The Stand: Hate Mail To A Stephen King Fan

Episode 7: The Walk

There’s a lot of complaining here.  I wouldn’t read it if I were you.  But I feel better.

Know what CBS’ The Stand is like?  It’s like getting hate mail for being a Stephen King fan.  How dare any of us like the novel and think things should slightly resemble the book.  Every aspect must be changed, every character, every scene.  It's like being told, "Hey, you can't like that.  We'll fix it for you, make it politically correct, and then you can like our new retelling." 

At the beginning of the uncut version of The Stand, King gave the example of Hansel and Gretel, suggesting it could be retold but too many cuts hurts the story.  That's what CBS has done; made not just cuts, but so many deep changes and bad decisions that at some point they stopped telling the story of The Stand and started on a brand-new clunky soap opera.

What’s with calling Mother Abigail “Mother A” ?  Rally, it’s illogical for the role she plays.  Mother Abigail is supposed to be a revered spiritual leader.  You call your buddy “Mother A.”  You call your spiritual leader by a respectable title… Such as “Mother.”  But shortening her name to “A” is disrespectful for the prophetess role she holds in the community.  

Trashcan Man.  I like this rendition a lot because he does seem crazy.  But our new Trashcan Man is so insane (a muttering fool) that it’s hard to believe he could know how to get access to a nuke, pull it from the silo and transport it.  This is a guy who seems like he would have trouble getting a bus ticket.  So in his great wisdom, this is the guy Flagg chose to get him a nuke? !!! 

Speaking of Flagg being a poor leader; what’s up with Las Vegas?  It’s just one endless orgy.  The Flagg that Stephen King gave us ran a tight ship.  We all know the bad guys basically implode, but wow this retelling gives him a big head start in that direction.

This is probably a good place to ask: What’s up with Lloyd?  He’s supposed to be a tough hardened criminal capable of running the underworld.  This Lloyd is just Trashcan Man’s little brother.  He’s like a junior high kid who just doesn’t have it together yet. In fact, all of New Vegas is kind of like junior high.

Turns out: Flagg is not scary enough to be the dark man; he’s not smart enough to choose someone with half a brain to get him a nuke (he’s not even bright enough to find himself a righthand man who’s not pathetic) and Flagg’s not inspirational enough to actually draw anyone to him.  Who would follow this Flagg?  Maybe Trashcan Man and Lloyd, but that’s it.  That Las Vegas is full of Flagg followers is thanks to the script writers putting them there; because there’s nothing the Flagg character that would make us think anyone would be drawn that direction.

Whoopie Goldberg as Mother Abigail doesn’t work.  Her acting is bad; it’s just Whoopie reciting lines.  Her wig is terrible.  Her makeup is. . . did they put makeup on her?  She doesn’t look over 60.  It’s like they weren’t even trying.  Someone threw a wig on Whoopie, she jumped in the bed and read her lines off a teleprompter and kindly collected her billion-dollar paycheck.  She doesn’t seem old, weak or authentic. 

Whoopie Goldberg is deserving of the title “Mother A”… because this is not Mother Abigail.  I know they want to reinvent everything, but they should try to do better, not dumb it down.  That’s what we’re getting with the Stand, a dumbed down version.  Not a dumbed down version of the novel, a dumbed down version of the original miniseries.  Ruby Dee nailed the role in 1994.  Whoopie Goldberg had big shoes to fill, and she didn’t even try.

It is nice to finally be free from Herold.  The role was well played, but the show was becoming the Herold Show.  They were so busy developing this character that it took 5 episodes for Larry to get enough screen time to become likeable.

I really like Larry’s attempt to give Herold some dignity in death.  Track with me… I’ve been teaching through the life of King David.  When Saul and Jonathan died, even though Saul had made himself David’s chief enemy, David went and rescued his dead body so that he would be buried with dignity. (2 Samuel 21)  I’m sure the writers didn’t have king David in mind when they did this, but it’s very much reminiscent of that Biblical scene.

All in all, this is series is reduced to a letter from CBS and the Stephen King inner circle, “Dear fans, we hate you.” 

King has said a show and movie can’t ruin a book.  He’s correct, the book is right there, ready to be read it again.  But for now, the story is marred for me.  I started rereading Swan Song last week and fell in love again.  So, thanks for the hate mail, CBS, but don’t get too full of yourselves; there are better looking girls out there.

The Stand, Episode 4: CBS Hates Stephen King

Great, more scenes all chopped up.  It’s like someone ran the script through a blender.  

We start at a community meeting in the Free Zone.  

. . . But then bounce backward (we assume backward) to a committee meeting,  Don't get confused by community and committee, they are two different scenes. 

. . . only to be yo-yo’d back to the community meeting.  For me, this is the first scene where Larry is really likeable; even inspiring.  

. . . Wait, don’t get excited, because about the time this meeting gets interesting, we are sent back to the committee meeting.

. . . and you guessed it: We are back at the community meeting.  Wait, which is the flashback and which is reality?  It’s like a chicken egg question.  Which scene came first?

And all that the INTRO !

The skipping and dipping doesn’t stop there.  The entire show is a time-warp.  Back to the Future had less time travel.  

There is no “now” in the Stand.  What that means is that there’s no real story progression.  Here’s an example: There is a very good scene where Fran and Herold are attacked.  It wasn’t in the book, so it pulls everyone forward in their seat a little – what’s happening?  This is new.  Only, even as they put in what should look like an impossible situation, there’s no tension because we’ve already established it’s a flashback and our two main characters in the scene make it out just fine. How do we know?  Because some idiot told us the end of the story before telling us the story!

There are other strange things here.  One reason for doing the Stand on cable was to actually – do The Stand.  That is, TV couldn’t handle some of the Stephen King content.  However, twice now CBS has flinched.  First by not giving us the Lincoln Tunnel done “right.”  Actually, Mick Garris did great with that scene.  But I still would have liked to see it without television standard imposed.  But the oddities continue.  We all remember exactly what Nadine told Herold he could do to her; only, CBS is afraid to air that, so we just get strange hints.  

The need to change every single character is frustrating as well.  Sweet Tom is reduced to a joke; a bumbling idiot instead of the kindhearted good intentioned character he is in the novel.  The Judge can’t possibly be an old man; so for no reason at all, he becomes and old woman.  Why?  Just because CBS can.  Glenn is supposed to the old man of the story, but instead he’s just another middle aged white guy.  There’s no story reason for any of these changes.  At some point, it’s no longer Stephen King’s story that’s being told; it’s different people all together living in the universe of The Stand.  You almost expect this Tom to run into the Tom from the King novel, because they are two wholly different people.  So same plot, but with new characters.

