|
The Berzerker posted:I'm glad I did too but that doesn't mean I think it's good parenting to hand an 11 year old a book with a gross preteen sex scene in it, that's all I was saying. This is 100% the reason a 11/12 year old shouldn't read it. 14ish (mentally mature 14ish) is alright, but before that no way in hell.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Kingnothing posted:This is 100% the reason a 11/12 year old shouldn't read it. 14ish (mentally mature 14ish) is alright, but before that no way in hell. Plus the homoerotic lighting farts scene.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Don't forget the graphic description of the gay guys dick pressing through his leather pants in that one interlude near the start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Don't forget the graphic description of the gay guys dick pressing through his leather pants in that one interlude near the start. This thread has taught me that I've blocked out like 90% of the stuff in Stephen King books, glad to know I don't just have a lovely memory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Don't forget the graphic description of the gay guys dick pressing through his leather pants in that one interlude near the start. In that case I guess The Talisman is off the pre-teen reading list too then. Even though it's a great spooky adventure story with a wolfman who really likes Creedence 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Eh, there's a lot of weird sex related stuff in the book that could give a younger reader a bad impression. Which is too bad because other than that its a good young adult story. It was my first King book, when I was 12. My second was The Stand, at 13. YMMV. Lazarus Long posted:I do this too. I also think Pacino would make an excellent Ralph Roberts. Ralph Roberts screaming "LOOOOK BUT DON'T TOOOOUCH! TOOOUCH BUT DON'T TAAAASTE!" is a great mental image.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
This whole discussion is moot. Look, if you have a kid of whatever age that discovers King or Conrad or Faulkner or Hemmingway or any other author worth reading, they are going to encounter ideas and language and concepts outside of their comfort zone. Your job as a parent/teacher/responsible adult is to be ready to field the questions that will arise from that, not to decide what they are ready to read. If they have the vocab, let 'em rip! Not to say that I would intentionally put King in the path of a pre- teen, but if I saw my 11 year old nephew with a copy of Skeleton Crew, I'd stand by for some nightmares and a million questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
navyjack posted:This whole discussion is moot. Look, if you have a kid of whatever age that discovers King or Conrad or Faulkner or Hemmingway or any other author worth reading, they are going to encounter ideas and language and concepts outside of their comfort zone. Your job as a parent/teacher/responsible adult is to be ready to field the questions that will arise from that, not to decide what they are ready to read. If they have the vocab, let 'em rip! I intentionally recommend people "a cute book about bunnies" Watership Down all the time but yeah, let kids learn about Stephen King on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
I watched the IT miniseries when I was in early primary school and had nightmares about clowns for a good year or so afterwards. I only recently read the novel and I still found parts of it pretty terrifying. Fantastic novel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
So I'm reading NOS4A2 and at 1/3 through it's not bad. I'm enjoying it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
I too discovered King when I was around 11 or 12. I think the first two were Desperation and The Stand. I remember reading the part where they find a computer with a picture of Goofy's massive dick and it didn't stunt me, I just laughed and moved on. And look at what a fine human specimen I turned to be! edit: But for real, discovering Stephen King books that young is for sure what cemented my love of reading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
BlazinLow305 posted:I too discovered King when I was around 11 or 12. I think the first two were Desperation and The Stand. I remember reading the part where they find a computer with a picture of Goofy's massive dick and it didn't stunt me, I just laughed and moved on. And look at what a fine human specimen I turned to be! It was a screensaver. I remember reading that part and having trouble figuring out how that was important to the story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Of all the things to be upset about in IT I am kinda mystified that people would focus on the masturbation scene or the sex scene. Yeah those things are a bit uncomfortable to read through but its just sex for Christ's sake. Plenty of kids do in fact start experimenting at that age. It would seem to me that the descriptions of children haveing their arms and heads ripped off is a bigger deal than a bit of consensual preteen sex or a description of a handjob. If you're comfortable with a kid reading the first twelve pages of IT then I don't see why any of the sex stuff should be a deal breaker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Of all the things to be upset about in IT I am kinda mystified that people would focus on the masturbation scene or the sex scene. Yeah those things are a bit uncomfortable to read through but its just sex for Christ's sake. Plenty of kids do in fact start experimenting at that age. I can't speak for all parents, but for me, it has to do with what kids may try to emulate. 99.99% of kids aren't going to try to seriously yank someone's arm off, or take an axe to their neighbors, or imitate the hyper-violent stuff in any way. A lot of parents do try to teach their kids healthy boundaries for their own bodies, but I think it's easier to talk a kid into experimenting sexually than to talk them into physically harming someone else. Kids' curiosity is normal, and open discussion is a must, but here's my worry: take a kid who doesn't get enough real guidance, give them entertainment with the message "hey, 11-year-olds have full-blown intercourse, and it's a good thing". In my OPINION, it could make them more likely to either experiment in ways with their peers they are not ready for, or make it easier for an adult predator to take advantage of them. Movie/book/whatever violence usually shows negative consequences immediately - someone bleeds, or dies, or is in visible pain, and the person who commits the act is usually punished in some way. Sex is usually more of a pleasant reward in entertainment, with little to none of the real-life repercussions of too-young sex shown. Just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
17-year-old boyfriend: Is this your first time? You are my first. Beverly: Uhhh....
