The Langoliers... Why oh why oh why?

[biglime]

I say King's like a modern day Dickens.

You say "I don't think so."

That's an argument?

I explain why their careers are comparable.

You say he writes pulp horror. When he often doesn't write horror AT ALL.

That's an argument?

You bring up Mary Shelley. Another writer you've maybe heard of. Someone not relevant to this argument.

That's an argument?

What are you? 18? Have a wank.

R.

[CrispinG]

Mary Shelley is another writer who was dismissed for Frankenstein as peddling mainstream pulp, and is now considered one of the classic authors. How is that irrelevant? And 'often doesn't write horror at all'? His entire fucking career is horror - he's written maybe a handful of short stories and novellas that could be considered drama, but if you're actually trying to suggest that a good percentage of his back catalogue is non-horror, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

What are you, a smug cunt? Go and hang yourself.

[biglime]

Ok, my evidence for calling him arrogant was lacking. (My main gripe was his dislike for Kubrick's film) - Even so, I don't rate King that highly. What I've read has been very inconsistent and when it hits a low, it's almost as bad as, say, Kill Bill vol:2 (and that's VERY bad, in case you were wondering). Meanwhile the films I have seen have also been very hit and miss, most of them start promisingly but degenerate into utter bollocks. The last half-convincing ending was the story about the stranger on the island - although you have to ask why he bothered killing people etc. when he could've just kidnapped the baby from the start - like a lot of King's work, it makes no sense. Over-contrived nonsense.

He's written some stinkers, Stu, no doubt.

The Dark Half is fucking awful. The Tommyknockers is dire. And Dreamcatcher is atrocious.

But there's stuff like Bag of Bones, and Hearts in Atlantis. Neither of which are 'pulp horror'.

There's The Stand, which is a fucking masterpiece.

And there's The Dark Tower stuff, which is increasingly spectacular.

He's a commercial writer. He writes to be read. It means there's sometimes misfires. But there is magic there too. Mainly magic.

Give one of the above a try.

R.

[biglime]

Mary Shelley is another writer who was dismissed for Frankenstein as peddling mainstream pulp, and is now considered one of the classic authors. How is that irrelevant? And 'often doesn't write horror at all'? His entire fucking career is horror - he's written maybe a handful of short stories and novellas that could be considered drama, but if you're actually trying to suggest that a good percentage of his back catalogue is non-horror, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

What are you, a smug cunt? Go and hang yourself.

Hearts in Atlantis is non-horror.

All 7 Dark Tower novels are non-horror.

Dolores Claiborne is non-horror.

Fucking Misery is a thriller.

The Eyes of The Dragon is a KIDS BOOK.

Need I go on.

Be informed before you shoot your mouth, kid.

R.

[CrispinG]

Misery is a horror, in exactly the same way as (and it is in fact very similar to) Audition. It's a man imprisoned in a woman's home, who lops his foot off and tortures him for months. It's written to horrify you.

Dark Tower is one series. Dolores Claiborne, Hearts In Atlantis and Eyes of the Dragon. That's four. In a career spanning, what? Thirty years? I'm convinced.

[biglime]

Even the TV movie 'The Stand' was pretty good.

And credit where it's due, it had a good ending.

Unfortunately it was also a bunch of religious crap.

And cheers for the recommendations: I'll may get round to reading one of those in a few weeks time.

Another tip, Stu.

A major reason why Stephen King fans are...well...FANS, is because he's managed to work all his books into one large mythos structure.

IT, Salems Lot, The Dead Zone, The Dark Tower, The Stand, Insomnia, Hearts in Atlantis, The Regulators, Desperation, Bag of Bones, The Talisman....

All these books and more tie into one overarching story set in one world. It's something he's carried off with a lot of subtlety, but now as he's finishing his last few books, the ends are tying up.

Its clever, and a lot of fans love him for it. It's like rewarding long-time readers.

So be careful what you read first. The Stand's a great starting point.

R.

[biglime]

Misery is a horror, in exactly the same way as (and it is in fact very similar to) Audition. It's a man imprisoned in a woman's home, who lops his foot off and tortures him for months. It's written to horrify you.

Dark Tower is one series. Dolores Claiborne, Hearts In Atlantis and Eyes of the Dragon. That's four. In a career spanning, what? Thirty years? I'm convinced.

I could actually give you more examples.