It’s like that Star Trek (old series) where each person on the enterprise has a duplicate in another universe that’s like them, but just a little different.  With each character you go, “Yeah, that’s them... but something’s wrong.  Something’s off.”  It’s like drinking Coke without the right syrup mix.

If CBS wanted to give viewers a gift, they’d send the Stand back in for another edit.  A redo.  Because actually, I like the scenes a lot.  The characters are insanely good. At almost every turn, they made decisions with the cast that were brilliant.  But it’s all lost in the edit blender.

What someone should do is build a visual timeline we can track all this on, because at some point I'm just going to give up.  CBS teased, and then they kicked fans in the face with garbage.  

Dare I Say. . . The Institute Is Like . . .

I'll make you mad if you love Stephen King and can't see past your love to look at the work itself.  I don't care. 

The latest King novel, The Institute, does not live up to its rave reviews thus far for me.  Granted, I'm not through it, but I'm well in.  And thus far, it feels like little more than (dare I say) a Simpson's Episode. 

Like many other  novels, we are given extraordinary kids with great power.  Think Carrie.  But, on the other hand, don't think Carrie.  Because what made the engine in Carrie work was that she was an extraordinary kid in a circumstance any kid could find themselves in.  The institute gives us neither a believable setting nor believable characters; rendering it little more than cartoonish.   We could handle one or the other, and still feel a connection.  Add to this awkward super-kid plus and unreal situation -- bad guys who are nothing more than cardboard characters with "BAD GUY" written on their head, and the Simpsons would be a welcome relief.

Look, we all get what King is doing.  He can't hint around anymore.  He's blasted it all over social media -- this is about kids detained at the border.  And that might be a great situation for a King novel.  But this isn't it.  This is just page after page of super-kids verses "BAD GUY."  Will superkids win?  I have no doubt.

The Institute doesn't really mirror Carrie at all.  It is a painful reminder of Firestarter.  Which I liked, by the way --  a lot.  But this isn't it.  I'm game for government bad guys and superkids.  But guess what, we already have that novel.  King is just remaking his own stories while Hollywood remakes their movies every fifteen years.

The Dark Half Complaints

I finished reading the Dark Half the other night.  What started out for me as a full speed Stephen King horror thrill ride turned into tiresome suspended reality.  Frankly, I didn't like the second half; at all. 

I think the Dark Half would serve better as a novella.  The idea was not only fleshed out, it was obese.  Soon, as one idea built on another, characters began to behave in a way far removed from reality.  That's because the plot itself left any grounding in the real world to chase an idea. 

At the core, I have to simply ask: Did the ending work?  And my answer is a strong: No.  It was neither natural to the movement of the story, logical or even innovative.  The truth is, when the end finally came, I was just glad to leave these characters.  The unanswered questions pile up when you start to fact check the central themes of the Dark Half. 

In trying to tie it all together, by giving us plot line after plot line, King actually undid his own premise.  The book becomes overthought.  It's not a fun adventure at the end, because there is no doubt at all who is going to win.  But may I suggest, if King would have let the bad guy win in this one, it would have been a delight! 

The idea that a twin, killed in the womb, is actually a ghost with a voice of his own in his twin brothers head is great.  But there's no way, no plot line, that could actually allow him to steal the show and win.  So the story is empty of tension.  The reader never once actually thinks George Stark is going to beat the odds; he doesn't have a chance. Not in Stephen King's Castle Rock, anyway.

May I suggest that if King's story were actually followed through, though; Stark has a great chance of beating both Alan Pangborn and Thad Baumont.  (Baumont has to be a nod to writer Charles Beaumont who wrote some of the most memorable Twilight Zone scripts.)  But simply put, King cannot allow Stark to win.  That's because the story is so far from any reality, to not put it down would throw a lot of King's other work into suspended reality.  The story is set in Ludlow and Castle Rock.  What happens if George Stark beauts the writer and the sheriff and runs loose through the town?  Well, honestly, it seems the odds are in his favor.  Stark seems to come from no where, and is headed into no where as he decays quickly.  King isn't exactly clear how Stark became flesh and blood; but whatever that flesh is -- it ain't here to stay.  Stark needs Beaumont, and in the end, kocking him out isn't much harder for Thad than Superman giving Lex a gentle kick to the face. 

The killer, that started out with seemingly unlimited strength and no conscience, ends up just crumbling and being carried away by birds.  Why?  Because he can't be allowed to exist.  The "what if" is too big.  What if we allow someone as powerful as George Stark first appears to remain on the scene?  (What if we let the Death Star terrorize galaxy?)  After creating a wonderful, terrible, mean monster in George Stark, King quickly begins to downgrade him.  By the end of the book, he's practically on hospice.  His flesh is falling on and he's not anything of the force he was at the beginning of the novel.

The Dark Half doesn't pay off because George Stark himself doesn't pay off as a villain.  There are a few chapters King even dedicates to Stark's point of view; maybe hoping to give the reader perspective.  But again, these scenes only serve to weaken Stark. 

How Scary is IT?

Finders Keepers Journal #3: Spoilers and Whining

I think this is the picture referred to

I finished Finders Keepers the other night.  Obviously --

there are spoilers ahead.

The purpose of this blog is to talk about the book.  There is also a lot of whining ahead.  Not because I didn't like the book; I liked it every much.  The whining is just that, me thinking and rethinking things perhaps beyond necessity.  Feel free to comment and tell me I've lost my mind -- or that I sound like a sulking child.

1. Surprises.  I'll admit: King got me.  I thought mama bear was dead.  Then it turns out to be -- A SCALP WOUND?  Okay, Mr. King, you're directing this movie and I'll go with it -- but I'm getting doubtful.

2. Hodges.  Did he need to be in this book?  Of course, he's needed to save Peter, so his presence is important if you're Pete.  But I'm not sure that other than the final scenes, Hodges and company really did anything to advance the plot.  There was a lot of running around, and a lot of talking -- but when it really got down to it, they were stuck in traffic and only showed up at the last minute to serve as Pete's trap door of escape.

For a hard boiled crime book, may I ask -- did Hodges do any mystery solving this time?

I think I enjoyed the story more when it was focused on Pete and Morris.  That was a great story line!  A crook hides his loot, and a boy finds it.  The boy uses the loot to pay his parents bills.

Would a real teenage boy be able to pull off half of what Peter does in the novel?

