. . . Because VANS doesn't make Stephen King shoes.
But if they did, what would you put on them?
Book covers, characters, the Dark Tower art. . .
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Star Wars Shoes
. . . Because VANS doesn't make Stephen King shoes.
But if they did, what would you put on them?
Book covers, characters, the Dark Tower art. . .
Star Wars Misery
My kids wanted to watch Star Wars the other day. That lead to a typical argument of "which one"they wanted to see. Finally, we agreed to watch the whole series in order. That was a mistake. At the midpoint of the first episode, I was alone in the room, holding in there as something really bad happened on my screen.
My wife was surprised when I moved on to episode two. Really, her look said, you're going to stick with it? Yep. Because sometimes when you don't like a movie, it gets better with the lowered expectations. But it didn't. I just kept saying, "This is so stupid!" For instance, in the first episode, Jar Jar Binks brings help to his home planet; so what do they do? Give him his own speeder or a special house? Maybe a medal? Nope. They make him a general! A GENERAL! Now in Return of the Jedi, Han was made a general; but it made some sense. But who would follow Jar Jar into combat as a sergeant, just as well a general? "Naboo deserves to lose against the trade federation," I murmered.
When it was time for episode three, I decided to move to something new. That lead to The People v. George Lucas. My favorite part were scenes from a longer fan movie (Forcery) in which a woman plays Annie Wilkes, from Misery. In the first scene, she is explaining (by screaming, just like Annie) that the scene with Han Solo and Greedo doesn't make sense anymore. In the final scene, George forces Annie to eat the Star Wars film he created just for Annie. Message is: It's my toys, and you don't get to change it. He will control what fans see.
So what exactly is wrong with the first three movies? Here you go:
1. Jar Jar Binks is ridiculous. He's a cartoon character in the real world. It's like Star Wars became Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
2. Metachlorians created a virgin birth for little Anakin. Or something like that.
3. It's boring. Turns out Jedi are like Vulcans, no emotion.
4. There's a rain/storm planet in episode two -- but the landing pad to the robot factory is in the open. Good idea, when you live on a rain planet -- don't build a covered walkway to your landing pad. I mean, we lowly earthlings can figure out the need for a garage and covered walkways, but apparently the people who are doing advanced human cloning can't think of a way to land a spaceship inside.
5. Darth Vader's, "nooooooo."
6. Is it me, or did Obi Wan age really bad between episode 3 and episode 4 ? Really bad.
I'll stop. Here's Forcery, I like it a lot.
My wife was surprised when I moved on to episode two. Really, her look said, you're going to stick with it? Yep. Because sometimes when you don't like a movie, it gets better with the lowered expectations. But it didn't. I just kept saying, "This is so stupid!" For instance, in the first episode, Jar Jar Binks brings help to his home planet; so what do they do? Give him his own speeder or a special house? Maybe a medal? Nope. They make him a general! A GENERAL! Now in Return of the Jedi, Han was made a general; but it made some sense. But who would follow Jar Jar into combat as a sergeant, just as well a general? "Naboo deserves to lose against the trade federation," I murmered.
When it was time for episode three, I decided to move to something new. That lead to The People v. George Lucas. My favorite part were scenes from a longer fan movie (Forcery) in which a woman plays Annie Wilkes, from Misery. In the first scene, she is explaining (by screaming, just like Annie) that the scene with Han Solo and Greedo doesn't make sense anymore. In the final scene, George forces Annie to eat the Star Wars film he created just for Annie. Message is: It's my toys, and you don't get to change it. He will control what fans see.
So what exactly is wrong with the first three movies? Here you go:
1. Jar Jar Binks is ridiculous. He's a cartoon character in the real world. It's like Star Wars became Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
2. Metachlorians created a virgin birth for little Anakin. Or something like that.
3. It's boring. Turns out Jedi are like Vulcans, no emotion.
4. There's a rain/storm planet in episode two -- but the landing pad to the robot factory is in the open. Good idea, when you live on a rain planet -- don't build a covered walkway to your landing pad. I mean, we lowly earthlings can figure out the need for a garage and covered walkways, but apparently the people who are doing advanced human cloning can't think of a way to land a spaceship inside.
5. Darth Vader's, "nooooooo."
6. Is it me, or did Obi Wan age really bad between episode 3 and episode 4 ? Really bad.
I'll stop. Here's Forcery, I like it a lot.