But you have a narrow view of what horror writing is, if a moment of horrific violence within a thriller is enough to make it shift genre.

Stephen King does not just write horro. This is fact. There's no argument here, son. You can't win it. Neither can I. We're fighting over a fact.

If you don't like him, that's fine. But be accurate.

R.

[CrispinG]

I didn't say he just writes horror. I said the vast majority of his career is horror. Neither did I say I don't like him. I said he's not a Dickens for our age. His books are usually bloated and over descriptive, but they're entertaining enough.

[biglime]

His entire fucking career is horror

if you're actually trying to suggest that a good percentage of his back catalogue is non-horror, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

A good percentage is not horror.

Maybe I'm not as much of an idiot as you thought.

Nice backtracking, though.

R.

[AndyB]

Other class King books

Geralds Game - the scene with the glass of water is tension personified

The Girl who loved Tom Gordon - quite simply a really good story

[Despin]

Hey there.

"my evidence for calling him arrogant was lacking. (My main gripe was his dislike for Kubrick's film)"

A little story for you from Frank Darabont (who also thought The Shining was a piss poor adaption of the book.

Steven King finds out Kubrick has purchased the rights to The Shining. King loves movies and loves Kubrick and is real excited to meet and talk about the movie... But he never hears anything from Kubrick. Not a word for weeks. The script is in its final rewrites and getting ready to go into production and still King doesn't hear a thing from Kubric... Then one day at about 3 in the morning Kings phone rings. His wife answers. She turns and tells King "It's Stanley Kubrick. He's calling from England. King jumps out of bed exited as hell to talk to the guy. He takes the phone and say "hello Stanley? It's Steven here." Stanley Kubrick says five words to him "do you believe in God?" King says "why yes. I do believe in..." The phone goes dead. Kubrick had hanged up on him. King never heard from Kubrick again until the movie was finished....

To me it sounds like Kubrick is the arrogant wanker.

Despin out.

[Vemsie]

King is a good enough writer, but Kubrick is a real artist. One of the best directors that has ever lived. That's what seperates them.

[Professor Puzzles]

Still doesn't stop Kubrick from sounding like an arrogant wanker (as Despin said.)

[Vemsie]

Still doesn't stop Kubrick from sounding like an arrogant wanker (as Despin said.)

Kubrick was a genius. They act, you know, differently.

That said, from what I've read and seen about him I can't say he came across as arrogant.

[linkster]

Kubrick was a genius. They act, you know, differently.

That said, from what I've read and seen about him I can't say he came across as arrogant.

Well, he certainly couldn't communicate easily. I've heard Spielberg say Kubrick would call him and stay on the phone for hours and when he'd basically "exhausted everything that I knew" on whatever aspect of film making he wanted to discuss he'd just say "ok, bye" and hang up. Maybe not arrogant, but certainly single minded.

[AndyB]

King is a good enough writer, but Kubrick is a real artist. One of the best directors that has ever lived. That's what seperates them.

Different disiplines though.

I bet Kubrick couldn't have written a book as well as King and vice versa.

[biglime]

King is a good enough writer, but Kubrick is a real artist. One of the best directors that has ever lived. That's what seperates them.

One of the best directors that ever lived, yes.

But he made some absolute stinkers. And there is no heart in his films either. That's why King and Kubrick's vision couldn't match. The Shining was about the destruction of a family unit. Kubrick wouldn't understand the concept of familial love.

R.

[Graham S]

Langoliers, eh? I stayed up incredibly late to watch the end of that once. Despite the dodgy acting, I'd been sucked in by the fascinating premise. I was gripped. Seeing the second half was one of the worst decisions I have ever made.

I've only read a handful of King books. I didn't realise he is now starting to fit them all together. I'm quite intrigued now, but I'm probably too up my own arse to be seen in public reading one.

[The Liberal Elite]

One of the best directors that ever lived, yes.

But he made some absolute stinkers. And there is no heart in his films either.

I'd dispute that. the bit in Barry Lyndon when barry's son dies is well sad.

I thought the shining was toss.

[The Liberal Elite]

so what's this thing about all the stories fitting together? any links to anywhere I could read about it?

[biglime]

so what's this thing about all the stories fitting together? any links to anywhere I could read about it?

The Dark Tower.

Read the entire series, from start to finish. It's just stunning. For a Stephen King fan, it's a nostalgia trip, and the ultimate King story to underline everything he's ever written.

