March Author of the Month: Stephen King

[Arctic]

so who's a stephen king fan out there? his new film, Dreamcatcher, is coming out in a few weeks...any bets on how it does? has anyone read it yet or is anyone planning to read it?

Stephen King has written material from which nearly 60 films have been produced since the mid-1970s. what have been King's most memorable lines/moments in novels and film?

here let me give you a hint:

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/54/00/61m.gif

[Arctic]

Margaret White: Take that dress off. I can see your dirty pillows.
Carrie: They're called breasts, mama, and every woman has them.

[Abscynthe]

I used to be an avid reader of King, especially of his early works. Ever since Gerald's Game, though, I've kind of fallen out of favor. I guess I'm just an old-fashioned horror fan; I prefer the blood/guts/jump out of seat/leave lights on horror rather than psychological horror.

A friend highly recommended Dreamcatchers, though, so when I go book shopping this weekend I might pick it up. That and From a Buick 8; seems borderline Christine.

[Wiggum]

I've read about all of King's books. Dreamcatcher is quite good, but if you want an alien based King novel The Tommyknockers is a longer, but far better story.

[Cogito]

I'm an anti-fan of Stephen King. Do you still want to hear my opinion of him -- if so, say so and I'll say my bit. (Reason why I'm not speaking up straight away is, I've voiced such distracting opinions on films in this forum before, and Hobb has found it to be a uh, negative experience -- so unless you're ok with seeing me dissing the dude, I wont do so.)

[Wiggum]

Hell, lets hear it. I'm a big fan of King, but not one that takes him too seriously. I've debated King's merits with others before, so as long as you don't take the line that his writing isn't literature (because your right, it isn't), or that the amount of money he makes is too much (he acknowledges this, with much glee) I would be curious what you gotta say.:argue

[Arctic]

i am officially stephen king neutral.

as far as i'm concerned any and all discussion and voicing of *opinions* is welcome :).

[masterthes]

Yeah, Cogs share your opinion, even though it's WRONG :lol j/k

Anyway, I became a Stephen King convert almost a year ago. Before, I never even considered reading his books as I thought they were crap and held no depth. Boy was I wrong. I started off reading The Talisman. Damn, what a way to get started on the King universe. After that I read The Stand and I knew that after that, there would be no looking back. Here's what I have read since after reading The Stand:

The Dark Tower 1-4
Firestarter
Salem's Lot
The Shining
IT
Desperation
Hearts in Atlantis
On Writing
Black House
Bag of Bones
Dreamcatcher

I am taking a little hiatus from King, reading The Wheel of Time series. After that I am planning to read The Similarion, and Blackwood Farm (the new Anne Rice book). After that, I think I might return to reading King. Dreamcatcher should be very good.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Dead Zone is his best book ever no question.

For the record I Love King and absolutely LOATHED Dreamcatcher.


Abscynthe if you want old school Balls to the Wall King Read Desparation!!

[masterthes]

I admit, that book pleasantly suprised me, and yes, I really should read Dead Zone.

marks it down oh his to read list

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Dead Zone also has points for being the only movie to completely capture the book. Walken and Croneburg were both in top form.

Think about it every other King adaptions have flaws the sizes of Mac Trucks.

The Shining while a great movie and perfectly capturing King's "Corner of the Eye" style of horror.

But All Character depth is gone.

Cujo has John Carpenter doing his best horror movie stuff aside from The Fog, and Halloween.

But come on parts of it are just lame.

It great book Tim Curry is perfect.

But they totally mutilated the book.

Name me any other adaption and I'll name you the Mac Truck flaw.

[masterthes]

The Stand.

[Wiggum]

Pet Semetary, Carrie, Maximum Overdrive, Children of the Corn, Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemtion, Running Man, all of these seemed pretty decent to me.

[Wiggum]

Forgot,
Christine, The Green Mile....

[Wiggum]

Last ones,
Delores Clayborne(sp), Misery...

[Wiggum]

I swear I'm not spamming, I just keep remembering...
The Dark Half (one of my favs.)
Needful Things.

[Cogito]

OK, here goes.

I do not dislike King because his work isn't great literature, and most certainly not because he's made oodles of money off it.

Years ago, I used to read tons of his books, but I can't remember the names of them all. There were so many that after a while, they kinda ended up merging, and I couldn't tell them apart any longer. This makes them sound like a boring blamange, but I genuinely enjoyed them, and devoured them. His were the first scary books I ever read. I never really developed an appetite for horror novels, so I can say that it wasn't really just the horror aspect that appealed to me; there were other aspects of it, that made it enjoyable.

What made me dislike King for the first time, was a collection of short stories. I had never heard of short stories, and the book didn't really advertise the fact that it wasn't a "proper" book at all, but just a bunch of short stories, so I felt really cheated :)

What really bugged me about these short stories, were that they had no conclusion, no real meat -- they were just about build-ups.