3. Misery.  Finders Keepers reminds me of Misery.  It's a novel about books -- and writing.  While Misery was a very closed novel -- just two people -- Finders Keepers happens on a much bigger stage.  Remember Paul Sheldon jamming his burning novel into Annie's mouth?  Remind you of the end of Finders Keepers?

4. Frustrating.  The final plot twists between Morris and Peter are frustrating.  First, the entire thing seems illogical.  So Peter's plan is to stave off Morris by holding a lighter over the precious manuscripts?  As soon as the book took this turn, I was going, "Wait. . . what?!"  The scene plays out not the way I really think it might have, but the way King wants it to.  His direction feels heavy handed in the final scenes.  He's forcing the plot along, making it work because he wants it to work out for Pete.

Why would Pete burn the only existing Rothstein manuscripts?  Obviously the answer is that it was the only way to get himself out of the mess he was in.  But it really did make for a ridiculous scene as he held a lighter over the notebooks and Morris held a gun on him.  I was thinking, "Is this seriously a stand off?  Morris the murderer is held off by a boy with a lighter?"

That whining aside, I really liked it when Morris began to dig though the flaming notebooks.  Realistic? No.  But great stuff!  A man burning alive as he chases the thing he's killed to get.  Ultimately the very thing he's had to have, he's done anything to get -- is the thing that has him.

5. Ending.  The novel returns to the world of Mr. Mercedes, as Bill goes to visit Brady.  Is Brady possibly finding a way to get up and play tricks -- maybe even murder -- on the hospital staff?  The ending, which has a splash of telekinesis, is the only place I can think of where the paranormal has entered the trilogy.  Makes me wonder: Will the next novel center on Brady?  Will it involve more element of horror?

All that whining aside, I liked this a lot more than Mercedes.  Why?  Well, the plot itself, the engine that drove the book, was much more engaging.  And, King didn't try to make Morris sympathetic.  In Mercedes there were those strange scenes between mama and her boy; stuff that served to help us understand what made Brady tick.  Morris might be jut as complicated (he did, after all, kill his favorite author because he felt the guy sold out) but we don't have to spend too long in his head or his past.

Rose Madder Journal #2: This Is Where The Problems Begin

I was engrossed.  I mean, totally sold on this book and these characters.  When Rose Daniels left home and headed into the big unknown, I was ready to travel the path ahead with her.  Who knew hat adventures lay ahead.

The very point where I thought the book would really take off and get exciting, the problems began.  Rose finds herself in a train station, low on money and seeking shelter.  As she moves among the homeless hoping to find safety somewhere, I began to realize -- this is an "agenda" novel.  King isn't writing a story so much as he's trying to get me to sympathize with a character so he can then make a point.

Characters that were fresh, tight and intricate quickly began to get one-dimensional.  Everyone is against Rose.  The pregnant lady she asks for directions from curses her out.  Why?  Wait -- that's a big WHY?  Why Just to show that society will kick someone when their down, even a pregnant lady can't be nice to poor Rose.

The villain I thought would be a great "bad guy" -- maybe one of King's best -- evaporated quickly.  He's a cop, and a bad boy at that.  But he's ALL bad.  He's so nasty, he's unbelievable.  How does this guy make it though life?  People aren't just one thing; they are multifaceted.  This is something King often excels in bringing to the page; but not in Rose Madder.  Characters are good and bad.  That's it.  There is no complicated Roland or Eddie.  What made the Dark Tower work was that the characters were both flawed and noble.  We identified with them.  In Rose Madder, everyone is painted in single strokes with little detail.

Yes, I feel for Rose when her back hurts.  But scenes play out with such simplicity, the reader knows what's coming before it happens.  There's not need for King to write out the scene where she goes to exchange her very expensive wedding ring, because the reader knows the moment she walks in the pawn show that  the ring isn't worth anything.  King is known for pulling surprises and plot twists; but so far, Rose Madder isn't doing much twisting.

THEN -- Rose encounters a painting that catches he attention.  Could this be the plot twist?  It's hard to hang in there, because even though I suspect there is something special about this painting (can she move inside paintings?), I'm not sure I want to travel the many pages it will require King to get to the point.  Not because I don't love King's writing; usually I'm patient as he builds a story.  But this one is becoming painfully predictable. King makes the mistake of boaring the reader.

In The Stand, there were plot twists I never saw coming.  When King killed off the first batch of good guys, I realized: Anything can happen!

With Rose Madder, I'm beginning to feel like this is one of those John Grisham novels, written with more agenda than story. (Read the Street Lawyer, you'll see what I mean.  And I loved that book, but it was definitely an "agenda" novel.)

But I'm still here.  Still reading.  Still working through this book.  Because sometimes it takes a while for King to make the magic happen.

Josh Boone Is Making Me Cringe

Does anyone get nervous anytime they see a headline about the upcoming movie, The Stand?  I do.  Because it seems like so many bad decisions have already laid a foundation that cannot support

Tommy Cook at Collider has an interview with director Josh Boone on The Stand.

• Here are the bullet points
• I finished writing the script maybe a month ago. 
• Stephen [King] absolutely loved it.  
• It’s, I think, the first script ever approved by him. (Seriously, Josh?  King WROTE the original screenplay for The Stand.  I doubt YOUR version is the first script he ever approved!)
• It might begin filming in Six to eight months.  Possibly in Spring 2015. 
• [It'll be] a single version movie of The Stand. Three hours. 
• It hews very closely to the novel.  

Wait a minute.  Hold the bullet points.  Three hours. . . close to the novel.  That's not possible.

When asked how he would trim down a story as big as the Stand, Boone gave this answer:

 I just focused on the things that I felt strongly about, that I have strong memories about, that are evocative to me even when I read it now . . . 

. . . I just focussed on the things that were more important to me and felt essential to me and were based in the characters.

So the movie is really, "Josh Boone's favorite parts of The Stand" -- not Stephen King's THE STAND.

Boone goes on to discuss the fact he's an atheist/agnostic.  Frustrating, since for many of us, The Stand is an intensely spiritual book.  We already had a rather flat rendition by Garris; but at least Garris gave the story the room it needed to breath.