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Yo dude, it's not normal behavior for six 11 and 12 year old boys to gangbang an abused little girl in a sewer
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Looks like someone went to a boring middle school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
April posted:I think it's easier to talk a kid into experimenting sexually OH DO YOU I started Joyland, so far nothing is happening but I'm not bored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
The Berzerker posted:OH DO YOU That's... not a bad summary of most of the book actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend The Dead Zone? I just watched the movie and liked it a lot, so I'm assuming I'd like the book even more...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
The dead zone is a good book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
April posted:I can't speak for all parents, but for me, it has to do with what kids may try to emulate. 99.99% of kids aren't going to try to seriously yank someone's arm off, or take an axe to their neighbors, or imitate the hyper-violent stuff in any way. A lot of parents do try to teach their kids healthy boundaries for their own bodies, but I think it's easier to talk a kid into experimenting sexually than to talk them into physically harming someone else. Kids' curiosity is normal, and open discussion is a must, but here's my worry: take a kid who doesn't get enough real guidance, give them entertainment with the message "hey, 11-year-olds have full-blown intercourse, and it's a good thing". In my OPINION, it could make them more likely to either experiment in ways with their peers they are not ready for, or make it easier for an adult predator to take advantage of them. I completely understand why a parent wouldn't give their kid IT when they are only 11 years old given all the violence but I guess I don't really have the sense that the sex scene in IT would actually change a kid's attitude toward sex all that much. Especially given the rather fantastical context that its presented in. I also sorta disagree with your general point about violence. I think society tends to display violence as a legitimate way of getting what you want in many circumstances. Especially if your a man, in which case there are many situations where not acting out violently would be considered unmanly (bully going after you? Better hit him, if you go to an authority figure you're just a pussy. Someone get off with your girlfriend? You should deck them.) Even IT basically buys into the idea that we're all lonely individuals who can't expect any support except from our immediate circle of friends or companions. The only solution to the overwhelming problems of life is violent individualism. And the same idea shows up in pretty much all pop culture: Star Wars or Star Trek, any comic book, any western, any detective novel, etc. Its always the individual and their companions being forced to rely on their individual grit and their mastery of violence to solve social problems like crime. I guess this is kinda getting off topic though, so I won't belabour the point any more. Drunk Tomato posted:Yo dude, it's not normal behavior for six 11 and 12 year old boys to gangbang an abused little girl in a sewer Neither is journeying into the sewers to battle a demonic shape shifting spider-clown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
I had a thought yesterday that just about everything Stephen King wrote back in the day was him working through his drug problems. Most of his early stuff boils down to you can't overcome your problems alone, if you don't have support you won't make it. Also I'm pretty sure he was molested as a kid because   "I'm a poleethman".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Huh, I thought the Library Policeman was a Straub story. I must be thinking of some other horrific tale of child molestation. I read IT when I was 12, I think. It didn't make me want to participate in a gangbang, but it did give me horrible nightmares. The part with the leper in the empty house was the scariest thing ever to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Under the Dome adaptation question: Does anyone know why the gently caress did Barbie kill that dude in the pilot???!? There had better be a much cooler reason than, "He's a drug dealer now" or something equally distasteful; because in the book he was leaving town after allowing himself to take a beating from some dudes he could have killed handily if he weren't such a great guy. It's a change that turned me off big time unless there's a drat good reason for it. I hate the idea that it's a possible ongoing series and not a straight, awesome, 13-ep book adaptation. