It (2017)

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Troll2fan

Same here, although I've been slacking the last couple of weeks.

[Show spoiler]I just finished the part where Richie and Mike were the last two left in the smoke-hole and discovered how long IT has been in Derry.

I just finished re-reading It two days ago. A little earlier than intended, but it's hard to put down. Just started re-reading Under the Dome, which is a pretty good book, but was a horrendous, ridiculous tv series. The only thing that wasn't terrible was some of the casting. Dean Norris was perfect for Big Jim Rennie, in fact it almost seems like it was written with him in mind.

[Troll2fan]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just finished re-reading It two days ago. A little earlier than intended, but it's hard to put down. Just started re-reading Under the Dome, which is a pretty good book, but was a horrendous, ridiculous tv series. The only thing that wasn't terrible was some of the casting. Dean Norris was perfect for Big Jim Rennie, in fact it almost seems like it was written with him in mind.

I've yet to read Under the Dome, but I've been meaning to give it a read.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

You're quite mistaken. In the novel it is definitely implied that the dog is somehow possessed by Dodd. That's one of the reasons that I preferred the movie. It cut right to the heart of the "rabid dog traps woman and child" scenario without out the padding or silly possession angle.

It's not so much that the dog is possessed by Dodd, the novel states that evil had returned to Castle Rock and while last time it took the shape of Dodd this time it took the shape of a rabies stricken dog. When the sheriff, who also was a character in The Dead Zone, is killed by Cujo he has a vision of Dodd but it's the ongoing evil presence that he connects with its previous incarnation. Cujo never goes all out supernatural but in King's novels, evil is a presence rather than a moral issue.

This is quite an interesting interpretation of the novel: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...phen-king-cujo

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just finished re-reading It two days ago. A little earlier than intended, but it's hard to put down. Just started re-reading Under the Dome, which is a pretty good book, but was a horrendous, ridiculous tv series. The only thing that wasn't terrible was some of the casting. Dean Norris was perfect for Big Jim Rennie, in fact it almost seems like it was written with him in mind.

I thought the pilot episode of Under the Dome was excellent. The first season overall was entertaining, but the last two seasons were a slog to get through.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

It's not so much that the dog is possessed by Dodd, the novel states that evil had returned to Castle Rock and while last time it took the shape of Dodd this time it took the shape of a rabies stricken dog. When the sheriff, who also was a character in The Dead Zone, is killed by Cujo he has a vision of Dodd but it's the ongoing evil presence that he connects with its previous incarnation. Cujo never goes all out supernatural but in King's novels, evil is a presence rather than a moral issue.

This is quite an interesting interpretation of the novel: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...phen-king-cujo

Bingo. You nailed it. Cujo is not a supernatural novel, so to speak, but it does immerse itself in the idea that evil, as an entity, is ongoing.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I wasn't a huge fan of the novel, King's take on The Monkey's Paw. It was the first King novel I found disappointing. It is indeed far more depressing than it is scary, for the most part it wallows in the grief of losing a child. I'm not really sure what I was supposed to take away from it apart from that losing a child is just about the worst thing that can happen to you, which wasn't exactly a huge surprise. Then it turns into a supernatural horror novel very late,only for the last 50 pages or so and that aspect feels out of place after this long, grueling, very realistic examination of grief.

Couldn't disagree more. And actually the supernatural element is under the surface throughout the whole book. The idea that the whole thing is fate, that the family move there due to some pull and the whole thing with the wendigo drawing them in...it's like primal evil. I'm not denying that it's subtle, but it's definitely a constant presence.

Originally Posted by charlieray1

You're quite mistaken. In the novel it is definitely implied that the dog is somehow possessed by Dodd. That's one of the reasons that I preferred the movie. It cut right to the heart of the "rabid dog traps woman and child" scenario without out the padding or silly possession angle.

Nope, no possession to be found. I'd go with other posters' theory that evil is ever-present.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Couldn't disagree more. And actually the supernatural element is under the surface throughout the whole book. The idea that the whole thing is fate, that the family move there due to some pull and the whole thing with the wendigo drawing them in...it's like primal evil. I'm not denying that it's subtle, but it's definitely a constant presence.

I know that the supernatural elements are always in the background, but it's still a shift when what was an excruciatingly drawn out novel about grief becomes one about zombies. In the end that's not my main problem with the novel. I simply didn't enjoy it because I wanted a scary novel from The King of Horror and not an extremely sad one. When I want to read about grief I there are other authors who may actually have say more about grief than that it's extremely unpleasant.

That said, the novel is a masterwork in comparison to the movie. Another film which is a favorite of the "impressionable kids club", but which I had the misfortune to first see as an adult. I even revisited it a couple of years ago as it's gathered a bit of a cult following top check if I'd been to harsh on it and it's still a really bad movie.

[dallywhitty]

The film's decent, but not great. It's got an air of melancholy about it and the scene with Zelda is genuinely creepy, but it feels a bit rushed and the lead actor is wooden as ****.

I do suddenly feel like watching it, though. Damn you all!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

The film's decent, but not great. It's got an air of melancholy about it and the scene with Zelda is genuinely creepy, but it feels a bit rushed and the lead actor is wooden as ****.

I do suddenly feel like watching it, though. Damn you all!

People always go on about the scene with Zelda, which I found rather tasteless. The aspect which apparently gave all these kids nightmares is a girl dying from meningitis and that character isn't treated with compassion but with revulsion. She's presented as a monster.

I didn't find the movie melancholic, that's an emotion far too complex for such a clumsily made films.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

People always go on about the scene with Zelda, which I found rather tasteless. The aspect which apparently gave all these kids nightmares is a girl dying from meningitis and that character isn't treated with compassion but with revulsion. She's presented as a monster.