Is The Stand a religious novel?  From Stephen King, A Face Among The Masters:

In 2008, King told novelist John Marks in Salon magazine that The Stand was his attempt to give God his due. “Too often, in novels that are speculative, God is a kind of kryptonite, and that’s about all that it is, and it goes back to Dracula, where someone dumps a crucifix in Count Dracula’s face, and he pulls away and runs back into his house. That’s not religion,” King told Marks. “That’s some kind of juju, like a talisman. I wanted to do more than that. I wanted to explore what that means to be able to rise above adversity by faith, because it’s something most of us do every day.” He then said that he wanted The Stand to “be a God trip.” (Stephen King A Face Among The Masters)

For Fun: Worst Book You Ever Read

image credit HERE

Just for fun (which is what a blog is, right, just for fun). . .

Stephen King shared some bad novels in his book On Writing.  He has also openly stated some of his own least favorite books.  You don't want to take Mr. King to a Twilight book signing -- things would get quickly awkward.

Copy the questions, write your own answers.  Or copy my answers, I feel secure about what I wrote.

What is the worst book you ever read?  (You have to have read it all, not started it and stopped)
The Beast Within by Edward Levy.   I read a tattered used copy, and hated it big time.  I thought it was all out stupid.  But then, it gave me great hope.  If that  could get published -- and a movie made of it -- then maybe I would someday be able to write something and get a movie made of it.

Twilight got the highest rating when goodreads asked that question.  (HERE)  Unfortunately the goodreads  poll didn't stick with novels, so it got  pretty political.

Rank right up there with The Beast Within the book Amityville  Horror.  Before you tell me what a great story this is, consider  this:  It's like listening to children tell a big lie.  "And then the bed was  floating. . . and then a pig was in the window. . . and there were pig tracks in the snow. . . and then the water was all black and stuff and it started oozing out the walls. . . and then the cross turned  upside down. . ." I wanted to scream at these people throughout the book, "If you're scared of ghosts, don't move in a house where a whole family was murdered and then let your children sleep in their beds!"  I wonder if the pig was named Misery.

What is the worst classic book  you have read?
A Separate Peace.  The book was slow and I never understood what it was actually about.

What is the worst Stephen King book you ever read?
I have not completed a novel I was unhappy with -- that I can think of.  I found Rage pretty depressing, but the writing was strong.  I even enjoyed the pages King released of The Cannibals, and that wasn't even edited.  I think I just decide ahead of time -- I'm going to like this!  and I do.  When I don't like a King book, I stop reading.

What book were you forced to read that you did not like?
The Heart of Darkness.  I might have liked it,  had it not been forced on us.  Add to that, for the same reasons, Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut.  None of us in High School "got" it.  Of course, we may not have  been a real  bright class, as we were also scratching our heads on what in the world Catcher in the Rye was about.  Oh, and there was a Vietnam book called "In Country."  It was so dry that I bought the abridged audio version just so I could pass the test.  I passed.

When  it comes to books I don't like . . . it's just my opinion.  Obviously other people thought they were great books,  as most of these have  been turned into movies.  Not good movies!

Your Turn!

Huffington Post Blog Accuses Stephen King Of Not Being Able To Write

Michael Conniff posted a blog post at Huffington Post titled, "Why Stephen King Can't Write." (huffingtonpost.com)

Conniff declares that he likes everything Stephen King stands for, and cites a list that really has nothing to do with things King actually "stands" for.  Like -- He has a library next to his house.  Well, if that's the case, put me on the list, I also stand for having libraries next to your house!  I stand with you both!

Wait, you might be wondering who it is that Huff Post has decided is worthy of the platform of smashing Stephen King.  Michael Conniff is a well known author.  In fact, he's sold 11 books.  Not 11 million.  Not 11,000.  11.  ELEVEN.

So exactly how does the esteemed author think Stephen King has failed the writing world?  (Never mind that Stephen King actually wrote the book On Writing!)
 
Of course, after pointing out that Stephen King has sold a few more books than he has, Conniff resorts to telling ust hat sales don't matter, only the words on the paper matter.  And that might be true, but in the world of writing, readers  are the judge of those words.  And it appears the American public judges King worthy of continued sales.  And, 11 people have bought Mr. Conniff's books.  11.

Conniff builds his case on King's latest novel, Mr. Mercedes.  This is frustrating because King used a different style for Mercedes than his usual third person past tense.  Everything is told in present tense in Mercedes, a style King has never used for an entire novel.  So to judge the whole of his work, his ability to write, on this one novel seems like nothing more than a sulky uneducated jealous writer wanting to get some punches in on the big guy.  (Thanks Huffington Post for giving Conniff the platform to do this.)

Conniff accuses King of, "bad writing." After giving us an example paragraph, he then calls King out on "strike two" and asks, "what in the name of all that's scary is a "rank of doors"? Is it some kind of hierarchy or grading system or a band from the Sixties?  I have no idea, and if you're honest, neither do you. It's a stinkeroo."

Here's King's sentence: "When Augie reached the top of the wide, steep drive leading to the big auditorium, he saw a cluster of at least two dozen people already waiting outside the rank of doors, some standing, most sitting."

Made sense to me.  Need it broken down?  Is something unclear?  Wold Conniff think it owuld be better stated, "he saw a cluster of at least two dozen people already waiting outside a bunch-o doors."
Wait, Conniff then gives King a big "strike three."  Which is easy when you make up the game, and you're the Umpire.  The bottom line of his third complaint is that Conniff doesn't like complicated sentences.  He would probably prefer my the books piles up in my children's rooms.  In fact, Conniff declares that King's sentence is "completely incoherent."  And it is -- for him.

Conniff rants, "Wide? Steep? Big? Doors mysteriously ranked? Mazelike non-maze? They prickle me not."  Genius.

Then he makes the charge that because King is focused on  the story, he doesn't care about the words he uses.  He's just barfing up words to push the story forward.  Which is, of course, the opposite of what he argues in On Writing.  A whole portion of On Writing deals with the tools of the craft -- words.

Wait, Conniff isn't done.  He then suggests that it's the movies that save Stephen King's stories.  (REALLY!)  Conniff writes:

it takes movies like "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile" to bring his ideas to life. 

Finally, Conniff confesses, "I've never loved his writing."  Of course, he's cited how many books he actually read? Mr. Mercedes and On Writing.  That's it.  I don't know if he's read more, because he doesn't say, and without using WORDS, I have no way of knowing what Conniff has read.

Finally, the Huff Post blogger decides to smack all of us who like King -- because, of course, we're buying Stephen King books and not Michael Conniff books.  (Well, 11 of you might have switched teams here.  11.)    Connif says, "In a way, you can't blame Stephen King for his shortcomings as a writer. Like his audience, he just wants to find out what happens next."  In other words, King so intense into his story, he doesn't care how he gets there.

