|
The main negative of the fireman for me is as I said, predictable. Harper's husband seems like an rear end in a top hat, and is. The Bright will become a dictatorial group, and it does. Martha's landing seems like it will be a trap, and is. Halfway through NOS4A2 and it is quite a bit better, but also remarkably like Dr. Sleep. Like, at some point I almost got Vic and Abra confused. Edit: sorry joepinetree fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Oct 8, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Your spoiler tags need fixin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
So on the second attempt (the first aborted in the beginning of A Song of Susannah) I finally finished the dark tower, I actually thought that the very ending of which King was seemingly so apologetic was great but it's really the way the Crimson King and Mordred go down like complete wusses that kind of disappointed me. The worst thing about all the meta stuff is that it's really pretty uncalled for, it's not set up in any way in the earlier books and kind of makes everything feel a lot smaller, I always feel fantasy settings rarely benefit from any sort of fourth-wall-breaking, I want to be immersed in the fake world, not be reminded of its fakeness. I think that the whole Flagg\Walter retconning is probably what sticks out the most though because it's really so unnecessary and Flagg in The Stand is characterized so differently from Walter and seems to have such a different purpose it really felt out of place for them to be the same guy; Walter is this chatty sneaky guy who creeps everybody out by being super eccentric and pulling off the odd evil voodoo, Flagg is pretty much a demon or a force of nature, I really didn't feel those characters were in any way alike. I also to this point don't really understand if Walter died or not at the end of the first book, what was that all about? Now I know I've only complained so far but I genuinely enjoyed the whole journey, there are certainly some great parts even in the last three book, I guess it's a common complaint but it's just a shame it didn't maintain the tone of the first books. Edit: Oh the worst thing about the entire book series is Eddie going "Nineteen" every other sentence during Wolves, when he keeps interrupting Callahan's story to count letters and poo poo, that's seriously the worst. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
DT spoilers ahead, un-tagged, so please don't read if you're worried about avoiding the parts of the series that get talked about so much here: I very much agree with the stuff emanresu tnuocca said about Flagg and Mordred, and really; even the Crimson King was difficult to adjust to. I'm not sure I understand that, but I've only read it once (and for me, that's the worst indictment of a King work, as I usually read them over and over.) That said, I've lost count of how many times in this very thread I've said this about the author self-insert and I still feel that way now (although maybe when I re-read it eventually I'll change my mind.) The author self-insert was a minefield. Maybe I had low expectations because I couldn't imagine it being good. Perhaps that explains my literally visceral response to the meeting of Roland and King in the book. It was like this: Roland hypnotizes King with the ole' bullet trick. King suddenly goes out like a possessed person and begins speaking almost in tongues. About Gan and his plan. I am 100% serious that at that moment the hairs on my arms stood up as I broke out in goose-bumps. I was shocked by how effective it was for me. From that moment I was on King's side and supported that decision, as weird as it was and as fraught with danger as it was. I was on board. I've said it before many times in this thread, I repeat it for (I hope) a new audience. While on the topic I also have no problem with the brief interlude in which King informs the reader they can stop here or read on. It seemed fair. I chose to read on and found Roland's trip up the tower to be fascinating and tragic, especially in the way its conclusion un-manned him in a way we'd never seen. The sheer horror of it. Topping it off with the Browning poem was something I'd considered but as I hadn't read it before, I hadn't known how important it was as King's inspiration. The way the cycles lead to the poem was, I thought, truly wonderful. I still think books five and six could have been much better, but I'm not a writer and can only take criticism so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
A trailer for The Dark Tower has leaked. It's obviously not the final cut, due to all the unfinished effects. http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/10/13228720/the-dark-tower-trailer-leak I was exited for Elba as Roland, but I'm not really feeling this particular trailer. It just looks like a generic action movie at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