They seemed to me, to be abandoned novels! I mean, I read the first short story, and I was giddy with anticipation about what would happen next, but then the story just ended. It wasn't a complete story at all. Today, I realize that this is probably unlikely -- but back then, I envisioned Stephen King as some complete bastard who just published his half-finished, abandoned stories to get some money.

Some books have stories that are so bizarre and crazy, that it really boggles the mind, that the author could pull it all together and make a coherent ending out of it all. It's kinda like a Scooby Do story where you know that at the end, there will be an explanation that proves that there really AREN'T any ghosts, it was all just bad guys tricking people -- but some of the ghost things just seem so implausible that you are just dying to figure out how the hoax really worked, kinda.

Well, King's short stories were like that -- except the bastard just gave up, AND THEN he published these abandoned stories as a collection of "short stories". I felt cheated, and quit buying his books.

Now, years later, I ran into a Stephen King fan, who managed to convince me to try his books again. So, I did. Well bugger me sideways, if I didn't run straight into another damn short-story collection again!

The first story was "The Langoliers(sp)," and it was excellent. The way he described the story from the perspective of the blind girl was brilliant, and reminded me of one of the really good things about King: he can write from a child's perspective, better than anyone.

But then of course, the story just ENDS. And they even made a TV movie out of it! It's an INCOMPLETE freaking story, people! It's crap. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't do anything, it's just crap. I have a feeling that King could drop acid and write random letters on a bar napkins, and producers would start a bidding war over who would get to make a freaking movie out of it.

And then there was THE SHINING. Stanley freakin' Kubrick makes a movie from your book -- I don't care if you have a barn full of Nobel and Pulitzer prizes buddy, if Kubrick makes a film from your book, there can be no greater honor.

And King didn't LIKE the movie. Krrrrrist! What is WRONG with that guy? King liked the TV mini-series version of The Shining much better. That is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Now, I decided at that point, to read The Shining for myself, to compare the book and the movies, just to be fair. Because books are an entirely different media of course, and translating it isn't easy, and Kubrick or no Kubrick, we all have different perspective on things. Books contain FAR more details than movies, for instance.

So I read the book, and I found that it was utter garbage compared to Kubrick's vision. The extra material in the book was just plain trash; unneccessary nonsense. It was just plain bad, cheap, transparent, predictable junk.

That was the second time I disliked King's work.

The third, was when watching The Green Mile. Apart from the unease I felt about the black guy being a stereotype "magic" character, the story was interesting, and there was some very good acting, so I enjoyed it. Until the black guy did some weird magic thingie and that special effect star-dust started flowing from his hands -- at that point, I just had this "uh-oh" experience, and I just said, "Oh crap, this is a freaking Stephen King story isn't it?!" and from that moment, I instantly KNEW all the rest of the story, because he's so damn predictable.

The fourth, and final moment of my realization that I dislike King's work came shortly after this.

I was really surprised that The Shawshank Redemption was based on one of his books -- it's just a good story, without any magic weirdness, space aliens, or freakin' ghosts. This made me draw a conclusion: Good movies can be made from his books, even if the books weren’t very good in the first place. I just didn’t know what the difference was between The Shawshank Redemption the book, and the movie. The movie benefited from Freedman and Robins, who are fantastic actors, admittedly, but I think it was a great film, and a great story.

Then I saw another great film based on King’s book, called Hearts in Atlantis. Again, a fantastic actor: Anthony Hopkins. But the story was really good – although it did have a fantasy aspect to it, of course. But that the CIA did research on paranormal phenomenon, is a historic fact, so it didn’t seem that far fetched that they would chase a man who had such “talents”. It was an excellent movie.

Then I learned something about the movie – or the book, rather. In the movie, the ones who chased Hopkins -- the “low men” -- were unspecified, unnamed government guys. But in the book, these “low men” were space aliens!

This NAILED my dislike for Stephen King right on the head. He is capable of spinning a really great tale, but then he utterly destroys it by throwing in some crazy element such as magic, ghosts, space aliens or what have you.

Stephen King is like a split personality: a master story teller, and also the story teller’s retarded brother, who acts nearly like South Park’s Timmy, except instead of just screaming “Timmeeeey!!” every now and then, screams “Space aliens!!” or “leprechauns!” and things like that.

He’s like a movie maker who ruins his flicks by always ending them with a car chase and a wild shoot-out.

That’s why I dislike Stephen King

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Kubrick Directed the Supernatural Part of the Book perfectly but in the book Jack was a good husband and a loving father who struggled with his inner demons. After he was over taken his love for Danny allowed him to reawaken and he attempted to destroy himself. In the movie Jack was ready to off his family in scene 2.

