|
Given what you've said, I think you'll like NOS4A2. It has that flashback stuff and the King-like fantasy you talked about.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
kenny powerzzz posted:I've read pretty much everything King has published that I have been able to get my hands on including every novel, all but I'm sure the most recent or obscure short story, have read a few of the graphic novels and watched most of the movies. I loved almost all of it, even the stuff most people don't, I enjoy just to read the guys stuff. I learned of Joe Hills work about a year ago in this thread and read descriptions of his books and had no interest. I picked up "Horns" last week and devoured it. Are his other books as good? It reminded me at times of two different books. The parts set in current book time are great and kinda Kingesque like King fantasy and I like that. The flashback parts reminded me of the flash backs from "it" with a hint of "a prayer for Owen Meany" which I also liked if that makes sense. I guess what I'm asking is did those of you that read more than "Horns" like the other books or not? I have to keep reminding myself that NOS4A2 wasn't written by King himself, and Classic King at that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
I've started reading The Shining, having never watched the movie. Holy Moly, this book is creepy. Especially when you read it on a kindle late at night with all the lights off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
I read Joyland and I hated it, a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I've started reading The Shining, having never watched the movie. Holy Moly, this book is creepy. Especially when you read it on a kindle late at night with all the lights off. Which parts have you found creepy so far?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I've started reading The Shining, having never watched the movie. Holy Moly, this book is creepy. Especially when you read it on a kindle late at night with all the lights off. True story: "The Shining" is like the only fictional thing ever that really legitimately scared me. I read it when I was about 16 and I couldn't sleep for two days. Coupled with the movie it may be the most frightening experience I've ever had in my entire life. There's something about it that is just so genuinely jarring. I think it's the fact that it feels claustrophobic and limitless at the same time: that feeling of wandering around in a massive, cavernous estate and realizing you may turn the corner and run into some kind of monster at any given moment. There's also that coupled with the extra fear-factor of not being able to trust one's own parents as a young child. For the record (and don't crucify me guys), but I think the movie is better than the book (which I enjoyed as well, a whole lot). It conveys the monstrosity of the hotel in a way that is about ten times worse than the book. There is literally no sense of safety in the movie, even for one second. There's no respite from the horror as it comes nonstop and with startling frequency throughout the second half of the film. And Jack Nicholson is every bit as monstrous in his slow descent into demonic insanity- which is, ironically, why King doesn't really care for it too much; he felt the film was too cruel to the character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Slow descent? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
The hotel in which The Shining was shot, in Estes Park, Colorado, is beautiful and amazing and, in the dead of night, more than a little spooky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:For the record (and don't crucify me guys), but I think the movie is better than the book (which I enjoyed as well, a whole lot). It conveys the monstrosity of the hotel in a way that is about ten times worse than the book. There is literally no sense of safety in the movie, even for one second. There's no respite from the horror as it comes nonstop and with startling frequency throughout the second half of the film. And Jack Nicholson is every bit as monstrous in his slow descent into demonic insanity- which is, ironically, why King doesn't really care for it too much; he felt the film was too cruel to the character. I saw the movie after I read the book and hated it. Then the miniseries came out and I loved it because it followed the book, and back then I thought accuracy to the source material was the most important part of any adaptation. I was fourteen or fifteen, I think. Five or six years back I went on a Shining kick and watched both the movie and the miniseries again, and my opinions of them flipped. The miniseries, despite being closer, was pretty awful because of the limitations of mid-nineties broadcast television, but Kubrick's film holds up. The characters are poo poo, but they're meant to be. The book is about the family; the movie is about the Overlook, and Kubrick absolutely nails the atavistic horror of the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Which parts have you found creepy so far? I'm not very far into the book but the kid and his visions are pretty drat creepy. His "friend" Tony, who he can almost see, showing him these episodes where he is being chased through endless corridors by a monster with a mallet. I think Tony is weirding me out because his premise reminds me of your avatar. That drat movie traumatized me for a week as a kid. They all float down here...