It reminds me of Last Action Hero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Read the first 4 dark tower books years ago before the last 3 were published. Not sure why I've waited this long but now am ready to go through all of them, and especially want to get through them before the movies come out. I would like to enjoy the full experience in terms of Stephen King's world and all of his tie-ins so want to read the necessary associated books. I've read IT, The Long Walk, The Eyes of the Dragon, The Shining, Dr. Sleep, 11/22/63, and Needful Things. I know primarily Eyes of the Dragon is the primary one with the tie in and the others aren't exactly related (as far as I know). Just ordered Salem's Lot, and definitely want to read The Talisman and Black House. I haven't read The Stand but know the story from the TV movie and that Flagg is the antagonist. I don't know if I'd have time to fit it in now and get through everything else however. Same thing with Insomnia because I believe it's a long rear end book too. I'm sure this suggested reading order has been posted here before. What are the thoughts on it? What books should I definitely include to make the overall experience cooler, which could I leave out? What about the order? I kind of like the idea of interspersing some in the middle of the overall series, or does it even matter? I'm a big King fan so I will read them all eventually, just want to get as much as I can realistically before February. I'm a fairly fast reader and I know The Wastelands and Wizard and Glass were awesome and I'll fly through them. Thanks for any input!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:A trailer for The Dark Tower has leaked. It's obviously not the final cut, due to all the unfinished effects. New mirror: https://vimeo.com/186301245
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Canuckistan posted:New mirror: That one's gone too. http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/10/the-dark-tower-trailer-accidentally-released-online/
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
nosleep posted:
I think the list is alright, but maybe a little bloated. I guess they took every single book with any bearing on the DT series and ranked them. That's fine, but not at all necessary if you're just looking to catch up on the series. Books like The Regulators and Desperation don't really add anything to the story other than maaaaaybe a little perspective on how the big baddie operates. And also using poop as a psychological weapon. The Talisman and Black House also don't really impact the DT story at all but give a little bit of world building for different levels of the Tower. I read Bag of Bones 10-15 years ago and don't remember any connection to the DT series, so I'm guessing its impact is minimal. We talked about Insomnia a page or two ago but basically it seems skippable, though I personally do think it's a pretty decent book that gets poo poo on a lot. If you're talking specifically about their bearing on the DT series then I'd say The Stand and Eyes of the Dragon really only serve to show off Flagg as villain. The Stand does have some other connections and certainly more redeeming qualities than EotD (which is still perfectly fine and enjoyable in its own right) though. I'd say the short stories are all pretty good and can be read whenever, but I'd recommend getting through them in between the first 4 books. Only real exception I'd make is for Hearts in Atlantis since it fits in really well before Song of Susannah and The Dark Tower. If you want to read absolutely everything Tower related then I guess that list is fine, but if I had it all to do over again I think I'd just read all seven DT books first then all other related books/stories since a lot of the fun is in recognizing the different connections and characters (Flagg is loving everywhere). edit: That trailer really doesn't inspire much confidence. I get that it's pretty early and unfinished, but it looks like they completely rewrote Jake's story. And not really for the better as far as I can tell. Inspector 34 fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Nothing outside of the Dark Tower books proper is essential. It's just fun to see them tie together a tiny bit. Keyhole was a nice chaser for DT I-VII coming a decade after the fact. Books like Eyes of the Dragon and The Stand should be enjoyed on their own merits and if you kind of want to weave the Flagg mythos together good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Inspector 34 posted:
Yeah I dunno about it. It'll be interesting, at least, just to see what they do with it. but as king adaptations go, it can't be worse than under the dome, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Basically it looks to me like they're taking Jake's bit from The Wastelands and moving it to the start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
It reminds me of The Neverending Story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
With bits of "The Avengers" thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
I'm fine with the story being different but Jake's repeated deaths and the whole split existence thing are some of the best parts of the books. I agree that the trailer didn't look great but I still hope it will be an exciting pseudo-sequel to the novels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Looks like that mirror is down as well so I can't go back and watch, but did anybody happen to notice if he had the horn in any of those scenes? Roland's clothes are also far too bright and shiny too, not like he's been on this quest for nearly his entire life. While I'm a little disappointed in the trailer I'm definitely still looking forward to seeing this and also for Wizard and Glass to be adapted for TV. With Elba as grown up Roland, I wonder who they'll end up casting for young Roland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Jaden Smith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