LAWSON: 'The Shining' Prequel Is the Problem with Prequels
 |
| photo credit: www.reelizer.com |
Strange things are happening with The Shining. Thus the strange picture! What do ya'all think of it?
Richard Lawson at the Atlantic summed up my own feelings toward the plans to make a Prequel to The Shining.
Responding to news that Glen Mazzara of The Walking Dead is set to write the script for The Overlook Hotel, Lawson writes:
What's worse: The unnecessary sequel? The unnecessary remake? May I submit that in fact the unnecessary prequel does the job of both, simultaneously adding to a story that didn't need adding to, just as a sequel does, and managing to oddly reinvent the world of the original, just like a bad remake would. Look no further for an example than the ultimate terrible prequels, Star Wars I-III, which were not only bad movies in their own right but, boy, did they do a number on the original trilogy. A bad prequel can wreak a lot of havoc. And so when we hear news that the whispered-about prequel to The Shining is chugging along, with Warner Bros. hiring a writer, it bears taking a moment to yell: NoYES! That summed it up well. I did not enjoy the Star Wars prequels at all. I watched a documentary called "The People v. George Lucas" in which some fans said Lucas had ruined their lives. Well, the prequels neither ruined my life nor made me love the originals any less. And, in my opinion -- they got better. That is, until Darth Vader cried, "nooooooo!" Really, Darth, really.
Lawson gives us an important reminder. The prequel to The Shining will be a prequel to the Kubrick version of the film, not the King story. Kinda sad, because as I pointed out earlier, King's own prequel in "Before the play" was quite good. Kubrick's story was all together another story -- like something that happened in a parallel universe.
Lawson suggested, "So this prequel would exist more in Kubrick's world than in King's, though the prequel material would theoretically be based on a prologue written by King that was eventually cut from the book." I'm not so sure of that. The only reason to say it's based on the Kubrick film is to say that they are going in a whole new direction. The only real back story that the Kubrick film offered was the idea that Jack had "always" been the caretaker. Certainly not an idea King had worked with at all.
Of course The Shining had everyone scratching their heads at points -- but I wonder if we really want answers. Lawson again sums it up well, saying, "While something of an interesting thought experiment — why is Jack Torrance in that photo from 1921? — I'm not sure we really need a whole movie based on the idea of the pre-Shining hotel." That's right!
The full story is at www.theatlanticwire.com
THE SHINING PREQUEL still a possibility
Stephen King gave us something of a prequel in Wizard and Glass, since he jumped out of the present narrative to discuss in detail events that preceded his chasing the man in black.
Matt Mueller at onmilwaukee.com has an article I enjoyed titled, "Five terrible movie prequels that could actually exist."
Muller's list includes:
- "Raging Bull"
- "The Godfather"
- "Blade Runner"
- "Pulp Fiction"
AND. . . The Shining. I had almost forgotten that was on the table. King is ready to release the sequel to The Shining, which already has some fans griping.
My three reasons why The Shining prequel is a DUMB and DUMBER-ER idea if it focuses on the Torrance family:
1. No Overlook. It's the Overlook that brought the spooks out. King starts the story where the intereting stuff happens! Why go back before the interesting part? Like, "Hey, let's do a prequel to -- Under The Dome." Or The Stand. Problem is -- nothing worth noting happens!
2. We already know the back story to The Shining -- we don't need a movie to tell us that particular part of the tale. It becomes nothing more than a story of drinking and abuse. Hurt without conclusion.
3. Danny would be really little, and unaware of his power.
Actually, the prequel would probably focus on the hotel itself. Now, having read King's original introduction to The Shining, which were several short stories from the hotel -- I have to say, that's scary stuff! I might actually be interested in that. (talkstephenking Before The Play)
Muller writes:
I love "The Shining." When people ask me what I believe is the scariest movie in film history, I say Stanley Kubrick's haunting, mesmerizing 1980 Stephen King adaptation every time. Kubrick was such a unique director, and he possessed such an understanding for what compositions, images, ideas and sounds would rattle his viewers to their core. "The Shining" also has mysteries stacked on top of mysteries – both in its story and from its creation – that make it live on like very few other horror films (a new documentary, "Room 237," has even attempted to unravel the multiple theories and conspiracies embedded in the project).