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
I'm currently reading Mr.Mercedes and, while I'm not that far in I have to say it's enjoyable. It's not his best work, it's probably not even close to being his best but it's...something, it's entertaining it's interesting enough to keep you reading. But that's just my opinion
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
I just paid ten bucks to watch the movie adaptation of "Horns". What. A. Peice. Of. poo poo. They changed every little detail they could change assumingly just to be changing things. Acting was horrible too. As bad as any bad king adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Espequinn posted:I'm currently reading Mr.Mercedes and, while I'm not that far in I have to say it's enjoyable. It's not his best work, it's probably not even close to being his best but it's...something, it's entertaining it's interesting enough to keep you reading. But that's just my opinion Yeah, it's one of those that I found myself skim-reading, but at least I saw it through to the end. Passable, with some downright creepy bits that redeem the whole enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
I finally watched the "It" miniseries this weekend andkenny powerzzz posted:What. A. Peice. Of. poo poo. It had it's moments and I love the book. Tim Curry was great throughout and I thought the parts involving the children were pretty OK but overall it felt like exactly what it was: a made for TV miniseries with a modest budget. I didn't like it all and thought that the above average acting talent was wasted. Pretty cheesy and disappointing since I'd heard good things about it. And that ending had me laughing my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I finally watched the "It" miniseries this weekend and I agree 100%, I can't believe how this thing somehow made it to cult classic status. It's so cheaply made and barely edited. The plot is so straightforward as to be dull and predictable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
"It" fell down and tripped and died at the starting line of a marathon and Tim Curry picked it up and carried its dead rear end over the finish line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:"It" fell down and tripped and died at the starting line of a marathon and Tim Curry picked it up and carried its dead rear end over the finish line. Yeah, really cruddy. But I like it the way I like the film of Langoliers. Langoliers actually works in the TV format - not too many characters, engaging set up, imminent peril, clear narrative drive, great casting, etc. "It" really doesn't work - really formulaic editing (those flashbacks!!! ggrrr!!!) lack of logic in plotting (which wasn't the same in the book), rather wooden acting, too many characters, awful special effects. Yet I enjoy "It". Shameful but there you go. Curry turns in a great performance - ham with a whiff of cheese - or the other way round. E: But if anyone genuinely likes the TV Tommyknockers then they should hang their head in shame. E apology: wurdz are hard Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Dolores Claiborne is a good movie, though. Go watch that instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Yeah, really cruddy.... rather wooden acting... That's what got me more than anything. Harry Anderson, Annette O'Toole, Jon Ritter, Richard Thomas, Richard Masur and Dennis Christopher are hardly A-listers but I've seen them all turn in good work in some solid films. The script seemed OK enough so it's hard to blame it on that but gently caress that was some bad acting all the way around. O'Toole probably gave the best performance (aside from Curry, naturally). Seth Green and Tim Reid were pretty good. It felt like they only did one take for each scene (which may very well be the case). I don't know what sort of budget they had. This would make a good 2 - 2.5 hour feature film if someone went about it right. Get Guillermo del Toro, John Carpenter or maybe even Terry Gilliam to direct. Someone with the proper budget and the right sort of vision. Cast Willam Dafoe or Michael Shannon as Pennywise - or even let Curry do it again since that's the one thing they got right. Delores Claiborne is awesome, yes. I'm bed-ridden due to a bad back, in the Halloween mood and thought a four hour IT marathon would do me some good since I'd never seen it. SHIT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:That's what got me more than anything. Sorry you didn't like it. They learned their lesson by the time The Shining became a miniseries though. Check that out and report back to the thread; you'll be glad you did!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:Sorry you didn't like it. They learned their lesson by the time The Shining became a miniseries though. Check that out and report back to the thread; you'll be glad you did! When I was younger I liked the miniseries because there were things I actually perceived as "scary." Now that I understand things like psychological horror and what adult fear is, the Kubrick film is miles better. Recently wrapped up a re-read of Pet Sematary and goddamn does the scariness in that story change with age. I'm working on a third read-through of Doctor Sleep as I tend to miss the finer details on the first few reads. While I understand the need to stick to a tight narrative, I would have liked to see King write the first time Danny tries booze. With his character I would anticipate some incredible mental gymnastics to justify the