed into a worthwhile regular-length show about the horrors of aging in reverse if CBS had given it a chance back then. Now it’s too late, but we can always analyze the miniseries on its own merits and attempt to understand the nature of its dual endings.

Yes, there are two different endings to “Golden Years.” The first one originally aired on CBS (the cliffhanger ending), while the second version is featured in the home video version where things conclude on a more optimistic note. How different are these two endings? Let’s find out.

“Golden Years” is a story about youth — primarily how we covet youth and liken it to a time period brimming with endless possibilities. This yearning often comes at the cost of framing aging as a source of terror, as if it is something that needs to be delayed or escaped altogether. King unravels this concept by subverting the traditional themes associated with such stories, as he positions the protagonist as someone who is aging in reverse. In the show, Harlan Williams (Keith Szarabajka), an elderly janitor, is accidentally exposed to a chemical lab explosion, and the aftereffects of this accident are rather surprising. Instead of sustaining injuries, Harlan notices that his wrinkles have now faded and that his eyesight is better than ever. When these changes start becoming noticeable to others, Harlan freaks out, scared that he will become a target of some kind.

He’s right: People start dying mysteriously around him once some shady folks get a whiff of this situation. Moreover, the Shop — deemed as the most notorious branch of the F.B.I. (who prominently feature in King’s “Firestarter”) — is also after him. Now, Harlan is no hero, as he is the quintessential blue-collar everyman who finds himself dealing with something strange and inexplicable. I don’t want to spoil what he does next, but Harlan’s escapades are only thrilling in bursts and mostly lackluster due to the series’ languid pacing that isn’t cushioned with depth. This brings us to the original ending that aired on CBS, which embraces ambiguity (as it had hoped eventually to trickle into a full-length show) but feels more grounded/realistic in the context of the show’s overarching tone.

In stark contrast, the home video ending was redone and stitched together to evoke a continuous four-hour adventure, something that does not quite work due to the awkward pacing between the episodes. In an attempt to provide the miniseries with a conclusion, the ending was reworked into one where all loose ends are neatly tied up. This ham-fisted re-edit does not necessarily upon the original ending, as it feels a bit too happy-go-lucky compared to the grim undertones of the subject matter. I would go as far as to say that this second ending does not make sense at all.

Perhaps King’s screenplay required more competent creative direction for it to have made a tangible mark. Whatever the case, I’m positive that “Golden Years” might have fared much better as a short story.