Anyone into Stephen King?

[Dazey]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Is it? Hm.. I'd really like to read what they base that assumption on

It's not an assumption it's an assessment. To be an assumption they would have to not have seen the movie or read the book.

[TombRaider]

true

[Iron MikeyJ]

ya I gotta call bullshit on anyone that doesnt think the shining is a great horror movie. It is a horror classic that belongs next to halloween, a nightmare on elm street, friday the 13th, polterguist, texas chainsaw massacure, the exorcist, and a few others. These are the modern horror classics.

[Orsys]

Has anyone read 11/22/63 or Full Dark, No Stars? They are the newer books.

[ManetsBR]

Some people talked about 11/22/63 on the JFK thread, hang on.

Edit: There you are: http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/200115-11221963/

Edited June 28, 2013 by ManetsBR

[luciusfunk]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

[The Sandman]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Little better than that last photo...

[ManetsBR]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Continuity erros? Which?

[luciusfunk]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Continuity erros? Which?

Furniture moves between shots throughout the entire movie. There's a video about it on YouTube. There's also a video explaining the floor design of the hotel couldn't possibly exist, i.e. doors where there couldn't be rooms and the Torrances' room should be on a corner, but when Wendy opens the window in the bathroom, the room is in the middle of a wall instead of a corner.

[The Sandman]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Continuity erros? Which?

Furniture moves between shots throughout the entire movie. There's a video about it on YouTube. There's also a video explaining the floor design of the hotel couldn't possibly exist, i.e. doors where there couldn't be rooms and the Torrances' room should be on a corner, but when Wendy opens the window in the bathroom, the room is in the middle of a wall instead of a corner.

I think that does play into the nature of the place though... surely?

[luciusfunk]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Continuity erros? Which?

Furniture moves between shots throughout the entire movie. There's a video about it on YouTube. There's also a video explaining the floor design of the hotel couldn't possibly exist, i.e. doors where there couldn't be rooms and the Torrances' room should be on a corner, but when Wendy opens the window in the bathroom, the room is in the middle of a wall instead of a corner.

I think that does play into the nature of the place though... surely?

I'm sure. I'm positive Kubrick did it on purpose, too, to disorient you, maybe. I think The Shining is a great film if you don't compare it to the book. Edited June 29, 2013 by TygerStryke

[ManetsBR]

What? I don't think he did it on purpose. I mean, the Overlook Hotel is indeed haunted, but the furniture does not move around nor the bedrooms are in impossible places. I think those are genuine mistakes.

[luciusfunk]

Part 1

What? I don't think he did it on purpose. I mean, the Overlook Hotel is indeed haunted, but the furniture does not move around nor the bedrooms are in impossible places. I think those are genuine mistakes.

Yeah? When it shows Jack walking into the Colorado Lounge, the stools are lined up. As he approaches the bar, one stool is moved to the side.

[The Sandman]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

Continuity erros? Which?

Furniture moves between shots throughout the entire movie. There's a video about it on YouTube. There's also a video explaining the floor design of the hotel couldn't possibly exist, i.e. doors where there couldn't be rooms and the Torrances' room should be on a corner, but when Wendy opens the window in the bathroom, the room is in the middle of a wall instead of a corner.

I think that does play into the nature of the place though... surely?

I'm sure. I'm positive Kubrick did it on purpose, too, to disorient you, maybe. I think The Shining is a great film if you don't compare it to the book.

Most certainly - best way to approach it.

[TombRaider]

Has anyone read 11/22/63 or Full Dark, No Stars? They are the newer books.

I read 11/22/63 and this is what I think...

EDIT:

It feels like two different books. the first half is great, awesome and it flows like his best books.

The second half sucks and the ending is an even bigger letdown.

If you read Amazon reviews, you'll realize it's the ending most people complain about. I would complain too, because it makes no sense whatsoever. it's not even some weird deux ex machina gimmick... no, it's something so ridiculous that it destroys the story.

but like I said, the first half is great.

Edited June 29, 2013 by TombRaider

[luciusfunk]

I was interested in 11/22/63 until I found out it was in first person. I just can't read first person novels. Too annoying.

[TombRaider]

I don't see why it'd be a problem, as long as the character is well written, and in this novel he is very well written, at least in the first half of the book.