first drink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:Sorry you didn't like it. They learned their lesson by the time The Shining became a miniseries though. Check that out and report back to the thread; you'll be glad you did! http://youtu.be/N100OVOXL7k That stupid kid's face is all you need to know about how watchable The Shining miniseries was. IT isn't great but it suffers a lot from being filmed in the 90's. Much like The Stand, it hasn't aged well. I just watched Ride the Bullet for the first time a couple days ago. Man, does that movie ever make those 3 series seem better by comparison. I haven't read the story so I never really got what the main character's deal was. Does he have schizophrenia or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Since we're on the subject of King and movies/miniseries, I found a good A.V. Club article about it. http://www.avclub.com/article/why-horror-stephen-kings-words-dont-translate-well-210403
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
The IT miniseries' first half is better than the second half, but as a whole it's pretty poo poo besides Tim Curry, yeah. Still though, it doesn't look nearly as poo poo as that Shining miniseries. I'm never gonna watch that, it looks like watching a porn parody of a film you like or something. Kubrick's Shining may not resemble the book much, but who cares it's probably the best horror film of all time so, yeah. It's funny how easily I can imagine Kubrick's version lasting the test of time, and someone watching it 100 years from now without it losing much at all, while the TV version is just absolute fodder that is already forgotten. If I were King I'd be a little more excited by the fact that one of the greatest filmmakers of all time took one of my stories as a jumping off point and was inspired to make a legitimate masterpiece that will last forever out of it, rather then holding a grudge about it. What do I know about the effort that goes into writing a novel though. Maybe I'd be pissed too, who knows. But it's loving Stanely Kubrick for gently caress's sake. Be happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I agree 100%, I can't believe how this thing somehow made it to cult classic status. If anyone else had been cast as Pennywise it wouldn't have. I agree that just about everything else was forgettable at best, but goddamn if Curry didn't nail that evil clown and carry the whole series with it. Also, fun fact: Apparently Curry always stayed in character whenever he was in costume. So imagine how terrible working on that must have been. Not only are you doing a low budget miniseries that you know is almost certainly going to be forgotten, but you've got to deal with Pennywise the Dancing Clown wandering around the set doing his best to freak people out. Stroth fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Yeah but if that just means he was walking around asking people if their refrigerator was running and then doing that "huh-HA! huh-HA! huh-HA!" laugh, imagine how awesome it would be working on that movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Damo posted:STANLEY KUBRICK Yeah, he shat hot liquid foulness all over King's work, but Stevie should have really just lapped it up with joy because it was expelled from the anus of the living god himself. That's a really good point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Yeah, he shat hot liquid foulness all over King's work, but Stevie should have really just lapped it up with joy because it was expelled from the anus of the living god himself. That's a really good point. He said with his mouth perpetually open, thumbs behind the straps of his denim overalls, bowl cut eerily calm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:He said with his mouth perpetually open, thumbs behind the straps of his denim overalls, bowl cut eerily calm.  Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Yeah, he shat hot liquid foulness all over King's work, but Stevie should have really just lapped it up with joy because it was expelled from the anus of the living god himself. That's a really good point. King is a good writer but when he's involved in any way with a screen adaptation it's pretty much guaranteed to suck horribly. Proof: Under the Dome, Desperation, The Shining miniseries. I could basically list them all but hopefully you get the point. Kubrick's The Shining is one of the very few that was good and that's because King wasn't involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I really have to disagree regarding the Shining. I do not like Kubrick's film at all. He's done several other films I like, but the Shining is absolutely not part of that group. I will, in all seriousness, marathon the miniseries before watching that film ever again. I'm not saying the miniseries is wonderful and amazing, though I much prefer Weber's Jack over Nicholson's, I'm saying I can't stand that film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I really have to disagree regarding the Shining. I do not like Kubrick's film at all. He's done several other films I like, but the Shining is absolutely not part of that group. I will, in all seriousness, marathon the miniseries before watching that film ever again. I'm not saying the miniseries is wonderful and amazing, though I much prefer Weber's Jack over Nicholson's, I'm saying I can't stand that film. I'm definitely being a bit hard on the miniseries. I have watched it twice and it's not all terrible. It's more faithful to