Show was originally just supposed to be a summer special and ending was something about kids being aliens as I recall from son that read the book. When it became very popular, they decided to continue it well past its expiration point.
Funny is that Stephen King used to be one of my favorite authors but I found later books to be too tedious to read and now discover I don't like his original books.
How can you tell?
nb
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:01:56 -0500, Frank wrote in
+1I'm guessing that his past few books are were "ghosted".
I don't know but I went back to look at "The Stand" which was my favorite book and did not like it anymore. I did not recognize it at the time but his verbiage is at least twice that required to tell the story. His Bachman books were better because they were more succinct.
Dead on right! Used do be one of my favorite writers but the 'Dome' sucked from page one. The ending was specially bad, almost as if he had written himself into a dead end and was desperate to end it.
Harry K
This is the sort of fiction that requires the viewer to accept whatever scientific laws the writer invents or dismisses to tell the story. Ignoring CO, for example. The more you know, the more distracting (and less entertaining) these stories are.
Stephen King is an incredible author, IMO. I've found myself binge- reading the first half of many of his books. Then he pulls out his well worn artistic license and I lose interest. I haven't finished reading more than a handful of them.
Star Trek, in contrast, took great liberties with our current understanding of Physics. But, with a few very rare exceptions, it was always plausible.
We've got communicators. Not yet seen tricorders, or transporter. Who can tell? Maybe later.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
Another who is long past his prime is Dean Koontz. His early books were ve ry good reads. The ones from the latter years are loaded with obvious padd ing to drive the word count up. Particularly boring descriptions of his mo nsters that go on and on to the point I have had the urge to scream "GET ON WITH THE STORY ALREADY!!"
Harry K
I've come to feel the same way about Koontz as I do King. I'm not sure so much it is change but becoming familiar with their techniques and tiring of them.
Transporter, never. It was put in story originally because of their low budget. Years ago I saw the Star Trek exhibit at the Smithsonian air and space museum and you would not believe how cheesy their props were. Communicator was like a painted block of wood with what looked like clothing buttons attached. If you saw it close up, it did not look good enough to be a kids toy. Television was not HD and they could get away with it.
Maybe Stephen King should stick to escaped psychopathic convicts from mental hospitals chopping up young ladies with an axe.
That seems to be his forte, and Hollywood is full of undiscovered starlets that could be the feedstock of a whole series of axe-murderer movies. You could butcher a dozen women in every movie and still have more waiting their turn to scream their heads off as they're cornered in an old abandoned building by a deranged axe murderer.
I often wondered why they don't have a "Best Scream-stress" catagory in the Acadamy Awards.
Frank wrote in news:m69t0q$qu5$1@dont- email.me:
Yep. I have quite a number of Star Trek "making of" books that were purchased in my teens, and somehow never hit the trash. They discuss props and sets in some detail, and seem to relish the cheesiness and ad-hoc nature of them.
Dr. McCoy's "detectors" or whatever they were that he used to wave over patients to diagnose them were actually salt-shakers.
There was one episode where the cast was supposed to run down the stairs of a stone castle, except that the set's stairs were wooden and echoed like crazy. Apparently the cast broke up in uncontrollable laughter on the first take on account of the incongruity, and the boomy echo had to be edited out in the final print.
Frank wrote in news:m69t0q$qu5$1@dont- email.me:
Movies are differnt kettle of fish.
There is a Die Hard movie where Bruce Willis's character throws some 9mm rounds into a frying pan and flees the scene. The bad guys enter his apartment, only to be killed by the exploding ammo in the frying pan.
Obviously, that's Hollywood unrealistic silliness. But those rounds were not as they appeared. I saw the actual props that were used. The 9mm cases were turned out of actual solid brass, and were made to look as realistic as possible, right down to the primer hole. In real-life, those cases were about the height of quart milk-cartons. Huge. Apparently this had to do with how movie cameras work. It was not possible to use ammunition that was life-size because the cameras couldn't work properly with things that small.
The one scene where that ugly salt sucking creature named Nancy Pelosi, was it? They had to steal a salt shaker from the studio cafeteria, they didn't have a salt shaker on hand.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.