On Nov 2, 6:16 pm, moviePig <pwall... at (no spam) moviepig.com> wrote:

On Nov 2, 5:27 pm, nick <nickmacpherso... at (no spam) AOL.com> wrote:

On Nov 1, 11:21 pm, moviePig <pwall... at (no spam) moviepig.com> wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:41 pm, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:

lugnut wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:43:31 GMT, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:

BTW, did Stephen King think that spelling it with an "S" instead of "C"
added to the abject horror of the story?  He sucks ass.

I think the logic there was that the misspelled sign had been made by
the local kids who "created" the cemetary.

Thanks, I either didn't know or had forgotten that.

And, fwiw, King is (imo) quite a good writer, just not such a good
story creator... which explains why his two scariest books, 'Salem's
Lot' and 'Pet Sematary', feature stories "borrowed" from Bram Stoker
and W.W. Jacobs.  (Hell, his directorial effort might not have been so
bad if he'd used someone else's material...)

I don;t know why but I can't wait to read his new one, Under the Dome,
the one he posted 60 early draft pages of online because he didn't
want people thinking he'd stolen the plot from The Simpsons movie.

I'll be getting it first chance.  I don't know why either.

(I'm also getting a short-story collection that includes a 'Varney the
Vampire'... which turns my fetish into scholarly enterprise...)

A short story collection with Varney the Vampire?  That sucker's about
1500 pages long in book form.  I downloaded it on the Eucalyptus
reading app on my iPod Touch and it downloaded . . . and
downloaded . . . and downloaded until it hit about 3000 iPod sized
pages.   Someone who got through all of it said it starts out strong
but wanders off in surrealistic directions as it plods along.

Re long books, the King novel is 1000+ pages but with this Walmart/
Target price war going on, it should only cost about eight dollars by
publication day.

On Nov 2, 6:40 pm, nick <nickmacpherso... at (no spam) AOL.com> wrote:





On Nov 2, 6:16 pm, moviePig <pwall... at (no spam) moviepig.com> wrote:

On Nov 2, 5:27 pm, nick <nickmacpherso... at (no spam) AOL.com> wrote:

On Nov 1, 11:21 pm, moviePig <pwall... at (no spam) moviepig.com> wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:41 pm, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:

lugnut wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:43:31 GMT, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:

BTW, did Stephen King think that spelling it with an "S" instead of "C"
added to the abject horror of the story?  He sucks ass.

I think the logic there was that the misspelled sign had been made by
the local kids who "created" the cemetary.

Thanks, I either didn't know or had forgotten that.

And, fwiw, King is (imo) quite a good writer, just not such a good
story creator... which explains why his two scariest books, 'Salem's
Lot' and 'Pet Sematary', feature stories "borrowed" from Bram Stoker
and W.W. Jacobs.  (Hell, his directorial effort might not have been so
bad if he'd used someone else's material...)

I don;t know why but I can't wait to read his new one, Under the Dome,
the one he posted 60 early draft pages of online because he didn't
want people thinking he'd stolen the plot from The Simpsons movie.

I'll be getting it first chance.  I don't know why either.

(I'm also getting a short-story collection that includes a 'Varney the
Vampire'... which turns my fetish into scholarly enterprise...)

A short story collection with Varney the Vampire?  That sucker's about
1500 pages long in book form.  I downloaded it on the Eucalyptus
reading app on my iPod Touch and it downloaded . . . and
downloaded . . . and downloaded until it hit about 3000 iPod sized
pages.   Someone who got through all of it said it starts out strong
but wanders off in surrealistic directions as it plods along.

Yeah, what I'm getting is a chapter... or an episode... or a
bicuspid...

Re long books, the King novel is 1000+ pages but with this Walmart/
Target price war going on, it should only cost about eight dollars by
publication day.

All the more reason to get it in hardcover.  I'm never fond of
paperbacks that are thicker than they are wide.  (Come to think of it,
I'm not fond of king-sized King, either...)

