YES! I totally agree.
Controversial SK Opinions/Confessions
- Thread starter CriticAndProud
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
He's already done an original series for TV back in the '90s. Golden Years was written specifically for production as a TV series and aired on CBS. It did fairly well in the ratings for its time slot but CBS cancelled it after the first season. Although a mini-series, Rose Red and Storm of the Century were original works created for television.
The reason why there is a restriction on the dollar baby films being shown in their entirety other than at a film festival is because it jeopardizes his ability to sell the commercial rights at some future point. That is why the contract specifically states that no more than 2 minutes can be put on the internet on the strong advice of his film agent and lawyers. The dollar baby deals are his way of giving back for all his success by providing the opportunity to adapt one of his works to up and coming filmmakers but he still has to protect his future commercial film option rights.
Sure, he has the ability and name recognition to become more of a media mogul but he's perfectly happy doing what he's doing right now. The writing is his true love and that is where he wants to devote the majority of his time. He's done many projects that have been innovative along the way and will continue to do so as time and opportunities arise but bottom line is that the writing stories and novels comes first. And, more importantly, it hasn't been about the money for him for decades so generating projects for a "huge surplus of economic value" is not on his radar. The only time I can think of when that might have been a motivator was before he got his break with Carrie and the short story publications were helping to pay the bills. Based on many of your posts over the years, the money thing seems to be much more of a matter of importance to you.
I agree that Mother Abagail is annoying, comes across as self-righteous and is somewhat of a chore to read, HOWEVER, I do not see her character as a flaw to the story. I think King was deliberate in Mother Abagail's character traits.
But, of course, I could be wrong.
There's a difference between self-righteous and righteous. Abigail was fundamental to a mission to save the world.
Self-righteous vs. righteous.
Good point.
I guess I want Mother Abagail to be less than perfect like all of us of this world...
It makes her more believable...
She was less than perfect, had to be because she was the Moses character in the story. She took credit for something God accomplished (pride), as well as not following her instinct (or leading of the Spirit) by ignoring everyone else waiting and pursuing Nadine's 'wrongness' when she first met her. Unlike Moses, she did get to enter her 'holy land' (if you know your bible, you'll remember that he was forbidden from entering), but she didn't get to enjoy it.
So, skimom2, would you say she was self-righteous or simply righteous?
FWIW, I think you support my opinion that Mother Abagail was self-righteous rather than righteous.
Actually, I should reread The Stand before I comment since it's possible I've missed some nuances or outright obvious character flaws. Maybe she was self-righteous. But she was also righteous.
I think she was righteous, as well as humorous, but I just wasn't sure why she was needed in the story at all. Was it solely to act as a beacon for the "good" people so they would know where to congregate? It's been a few years since I read The Stand, too; maybe I should take another look at it. I just remember being indifferent to her, and
when she died, I was left with a sense of, "what even was the point of all that?"
Both, actually. She was human.
I can agree with this.
As far as I am concerned, Mahatma Gandhi pretty much proved that humans can be righteous.
One definition for the word is arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality: righteous indignation. And so while a person is human and self-righteous he can also be righteous. Any human. Imho.
Very good points, and I cannot dispute any of them, really. This is the other side of the coin. You are correct about pleasing the readers -- I think of that comment in the movie Bruce Almighty about people never truly knowing what they want.
I'm probably a unique member in this regard, but I do find the process of making money almost an art unto itself. I actually believe it is more of an artistic feat to, say, have ten financially-popular music hits in a row than to have ten critically-popular music hits in a row; I think that's a more difficult thing to do, and therefore perhaps more fascinating. I also do some freelance writing in the financial markets, so you'll have to forgive me, money does inform my commentary. And, of course, money is important in life.
Golden Years, while a great counterexample, is a work that wouldn't be done today in the age of Breaking Bad. At least, it wouldn't be done in the same way. One could remake Years, but it would have to be done differently, and with a social-media context backing it. And that is exactly what I am talking about -- King still has great ideas, and I think his brand deserves even better than what it already receives in the marketplace. Yes, his brand equity is significant, but I just see so much more. And for all either of us know, his agents may have some plans for the future that would surprise us both. A licensing deal with Comcast for a Stephen King World at one of its theme parks? Probably not, certainly, but it might not be as crazy as it sounds; many years from now, you never know what might happen.
On the dollar-baby issue: We've discussed this before, and I've thought about the problem with them a lot. Here's what my solution would be: I would order my agents to tell prospective option buyers that there are some dollar-baby projects attached to the property -- deal with it, or don't option the property. If what you say about King not caring about money is accurate, then that shouldn't be a problem. However, the agents, of course, don't want any friction with the buyers, because while King may not care about money, they do. Strangely, in this era of fan fiction and digital piracy, I'm surprised a few legitimately-sanctioned dollar-baby films would cause much of an issue. Again, they actually would serve as cheap forms of marketing, sort of like a crowd-sourced thing, if you will.
