re: Stephen King said only two of his stories he wrote ever lived up to their potential

quote:

---

You're implying that King shares your interpretation

---

No I’m not! I made a simple comment about how I personally viewed 2 authors.

Newsflash. I wasn’t literally suggesting that they start a school.



Don’t ever talk to me about autism again.

Stephen King can go frick himself

quote:

---

Well he fricked up my favorite book series of all time by adding himself as a character so he can eat a bag of dicks.

---

The Dark Tower series started off REALLY well. And then he screwed it up in so many ways. But the really unforgivable thing was writing himself into the story. Horrible, horrible decision.

I have no feud with that old lesbian.

I nothing him.

quote:

---

I've said this before, but Under the Dome is one of my favorite books of all time - until the final act. It's excellent, until it ends with alien kids owning an ant farm.

---

for me Under the Dome was the first sense I got that new King aint the same as old King. his villain was basically a conglomeration / composite character of everything that he thinks a George W Bush voter would be during that time period, who, of course, ends up being a dictator of sorts. i remember finishing that book and thinking man, i got more of a political diatribe here than an actual coherent story. i mean, it was still better than 95% of stuff out there, but it was noticeably a step back...the first in a series of steps back that he hasnt really ever recovered from. 11/22/63 is fine, IMO, but still doesnt touch his earlier stuff.

the rest of his post 9/11 (just an arbitrary point in time that roughly coincides with my own subjective interpretation of when he began his decline) has been various degrees of mediocre. i havent read it all though, so there might be some good exceptions in there.

quote:

---

Yes. Very few of his books/stories are really flawless. Salem's Lot is one of those.

---

I don’t know. Salems lot was one of the prime examples of a fantastic build and weak ending to me. Maybe I need to revisit it again as it’s been several decades.

quote:

---

The screenplay is a lot less fleshed out while remaining equally if not even more weird than the book

---

It was fleshed out, just in a way that stays less true to the novel although I do agree it could have stayed truer and still remained within Kubric’s vision.

One of the reasons I read the novel was to find out more about the shine which wasn’t explained nearly enough in the movie. Well I learned more about that and a hell of a lot more. So much more it probably would have been better to read the novel before the movie. I say that not so I could have enjoyed the movie more but so I could have enjoyed the novel more.

The elements Kubrick chose to add, alter and replace were superior decisions as opposed to staying true. While still weird they worked extremely well and are some of the most iconic and terrifying moments. So I’m not against weird at all. However, animal shaped shrubs and a firehose that come to life would have just looked silly and out of place no matter how well done. Jack with a croquet mallet instead of an ax? How Tony is presented to the viewer/reader?

The mini series is easily found online. Watch it and then let’s talk weirdness scales. Also Jack Nicholson teetering on the brink throughout the story is much more effective than a sweet but flawed character getting possessed. With a homely wife and a son who can see what you really are it’s easy to see how his resentment could manifest into something much more terrifying than a caring man capable of slipping in and out of that evil.

quote:

---

My hot-ish King take is that he won't really be fully appreciated until he's dead

---

isn't he the most celebrated and world renowned horror author of all time?

quote:

---

It's fashionable to shite on him as a prolific pulp-ish writer now

---

my hot-ish take about any author, in any genre, is is you are THAT prolific, at some point you're simply churning out shite just for a paycheck. I don't care if you're one of the greatest novelists or writing minds in human history, you can't write that many works and all of them be even semi-decent. He's written over 100 works, a handful of which are a collection of stories. So he's pumped out what...something like ~150 individual stories? At some point along the line some of those have to just be "eehhh what if some guy was in a weird town adn there was a monster? Boom, there's a book" .

The story of young Roland in Wizard and Glass was really good. They should adapt that to the screen.

quote:

---

I can look past that because the ending of that saga was pitch fricking perfect.

---

Most people hated the ending. But I'll agree with you. It was perfect and couldn't have been anything else. But there was a whole lot of stupid before it reached that point.