[luciusfunk]

I've tried reading a few Stephen King books in first person and I just never could get far. Duma Key, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, etc.

[ManetsBR]

TombRaider, what happens on the second half? Does SK simply "loses" it?

[TombRaider]

I've never read those and I think Rita Hayworth is actually a short story.

TombRaider, what happens on the second half? Does SK simply "loses" it?

This is what happens:

In the book, this character named Jake finds a portal that takes him to the past, to the year 1958, to be specific. He can't control the portal. It only takes him to 1958. So, to be able to save Kennedy, who was shot in 1963, Jake has to wait until it's 1963, that is, he has to live those 5 years in the past, which he does. In that time, he falls in love and starts another life in a time where he doesn't belong. That is the first half of the book. as I said, it's very well written.

Now...

the second half. The problem is that Jake starts spying on the Oswalds. He moves to a building across their house and he taps their phones and just begins spying on them. King describes every single detail of their life and it gets very tedious, very quickly. I guess Jake just wants to make sure Oswald is the right man, the one that actually shot Kennedy, so he decides to spy on him just to be sure this is the real assassin. Kind gives the reader so much information that the book stalls, it gets boring. There are only so many times you can read about Oswald being a communist and about his domestic fights with his wife, before you start yawning and wondering why you're being told the same story over and over again. Because, make no mistake, King even gives your their phone converstations and every detail is discussed until you can't read anymore. The second half is over 300 pages long and imagine 300 pages of phone converstations and your main character spying on the Oswald family. It's just tedious. There's something else I didn't like: King wants to make sure you understand Lee Harvey Oswald is evil, because hey... he shot Kennedy. Ok... so he paints him as the devil himself. I was waiting to the guy to spit fire and to grow horns or something. I mean, I know Oswald killed a president and King has to make him the bad guy, but I wish he hadn't been so obvious about it. Let me, the reader, decide if I should hate this character or not, don't tell me I have to hate him. It's like he's forcing you to dislike this character. As a reader, I want to be engaged and entertained, I don't like being told in such an obvious way how I'm supposed to feel about the characters.

anyway... Jake saves the day and he goes back to the future... and what's happened? Well, the future is a mess. It's all explained very fast, but to sum it all up this is what happens:

earthquakes. the US is basically destroyed by earthquakes which started right after Kennedy was saved. I guess the universe had different plans and it didin't like it that Jake saved Kennedy. I can live with that... but earthquakes? What does an earthquake have to do with saving someone from being killed? Nothing, that's what.

So what does Jake do... well... he goes through the portal again, thus erasing everything he'd done. Because every time you go through the portal, you reset the future. So in the end, Kennedy was killed and in the final scene of the book, Jake dances some old tunes with an old lady, with whom he'd had a relationship in the past.

It's a very cheesy ending. And there's no payoff, whatsoever. It's like reading a 1,000 page story for nothing. But the first half is a great ride.

The first half is very fast and engaging, the second half is not.

Edited June 29, 2013 by TombRaider

[ManetsBR]

Just watched that video you posted, Tyger. Impressive stuff...

[SunnyDRE]

have read many of his books.

love the short story about the woman always looking for short cuts.

and the one about the drug smuggler who crashs onto deserted island/inlet and starts to eat himself.

[luciusfunk]

I've been listening to the audiobooks of The Dark Tower series at work. It's interesting listening to them after reading them multiple times. I just finished The Waste Lands on my way home from work this morning.

Forget Under the Dome, they need to get back to working on having The Dark Tower turned into a movie series.

[dalsh327]

The SK quote was that Kubrick didn't know what horror is.

Yet the overwhelming critical consensus is that Kubrick improved on the source material.

Because people worship Kubrick. The best thing about the movie is the set design and the (intenional?) continuity errors.

It's hard to tell with him, but when I've watched the documentary and saw clips of him revising the script, either he was worried about leaks and did it to hide what was in his head, or he came up with ideas as the movie was unfolding. I think being a photographer made him detail oriented but he prob. had OCD, esp. after watching "Kubrick's Boxes". It was interesting watching one of the James Bond documentaries that he gave some tips on one of the films.

[luciusfunk]

Anyone read Doctor Sleep yet? Apparently a few Overlook ghosts have cameos. I read a few reviews that said it was scarier than The Shining.