He wrote the first Dark Tower book when he was 19, and the last two are coming out this year. Its an over-arching epic spanning a thirty year career.

If you're not going to read the books, you can get some info at www.thedarktower.net, but it's full of spoilers, and wastes a lot of great surprises.

Anybody curious should just read the King basics 'The Stand, Salem's Lot, It', then start plowing through the Dark Tower stuff, starting with 'The Gunslinger'.

You'll feel rewarded. Believe me.

I don't want it to end.

R.

[SeanR]

Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

That's a big Twinkie

Is that what you mean by tying it all together?

[f2097]

stephen king books never work as films because they always miss the point.

the appeal of his stories has always been in the writing. The descriptive language, how he builds up characters, the atmosphere, the little jokes and the overarching plot.. its not about scare tactics, he is one of the few people that could actually get away with writing a book about a lamp because he would make it ineteresting, funny and make you care about that lamp all the way through.

More of his books are sci-fi/fantasy than horror, and i dont think any of them are supposed to be scary. Instead of going for clever twists, hidden meaning or overblown unrealistic edge-style language, its about the experience. Reading one of his books really sucks you into another world and very few writers have this gift. Instead of great works of literature, his stories are pure escapism and enjoying the read. Which is what it should be about really.

[Vemsie]

The Shining was about the destruction of a family unit. Kubrick wouldn't understand the concept of familial love.

I guess you should hear his wife and daughters speak about him than.

Kubricks's The Shining is much grander in scale. It's about the murder of the race of Native Americans and the consequences of that murder. It's about how evil resides in humanity. Back then, now and forever.

It's a masterpiece. As is 2001, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, Clockwork Orange...

[FishyFish]

I guess you should hear his wife and daughters speak about him than.

Kubricks's The Shining is much grander in scale. It's about the murder of the race of Native Americans and the consequences of that murder. It's about how evil resides in humanity. Back then, now and forever.

It's a masterpiece. As is 2001, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, Clockwork Orange...

But King's The Shining has nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of the race of Native Americans and the consequences of that murder. If this was Kubricks' purpose, why tack it onto the film of King's novel? Why not just make a film about this instead?

Fishy

[Vemsie]

But King's The Shining has nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of the race of Native Americans and the consequences of that murder. If this was Kubricks' purpose, why tack it onto the film of King's novel? Why not just make a film about this instead?

Why not? Why should he follow the book page for page? It gave him a starting point for his film. Like a true artist , he added his own ideas and beliefs and came up with a masterpiece. In my opinion.

[Silent Runner]

So The Gunslinger series gives a link between all his other books?? Well, that’s my reading material for the next few weeks sorted.

I don’t think anyone’s mentioned them yet, but everyone really should read The Bachman Books. Especially Rage.

[FishyFish]

Why not? Why should he follow the book page for page? It gave him a starting point for his film. Like a true artist , he added his own ideas and beliefs and came up with a masterpiece. In my opinion.

Of course he shouldn't follow the book page for page, but you're suggesting in your earlier post that the film is a metaphor for the murder of Native American peoples. Sure Kubrick may have added a subtext to the film, but do you really believe that's what the story is about above and beyond a haunted hotel and the destructive effects it has on it's residents?

For what it's worth I think the film is pretty good (certainly one of the better King adaptations and, although it deviates from the source story somewhat, definitely better than the miniseries). Still nowhere near as good as the book though.

Fishy

[Vemsie]

Sure Kubrick may have added a subtext to the film, but do you really believe that's what the story is about

That's exactely what Kubrick's version is about. And it's all the better for it imo.

And it's not about American natives only but genocide as a whole. Examples: the opening music is the "Dies Irae" ("Day of Wrath"), part of the major funeral mass of the European Roman Catholic Church. And the Volkswagen they're driving refers to Hitler's Germany. The whole film is full of symbolism. The photo with Nicholson on it that ends the film has the date Overlook Hotel-July 4th Ball-1921 on it. One of the best endings ever btw.

An it's no coincidence that Danny is retracing his own steps, an old Indian trick.

It's such a rich movie.

[Jack]

I didn't realise he is now starting to fit them all together. I'm quite intrigued now, but I'm probably too up my own arse to be seen in public reading one.

I've noticed little things, like the appearance of the Plymouth Fury in IT, and the graffiti saying "PENNYWISE LIVES" when they get to the Standpipe in Dreamcatcher.