So Conniff never addresses Kings ability to build characters, advance plot, create suspense and draw the reader right into the mind of some pretty terrible people.  He doesn't look at King's real gift, characters.  Why?  Because simply put, Conniff can't handle the way Stephen King writes and sentence.  His arrogance and pride blinds him to the fact that he's tossing stones at an American Master.  

Obviously, Mr. Conniff needs to read my book, "Stephen King, A Face Among The Masters."  Then he will be better equipped to understand why Stephen King's work is important.

Star Wars Misery

My kids wanted to watch Star Wars the other day.  That lead to a typical argument of "which one"they wanted to see.  Finally, we agreed to watch the whole series in order.  That was a mistake.  At the midpoint of the first episode, I was alone in the room, holding in there as something really bad happened on my screen.

My wife was surprised when I moved on to episode two.  Really, her look said, you're going to stick with it?  Yep.  Because sometimes when you don't like a movie, it gets better with the lowered expectations.  But it didn't.  I just kept saying, "This is so stupid!"  For instance, in the first episode, Jar Jar Binks brings help to his home planet;  so what do they do?  Give him his own speeder or a special house?  Maybe a medal?  Nope.  They make him a general!  A GENERAL!  Now in Return of the Jedi, Han was made a general; but it made some sense.  But who would follow Jar Jar into combat as a sergeant, just as well a general?  "Naboo deserves to lose against the trade federation," I murmered.

When it was time for episode three, I decided to move to something new.  That lead to The People v. George Lucas.  My favorite part were scenes from a longer fan movie (Forcery) in which a woman plays Annie Wilkes, from Misery.  In the first scene, she is explaining (by screaming, just like Annie) that the scene with Han Solo and Greedo doesn't make sense anymore.  In the final scene, George forces Annie to eat the Star Wars film he created just for Annie.  Message is: It's my toys, and you don't get to change it.  He will control what fans see.

So what exactly is wrong with the first three movies?  Here you go:
1. Jar Jar Binks is ridiculous. He's a cartoon character in the real world.  It's like Star Wars became Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
2. Metachlorians created a virgin birth for little Anakin.   Or something like that.
3. It's boring.  Turns out Jedi are like Vulcans, no emotion.
4. There's a rain/storm planet in episode two -- but the landing pad to the robot factory is in the open.  Good idea, when you live on a rain planet -- don't build a covered walkway to your landing pad.  I mean, we lowly earthlings can figure out the need for a garage and covered walkways, but apparently the people who are doing advanced human cloning can't think of a way to land a spaceship inside.
5. Darth Vader's, "nooooooo."
6. Is it me, or did Obi Wan age really bad between episode 3 and episode 4 ?  Really bad.

I'll stop.  Here's Forcery, I like it a lot.

The Stand Movie Is In Trouble

Josh Boone gave vulture.com a glimpse at his plans for the theatrical version of The Stand.

We’re gonna do one three-hour, R-rated version with an amazing A-list cast across the board. Every single one of those characters will be somebody you recognize and somebody you relate to. And it’s gonna be awesome. I’m really excited. It’s the most exciting thing I’ve ever got to do in my entire life. If 12-year-old me had ever known that one day I’d be doing this, to even just go back and look at that kid, I’d be like, Keep doing what you’re doing! It’s just crazy. I’ve met so many actors over the years, and like, when I met Stephen King, I hugged him with tears in my eyes. He meant that much to me when I was young. I still say everything I learned about writing I learned from Stephen King. I don’t read screenplays. I don’t read screenplay how-to books. It’s always just, establish the character. Establish the character.

Vulture's Gilbert Cruz did not follow up on that statement at all.

So let's size that up:

1. It's going to be "ONE" three hour movie.
One.  ONE!  Uno.

Okay, the hobbit is about 276 pages.  It is being made into three movies.  The Stand is over 1,000 pages; and it is going to be made into one movie.  See a problem?  They are turning an epic story into a three hour cram session.

The Stand is enormously complex in terms of plot and character alone.  It simply cannot (CANNOT) be done in 3 hours.  Remember the History Channel's adaptation of The Bible miniseries?  It skipped and dipped and made such a mess of things it left anyone who knew much  about the Bible cringing.  In fact, the final scenes tried to accomplish the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles  and the Revelation all in just a few brief scenes.  It was terrible.  Will we have to suffer through similar carnage with The Stand?

Here's  what's frustrating: When a book has a really great scene, and the movie barely gives that a cursory nod.  The film doesn't have time to build up suspense as Larry heads  toward the Lincoln Tunnel, just as well spend much time with him navigating through it.  There isn't time to build the scenes, because the plot is so big, it has to just keep bombarding us with more information.

There is no room for character development. Characters will have to be combined, cut or barely mentioned.

King released the "Complete and Uncut" edition.  Now Boone is going to give us a version even Readers Digest wouldn't recognize.  A three hour version of The Stand is like a circumcision that cuts off the entire. . . never mind.  Let's just say that three hours isn't enough time to set the stage and tell the early stories; just as well complete the entire novel.

2. There's going to be lots of big names.  Yeah -- I don't care.  King once said it's the tale, not he who tells it.  And sometimes with movies, it's about the story, not the actors.  Some movies get so focused  on the actors that it loses sight of the most important thing; the story.

A cast of unknowns made Star Wars.  However, Dennis Quaid, Greg Kinnear, Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Liev Schreiber, Naomi Watts, Anna Faris, Emma Stone, Richard Gere, Uma Thurman, Chloë Grace Moretz, Gerard Butler, Halle Berry, Stephen Merchant, Terrence Howard, Elizabeth Banks, and Julianne Moore couldn't save Movie 43, about which Lou Lumenick of the New York Post worte, "If you mashed-up the worst parts of the infamous Howard the Duck, Gigli, Ishtar and every other awful movie I've seen since I started reviewing professionally in 1981, it wouldn't begin to approach the sheer soul-sucking badness of the cringe-inducing Movie 43."

3. It's going to be an R-rated version. 
Okay, I guess.  I'm not sure I'm really familiar with movies aiming to get an R-rating.  Surely what he is trying to say is that the movie will be more gritty, scary and so on than the mini-series was.

What's really going on with this R-rating talk is an apology.  "Sorry we're only making one movie when we should make three.  But hey, we'll put a lot of gore and sex into it, and that should make things better."  Toss in there, "And, don't get mad yet, because we are going to get a lot of really super name actors that you'll recognize right off the bat.  That will make it a great movie."  He's apologizing!  Groveling.  Begging. "Please don't give up on my movie.  I'll make a lot of things go boom and spend a lot of money."