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Under the Dome adaptation question: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Under the Dome adaptation question: I have no idea about why Barbie would be disposing of a body if he's going to be a good guy like in the book. I was thinking maybe the dead guy died as a result of a dome caused accident, but that doesn't really hold up when I put more thought into it. Plus, there was the scene in the very beginning where he was reaching for his pistol when he thought the cops might pull him over. I agree, I also wish it was a straight up 13 episode miniseries, or even wish it had a definite plan to be only a set number of 13 episode seasons if it's going to be ongoing, with the max being 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Under the Dome adaptation question: The doctor he shot was actually a demon from another dimension and Barbie had to kill him because he was experimenting on all the children of Chester's Mill trying to give them psychic powers so he could use them to open a rift into his own dimension to allow an ancient god that looks like a beaver into our world to destroy it. Or at least that is my best guess after reading a few too many King novels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Lazarus Long posted:The doctor he shot was actually a demon from another dimension and Barbie had to kill him because he was experimenting on all the children of Chester's Mill trying to give them psychic powers so he could use them to open a rift into his own dimension to allow an ancient god that looks like a beaver into our world to destroy it. I think it's sad how plausible that explanation is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Stephen King on changes made to the original story in Under The Dome TV
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Sigh. Ok. All I can say about this is: If I knew it was a faithful rendition of the source material (sorta like the ok and very faithful TV adaptation of The Shining, then I'd be stoked no matter how bad Bag of Bones turned out to be. Since it's a whole new animal, I'll just give it a chance to come to a boil and then either stick with it or remove it from my To Do list. I respect King's decision, as it's his to make. At least this might help cut off the whole "adaptation chat in a TVIV thread" problem we always have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I was really hoping for a finite miniseries, but if it keeps up in the ratings they're going to have to extend it. I was a bit bummed out by the first episode because I kept getting everyone confused and it seemed like they crammed too much stuff in. I listened to the entire audiobook in 3 days of travel and I hated Big Jim more than I've ever hated a character in a book, partially because of the voice he gave him. That's the biggest disappointment so far for me, but I have hope that the broken DEA guy will get better with time. At least that link says they changed the (ending book spoilers) dome's origin from the alien XBOX which I thought was dumb as poo poo to something else. I think such an integral part of his stories is the characterization and that's really hard to do visually. With Joyland, I enjoyed the people and didn't care at all what happened in the story. He's the only author that I usually feel that way with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah its bizare how the movie joylessly reproduces so many scenes from the book without even attempting to capture the actual feel of the book. Every scene that doesn't have Tim Curry in it feels like its completely function and just designed to move the narrative to the next monster scene. Also I couldn't believe how bad the actual cintematography and camera work were: so dull and flat and uninspired. When I was a kid I used to really love the IT miniseries, but only up to the end of the first half. The second is just kind of...depressing, really. It turns what should be a chilling final confrontation into a bit of a downer. And don't get me started on the spider. I'm not exactly bemoaning the loss of the gangbang scene, but the way they handle the ending in the TV version is such a let down in every respect. The last time I saw it I had a nightmare about Belch getting sucked into the pipe, and that white light shooting down the sewer tunnel. I think that's the only part I still find disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Sigh. Ok. I just find it weird that the same guy who made a Shining miniseries mainly so he could make a more faithful adaption than Kubrick's movie version is so cool with changes now. I do hope they stick with King's small town characters being petty assholes to each other under difficult circumstances vibe in this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
