I Guess I'm The Only One

[Portefoi]

All I can think of is the scene in Misery where Annie is yelling 'He didn't get out of the cock-a-doodie car!!!!!!!!!!!' Has there ever been a film that was a literal interpretation of a book? The move to the 80's was most probably done to cut down on the cost of production because now Part II will be filmed in the present, which won't have the high production values of filming two movies in the past- one in the 50's and one in the 80's. I'm sorry that you feel that King has let his empire crumble and that he did this to get money. Really? King sure doesn't need money. He has been financially set for life, and the life of his children and grandchildren, since the 80's and doesn't need the money. I'm sorry that this has hit you so very personally and hope that you can overcome your hurt and anger to go back to enjoying King's works like you have in the past.

Appreciated!! And I shall do my best, haha, to get beyond this... Annie!! Thank you! That was awesome.

 

[Portefoi]

Howdy Portefoi, I hope when you say "really upset" that it's within the context of a fictional tale and a movie made about it. The book is the true story, everything else is just a variation of the theme, nothing to get upset about at all if it changes based on someone else's vision. Your own vision is what counts. All the best, mal.

I really appreciate everyone's backfire, honestly. Sometimes I need to hear it. I know that sounds odd. I will just put my nose back in my books, haha, and shut my trap!

 

[GNTLGNT]

 

[Portefoi]

Haha. Ok, just FYI, the move to the 80's was done because that was the decade the producer? director? could relate to, just as King was about 10 in 1958, when the book is set, the director/producer was about 10 in the mid 8's. I have not looked in to King's age, but he is younger than my own parents.
Whoever was in charge of making the change actually stated that was his reason in an interview, so just passing that bit along.

 

[kingricefan]

I really appreciate everyone's backfire, honestly. Sometimes I need to hear it. I know that sounds odd. I will just put my nose back in my books, haha, and shut my trap!

Keep posting! We like to read other folks posts!!

 

[HedlessChickn]

First and foremost, these are my opinions. They really shouldn't matter to you, as your opinions really don't matter to anyone else. That's part of what I like about opinions.

I joke a great deal, and that is lost in text. I also think I was unloading a little (lot) in that rant/comment. meh. Terribly sorry.
What gets me upset is that fewer and fewer people actually read books, I guess I was voicing my disgust with that, and how it changes the information conveyed... having a conversation with someone who has only seen the movie and thinks that the movie IS what was written is terrible.

And, yeah, actually, his earlier books to movies did a pretty fantastic job of conveying the story pretty darn close to the way it was written. Salem's Lot, Pet Semetary, amongst others. Even the mini series of IT was done phenomenally well (cheesy as it was), with only minor differences, so, it CAN be done, LOL!

And, the whole Bible thing... there isn't a story in the Bible where anyone is homosexual, that was the point. Otherwise, the Bible would *approve* of homosexuality, and we wouldn't be dealing with "who gets to use which bathroom" and "you can't marry someone of the same sex", and all of that nonsense. If ya didn't get that, I guess I'm sorry...? Thought that was easy to pick up.

Now, I am quite aware of what his family has and is worth, and that his children are doing quite well, so bravo to them. We should all hope our offspring learn to be as self reliant.

I also know that if you write a book, you own that story. If someone wants to make it into a movie, they NEED to have your permission. If you don't want a movie made of your book, there will be no movie. SO, then, what would the motivation be in making a movie of your book that changes the story YOU wrote and own? To confuse people that don't read? Probably not. To tell your story a different way? Maybe. Most likely? Profit. I mean, sure, there could be a million and one other reasons, and I'm sure I will never know the truth, but there it is.

Yeah, I have as many(or more) issues as everyone else. If you think you don't, you're fooling yourself, lol.
I probably gave people an incorrect impression of who I am; again, these are my opinions, and mine alone, thankfully.

I appreciate the hilarious comments and replies, though.
Please don't rip my head off, haha!

If your opinion doesn't matter, and my opinion doesn't matter, and no one else's opinion doesn't matter, it stands to reason that no one's opinion matters. There'd be nothing to opine about, and this message board, and any other message board like it anywhere would have no reason to exist.

QED

If you joke around and it gets lost in text, especially when you're on a message board composed mainly of readers, it's likely not the fault of the reader but the writer.

IMHO, if you're talking to people that think the movie IS the book, then you're not going to be able to have the conversation you are wanting. I would suggest maybe stating something to that effect.

It is your opinion that those movies came close to the book. It is my (and apparently a lot of the other readers' here) opinion that this movie is close to the book.

And I loved the bit about how you started with "actually" and ended with, "it CAN be done, LOL." Anytime I see anyone start or end something like your sentence like that I automatically think that that person thinks they've something so abundantly clear as to not think there'd be any counter-argument to it. I am not accusing you of this per se, but if the shoe fits...

There's always a counter-argument.