Now, here's perhaps the most salient part of the discussion. Really think about this -- if King doesn't care any longer about money, should he? Is he morally obligated to do so? Not in an Ayn Rand way, of course -- absolutely not, do not misunderstand -- but from the viewpoint that he could donate more money to worthwhile causes. If King could, say, generate an extra $10 million for himself, after taxes, above and beyond what he already makes, why not do it? I bet you that is a doable number. He, like I am, is not appreciative of the current climate of inequality; however, there's not much either of us can do about it, we just do what we can. In my case, I vote; in his case, maybe he could take more money from powerful media companies and put them in the pockets of deserving folks. He could order his teams to create businesses that employ people and pay them good wages. There's all sorts of things he could do. This is not a critical thing I am saying, just something that popped in my head one day; if he does none of that, that's okay. Just as an academic exercise, I do wonder, what is his moral obligation? If he isn't leveraging his brand equity to maximum advantage, is that something he should consider? The economic surpluses he could create for himself and then redistribute sound like a win-win for someone in his position. He wouldn't even need to do a lot of work. He could simply start a machine like some authors do, using co-authors and the like (as I believe skimom alluded to, although not in a positive sense, I must add to be clear). As an example, didn't Tom Clancy start a big licensing empire that way? And, although I am not saying this is true -- I'll repeat, I do not know this as fact -- I have read some things that indicate R.L. Stine may have used ghostwriters to expand his publishing empire. You know, all in all, the whole Goosebumps/Fear Street/etc. franchise is a thing of wonder to me, you have to give that brand credit. I've read a few of the books, and they're fun.
Is King leaving too much money on the table, given what he could do with it? I think it's a worthy question.
Of course, I enjoy his work, as well. In fact, I am loving The Bazaar of Bad Dreams. It isn't the same as Night Shift, but it is giving me a similar feeling of enjoyment. Yet, again, a confession: every time I come to a tale I wonder, almost in the spirit of the anecdote in the introduction to Skeleton Crew, how much money did each tale make before it was collected? How much did the audiobook make, how much did the appearance in this or that magazine make? King even mentions in the story note to Ur that he apparently still gets royalties on that work. He also mentioned, by the way, that one of his agents came up with the idea for serializing The Green Mile. I think that lends credence to the idea that King's associates would love him to grow his revenue base, and that King is merely happy to write. I love writing, too -- I'm not that good at it, and I'll never be a big author, but I understand the joy of writing for its own sake. Still -- authoring a business plan is writing of another kind, isn't it, just as coding an arcade game is likewise credited to software writers? It's just scored in a different way.
King has, in numerous incidents, used his 'power' to broker deals with film companies that have had a definite impact on the local economy in varies towns/cities in Maine such as making sure that they filmed Pet Semetary in Maine. He has done and still does things like this to help the 'deserving folks' of his home state. He donates tons of money to local charities and other institutions in Maine and probably donates money to politicians who have the same beliefs that he does. I would never want to see him go the route of Tom Clancy and start using co-authors (Peter Straub aside) or ghost writers to write his books. Tom Clancy lost a lot of respect when he did what he did. Just as James Patterson has, even though he outsells everyone on the planet. I don't want to see Steve start writing tripe just to make some money to help other less fortunate folks.
That's an interesting take on it...if I ever hit the big time, my plan is to keep my enormous pile of money in a bin and swim in it, Scrooge McDuck-style. Is that...is that frowned upon?
Fair enough, this is a valid opinion. He definitely is a great philanthropist, there's no doubt about that. On the issue of co-authors: maybe he should select people who can do him justice. His two sons could, for sure, as well as his wife. Maybe he could edit a book for charity that features stories written by his family, with him co-writing a few, brand it The Kings of Horror. Any of the stories that became media projects could likewise benefit a charity. Would make a great Cemetery Dance limited edition, with a mass edition that would follow.
But I do hear what you are saying, you probably make more sense than I do on the subject.
Rrty, I don't believe Stephen has any more obligation than any other individual to give more, or create more... to benefit others. He is an author because he enjoys writing and he does it well, any wealth or notoriety is a by-product of his skill. Just because he is wealthy, doesn't mean he should share with others... it's very nice that he does, but I don't think we should expect it from him.
I see your point. I would agree, Mr. King can do whatever he wants. Thankfully he is pretty generous, it speaks volumes on his character. If he ever wanted to do more, like fund some sort of larger foundation than whatever he may already have (if he has a foundation; I thought he did, but I may be wrong on that), it's probably nice to know that he could amp things up a bit if necessary.
Generally speaking, on the level that he exists on, and in the context of this discussion, I believe people can and should do just what they want. No need to force them to share. On the level of public policy, there could be debate about that, but on this level, people should handle their money in ways in which they feel most comfortable.
And yes, Pirate Princess, nothing wrong with doing the McDuck thing either! I'd probably do the same.