hyper from Pixie Sticks posted:Been a while since I read it, but was there not a hint at the end that the car was still out there, killing folk? Ooops, yes. I forgot that. Christine should be moved. I agree that The Mist is not evil per se, it is a supernatural disaster story. Re Salem's Lot TV versions. I really loved the 1970s one and haven't seen the other. Not sure how it would hold up as I haven't seen it in 20 or 25 years. The Stand is definitely a religious apocalypse story. King called it a tale of "dark Christianity" in his introduction. Re the death of Adrian Mellon in It, that was based on a real incident that happened. Remind me, did that happen in Bangor? Much of the stuff in It is based on reality - the statue, standpipe, the barrens, etc are real places. I was convinced for decades that the League of White Decency was real. Only searching on the internet only brought up King refs so then I guessed it was made up. It isn't my favourite book by a long way but how King blends real and unreal and factual and celebrated stories into the story is really good. The narrative structure used to bug me but I don't mind that so much now. I agree Stan feels like a bit of a thin character. I always thought Stan and Eddie could be combined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
It was based on the murder of Charlie Howard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:It was based on the murder of Charlie Howard. Thanks but...wow...that is super depressing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:Jaden Smith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Thanks but...wow...that is super depressing. It's actually one of my favourite passages in IT. It probably didn't hit me until I listened to the audiobook but King is empathetic and angry at the same time. He treats the deceased and his partner with sympathy and generally doesn't fall into any misguided gay panic stuff that was prevalent in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:It's actually one of my favourite passages in IT. It probably didn't hit me until I listened to the audiobook but King is empathetic and angry at the same time. He treats the deceased and his partner with sympathy and generally doesn't fall into any misguided gay panic stuff that was prevalent in the 80s. It was a really nice obit for all the gay dudes that got murdered in real life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Yes, I think King has got some stick itt for social attitudes about gays in his early writing. Personally, I've not seen that as a big thing. A lot of his characters say slurs about gays but that was very common in the 70s and early 80s and some of those characters are not paragons. The only overtly negative mentions of gays in the early books are references to gay pedophile murderers (Hubie Marston? can anyone name others?). But King has portrayed evil in all its forms and I don't see why he should avoid gay murderers. I think there were a number of famous ones in the 1970s. By and large I think King has been ahead of the curve regarding portraying gay characters in a neutral/favourable light and the Adrian Mellon incident is really powerfully and sympathetically described.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
1986 is pretty far ahead of the curve for a positive depiction of gay characters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Idris Elba's coat in that trailer is pretty sweet, buy I always pictured Roland in a more western-style non-leather ranch coat with those big shoulder flaps, ripped and sloppily repaired and with tons of ground-in dirt. He's supposedly lived in it for years and I don't think he carries a leather-polishing kit with him, does he?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Idris Elba's coat in that trailer is pretty sweet, buy I always pictured Roland in a more western-style non-leather ranch coat with those big shoulder flaps, ripped and sloppily repaired and with tons of ground-in dirt. He's supposedly lived in it for years and I don't think he carries a leather-polishing kit with him, does he? That sounds about right but this is the second time around for Roland. He's a black dude who (and this is a huge stereotype I know) cares about his clothes and taking care of them because other than the sandalwood gripped big steel that's all he has to his name besides bad memories. And yes I'm basing this stereotype on a dude's stand up routine about wearing shoes in the house because his mom didn't clean the floors so he wouldn't wear white socks on them. Disgraceful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:1986 is pretty far ahead of the curve for a positive depiction of gay characters. In Maine, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:That sounds about right but this is the second time around for Roland. He's a black dude who (and this is a huge