Can it be done?  I guess.  Can it be done well?  No way.  Thus far, I like the cover of Revival better than I like this news about The Stand.

The Stand is one of those novels the Constant Reader really doesn't want Hollywood to touch unless  they know what  they're doing.  It's an American classic.  Look, don't mess up To Kill A Mocking Bird, The Grapes of Wrath or The Stand.

Cemetery Dance Has A Deal For You. . .

I like Cemetery Dance a lot.  Mostly I like the books they publish.  My copy of Full Dark No Stars was awesome!  As was the anniversary edition of IT.  And for both those books, I paid a lot.  But I was willing because they were Stephen King special editions.

Cemetery Dance is currently promoting sales of a book about the Salem's Lot miniseries, titled, "Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot: Studies in the Horror Film."  The 464 page book is due out in April, 2014.

Few horror films in the history of television can boast the deadly seriousness, inspired casting, indelible images and lingering impact of Salem’s Lot. Tobe Hooper’s adaptation of Stephen King’s 1975 novel about vampires that infest a small Maine town was first broadcast in November 1979. 

The three-hour film featured unforgettable performances by an array of stars — James Mason, David Soul, Lew Ayres, Bonnie Bedelia — along with one of the most truly terrifying monsters in the history of movies: the feral vampire Mr Barlow played by Reggie Nalder. 

This book documents the gestation and production of the film. There are reminiscences from cast and crew, including new and exclusive interviews with Tobe Hooper, David Soul, cinematographer Jules Brenner and producer Richard Kobritz; dozens of images, including many never before published behind-the-scenes production stills; deleted scenes from the original teleplay; foreign posters and artwork inspired by the film; photographs of Ferndale, California, where the exteriors of Salem’s Lot were filmed; and much, much more.

That looks really neat!  But there is a bit of sticker shock on this one.  How about $40 for the PAPERBACK.

I'm not suggesting collectors won't buy this book, because obviously CD knows their market.  What I'm wondering is why.

Mr. Mercedes is selling for $18.00 first edition hard cover.  Revival is selling for 19.48.  So for $37.48 you can have BOTH Stephen King first edition new books -- or there the $40 Salem's Lot book.

Leads me to a curious question.  What price should books about Stephen King be set at?  

 

Catching Up On THE DOME

I gave up on Under The Dome when Max just magically appeared from the beauty salon. The show slipped into serious soap opera.  My feeling at the time was that the show was actually insulting out intellegence.  CBS seemed to think we would just believe and buy anything with Mr. King's name on it.

Time for a second attempt.

I watched the entire season last week on DVD.  What I found was that now, even episodes I'd originally been  more forgiving toward because I thought they were "going somewhere with this" were now pretty lame.  Junior chains Angie up in his basement, but later they're pretty cool with each other.  She has the amazing (AMAZING) ability not to tell everyone she meets what just happened.  You get kidnapped and chained up, and when you break free your first  thought it, "well, maybe if they let me run the local diner, I won't say anything about this.  After all, they chained me up for my own good."

Can Linda get any more dense?  If a new season can offer us anything, it would be her welcome demise.  But somehow I suspect the producers are pretty taken with her.  I'm sure we'll be expected to root and cheer when she finally figures out one plus one is two and Big Jim isn't really that nice a guy.  Of course,  by then it will have taken her over an entire season to put the clues together.

Should we despair the promise of more characters? Chesters Mill has plenty of room for more towns people to be highlighted.  What I hope they don't do is more magic acts where people just step onto stage and tell us they've been hiding out the entire time.

At times preachy and at times melodrama, Under The Dome is difficult because I so much want to like it.

Was that really a cliff hanger?  I've got to say, I have  not spent my time away from The Dome wondering if they would really hang Barbie.  But I do feel a little Annie Wilkes about this.  In Misery, Annie Wilkes rants about going to see Rocketman.  The episode cut off with Rocketman going off the cliff and his car exploding, with him in it.  When the next episode came, guess what -- Rocketman is shown quickly jumping out before the car goes over.

Annie says, "‘That isn’t what happened last week! Are you all too stupid to remember? Did you all get amnesia?’ And my brother said ‘You’re crazy, Annie,’ but I knew I wasn’t. And the manager came and said if I didn’t shut up I’d have to leave and I said ‘You bet I’m going to leave because that was a dirty cheat, that wasn’t what happened last week!’"

I'm not expecting the writers to cheat us with Under the Dome like with Rocketman.  But I do wonder if they really think we are on the edge of our seat thinking, "what will  happen to Barbie?  Will they hang him?"  Hey, I say -- give us a surprise and hang the dude.  What was a likable character iun the book is a thug in the miniseries.  He might be the only one able to stand up to Big Jim, but it odesn't change the fact that his own moral compass is seriously broken.

I guess what I'm wondering is -- where are  the producers going with this thing?  They run down different plot avenues, seemingly unsure what this thing is really about.  It's like watching a teenager with an identity crisis.  Can they pull this off?  King writing the first script gives hope, but once it falls into new hands, hope fades.  Remember Lost?  Started strong, but limped its way to the end.

By the  way, I do enjoy Under The Dome, but I don't have confidence in where this is going.  More characters are being introduced, meaning there will be a lot more deaths.  Will the Dome have  a logical explanation?  I hope so.  Will it be better than the book?  It's already lost that potential.  Is it fair to compare the book to the show?  Of course it is! Because the novel was so incredibly strong both with characters and plot, it is fair for us to expect the same from the show.

Rebooting Good Movies

I was watching Pet Sematary last night when I saw Lilja's Library post news that the reboot was underway again.  I saw the Carrie reboot last week, and liked it a lot.  Variety notes that the original was a hit, bringing in $57 million on only a $11 million budget!  So  my reaction to a reboot is a simple "why?"

Unlike Carrie, which was pretty rooted in the 70's -- Pet Sematary holds up today.

Shortlist.com suggests that the reason the film is being remade is because  the original didn't "capitalize" on their own great idea.  They then dig up the used suggestion that they aren't remaking the movie, but going back to the book.  Now we heard this with Carrie.  I liked Carrie, it was most certainly a remake of DePalma's film -- not a return tot he book.  The ending alone was a play on the original that had nothing to do with the book.  It was an update of DePalma's film, not a return to the world of Stephen King.

