 |
| Art by Rabbittooth |
My low opinion of Hollywood, particularly their creative bankruptcy, is a matter of public record. Having exhausted the reserves of creative capital amassed by better men, the high priests of our culture are reduced to churning out one bland carbon copy sequel, remake, reboot, re-imagining, etc. after another.
It’s a trend that I have almost no tolerance for. Which is why you’ll probably find me and Daddy Warpig’s reaction to the remake of Stephen King’s notorious novel/TV miniseries IT surprising.
Check out our review on the latest episode of Geek Gab.
Full disclosure: I despise the novel and loved the IT miniseries when it first aired in 1990. I’ve watched the TV version a couple of times since, and it loses more of its luster with additional viewings. Let that give you some context for the podcast review.
And if you’re in the mood for a highly regarded horror novel that wasn’t written while the author was coked out of his mind, consider the Dragon Award-winning Souldancer.
I've never cared for Stephan King. I saw the Pet cemetary with my best friend when it was in yhe cinemas. I didn't like it at all. I liked Running man ok.
I'm not sure if he's trying to be the social justice version of Lovecraft but i've never much cared for his type of horror.
I just can't pinpoint it why.
Any ideas fellow commentators?
xavier
King is good pre-1987. (When he stopped doing cocaine.) Pet Cemetary the novel is totally different than the crappy movie.
King, like J. K. Rowling, is an active SJW now. If you want to lose all hope for humanity read his timeline.
Seconding what MisesMat said.
Thanks ere King did coke? Ok I didn't know that. So since he stopped he's improved or degraded his writing abilities?
xavier
King was apparently such a heavy coke-head and alcoholic in the early part of his career that he claims he can't even remember having written Cujo. The character of Jack Torrance in The Shining basically is King (former school teacher turned alcoholic author with a suffering wife and kid).
I'm not comfortable saying that getting clean made him a worse author. I think the simplest answer is that he's a victim of his own success – editors never tell him "no" and he feels free to spew as many words on the page as he wants.
Andy Thanks. So if the editors had the guts to blue and red pencil him he'd be a good writer
My only disagreement is that I liked the book more than the mini-series.
But the book is not that good, TBH.
I'm glad I did not waste time seeing the new film.
Also relevant:
Stefan M's review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ4XA7_UmKs
Actually, I recommend seeing the new film. It fixes a lot of the prior versions' problems.
Side note: this is actually another good argument against trad pub. One reason I've seen a LOT of new authors try to sign up for the GREAT BIG PUBLISHER THAT WILL MAKE ME RICH is because they know an Indie book will never be a movie. Honestly, most movies today are crappy, SJWfied disasters. Think I would rather lose out on the $$$ and just keep my (well-written) novels.
Can confirm that I've heard this argument many times. But that was a few years ago.
If you heard this now, the simple answer would be to ask the subject which Hollywood movie currently being released would they want their book to look like. Which director and actor would they want to helm it and which was the last original film of either that impressed said author. You'll almost certainly get an awkward silence.
True. You used to hear that excuse a lot. However, The Martian–and soon Wool–proves that indie books can be made into movies.
Stephen King has such good ideas that just don't always hit the mark. The only books I've read to completion for him include Salem's Lot, The Stand, and The Shining.
IT has always been a story that has appealed to me, but after seeing the miniseries once as a child and learning what happens in the book I knew I'd hate it.
I think I'm actually going to see this movie.
This comment has been removed by the author.