stereotype I know) cares about his clothes and taking care of them because other than the sandalwood gripped big steel that's all he has to his name besides bad memories. Yes, that is a pretty huge stereotype, and he's playing Roland, not Idris, but hopefully throughout the course of the movie the coat will become more hosed up for veracity. Didn't he also sleep in it sometimes? That leather coat would not be very warm on a cold desert night, it's too thin and narrow A good look for Idris but not for Roland.. Just out of curiosity, I didn't see the trailer, only the stills - was there any evidence of his missing fingers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:In Maine, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Anywhere really. It was released 12 years before Matthew Shepard was murdered, and the reality of anti-gay violence really sunk in for people living in the mainstream. The original murder likely occurred as King was writing the book, so it was probably his immediate reaction to it. But yeah Matthew Shepard was a pretty big wake up call.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The original murder likely occurred as King was writing the book, so it was probably his immediate reaction to it. But yeah Matthew Shepard was a pretty big wake up call.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The original murder likely occurred as King was writing the book, so it was probably his immediate reaction to it. But yeah Matthew Shepard was a pretty big wake up call. Not that it matters much at this point (and in this context, because King wouldn't have known this), but Shepard wasn't brutalized and killed because he was gay. It was a drug dispute. One of his attackers had previously been caught in a homosexual tryst by the local cops. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Just out of curiosity, I didn't see the trailer, only the stills - was there any evidence of his missing fingers? There were multiple shots of his duel wielding and doing all kinds of Equilibrium "Gun-Kata" (Gun Ka-Tet?) poo poo, so unless he has a run in with the Lobstrosities later into the film it looks like he has all his digits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
It's that time of year. I live in the city with several bricks and mortar stores selling DVDs. One had a whole selection of King films in the horror spread. I skipped Firestarter (£5), It (£5) and Pet Semetary (£5) but picked up Salem's Lot (1970s TV mini series, £5) and Dead Zone (£3 yay!). E: No, special features on the SL disc but DZ has commentary from Stephen Jones and Kim Newman. E2: Has King ever done a DVD commentary? Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
He did one for Cujo that's only included in the Criterion Edition. He does it in character from the perspective of Cujo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:E2: Has King ever done a DVD commentary? He did for The Stand. It wasn't that interesting and his delivery was stilted as hell. Miguel Ferrer and Jamey Sheridan, on the other hand, were a hoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Okay. Thanks for those. Didn't expect either answer. I watched Salem's Lot and Dead Zone. SL: 1970s TV movie, 184min, mono sound. It looked and sounded pretty good. Warner, R2 (?) transfer is nice. A decent budget, practical effects, a couple of big name actors (David Soul, James Mason) and a suitable location all added up to an enjoyable foundation. The script is obviously condensed. The doctor is now Susan's father and a lot of the minor characters are good. Larry Crockett gets his comeuppance a good deal earlier than in the book. Overall, the plot is close to the novel, though the action is compressed. The epilogue is slightly different but not jarring. The actors do a decent job though this Susan isn't the Susan I pictured reading the novel. The atmosphere is just right and the effects hold well in the main. Scary? Hmmm, not really. But there are definitely 2 or 3 creepy moments in the two episodes. Overall: 3/4. Definitely worth seeing if you haven't already and if you have fond memories of it then you won't be let down. DZ: 103min movie. Christopher Walken as Johnny and Martin Sheen as Stillson, both on top form. Strong adaptation, relatively close to the novel. A lot of scenes and plotlines (such as the fairground and Mrs Smith's religious mania) are either cut to the bone or dropped completely. It stays close to the spirit of the novel though obviously we lose a lot of Johnny's story with time restrictions. Johnny's final condition is discussed outright in advance (with the doctor as a confidante) which differs from the book but obviously makes Johnny's motivation clearer. There are a few alteration to the final scene to bring a resolution to the love story, which I can't begrudge. No epilogue because everything is cleared up before the climax. Good cast, atmospheric, some chills and shocks though not actually frightening. Strong recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Salem's Lot I would guess to a first time viewer is not that scary at all. I just can't watch it now without connecting it to my first time watch as a kid in 1979. Fear through nostalgia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
