This is post #1,000. What does that mean? Only that this is post one thousand.
MSN has an interesting article titled "Stephen King's horror classics and lesser-known favorites" by Scott Stump. I LIKE IT!
According to Stump, King has sold 350 millions copies of his books. I wonder if that takes into consideration that some of us own a thousand copies of The Stand.
Stump's article is essentially a set of lists. Here are a few:
Classic King: The Stand, The Shining, Carrie, The Dark Tower and IT.
Also is a list of "Top" Stephen King Movie Adaptations, which includes: “Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption’’, “The Green Mile’’ , and “The Body." Stump obviously takes a liking to the non-horror movies, but I have to wonder, what about "The Mist" , "Carrie" and "Cujo"?
Dare I point this out. . . Stump gives us this hallmark of sentence structure, "Some of Kings scarier horror works from early in his career because memorably schlocky ‘80s movies that live on to this day." HUH? Okay MSN. . .
The gist is that some of King's movies are most defiantly marked by the 80's. About the Runningman, Stump says "The outfits are cringeworthy and the one-liners from Schwarzenegger come regularly." YES!
Finally we are given a short list of books by King that have been banned. So, it's kind of a hyper-active tour of the Stephen King world.
I suspect that sentence was intended to read "Some of Kings scarier horror works from early in his career became memorably schlocky ‘80s movies that live on to this day."
ReplyDeleteThat makes more sense. Not sure it's all that true, though...
Now that would make sense. If I worked at MSN, I'd hire ya, Bryant.
ReplyDeletedavid
If you worked there, I'd let you hire me!
ReplyDeleteThere are several other errors in that article worth pointing out. He refers to the novella as "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption," but the actual title is "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" -- no "the" in there.
Also, there's a link to another article about "Calls to action: 6 nooks that inspired political activism." Nooks!
Apparently, the star of "The Green Mile" was Tom Hands.
And did you know King wrote under the pseudonym Richard Bachmann? Funny; I thought it was Richard Bachman.
Goodness knows I'm not immune to the occasional horrible typo. Then again, I'm just an amateur blogger, not a paid professional journalist.
Hummm, I'm typo prone, too. . . but those are funny. Besides, we don't get paid to do this. Kinda makes me feel better. But, I keep thinking: THIS IS MSN!
ReplyDeleteTom Hands -- funny.
U have a sharp I.
david
That sentence almost makes it seem like the early books have faded away, but the movies are still around and loved, which is far from true. At least that's how I read it.
ReplyDeleteThat's how I read it, too. And I'm with you, I don't think it's true ... in some ways. In another way, I think it IS true.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that in terms of mass cultural consumption, movies are mostly more powerful than novels. And even in King's case, I think the movies and tv shows have massively boosted his long-term popularity.
Look at it this way. Movies like Secret Window, Hearts In Atlantis, Apt Pupil, The Running Man, Children of the Corn, and It are -- to one degree or another (and there are several of those that I quite like personally) -- considered to be either bad or mediocre. But they are still relatively well-known, in some cases thanks to big stars like Depp or Schwarzenegger, and therefore they will stay in the cultural consciousness for decades, getting shown on cable at odd hours and getting streamed on Netflix and sold for $5 at Walmart.
In that fashion, they will be seen by thousands upon thousands of people. Most of them will be unimpressed, but a lot of them will enjoy what they see. If one out of every thousand enjoys it enough to then pick up the book and see what it was like, then Stephen King's audience will continue to be quite large for a long time.
If and when any of these proposed blockbuster movies like The Dark Tower, The Stand, and 11/22/63 come out and actually DO the business they are designed to do, then you get a massively accelerated version of the same scenario.
And even the wretched movies have a similar version of the same effect, just on a reduced scale.
I've got no evidence for any of that, of course, but it seems logical to me.
In that sense, I think what the article said is actually somewhat true. The other part of the equation, of course, is that once movie-watchers turn to the books, they invariably find them to be so much more satisfying.
Ha! What about this sentence, in the paragraph about Pet Sematary: "It tells the tale of a family that moves near a pet cemetery and then uses its mysterious powers to bring him back to life, except he comes back as a killer." Um, him who? And I always hate how people talking about that film/book make it sound like the cemetery is the place with the power, when it's really the burial ground beyond it. Annoying.
ReplyDeleteOverall it seems to me like this article was not written by a "true" King fan. Almost every book mentioned has a movie adaptation, when there are some great overlooked King works that have not been made into movies yet. Seems like the average fan only likes to read books that they already know the story to, you know?
And Secret Window is not bad! I have a soft spot for that movie, I really enjoy it.
you're right, that is a common mistake about Pet Sematary. Not a true King fan. . and who is doing the editing over there?
ReplyDeleteI'll have to watch secret window again. I remember it is a movie I like much more than the book.
david