>bascially all of his books receive a live action adaptation
>they are all kino
how does he do it?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>bascially all of his books receive a live action adaptation. >they are all kino
A lot of the movies like the Shining and It change a lot from the book. That’s why he was so involved in maximum over drive iirc because he didn’t like how much the movies based on his stuff diverged from the source material.
Maximum Overdrive is pure kino from start to finish
>looks like a special needs soi boy
Uhhhh
you just noticed that now? he has a degenerative eye disease or something
>eye disease
But how does that explain the rest of him?
he done got bit by a langolier and it made him a creepy skeleton-face man.
I agree honestly. It just perfectly is what it is.
He was pretty good in the sopranos
Have you ever been to Maine, man? It is a frozen shithole half the year. You can just about read books all winter long because there's nothing else to do and you're snowed in. Might as well write books too.
>the less the movies have in common with the books the better they are
Really makes you think
he's a hack and The Shining is the only good adaption of his work and that's because Kubrick didn't follow it at all
Misery and Stand by me were okay
It feels like every year I find out another thing I really liked was made by him and I had no clue
I now remember I had a Stephen King phase in middle school.
The only Stephen King adaptation I can tolerate is Christine, and that's only because John Carpenter was able to wash King's stink off it somehow.
what didn't you like about the book?
He's an underrated writer, if anything. He publishes a LOT so he's churned out some crap over the years, but his good work is really good. People think of him as a hack because he writes a lot within a "genre" and he makes a shitload of money, but I think he's popular and successful because he legitimately is a good writer. He writes characters and evokes feeling better than almost all of his more critically-fellated contemporaries
You should read better authors.
I'm not saying he's Dostoevsky, but he's leagues ahead of a Dan Brown or Chuck Palahniuk, and imo he's better than Pynchon or David Foster Wallace
>imo he's better than Pynchon
I stand by it 100%. Pynchon has absolutely nothing to say
you're an idiot then
>you're an idiot then
Not an argument, never read this Python but I'm assuming the other guy is right
>imo he's better than Pynchon
Awful bait. Have your (You).
It's not bait. Again I don't deny that King's written a lot of shit, but his best work is much better than Pynchon's best work. Pynchon is a pseud who writes for pseuds, there's really nothing there
is infinite jest good or just masturbation
If you can get through five pages without thinking "Christ what a pretentious butthole" then you're probably in good shape to read the rest.
The masturbation is what makes it good
it's very very specifically for overprivileged liberal white upper middle class failsons of the 90's
does it still work if you're an overprivileged reactionary white (hispanic) upper middle class failson of the 2020s?
>He's an underrated writer
Dude he is very likely the most influential and most-adapted prose fiction writer to ever live.
Stephen King's best work is undoubtedly his short stories. When he writes a full length novel he starts off with a good premise then ends up ruining it with a shitty ending. Check out Skeleton Crew and Night Shift for some of his best stuff.
The only ones i could even stomach were The Night Flyer and Christine.
The rest of it is either a stark departure from the book like The Shining and The Thing or complete garbage like Desperation and The Stand
>The Thing
Not a King book, you thinking about It?
*It.
Whatever
>the rest are stark departures or garbage
Stand By Me, Carrie, Misery, and Shawshank are all good and basically 1:1 adaptations
He ripped off Girls but took out what made it good(the girls).
How did Stephen King rip off Girls?
Under the Dome I didn't bother reading it, just like mentioning Girls . Small town trapped under a mysterious indestructible dome. It's Girls without the girls which just leaves boring town drama
he wrote Under the Dome in the 70s, so I doubt it ripped off the 2010s Lena Dunham HBO show
also what the frick do you think they have in common?
>he wrote Under the Dome in the 70s
Are you fricking high?
no
>Under the Dome is a partial rewrite of a novel King attempted to write first in 1972 under the same title
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Dome_(novel)#The_Cannibals_connection
the anon who thinks Girls has something to do with a town under a dome is the one you meant to reply to right?
>he wrote Under the Dome in the 70s
And just waited 30 years to publish it? No, he started writing it after Girls finished it's run.