Thirty years down the line and I'm still feeling ripped off about the

moviePig wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:00 am, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
moviePig wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:24 pm, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
nick wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:20 am, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichA wrote:
I don't know if Craven is an idiot, but of all the horror movie-makers
prominent in the 1980's, I like him the least and his pizza-faced
creation in "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Freddy was stuck somewhere in no man's land between comic figure and
horror movie monster.  If the movies had more of a horror-comedy tone
like "Shaun of the Dead" or "Blade II" they would've been far better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's still one of the great horror movie premises, whether it's based
on a true story or night--the idea of teenagers not being allowed to
sleep becauase if they do there's someone in their dreams waiting to
kill them.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.  I think it's fair to say
any premise based on teenagers in peril is pretty much horseshit.  It's
right up there with torture porn.  My feeling is guys like Craven have
really gone along way to set the bar lower and lower in "horror" to the
point where it's not the least bit scary.  You've got a dozen or so
Jason Voorhees movies, six or seven movies with Freddy Krueger, six
bloody Saw movies--does anybody feel these are a testament to anything
other than the greed and avarice that is Hollywood?  Anybody?
Although I share the personal objection... what town, business, or
industry *wouldn't* exhibit the 'greed and avarice' of regular visits
to a golden goose?  Blame the clients, not the pusher...
Except there is a whole independent and direct to video market to be
considered.  We're kind of Pavlovian in that we seem more apt to discuss
theatrical releases as if this some arbiter of quality, when in fact it
could be argued the other way around: they're in theaters just to make
money.  Call me a jerk, but to date I refuse to go see a Rob Zombie
movie.  And when Wes Craven's "triumphant return to horror" inevitably
occurs I'll probably miss that.

I'm not a jerk, as I saw two RZs before plonking him.

And... no you won't.

Wow, an enigma wrapped in a riddle dipped in a bowl of warm goat piss.

In article <qCBHm.112071$5n1.37973 at (no spam) attbi_s21>, trotsky
gmsingh at (no spam) email.com> wrote:

moviePig wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:24 pm, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
nick wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:20 am, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichA wrote:
I don't know if Craven is an idiot, but of all the horror movie-makers
prominent in the 1980's, I like him the least and his pizza-faced
creation in "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Freddy was stuck somewhere in no man's land between comic figure and
horror movie monster. If the movies had more of a horror-comedy tone
like "Shaun of the Dead" or "Blade II" they would've been far better.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's still one of the great horror movie premises, whether it's based
on a true story or night--the idea of teenagers not being allowed to
sleep becauase if they do there's someone in their dreams waiting to
kill them.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. I think it's fair to say
any premise based on teenagers in peril is pretty much horseshit. It's
right up there with torture porn. My feeling is guys like Craven have
really gone along way to set the bar lower and lower in "horror" to the
point where it's not the least bit scary. You've got a dozen or so
Jason Voorhees movies, six or seven movies with Freddy Krueger, six
bloody Saw movies--does anybody feel these are a testament to anything
other than the greed and avarice that is Hollywood? Anybody?
Although I share the personal objection... what town, business, or
industry *wouldn't* exhibit the 'greed and avarice' of regular visits
to a golden goose? Blame the clients, not the pusher...

Except there is a whole independent and direct to video market to be
considered.

Yup, you never see endless sequels in a direct to video series.

On Nov 2, 9:00 am, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
moviePig wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:24 pm, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
nick wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:20 am, trotsky <gmsi... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichA wrote:
I don't know if Craven is an idiot, but of all the horror movie-makers
prominent in the 1980's, I like him the least and his pizza-faced
creation in "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Freddy was stuck somewhere in no man's land between comic figure and
horror movie monster. If the movies had more of a horror-comedy tone
like "Shaun of the Dead" or "Blade II" they would've been far better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's still one of the great horror movie premises, whether it's based
on a true story or night--the idea of teenagers not being allowed to
sleep becauase if they do there's someone in their dreams waiting to
kill them.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. I think it's fair to say
any premise based on teenagers in peril is pretty much horseshit. It's
right up there with torture porn. My feeling is guys like Craven have
really gone along way to set the bar lower and lower in "horror" to the
point where it's not the least bit scary. You've got a dozen or so
Jason Voorhees movies, six or seven movies with Freddy Krueger, six
bloody Saw movies--does anybody feel these are a testament to anything
other than the greed and avarice that is Hollywood? Anybody?
Although I share the personal objection... what town, business, or
industry *wouldn't* exhibit the 'greed and avarice' of regular visits
to a golden goose? Blame the clients, not the pusher...
Except there is a whole independent and direct to video market to be
considered. We're kind of Pavlovian in that we seem more apt to discuss
theatrical releases as if this some arbiter of quality, when in fact it
could be argued the other way around: they're in theaters just to make
money. Call me a jerk, but to date I refuse to go see a Rob Zombie
movie. And when Wes Craven's "triumphant return to horror" inevitably
occurs I'll probably miss that.

I'm not a jerk, as I saw two RZs before plonking him.

And... no you won't.