Of course, Warner Bros. didn't feel like leaving greatness alone. Last summer, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the studio was "quietly exploring" the prospects of a prequel to "The Shining" that would likely answer all of the film's fascinating mysteries and weird moments in a complete misunderstanding of what makes "The Shining" brilliant. Hint: It's not explaining things. Hopefully, this particularly inane prequel idea will make like Jack Torrance and die before it can mindlessly take a bloody axe to something unique and special.
I can't agree with Muller more -- hopefully this idea will die! Almost like: "Shhh -- Nobody even talk about it, maybe Warner Brothers will forget."
Good Sequels
In an interview with EW, Stephen King said one of his hesitations about doing a sequel to the Shining is that "most sequels really suck." He gives only two exceptions: Huckleberry Finn and the Godfather II.
Do you agree? I'm not sure I do. I think sometimes a story is better as it continues because the writer is in familiar territory and is working to their strengths.
Here are a few sequels that did not suck:
1. The Drawing of the Three, Stephen King(I have not read Talisman or Blackhouse)
2. Odyssey, Holmer (The Illiad)
3. World Without End, Ken Follett (Pillars of the Earth)
4. The Empire Strikes Back, Glut/Lucas (Star Wars)
5. Piercing The Darkness, Frank Peretti (This Present Darkness)
6. Return of Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
7. Catching Fire, Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games)
8. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)
9. Patriot Games, Tom Clancy (The Hunt For Red October)
10. Leaving Cold Sassy Tree, Olive Anne Burns (Cold Sassy Tree)
11. The Two Towers, Tolkien (The Fellowship Of The Ring)
Many famous writers have actually resisted the temptation to go back and write sequels. Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck to name two. I also notice that John Grisham also does not do a lot of sequels.
I think King may feel some pain when it comes to sequels, since his own works have had to endure the likes of Return to Salem's Lot, Firestarter II and all those dreadful Children of the Corn movies.
George Beahm once said that Eyes of the Dragon deserved a sequel.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION:
1. What is your favorite sequel?
2. What Stephen King book would you like him to write a sequel to?
Dreamcatcher Script Writer Headed For Star Wars
Lawrence Kasdan has been brought on board to write an installment of the upcoming Star Wars trilogy.
contactmusic.com notes,
"Kasdan is a Lucasfilm and Star Wars veteran having co-wrote 1980's The Empire Strikes Back and the 1983 movie Return of the Jedi. He recently co-wrote the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark, considered the finest movie from Steven Spielberg's Indiana Jones movies. However, his latest feature film writing credit is the poorly received Stephen King adaptation Dreamcatcher, starring Morgan Freeman."Mark Maurer at nj.com offers, "Lawrence Kasdan was trusted with co-writing two "Star Wars" sequels in the 1980s — why not do it again?"
I have no concerns -- just don't pull a Dreamcatcher on us! I liked that novel. The movie. . .
Disney Should Have Bought The Tower
 |
| Mrs. Dean should be a Disney Princess |
Doesn't the Tower series fall more in line with with Disney does?
Wish list for the new Star Wars movie:
1. Luke Skywalker turn evil. That would be cool.
2. That Gunkans be wiped out by whoever the next bad guy is.
3. That characters age better than Obiwan did between 3 and 4.
4. Stephen King writes the script for the 7th movie. The mid movies are supposed to be dark -- I think King would be awesome.
Why this deal is scary. . . 3 words: The Black Hole.
Why this deal is cool. . . more Star Wars Movies.
CINEFANTASTIQUE 1977 review of Star Wars
I'll be posting an article in my 10,000 magazines series about the May, 1977 Cinefantastique which featured several of the original Carrie interviews. However, in reading through the magazine, I came upon a short review of Star Wars.
Star Wars and Carrie have a lot in common:
Like a certain lead character in Star Wars, she needed to learn to control her anger and use it for good, not revenge. But all that would come later, in the super incredible prequels!
It's interesting to read what people thought about movies when they first came out. Often the lore of a film slants any new reviews. Would anyone now, knowing what we know, give Star Wars a bad review? I mean. . . a really bad review? Well, there it is! Cinefantastique, 1977 crucified it!
