I'm on-board. They finally cast Big Jim, and it's Dean Norris from "Breaking Bad"!He'll be great. Plus, he was in "The Lawnmower Man." Which isn't really much of a plus, now that I think about it...
No, lawnmower man is not a plus
The only one you're missing is Dean Norris, cast as Big Jim Rennie yesterday. He's from Breaking Bad and a number of other things. Pretty good casting IMHO.
I look forward to it with anticipation and trepidation. The anticipation comes from seeing these characters I've read (and am currently reading again) brought to life and watching the story unfold.The trepidation comes from so many failed efforts at bringing King's work to television. It just allows the intellectual, effete snobs like Harold Bloom to heap more scorn on one of the most influential and prolific writers of the 20th century.
I'm excited. I felt like the book was flat at points and might actually be helped by television. It became a social commentary -- exagerated -- more than a novel. People behaved irrationally. It seemed like a liberal attempt to paint all conservatives and the religious as crazy. Preachers don't sell drugs read porn and then secretly beat themselves! Here's why: The ones who would be likely to beat themselves actually believe in judgment and thus live in fear of God. So those kinds of religious people beat themselves for small things. Religious people who sell drugs do not live with a hyper sense of God's judgment.
I agree that the story can be helped by TV in this case. In fact I'll go farhter and say it might improve all the "Flat" parts (and for me there are a lot of those).As for the diatribe part, like I said elsewhere, I don't think King was operating at full inspiration, and two while King strikes me as a Mere Christian, I think the sixties have given him a slight schizoid view of religion.Either that or he's got such a view of what real religion is that he has a much broader idea of what's "True" and what's just pretend or (to King) phony and therfore false (in the teaching sense of the word).ChrisC
I'd point out that the novel came out of an era during which Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee -- an ordained minister -- warned Iran to prepare themselves to face the "gates of Hell." There was a lot of crazy in the air back then, and most of it hasn't gone away.That said, I -- who am 85% liberal -- felt the novel's politics were a bit over-the-top, too. Someone recently pointed out to me that if you read it as satire, that changes somewhat. I can roll with that, I guess.Either way, I hope the series will take a more realistic/restrained approach.
I rolled my eyes as I was reading Under the Dome. I'm about 70 percent conservative, but that wasn't really the point. At some point, around 1992, Stephen King decided it was important that his Constant Reader be subjected to his politics. I've not enjoyed his books nearly as much since he started injecting his politics. When he keeps it free from politics -- which has in some novels since his feminist phase, I usually enjoy them. But, to me, King's just a writer -- not a political guru. I read him for entertainment. I'll read notable historians and biographies to get my politics.
It's not a new thing. It wasn't a new thing in '92, either. Ever read "The Stand" or "The Dead Zone"? There is plenty of political content in both.You seem to imply that only politicians should have political opinions, or at least if non-politicians have them they should keep them to themselves. Have I got that wrong?
The Stand was a social deconstruction/reconstruction. It never advocated liberalism over conservatism or vice versa.The Dead Zone was set against a political backdrop, but contained zero political commentary on an ideology or political party.It really showed up starting in Gerald's Game and went from there. I was truly nauseated when I heard that he based the Jim Rennie character on Dick Cheney. I'm reading the book now and liking it a lot less than I did the first time I read it, knowing that.Mr. King is entitled to his political opinions. I just don't value them. They are his books to write, and as such, he's free to inject as much of his political beliefs into them as he deems proper or necessary.I worked in politics for 15 years. I worked as a speechwriter for a Republican U.S. senator and the press secretary for a Democratic mayor of a major U.S. city. In between, I worked as an airport and seaport operator. Politics is like work for me. So when I escape into a good horror novel, I don't want to see politics there. It's like going on vacation and taking your briefcase.
I meant to say I was a lobbyist for an airport and seaport operator.
Fair enough. And I agree that he went maybe a wee bit too far down that road in "Under the Dome." Hopefully the adaptation will dial that element back a bit.
I'm always more interested in the people than I am in the monsters.--Stephen King
I'm always more interested in the people than I am in the monsters.