>I doubt it ripped off the 2010s Lena Dunham HBO show
No, dipshit, the comic book. It ended in 07, just in time for this hack to rip it off. Shit, I wish the TV show was an adaptation of it, got tricked into watching an episode.
Again have not read Under the Dome so its probably a totally different sort of dome story, just like bringing up Girls
Konnichiwa, dude!
His brother was the one doing all the work on all their collabs, it's why he still puts out books
It's just a joke. C'mon man puts out a book with same small town dome setup as a comic that just ended and you expect jokes not to be made on it?
Another book with a similar premise to a King book I think is better is Amy Girl. It's like Carrie but sensible.
King probably didn't even know Girls existed. Next to nobody did or does. It was a meme on Cinemaphile for a little bit because it was laughably bad.
I didn't know you were joking
>And just waited 30 years to publish it? No, he started writing it after Girls finished it's run.
Okay, then I'll cite this 1998 book that details his 1972 unfinished novel Under the Dome.
You're probably talking to Josh Luna right now. He'll probably even write a shitty comic about how Stephen King went back in time with his whiteness powers to tell his past self to write Under the Dome.
>how Stephen King went back in time with his whiteness powers to tell his past self to write Under the Dome.
that I can't refute
>And just waited 30 years to publish it?
Happens pretty often for him. First drafts of 11/22/63 were like thirty years before it came out. Blaze was written before Carrie and came out in 2007.
I think he talked about throwing old manuscripts in a trunk in On Writing, and he'd go back to those if he was running dry on ideas.
Why was it called under the domes
>the best stephen king kino actually has nothing to do with him
as a lifelong fan who's read literally every King book, many more than once, you're forgetting a LOT of shit adaptations because they are largely forgotten
For ever Shining, The Dead Zone, or Shawshank, there are at least a couple Children of the Corns, Manglers, and Tommyknockers
lest we forget the goddamn Dark Tower, one of the worst adaptations of anything ever
I watched it because I loved the short story, but they changed pretty much everything. It was really disappointing.
He was fine with the langoliers but not the shining? He saw what Kubrick did with a clockwork orange in comparison to the book. Turned it into kino. homie just a hater frfr on god.
There is a strong correlation between being an absolute dog shit person and telling a good story. That's all it is.
Gene Wolfe seemed like a really nice guy and he told great stories. Same with Robert E. Howard.
This guy has a CRAZY head and face, very fascinating
monkey face
I read a few books by his son Joe Hill and they're damn good, they feel like old-school classic King
No idea how they never did a Creepshow esque anthology film of several of his short stories, which tend to be actually pretty decent compared to his books. Survivor Type would be great on screen.
you mean aside from Cat's Eye, the miniseries Nightmares & Dreamscapes, and oh yeah, Creepshow 1 and 2?
I had in mind actually adapting good stories of his.
He wrote Creepshow
I mean how much of the Mist is even his work? He's a master grifter is what he is. A sleazy little israelite.
That miniseries called Rose Red or something like that about some psychics investigating a haunted mansion, did it ever get a book?
just The Diary of Ellen Rimbaur which was not written by King
what did he post 3 days ago?
That crypto israelite looks like a lesbian grandma.
He's better with short stories, because his long novels are filled with bloat and useless paragraphs. Still like IT, though.
Proof that the majority of people have no taste
for shawshank redemption he ripped off escape from alcatraz
The long walk adaption when, I bet they make it shit somehow
Most of his books are boring souless crap and the movies are the same.
The amount of unrealistic tropes is higher than in a fricking marvel movie.
The only movies I enjoyed were the children of the corn
He doesn't. His novels are utter midwit garbage with SOME good ideas and concept honed and made better by more competent and less cuck creatives, ie Kubrick and Darabond.
Gosh, the memories are flooding back. I remember reading a compendium of his short stories as a kid. The ones that stood out were "I Am the Doorway" and "Mangler" to the point I tried translating them from English to Balkan (I couldn't figure out a way to translate "dune buggy", that was before the internet).
As another anon here said, his longer novels usually have a good start but a shitty ending. "Bag of Bones" is especially awful, the story is a slog and the midpoint twist is dreadful.