Quote:
Originally Posted by burnafterreading
Maximum Overdrive is too funny of a movie for me to read the book. it's fun 80's stuff, not scary or horror-y at all. never seen (or heard of) 1408, though... might have to see what it's all about!
|
1408 was butchered for the theatrical release, so even a lot of people who think they've seen the movie have never seen the movie. The theatrical release trimmed something like 40 minutes and re-shot a 'happier' ending, resulting in a forgettable collection of jump-scares and heart-string-pulling. The director's cut, on the other hand, is a brilliant bit of psychological horror with Lovecraftian overtones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
taosaur, bear in mind that "schlock" means cheap, trashy, inferior quality. It has rarely been a very good description of King's novels, even the ones I don't like. It is, however, a good description of many of the horror movies made from his books, as it is of many horror movies of that era (it seems to me).
|
"Schlock" can also be used interchangeably with "camp" or "cheese," which are not always disparaging. It can mean cheap in terms of production values, but mainly people tend to be talking about melodrama and adherence to genre formula. Whether you find all films that are melodramatic and adhere closely to genre formula "trashy," and the extent that production values inform that opinion, is a matter of taste. Personally, I like a little schlock now and then, and judge work of that type on its own merits.
And King has produced plenty of schlock. Salem's Lot, Carrie, and much of his early, straight 'horror' work, was quite schlocky, and only some of it endearingly so. More recently, Under the Dome laid it on rather thick, and not to great effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
It is possibly fair to write off It as merely a fan favourite, but I don't think that really applies to The Stand. Despite its length and other imperfections, it has garnered appreciation from quite a wide audience.
|
I wasn't "writing off" anything. I like both books and have read them several times. I'm a fan, and they're two of my favorites. They're also unquestionably self-indulgent--King being his Kingiest at great length, no editors allowed. Neither is likely the best introduction to his work. If you find yourself enjoying some of his work from the mid-'80s onward, you'll probably love both these books, but they may not be the best place to start.