Also, in the new Carrie film we had Margaret White crucified with household objects.  Did this idea come from DePalma or King?  Well, give Carrie a quick read and you'll discover that indeed a DePalma remake was in the works, not a return to Stephen King's CARRIE.  From wikipedia:

"Carrie returns home and confronts a crazed Margaret, who claims she conceived Carrie due to marital rape. When Margaret stabs Carrie, she kills her mother by telekinetically stopping her heart."

Now is that what happened in the recent "more faithful" adaptation of Carrie?  No!  They went with the more dramatic DePalma ending.  Which is fine, but why pretend it was a return to the book when it was clearly not?

So, I have this feeling -- where we go again.  Same jabber offered up for another remake, which is this time truly unnecessary.

The other reason offered for remaking Pet Sematary is that it wasn't very scary.  I guess that's a matter of taste.  I thought it was dark, creepy, faithful to the book and scary.

What's the real reason for all the remakes?  Fear of trying new things.  Investors don't want to put money into a risky new project, but would rather try and resell things they've already done.  It's like Van Gogh trying to repaint Starry Night.

If money is being poured in Stephen King projects, why doesn't someone take on Duma Key, Rose Madder or From a Buick 8.  And if we just have to remake Stephen King films, how about making a real adaptation of Needful Things.  Now there's a book that would make a good mini-series.

And, how about this; instead of giving us another movie version of Pet Sematary, give us the book on audio.  How about that.

Carrie Confusion

Doctor Sleep Journal #4: I Talked To Stephen King Today

Annie, trying to be scared of a book she never read

The Girl With The Book:

This involves what some might consider whining.  Be assured, it is not whining, it is sulking.

Why is she holding a copy of Doctor Sleep in Walmart?  Let's just say I have to visit Walmart to see a real print edition of this book right now.  I guess part of buying a super-duper copy of Doctor Sleep is the joyful experience of waiting for it.  So, my joy and anticipation increases each day. Waiting.  waiting.  waiting.

What Stephen King Said To Me

One of the  things I  really love about King's writing is that he is not locked into a single, robotic form or style.  He is very free in his narration.  The reader can tell when he feels  light hearted, or when he just wants to scare us somethin' fierce.

In chapter 5 King speaks directly to the reader.  I'm listening to the novel, so it's like he's there -- in my headphones, talking right to me.  Here are a couple of examples (I'm choosing quotes I've heard King publically read)

--How many times have you found yourself behind a lumbering RV, eating exhaust and waiting impatiently for your chance to pass? Creeping along at forty when you could be doing a perfectly legal sixty-five or even seventy? 

--Or maybe you’ve encountered them in the turnpike rest areas, when you stop to stretch your legs and maybe drop a few quarters into one of the vending machines.

King goes on like this for quite a few pages, talking to us about those RV's that seem like such a normal part of America.  It's a shared common experience.

Is this style normal?  I don't think so.  Usually writers feel compelled to be a little more -- serious.  But King has no problem removing the wall between himself and the reader and speaking directly to us.  The narrative tone is conversational, easy going and even kind of gentle.  But don't be fooled!  King is laying a trap for the reader.  He is speaking gently right to us, drawing us in so that he can do crazy stuff to our brains and scare us so bad we scream like little girls.

I like the conversational narration a lot.  It makes it clear that this is not happening in a fantasy world; this isn't mid-world or OZ; This is happening in our world.  Does that matter?  YES!  King is not really telling a story set in in our world.  He is telling a story about vampires and decaying women who come out of your bathtub.  To help you with this -- that doesn't happen in our world! But by speaking to me, suddenly my world feels like it is indeed that world.  I have been drawn in to King's story, and my entire world with it.  Suddenly my world is one where nasty dead bodies could rise up out of the bathtub.  My children are in danger of the True Knot.

Shared experiences are important to this book.  King not only uses things we are familiar with -- RV's -- but events we all experienced together.  Things like the events surrounding 9/11 are given subthemes in the novel, causing the reader to quickly identify.  By the way, it says something for our national healing as 9/11 is now beginning to appear in literature as a fictional theme without people feeling traumatized.  (Yes, I do remember the towers had a role in the Dark Tower)

So what did Stephen King say to me?  (and you, if you'll read it)  He said that RV's might seem like a normal part of American life.  We all experience some of the same frustrations when we get stuck behind them, but we really don't pay them any mind.  However, we  should not be so quick to just think of them as part of the landscape of America.  It is the perfect place for evil to camouflage itself.

Scraps: Stuff That Caught My Eye:
1. Jerusalem's Lot
2. Hello Tony.
3. I like this quote

America is a living body, the highways are its arteries, and the True Knot slips along them like a silent virus.

The True Knot -- Evil or Not?

King is so good at putting us in the mind and body of his characters that he can actually get the reader to identify with some pretty naughty people.  Crazy as it sounds, as the True Knot took "steam" from a young boy, they so perfectly explained their morale that I understood it. They are so incredibly evil!  And they know  they are evil.  But, as they see it, they have to eat.  We don't think much of eating a cow. Well, they just happen to eat. . . steam.

Under The Dome: America Is Smarter Than You Think

I've loved Under The Dome until  the last couple episodes.  I've been willing to let small things slide because I thought the acting and story were strong.  However, the last couple episodes have  slipped into soap opera mode. 

CBS is committing a pretty big offense in my opinion; they're acting like America is stupid.  Well, we are sometimes, but we don't want to be talked down to or spoon fed plots that wouldn't even work on daytime TV.

Houston, we have a problem.  Wait, negative Houston, we have a few problems!

Spoilers ahead. 

I've liked Under the Dome a lot. But last weeks episode was terrible.  The mystery they are trying to create is getting lost by the whacky way they choose to leave clues and introduce characters.

First some small stuff.  It seems someone can't keep good time between scenes.  For instance, we'll get people driving across town, cut away to a long scene that should take hours, then cut back to the people driving and they are just arriving.  Didn't they get there already?  When Julia and Joe go to the mini-dome, they communicate with the dome then head back.  There is a scene break, and when we get back  to Julia  and Joe  they are coming back into town -- but it's night.  It was day when they left the mini-dome.  How long does it take to move across this town?

The writers worked overtime to make it clear that Carolyn would not be in this episode.  They talk about her, but only to explain to us -- the poor dumb audience -- that her presence is unnecessary. They even skipped the burial scene so as not to have to bring her into the episode.