the book and it did have a few reasonably creepy scenes. However, I don't think Weber was good at all. He's overall just a pretty mediocre actor. I cringed every time he tried to pull off the "Come take your medicine pup!" or whatever it was. It just sounded awful and unbelievable. Not even in the same ballpark as Nicholson. Also, Courtland loving Mead. That kid basically brought the whole series down a few notches. My favourite King involved miniseries was probably Storm of the Century. It's kind of funny because Tim Daly and Weber are both C List actors from Wings, yet Daly nailed his role in Storm of the Century and Weber sucked in The Shining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I really have to disagree regarding the Shining. I do not like Kubrick's film at all. He's done several other films I like, but the Shining is absolutely not part of that group. I will, in all seriousness, marathon the miniseries before watching that film ever again. I'm not saying the miniseries is wonderful and amazing, though I much prefer Weber's Jack over Nicholson's, I'm saying I can't stand that film. What didn't you like about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
coronatae posted:When I was younger I liked the miniseries because there were things I actually perceived as "scary." Now that I understand things like psychological horror and what adult fear is, I liked it a lot when I was 18. I haven't watched it since and honestly, I'm afraid to because I'm not sure how much cringing a body can take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Espequinn posted:I'm currently reading Mr.Mercedes and, while I'm not that far in I have to say it's enjoyable. It's not his best work, it's probably not even close to being his best but it's...something, it's entertaining it's interesting enough to keep you reading. But that's just my opinion I read Mr Mercedes and I feel the same way. That, along with a lot of his stand-alone books are great reads that I tend to blow through them in a few days. I haven't followed King's career chronologically, but it seems like he writes in two distinct styles. One is a rapid hard-hitting thrill ride like Cell, The Regulators, or the Running Man, and other more epic-type stories that have some crossover like It, The Wind Through the Keyhole, and Under the Dome. Then again, I started with The Stand, and I might just have become a fanboy that will read anything and call it miraculous. EDIT: I think King has done some amazing work, but he's also done a lot of mediocre work. I just wanted to make the point that I find even his "bad" stuff at least worth the discounted paperback price. With all the other authors out there, I think I just found something that keeps my attention and I'm scared to change. ChrisHansen fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
ChrisHansen posted:EDIT: I think King has done some amazing work, but he's also done a lot of mediocre work. I just wanted to make the point that I find even his "bad" stuff at least worth the discounted paperback price. With all the other authors out there, I think I just found something that keeps my attention and I'm scared to change. If you have time to kill you could do a lot worse than the "worst" Stephen King books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:If you have time to kill you could do a lot worse than the "worst" Stephen King books. Agreed, even the worst (Tommyknockers, Dreamcatcher) have a weird, "WTF will happen next" creepy vibe to them that usually doesn't let you down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I really have to disagree regarding the Shining. I do not like Kubrick's film at all. Same. The movie felt hollow compared to the book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Just finished under the dome, and to me that is the book where King really felt like an old man writing about new things he doesn't understand. Not just the way the children speak, but pretty much everything mass media or computer related. Stuff like the reason they shut down outside calls but not the internet or TV (because King only thought internet=email), or information flows, even at a small town, in the modern age. Stuff like: - Rennie being able to control information flows in his city even though they get the internet and satellite tv. - Julia going around having to literally "attach" her newspaper to lampposts to spread the info after her newspaper burns. Hell, having to burn the newspaper in the first place. - The hard copy of the Vader file and the envelope, and protecting the file by putting a laptop in a safe. - Most people inside not having information about people on the outside, enough that no one thinks about Dodie because she might be out, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Just finished under the dome, and to me that is the book where King really felt like an old man writing about new things he doesn't understand. Not just the way the children speak, but pretty much everything mass media or computer related. Stuff like the reason they shut down outside calls but not the internet or TV (because King only thought internet=email), or information flows, even at a small town, in the modern age. Stuff like: I'm an old so this all makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Big Jim smiled as the last of the townspeople filed in nervous. He was about to tell them he had shut down the internet so their little scheme had fallen apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:02
|
|