Maybe because that's exactly how her sister perceived her?

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

Nope, no possession to be found. I'd go with other posters' theory that evil is ever-present.

Tomato, tomahto

What ever it was, the same spirit in Dodd was in the dog. And it didn't work for me. It's not evil, it's a huge, scary rabid dog. Trying to make it more than that worked against the story, IMO.

This was one of the few books where I preferred the movie. At it's heart, it's a simple action-horror story. The novel tries to bloat it into something more. Plus, I hated the ending of the book. I don't have to have happy endings, but after all that torment and struggle to survive,

[Show spoiler] the kid's death and the aftermath of the parent's pain

made me wonder what the point was. Why did I read that?

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Maybe because that's exactly how her sister perceived her?

Or maybe it was just an exploitative ploy by the film to get a scare at any means.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

That said, the novel is a masterwork in comparison to the movie. Another film which is a favorite of the "impressionable kids club", but which I had the misfortune to first see as an adult. I even revisited it a couple of years ago as it's gathered a bit of a cult following top check if I'd been to harsh on it and it's still a really bad movie.

The movie adaptation of Pet Sematary is godawful, in terms of its failure to capture the aura of the book.

I'm inclined to think that Stephen King himself intended the movie to be more kitschy as a way of apologizing for the unrelenting bleakness of the novel, and I can totally understand that, but the sheer irreverence that the movie has for its source material is grating.

The end scene is a key example. There's a gory moment, a final act of violence, and then the Ramones song instantly starts blasting away as the credits begin to roll.

The whole movie is like that. There are gory scenes and unsettling scenes aplenty, but the movie never stops reminding us that it's only a movie and that we're supposed to be having fun.

I don't hate the movie, and I'd even like to own the Blu-ray just to enjoy the 1980s-ness of the whole affair, but it falls way off mark (probably intentionally) from the book.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The movie adaptation of Pet Sematary is godawful, in terms of its failure to capture the aura of the book.

I'm inclined to think that Stephen King himself intended the movie to be more kitschy as a way of apologizing for the unrelenting bleakness of the novel, and I can totally understand that, but the sheer irreverence that the movie has for its source material is grating.

The end scene is a key example. There's a gory moment, a final act of violence, and then the Ramones song instantly starts blasting away as the credits begin to roll.

The whole movie is like that. There are gory scenes and unsettling scenes aplenty, but the movie never stops reminding us that it's only a movie and that you're supposed to be having fun.

I don't hate the movie, and I'd even like to own the Blu-ray just to enjoy the 1980s-ness of the whole affair, but it falls way off mark (probably intentionally) from the book.

King has never been good adapting his own novels, but with a better director and a better cast this wouldn't have ended up as terrible as the film is, even with that screenplay. There is a reason why Mary Lambert's career never went anywhere despite the financial success of the film and why would you cast an actress as wooden as Denise Crosby as a grieving mother ? She was by far the worst link in the Star Trek TNG cast and I was glad when she got killed off at the end of season one. The actor playing her husband wasn't much better either.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just finished re-reading It two days ago. A little earlier than intended, but it's hard to put down. Just started re-reading Under the Dome, which is a pretty good book, but was a horrendous, ridiculous tv series. The only thing that wasn't terrible was some of the casting. Dean Norris was perfect for Big Jim Rennie, in fact it almost seems like it was written with him in mind.

I almost threw Under the Dome across the room when I got to Andrea's fate. I was pisssssssssssssssed.

[Monterey Jack]

Man, it sucks that George A. Romero didn't get a chance to direct Pet Sematary, because he was stuck filming a "Carrie ending" reshoot for Monkey Shines at the time. Romero would have NAILED the proper tone of the book.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Troll2fan

I've yet to read Under the Dome, but I've been meaning to give it a read.

It's one of his better 'newish' books but it's phone-book sized.

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

I thought the pilot episode of Under the Dome was excellent. The first season overall was entertaining, but the last two seasons were a slog to get through.

I watched the whole series once, and I guess I remember the ending better than the beginning. It did seem to start okay and just went further off the rails as it went. By the end it was a wacky nonsense mess that had nothing to do with the original story at all.

Originally Posted by dissention

I almost threw Under the Dome across the room when I got to Andrea's fate. I was pisssssssssssssssed.

Yep, one of thousands of terrible changes from the original. After a while, it almost felt like they were deliberately changing stuff just to see how awful and nonsensical they could possibly go with it.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by dissention

I almost threw Under the Dome across the room when I got to Andrea's fate. I was pisssssssssssssssed.

Haven't read the book since the year of its release, but she was the badass, right?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Haven't read the book since the year of its release, but she was the badass, right?

In the book she was the Third Selectman with the Oxycontin problem. In the tv series she supplies the town with canned goods she has horded away and stays mostly neutral, but then

[Show spoiler]Big Jim shoots her in the head for no apparent reason whatsoever.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

King has never been good adapting his own novels, but with a better director and a better cast this wouldn't have ended up as terrible as the film is, even with that screenplay. There is a reason why Mary Lambert's career never went anywhere despite the financial success of the film and why would you cast an actress as wooden as Denise Crosby as a grieving mother ? She was by far the worst link in the Star Trek TNG cast and I was glad when she got killed off at the end of season one. The actor playing her husband wasn't much better either.

I've seen rocks and trees that delivered better acting roles than Denise Crosby and Dale Midkiff delivered as the Creeds in Pet Sematary.

Also, while I've always loved Fred Gwynne as an actor, he was wrong, all wrong, for the role of Jud Crandall.