Thats why he didn't like Kubricks version. Now I love Kubrick I love the movie the Shining but Kubrick did drop the ball with the characters.

(cracks knuckles lets get down to business then)

Pet Sematary: You're shitting me right? Pet Semetary the book was creepy pyscholical and disturbing. The movie was totally slasher and boring.

Carrie: This is good but they added too much stuff to make it edgy and they softened quite a few of the edges.

The Stand: This is so bad I can't stand it. Flagg looks like Meat Loaf. Ringwald is awful its just badly bastardized.

Maximum Overdrive Children of the Corn: See Pet Semetary.

Shawshank, Stand By Me: Alright I forgot about these they're perfect too.

Running Man: This is fun but bears as much resemblance to Kings Book as a painted house cat.

Christine: Same thing with Cugo, Carpenter speaks King's Language he just screws up sometimes.

Dorles Clayborne: Never Saw or read the books flashbacks of the horrible Rose Madder kept coming back.

Misery: Kathy Bates is perfect. The movie is not.

Needful Things: Replace Kathy Bates With Max Von Syndow.

Dark Half: Hey you got your George Romero in my Stephen King. Hey you got your George Romero in my Stephen King. Two great tastes that should have tasted great together but instead just blew.

[masterthes]

Cogs, my solution to the short story stuff, I just don't read them, and now after what you said, I probably won't either. I'm just not a fan of the short story genre. The only exception was Hearts in Atlantis. Now about your Hearts in Atlantis argument, I think the first story will tie in to the Dark Tower saga. I think Stephen King does go too overboard with the supernatural because for the simple fact he makes gobs of money from it. I mean, I enjoy them, but maybe thats because I like the supernatural stuff. Personally, when reading Stephen King, that's what I expect. As far as The Shining, I agree with Evil Dead. Awesome movie, but the characters really blew the big one, except for Danny. Jack was brilliant, but he was ready to kill the family from the beginning, and the way Shelley Duvall portrayed Wendy, could you blame him? They almost did it right with that mini-series a few years back, except they redeemed Jack at the end. Ok, granted that in the book, Jack is somewhat redeemed, the monster though totally takes over.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Cogs To get the "space aliens" in Hearts of Alantis you have to be a King Fan.

They weren't space Aliens but the minions of the Crimson King (not to be confused with King Crimson:D ) The reason they were after Ted was because Ted was a breaker.

For Uber King Fans, this is a reference to his Dark Tower Saga we know the king is using the breakers for something. Either to get entrance to the tower or do something inside it. Hearts of Alantis was written for the King Fanatic, a little bit of meat to hold over the long wait until The Fifth Dark Tower book. However, for some fool reason the mainstream embraced the book and movie.

Hence people wondering what the aliens were all about.:eek

[masterthes]

Damn, November is such a long wait. I may just have to read through books 1-4 again. :lol

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Which do you think is the best of the bunch (cough Drawing of the Three cough) and how much do you want to bet they'll meet up with the characters from Eyes of the Dragon.

[masterthes]

Yeah, Drawing of the Three was a bit better than Waste Lands. I really enjoyed all of them (except for the first one). I have yet to read Eye of the Dragon, but I thought I remember hearing there were going to be tie ins to Salem's Lot in the next one.

[Wiggum]

First nice weekend of spring here, 65 degrees and sunny, couldn't sit infront of a computer (it was 5 below last Monday).
Cogs, not liking SK is far different than being the "Anti-King" fan, not liking him is fine but I've ran in to several people who seem to think he is the Bill Gates of the literary world, which confuses me. If your in a bookstore sometime soon, read the intro to Everythings Eventual (another collection of short stories), it may change your outlook a bit. I actually respect him for publishing these collections, he could make a ton more money by putting out a complete novel. And hey, if you don't want aliens or far fetched stories, King isn't going to be your bag.
EDJ - Movies like Pet Semetary, Maximum Overdrive, etc., are good for entertainment purposes. Scary movies on a dark night, they certainly ain't going to win any oscars but are a hell of a lot better than other horror movies that have been put out. I just have a soft spot for The Dark Half, not sure why.
The Drawing of the Three just barely beats out The Waste Lands, The Wizard and the Glass was the biggest disappointment of my reading life, thought it was a cop out.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

The books managed to be both though.

[masterthes]

Actually I rather liked Wizard and Glass, but not as good as the other books. Ok, here's how I rank them:
1. The Drawing of the Three
2. The Waste Lands
3. Wizard and Glass
4. The Gunslinger

[Wiggum]

The Wizard and the Glass was fine in and of itself, but as the sequel to The Waste Lands (that we waited for for years), it was a multi-year cop out. The Waste Lands ended with the group hurtling toward oblivion on Blain, The Walking Dude meeting Tick-Tock, and all this other great stuff. It was a awesome cliffhanger. Then several years later he picks the story up by giving us a tale of Roland's childhood? Please! I forgot how many years it was between WL and WatG, but it was far to long to give me a book that didn't continue the real story in any meaningful way. (shudders with forgotten anger). As a story it was fine, as the fourth Dark Tower book I thought it was somewhat of an insult.