And the whole Bible thing... There a multiple stories in the Bible where homosexuals are disparaged and killed en masse. Now, I agree with your implied summation that if they had included morally upstanding figures in the Bible that we wouldn't be dealing with this moronic subject to begin with, however you didn't make that clear in your initial offering.

And you're right, when you do write a book, you do own it. If someone wants to make a movie out of it, they NEED to buy the rights in order to do so. I get the feeling that Mr. King doesn't just sell them to anybody who wants them. As always, I might be wrong here, but I sincerely doubt it.

And as for your whole profit motive spiel, we are allowed to make a profit of off our labor. However, your insinuation that that is the major reason why he allows the studios to make what are sometimes very good (and sometimes horrifically bad), is misguided. He doesn't have creative control over every detail of every movie, much less control over much of anything unless specified in his contract. And I wouldn't want him to because if he did, he wouldn't have time to write the books that these movies are made from in the beginning.

Finally, we're not going to rip your head off.

That's IT's job.

Thankfully, we're not all figments of Mr. King's blessedly over-active imagination.

Unless we are.

And if we ARE, feast away.

(I'm getting hungry. Here kitty kitty kitty.)

 

[Portefoi]

I might be wrong here, but hasn't King repeatedly said that the movies are their own thing and that the books are his "official" story line?

(I'm unsure of the status of The Dark Tower movie, admittedly.)

Very, very few books can be made in to movies that are exactly like the books. It just can't happen. I'm not even talking about the psychological aspects (interior monologues.) I'm talking about the practicalities of filming.

I read in an interview with one of the principals about how they couldn't end the film like the did in the books (at least at the end of the kids part) because of budget constraints. They could have, but it would have cost the movie dearly everywhere else.

They don't have unlimited funds. Not to mention, I'm not sure the The Ritual of Chüd would have made for compelling viewing.

As for moving the story into the 80s is concerned, again, it's not the "official" story. It made no difference in terms of the plot. It could have been moved to the 2000s or this decade and not made a difference as long as the plot was there.

This movie, on it's own merits, was sublime. I honestly don't think they could have done a better job with the resources they had available.


And as far as The Bible is concerned, how do you know Joseph wasn't gay (or bi, whatever) and THAT was edited out for whatever reason?

You might consider toning down your rhetoric, especially when it comes to fiction and interpretations thereof.

The Dark Tower... haha, don't even wanna touch that one... but the movie is not the story you read at all, and supposedly ends where the books actually start... so... just keep that in mind. But you can get away with that kind of change in the Dark Tower!!
I dunno, I mean, that was a silly comment... didn't you read all of those books? I'm not sure how you could include that story, because that one is supposed to be different every time... without saying too much for those who have yet to read it. Ha, why else would Rotten Tomatoes give The Dark Tower an 18%? I disagree with a lot that they did with that movie, I pictured a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry kind of gunslinger... not quite how that played out... That story was actually written to be changed many times, so, actually not a good example for your purpose.

 

[mal]

I really appreciate everyone's backfire, honestly. Sometimes I need to hear it. I know that sounds odd. I will just put my nose back in my books, haha, and shut my trap!

Don't do that! Everyone has a voice here...whether sweet like honey or raging like fire!

 

[Neesy]

everyone's backfire

Don't do that! Everyone has a voice here...whether sweet like honey or raging like fire!

What mal said - don't stop posting - you'll always have differing opinions but we have to tolerate a different point of view now and then.

 

[Neesy]

Haha. Ok, just FYI, the move to the 80's was done because that was the decade the producer? director? could relate to, just as King was about 10 in 1958, when the book is set, the director/producer was about 10 in the mid 8's. I have not looked in to King's age, but he is younger than my own parents.
Whoever was in charge of making the change actually stated that was his reason in an interview, so just passing that bit along.

Mr. King will be 70 soon - still young enough to tour!

 

[Portefoi]

So, King is, in fact, younger than my own parents. Good info, thank you.
Someone mentioned the Dark Tower movie... and that Rotten Tomatoes gave it 18%... before I said it, so chill out.
I just want to mention that I guess we, die-hard fans, aren't exactly incorrect with our expectations of stories being told as they were written...
Even though that story, if you made it to the very end of the books, was intended to be pliable. It was written to be changed. So... it's reference on this thread is... well... not very well thought out, to put it nicely.

 

[HedlessChickn]

The Dark Tower movie was terrible.

Idris Elba was a damn fine choice.

I've read everything widely available (and some not so widely available) that Mr. King has written.

 

[recitador]

First and foremost, these are my opinions. They really shouldn't matter to you, as your opinions really don't matter to anyone else. That's part of what I like about opinions.

I joke a great deal, and that is lost in text. I also think I was unloading a little (lot) in that rant/comment. meh. Terribly sorry.
What gets me upset is that fewer and fewer people actually read books, I guess I was voicing my disgust with that, and how it changes the information conveyed... having a conversation with someone who has only seen the movie and thinks that the movie IS what was written is terrible.