Then we have Ollie.  He manages to surround all of his enemies -- the Sheriff, Big Jim, Junior and Barbie.  So what does he do?  He gives them a big warning and sends them on their way.  Because, of course, it's a good idea to save  the battle for another day when it won't be so easy.  If Ollie is power hungry, why does leave all of his opposition in power when he has opportunity to take them down?  It's no surprise that Big Jim goes right back and gathers his forces.  And, to make it worse, he then trusts the son to kill the father.  No chance of the boy backing out on that, right?

Scenes between Big Jim and Ollie are reduced to melodrama. It amounts to Ollie saying, "You want the power,  but I want the power.  And I'm going to get the power from you." And Big Jim saying something like, "This is my town. I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the power."  (That's not what they actually said.)  After watching scenes like this, where characters are reduced to stating the obvious for the sake of the poor audience who might not be able to keep up, I find myself mentally checking out.

The best place Coggins could think of to hide his stuff is in a coffin?

Why have  people stopped congregating outside the Dome?  Where is the press?  Did the military chase everyone off?  It seems the citizens have very little interest in making or maintaining contact with the outside world.

With Ollie removed, it seems the writers realize they need someone to create tension with Big Jim.  So, out of the blue, we're introduced to Max.  Understand, this isn't near the beginning of the series, but well into the character development already in play. She knows these characters, has history in the town and seems to have the goods on everyone. 

But wait CBS. . . where did Max come from?  Is she like Maggie Simpson, able to slip under the Dome and back? Not at all!  There's a much more reasonable explanation.  See, she's been trapped in the dome all this time, but just decided to spy on everyone. Unbelievable in itself, the situation is more sticky when she explains that she managed to keep from making contact with anyone when the Dome came down.  So all of her news has come by independent observation and by listening to the radio station.  Yet she seems quite in-the-know as to what's happening.  This entire line of plotting is the kind of thing that frustrates me.

Also, we are supposed to think that Max resisted to urge to get with other people, reconnect with society, and instead has simply been plotting how she might benefit from this crisis.

She's been hiding all this time -- apparently in a salon, because she looks like she just stepped out of the Barbie dream house.  She slipped into Big Jim's house (of course a paranoid like him wouldn't lock his door) in high heels?

This is where television writers lose credibility.  "We can do anything," the reasoning seems to go, "because you're dumb enough to follow."  Just because we like a show doesn't mean we're ready to swallow anything they throw our way. We start watching a program because it seems to hold some level of credibility.  To be enjoyable, a big idea has to be carried out with some realism; all the more when the central idea is science fiction.  When viewer start to get the impression that the writers aren't going to play by fair rules, then interest wanes. 

I am getting concerned that the writers don't know what the Dome really is.  They are piling on so many clues they can go any direction they want.  But will it all add up in the  end?  I hope so.

What I Miss About Digital Books

I am loving every bit of Joyland -- all of it! -- except  that I  can't get it on Kindle.  I don't even own a Kindle, but I have  the app on my computer and can probably read it also on my iphone.  So what's to miss? 

1. I miss my growing relationship with the language.  I would  submit to Mr. King that digital books are more than simply a convenience -- they give us a deeper access to words themselves.  Though under glass, I actually feel a bit closer to the language.  In fact, if a word is confusing I can look it up quickly without worrying  if I am spelling it correctly.  I do this often with theology books.

2. I miss being able to search the text quickly and accurately.  This is an amazing feature I use constantly in work.  Being able to find a specific line, or the exact wording of a quote, or even the ability to count the number of times a certain word is used all requires a search feature. 

SEARCH would be particularly nice to be able to search "talk" -- as in Carney talk.  The word won't appear too often in Joyland outside that reference, so it would allow me to find all the times King gives us those new words.  The only other way to make this happen is to take copious notes as I read.  It also requires I decide  ahead of time what words I'm going to mark and note.  With a search feature, you can realize mid novel that something was important and grab up the earlier references.

Finding things is particularly difficult in Joyland, since there is no numbering!  You can't make the mental note, "Okay, we're in chapter 7 -- so I need to look up things I just read in chapter 6."

3. I miss the "anywhere" feeling that digital gives.  I don't have to decide to take a book with me, if I"ve got it digitally downloaded, it is with me.  This is really nice when dealing with lots of cumbersome theology commentaries!

4. I miss seeing others highlights.  Kindle allows you to spot passages other readers have marked.  This can actually cause me to slow down and go back to a narrative and ask, "now why was that important?"  And I see things I'd run right by.  This feature is like walking around Disneyland.  There is so much to enjoy, you're not always sure what to take in.  But when you see a big crowd gathered in on place,  you might hover close just to see what the excitement is about.  (Actually, at Dland, you thank God the crowd is all mesmerized by something else so you can make a B-line to Space Mountain.)

5. I miss the ability to quickly and correctly quote.  Holding a book open (a paperback) is difficult as you try to get each line, each punctuation right.   And those of you have read this blog enough know that I often struggle with typos and misspellings.  The last thing you want to do is mess up a quote out of a book!

6. I miss spelling.  That's right!  I miss being able to quickly look up something and see exactly how  King punctuated or spelled something.  I'm listening to the book at the moment, and the reader read an abbreviation.  I wondered if in the book King had abbreviated and the reader just read it out for the sake of the audio book, or if King had written it out also.  Of course, I can dig through the paper copy and find it.  I've already read over  that part in print.  But finding is the issue sometimes, right? 

7. I miss being able to bookmark several places at once without dog-earing my copy up.  Also miss the ability to mark quotes without marking the book itself.  But, alas,  I broke down and  just highlighted the daylights out of this thing!

8. I miss being able to play fruit ninja and subway surfer and look like I'm reading.  (This is the same as when we were kids, hiding comics in our school books.  Which  I never did.  never.)

Disney Should Have Bought The Tower

Mrs. Dean should be a Disney Princess

Disney bought Star Wars for 4.5 billion.  I believe that is: 4,500,000,000.  Does it occur to anyone that they could have bought up the Dark Tower property for a lot less money, and actually had a massive budget to make the thing awesome?  Besides, Susannah Dean would make an awesome Disney Princess.

Doesn't the Tower series fall more in line with with Disney does?

Wish list for the new Star Wars movie:
1. Luke Skywalker turn evil.  That would be cool.
2. That Gunkans be wiped out by whoever the next bad guy is.
3. That characters age  better than Obiwan did between 3 and 4.
4. Stephen King writes the script for the 7th movie.  The mid movies are supposed to be dark -- I think King would be awesome.

Why this deal is scary. . . 3 words: The Black Hole.
Why this deal is cool. . . more Star Wars Movies.