DVDizzy Forum

who here likes Stephen Kings books . currently i have Cell and i'm loving it every bit of it . if i fully like this i'm going to get the rest of them .
Edit: sorry i sometimes spell his name with an a instead of an e. i'm not that far at the moment though, only before 100 but after THE PULSE section or chapter or whatever they're called in adult novels.

apparently you're so into your book that you forgot to check the cover---it's stephen with an 'e', not an 'a'.

personally, i love stephen king. i've read carrie, pet sematary, the stand, and a few others. they are MASSIVELY addictive and sooo good.

for christmas i got the book, 'lisey's story'. i started reading it but i couldnt get too into it...maybe i'll start again soon. for now i have school work to focus my energy on, and my relationship is a bit strained so i have to work on that

anyway, all in all, stephen king-great writer.

but you might wanna change that title

you know we can talk about and speculate about his upcomeing books The Duma Key and Blaze by, Richard Bachman and unpublished, updated, revised book written by Bachman before he 'died' just like The Regulaters.

The only Stephen King book I've ever really read was Misery and it was pretty good.

I've never read any of his stuff, except a short story or two (the mechanical monkey that predicts someone's death...)

However, I do like quite a few of the films based on his work...

I was thinking of starting a Stephen King, is there a particular one anyone would recommend for a first timer?

i would probably recommend his first book Carrie to start off since in the other books there are always references to his past books and Carrie dosen't.
out of all the movies the only ones i've seen are Carrie, IT, Misery, Rose Red, Nightmares & Dreamscapes, parts of The Shining, and Storm of the Century. we have Cujo but i haven't watched it since the cover creeps me out what with it haveing a rabid dog with teeth like on the cover of Jaws.

personally, i find the books to be much better than the movies. carrie was a good movie and it was pretty with the book, but pet semetary was totally off.

and, i just like the experience of reading to seeing a movie. this is also the case with the harry potter books---the books are INFINITELY better. the books are sooo good and the movies, frankly, are awful for the most part.

yeah the Harry Potter books are better since the movies leave out important stuff in them.

Disneyfreak1990 wrote:yeah the Harry Potter books are better since the movies leave out important stuff in them.

SOOOO MUCH!!!

you know, i always complain about this to my friends, and i was wondering if any of you all noticed it--harry potter is supposed to have green eyes, no? yes. they always talk about his striking, bright green eyes. and WHAT color are Harry's eyes in the movie?? DARK. BLUE. IF THEY CAN MAKE DRAGONS FOR THE MOVIES, I THINK THEY CAN GIVE HARRY POTTER HIS STANDARD GREEN EYES.

sorry, that has ALWAYS bugged me. ALWAYS.

did any of you guys notice? i was (and still am) a HUGE fan of the books and i know a lot of trivia about them. so it just bugged me.

i'm a big fan of Harry Potter also. i just can't wait for Deathly Hallows to come out five days after the OOTP movie comes which i plan to see with my dad since he likes Hagrid. you know i was on Mugglenet.com yesterday and discovered a website called HPfantrips.com where you can get a trip to england do Harry Potter stuff. who here thinks i should change the title of the thread to Harry Potter?

Jasmine1022 wrote:

Disneyfreak1990 wrote:yeah the Harry Potter books are better since the movies leave out important stuff in them.

SOOOO MUCH!!!

you know, i always complain about this to my friends, and i was wondering if any of you all noticed it--harry potter is supposed to have green eyes, no? yes. they always talk about his striking, bright green eyes. and WHAT color are Harry's eyes in the movie?? DARK. BLUE. IF THEY CAN MAKE DRAGONS FOR THE MOVIES, I THINK THEY CAN GIVE HARRY POTTER HIS STANDARD GREEN EYES.

sorry, that has ALWAYS bugged me. ALWAYS.

did any of you guys notice? i was (and still am) a HUGE fan of the books and i know a lot of trivia about them. so it just bugged me.

Me too!!!! I really like all the movies, but I always hated that!! It wouldn't have been so difficult to give little Dan green contacts!!!

Dottie wrote:Me too!!!! I really like all the movies, but I always hated that!! It wouldn't have been so difficult to give little Dan green contacts!!!

THANK YOU!!! massive props for you in my book and a HUGE hug.

Disneyfreak1990 wrote:who here thinks i should change the title of the thread to Harry Potter?

Not me!!! I'll search for an old Harry Potter thread and bump it or if there isn't one than I will start one.

This is officially back to Stephen King. Does anyone know how many versions of the movie 'Misery' there are? I read the book and loved it but I wanted to see the movie and only found a really bad version (that my friend who also read the book saw and said was terrible). Is that my ONLY option??

They tried giving Dan green contacts when the movies first started out but he reacted horribly to them. Allergic to something in them or something like that.

Why they didn't change his eye color when doing the computer stuff on the movies I don't know.

um, who? this is a stephen king thread, genius. if you mean to talk harry potter, go to the freaking harry potter thread that i started.

Jasmine, here's your answer to your Misery question, they have only made one film of it starring Kathy Bates as Annie and a failed broadway production. to bad they didn't try to re-adapt it like Carrie in 2002 .

have you ever seen it, was it any good?

Jasmine1022 wrote:personally, i find the books to be much better than the movies. carrie was a good movie and it was pretty with the book, but pet semetary was totally off.

Well then, you might be disappointed to learn that Stephen King wrote the screenplay for Pet Sematary, the movie. I think he knew that they had to make it a black-comedy to ever be able to visualize it onscreen.

Even though I haven't read the book, I share your general dislike of Pet Sematary. The second film was even more miserable.

well...it's just that the book was SO. GOOD. and the movie was just...not! it was just awful. i can honestly believe that stephen king wrote that, but it was just terrible.

i have another question--has anyone ever seen the movie 'firestarter'? i read that book and wanted to see the movie but if it's miserable than never mind!

Firestarter has a few problems with it. The cast is pretty good - George C. Scott, Martin Sheen, Drew Barrymore, Louise Fletcher. But it's definitely a weak movie. I wouldn't call it miserable because I thought it had a few nice / neat qualities about it. First of all, the music score is fantastic (but I would only recommend it if you were a fan of scores for movies like Risky Business).

Actually... that might be it, come to think of it. The writing is sloppy, the performances are sappy, some of the special effects are downright laughable (however, all the fire stuff though is remarkable! - especially the dozen or so shooting fireballs in the finale), the pacing is slow, the film is nearly 2 hours long, I imagine there are some obvious plot holes, and the tone of the film is so technical - it feels like you're sitting through one unending mechanical-chemistry course.

If you're expecting the movie to be gripping, emotional, involving, and impressive for reasons other than impressive special effects... you should definitely skip it.


And I think King wrote the Pet Sematary screenplay for the horror fans. Because there are quite a few moments in the film that work fairly well for a horror film. Cage is very creepy, the special effects are astounding, the score is beyond haunting, and the film feels so dark that it's quite unforgettable.