And, yeah, actually, his earlier books to movies did a pretty fantastic job of conveying the story pretty darn close to the way it was written. Salem's Lot, Pet Semetary, amongst others. Even the mini series of IT was done phenomenally well (cheesy as it was), with only minor differences, so, it CAN be done, LOL!

And, the whole Bible thing... there isn't a story in the Bible where anyone is homosexual, that was the point. Otherwise, the Bible would *approve* of homosexuality, and we wouldn't be dealing with "who gets to use which bathroom" and "you can't marry someone of the same sex", and all of that nonsense. If ya didn't get that, I guess I'm sorry...? Thought that was easy to pick up.

Now, I am quite aware of what his family has and is worth, and that his children are doing quite well, so bravo to them. We should all hope our offspring learn to be as self reliant.

I also know that if you write a book, you own that story. If someone wants to make it into a movie, they NEED to have your permission. If you don't want a movie made of your book, there will be no movie. SO, then, what would the motivation be in making a movie of your book that changes the story YOU wrote and own? To confuse people that don't read? Probably not. To tell your story a different way? Maybe. Most likely? Profit. I mean, sure, there could be a million and one other reasons, and I'm sure I will never know the truth, but there it is.

Yeah, I have as many(or more) issues as everyone else. If you think you don't, you're fooling yourself, lol.
I probably gave people an incorrect impression of who I am; again, these are my opinions, and mine alone, thankfully.

I appreciate the hilarious comments and replies, though.
Please don't rip my head off, haha!

i think you're rather confused about how this works. He sells the rights to his stories so soneone can make a movie, which also means he sacrifices creative control. Unless a movie deviates from his original story in a very extreme way (think lawnmower man), he has no reason to be concerned or intervene

 

[HedlessChickn]

You should pat yourself on the back. I'd give you a cookie if I had one. You deserve a cookie. Maybe a gold star, too. Maybe... I think, that if we are 'here', chances are, we have read enough to form an opinion. And, thank you for your rant, that was fun, gold star for that! Read the rest of the comments and you'd see my "paragraphs" are in response to other comments. Definitely pat yourself on the back for being snippy towards others. You've earned a cookie and a gold star for the day!!! Yay!!!!

Sarcasm is obviously not your forte.

There's no subtlety at all, and rather juvenile in it's content, style, and execution.

In the future if you get upset about something and take it personally and you want to reply with an insult, at least put some effort into it.

Also, I'm diabetic. You can keep the cookie. I will take the gold star, though. I can always use more of those.

Since this conversation is obviously no longer constructive, I'll say no more.

I bid you good day.

 

[Dana Jean]

Sarcasm is obviously not your forte.

There's no subtlety at all, and rather juvenile in it's content, style, and execution.

In the future if you get upset about something and take it personally and you want to reply with an insult, at least put some effort into it.

Also, I'm diabetic. You can keep the cookie. I will take the gold star, though. I can always use more of those.

Since this conversation is obviously no longer constructive, I'll say no more.

I bid you good day.

I would encourage you to report the post.

 

[Dana Jean]

 

[HedlessChickn]

I would encourage you to report the post.

I couldn't.

It was gone before I had the chance to after your suggestion.

 

[Dana Jean]

I couldn't.

It was gone before I had the chance to after your suggestion.

No worries, it got reported on your behalf.

 

[MollyLam]

"He didn't get out of the cock-a-doodie car" was a fair comparison. I wasn't quite that disturbed that one of my favorite stories had been "tampered" with, but close.
I understand that stories of this length need to be edited for film or television. It wasn't what was left out that bothered me. It was the changes that were made, for no reason. Giving one character the attributes of another. Inserting things that never happened in the original story. Change the motivation of certain characters. And I will respectfully disagree with whoever said this is not a "my story is better than yours" thing. It most certainly is, in my opinion.

Spoiler

"The worst change is that the kids in this version kill It with a cattle bolt gun instead of sliver slugs that they made. That part of the original story was critical to the idea that this group of loser kids defeated evil with their belief in goodness. "]

 

[kingricefan]

"He didn't get out of the cock-a-doodie car" was a fair comparison. I wasn't quite that disturbed that one of my favorite stories had been "tampered" with, but close.
I understand that stories of this length need to be edited for film or television. It wasn't what was left out that bothered me. It was the changes that were made, for no reason. Giving one character the attributes of another. Inserting things that never happened in the original story. Change the motivation of certain characters. And I will respectfully disagree with whoever said this is not a "my story is better than yours" thing. It most certainly is, in my opinion.

Spoiler

"The worst change is that the kids in this version kill It with a cattle bolt gun instead of sliver slugs that they made. That part of the original story was critical to the idea that this group of loser kids defeated evil with their belief in goodness. "]

Re your spoiler: It isn't dead. The kids injured It, but it's not dead. It can't be dead as there is going to be Part II with the adult versions of the kids.