[masterthes]

I thought the Wizard of Oz/Stand tie ins were pretty cool.

[Ranthium]

Eye of the Dragon was the first King novel I read. I thought it was excellent. Not what I expected from King at all. It was a really good fantasy novel. I then followed it up by reading It, which was also wonderful. My next King book was the girl who loved tom gordon, which was so-so at best. The last King book I read was Hearts in Atlantis, which I thought had potential when I started reading it, turned out to be a loose collection of short stories vaguely tied together. I wasn't that impressed with it. I was actually very disappointed that it didn't give more info about the whole alien thing.

Not sure if I'll read much more King.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

I repeat to everyone who hasn't (That means you Ranthium:D )


READ THE DEAD ZONE!!!!

[Ranthium]

I'll try to get to it after i finish everything else i have on my current reading list. Just for you. :D

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Thanks have a Guiness:beer

But not to much....

(Can you say St. Paddy's day hangover I sure as hell can)

[Arctic]

st. pathy dazed hampvwvr. hmm. nope i guess i can't. ;)

"And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting, on the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door, and his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming, and the lamp light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor, and my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor, shall be lifted...nevermore."

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Dear God yours must have been rough.

Velvet Underground and Nico and some good coffee fixed me off.

My own personal hangover remedy feel free to use it. You'd be suprised how well it works.

[masterthes]

Anywho, a new discussion to keep this thread going. As Stephen King fans, what do you hope to happen in the last three books of The Dark Tower and do you think that'll be it for King? One prediction that comes up from some fans is that Jack Sawyer might join the group. I think that would be very interesting to see.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

hmmm I'm not sure about that.

King seems to hint that Jack Sawyer comes from a different world then this dark tower. What if their was a second one (strokes chin) while I like Jack Sawyer and would love to see more of him some the things he does (moreso in Talisman then in Black House) Should be impossible.

[masterthes]

But Evil Dead, one of the point that the series makes IS the fact that there are more than one worlds in the series. Remember what Jake said in The Gunslinger, that there were other worlds than these? How else, in the 4th book, do they wind up in a place similar to when the events of The Stand takes place? People are guessing Father Callahan might make an appearance in the next book for that very same reason.

[Wiggum]

It seemed to me that King really linked the two worlds of the gunslinger and Sawyer in Black House. I'm running on the assumption that Jack is going to join the three and become a gunslinger himself. The Crimson King influenced Jack's world, both the normal and the territories, so I see no reason that Jack can't bridge the gap to Roland's. Also, if you read Black House, in Jack's visit to the territories to save the kid at the end, geographical features of Roland's world were described. I got a feeling Roland and Jack are not too far away from eachother.

[masterthes]

Some people even speculate that Roland might die before the end of the series and Jack will take over.

[Wiggum]

Blasphemers, all of them!
Think Henry (Black House) comes back?
What I really want to know is what is the realtionship between the walking dude and the crimson king. I suppose there are several worlds, but it still seems too small of an area for two devil incarnates to co-exist.

[masterthes]

Flagg is to Crimson King what Darth Vader is to the Emperor.

[Wiggum]

You sure? I didn't think Flagg took no man's orders.
He's a bad mother..
Shut your mouth!
I'm just talking about Flagg.

[masterthes]

I can dig it!

But seriously, I think you're right about Flagg, but I know ranking wise, he's directly below His Redness.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Originally posted by masterthes
But Evil Dead, one of the point that the series makes IS the fact that there are more than one worlds in the series. Remember what Jake said in The Gunslinger, that there were other worlds than these? How else, in the 4th book, do they wind up in a place similar to when the events of The Stand takes place? People are guessing Father Callahan might make an appearance in the next book for that very same reason.

Well yes but the other central idea of the series is that the Dark Tower connects every world.

Therefore Jacks ability to enter the tower so freely is strange.

(strokes soulpatch)

[Wiggum]

When the heck did Jack enter the Tower?

[masterthes]

I think Junkie is proibably going with the theory that the hotel Jack goes through at the end of The Talisman is the Dark Tower.

[Evil Dead Junkie]

That would be the one. They certaintly hinted at it quite a bit.

[masterthes]

I'm a pretty avid subscriber to that theory myself.

[Wiggum]

Hmmm...probably going to have to go back and reread the Talisman. I read it soon after it first came out. Long, long time ago.

[Bebop]

Some people even speculate that Roland might die before the end of the series and Jack will take over


He better not! If King kills off Roland i'll be hella pissed.