savinhill posted:I just find it weird that the same guy who made a Shining miniseries mainly so he could make a more faithful adaption than Kubrick's movie version is so cool with changes now. I do hope they stick with King's small town characters being petty assholes to each other under difficult circumstances vibe in this. Yes, this. And Carrie, too. Yes, some were horrible; but I've always laughed at the way social mores mean we can have all the violence of the original book material on TV (not even in the old R Rater movies) but even the worst recent adaptations have been so much truer to the events in the books. (Spoilered) examples: Misery: The hobbling scene: In the book, a sledgehammer and a block of wood. In the movie, a block of wood, a hatchet, a bottle of iodine, and a blowtorch!! No TV adaptation yet. The Shining: Everything. Decent acting (although I hated the kid who played little Danny), faithful to the book, but the Kubrick version is a Kubrick movie so I'm torn.) Storm of the Century: Can't comment, because I never read the screenplay and I saw the ending coming miles away, and thought the entire premise was stupid and rehashed from Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery." Carrie: Well, it was really faithful to the book and Carrie's rampage through town was awesome, but it was co clearly "made for TV" budget-wise I've forgotten everything about it. Bag of Bones: Just did not work for me. Wasn't that faithful to the book, couldn't buy the acting. Took a book I really liked and made it seem incredible stupid (YMMV). The Stand: Don't get me started. Aw gently caress it, I could go on but suffice to say I find it weird that in an era where you can show the most amazing gore on network TV or cable that they chose to abandon the book, which was a refreshing surprise from King (I mean the book was, source of the Dome subject to debate); and now this TV thing. WTF is this TV thing? Why even call it Under the Dome? Call it Trapped and just say, "Based on Stephen King's Under The Dome" and then I wouldn't have had any expectations. I'll go by my regular TV rules. I'll forget the source material and just watch it like a serial drama and if it sucks, I'll find more time to get caught up on other great series I have missed. Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Castle Radium posted:The last time I saw it I had a nightmare about Belch getting sucked into the pipe, and that white light shooting down the sewer tunnel. I think that's the only part I still find disturbing. That's definitely the only part that still creeps me out to watch, because he bends and squishes up so drat weird. My parents had the miniseries taped from TV as a kid, and there was some movie I liked on the same tape (after IT), so I always had to fast forward past IT to watch the movie I liked. Scared the hell out of me but eventually I was able to remember the counter-clicker number on the VCR of when it was safe to press play. I do remember watching it when I was around 12 and the scene in the shower with Eddie (or Bev in her washroom) scared the hell out of me and made me scared of drains for a long time. Now it's hilarious to see, especially the claymation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
My 32 year old sister in law refuses to walk within 5 ft of storm drains or whatever the holes in sidewalks are because of pennywise. And I don't blame her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:(Spoilered) examples: Other way around. The movie also leaves out the special candle, the lawnmower, and Paul's final vision of Annie, but it works. I think that the kind of over-the-top gore that reads as scary in a book, becomes silly and distracting when it's played straight on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
RoeCocoa posted:Other way around. The movie also leaves out the special candle, the lawnmower, and Paul's final vision of Annie, but it works. I think that the kind of over-the-top gore that reads as scary in a book, becomes silly and distracting when it's played straight on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:06 |
|
savinhill posted:I just find it weird that the same guy who made a Shining miniseries mainly so he could make a more faithful adaption than Kubrick's movie version is so cool with changes now. I do hope they stick with King's small town characters being petty assholes to each other under difficult circumstances vibe in this. I really liked the pilot of the TV series, so I started reading Under The Dome this week. I'm only about a third of the way into it and I really, really don't like most of what I am reading. A lot of it just seems sort of unnecessary - people being absolutely horrible to each other for no discernible reason. Even the absolute, seething hatred many characters have for Barbie makes little to no sense. I like some of the characters, but the multitude of villains seem to have no motivation other than "let's be terrible people because dome", and I find myself reading whole chapters like the whole rape aftermath that I really wish I hadn't read, because they change the tone of the story so drastically. Also there's certain details like Junior's brain tumor that are flat-out told to the reader in narration, and would be more interesting if left something of a mystery. Also King's complete misunderstanding of the internet "let's augment the wifi - we'll have the fastest internet in the world!" ruins whole parts of the book. I'm definitely going to finish reading this, because I liked the first 20% so much, but man I am so glad the tv show is changing the story. Otherwise it would just be a dark, misanthropic, seemingly pointless and depressing show.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:13
|
|