Sense Of Wonder
editorial remarks by Frederick S. Clarke
Clarke was the owner/creator of Cinefantastique. Just note how interesting it is to see through the eyes of the moment, instead of the eyes of history. When you see something for the first time, with no cultural influence -- unfiltered -- you might come away with a different impression than someone who has 30+ years of history telling them, "This is going to be a good film!"
Funny thing -- Star Wars would end up helping Cinefantastique. The website has a great history of the magazine, noting, "With the advent of STAR WARS in 1977, science-fiction became big business, and the circulation of Cinefantastique expanded." Check out the history of Cinefantastique (HERE)
Cinefantastique was a wonderful magazine that not only was filled with very informative articles, but original artwork and a lot of photo's; in fact, a lot of color photo's for the time.
The New York Times quoted The Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction in Clarke's obituary, writing:
1. DePalma and Lucas shared cast tryouts to save time and money.. . . still trying to decide if Carrie was a good Jedi or bad. . .
2. Both would launch the careers of several movie stars.
3. Both would be landmark films for their directors.
4. Both starred a lot of young unknowns.
Like a certain lead character in Star Wars, she needed to learn to control her anger and use it for good, not revenge. But all that would come later, in the super incredible prequels!
It's interesting to read what people thought about movies when they first came out. Often the lore of a film slants any new reviews. Would anyone now, knowing what we know, give Star Wars a bad review? I mean. . . a really bad review? Well, there it is! Cinefantastique, 1977 crucified it!
Sense Of Wonder
editorial remarks by Frederick S. Clarke
The big news as we go to press is the opening of Star Wars to what appears to be broad acceptance and popularity. The film is a unique achievement in special effects, but beyond that there's not much more to add. If you ever wondered what Flash Gordon would be like with decent special effects, you now have the answer: Just about the same. I had hoped director George Lucas would add some dimension to the film's bald adventure storyline, but what you see is all you get. Most viewers seems too in awe of the amount and scope of the visual effects to realize that behind the pretty pictures and slap 'em, zap 'em action there is nothing, no theme, no intellect, not even an idea.That's wonderful! I mean it.
Lucas has wisely avoided calling his film science fiction, and as a hedge against criticism admits it's just juvenile fantasy, nothing more. But juvenile fantasy can be great stuff, though not in Lucas' hands. For a film that takes place in a "galaxy, far, far away," there is a sad lack of that sense of wonder and mystery that comes from penetrating the unknown, that supreme prickly tension that makes young eyes and minds open wide in good juvenile fantasy films like Journey to the enter of the Earth and The Time Machine. This lack in Star Wars results from Lucas using all the props and window dressing of the genre without capturing its essence.
In Star Wars, a laser sword might just as well be a broad-sword and the outer space battles merely the World War II dog fights they are patterned after, because all this film amounts to are bits and pieces of westerns, swashbucklers, and sundry adventure genres that Lucas has traced over into the costuming of space opera. What a disappointment.
On the other hand, we still have Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind to look forward to, in the hope that its popularity will prevent the science fiction film boom from heading off in the pointless direction of Star Wars.
Clarke was the owner/creator of Cinefantastique. Just note how interesting it is to see through the eyes of the moment, instead of the eyes of history. When you see something for the first time, with no cultural influence -- unfiltered -- you might come away with a different impression than someone who has 30+ years of history telling them, "This is going to be a good film!"
Funny thing -- Star Wars would end up helping Cinefantastique. The website has a great history of the magazine, noting, "With the advent of STAR WARS in 1977, science-fiction became big business, and the circulation of Cinefantastique expanded." Check out the history of Cinefantastique (HERE)
Cinefantastique was a wonderful magazine that not only was filled with very informative articles, but original artwork and a lot of photo's; in fact, a lot of color photo's for the time.
The New York Times quoted The Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction in Clarke's obituary, writing:
Cinefantastique ''is by far the most useful U.S. fantastic-cinema magazine, being less juvenile in orientation and (apparently) less dependent on the studios for pictorial material, and thus more independent in its judgments'' than other such magazines (HERE)
The People vs. George Lucas
ANNIE WILKES ATTACKS GEORGE LUCAS
Annie Wilkes is alive and well. She's apparently a Star Wars fan. And you thought Annie was dead!
I'm watching "The People vs. George Lucas" and loving it. Now, to be clear, these people are crazy. Very crazy. Most of them feel George Lucas betrayed them and personally set out to cause them pain and suffering. But, at a core level I don't want to admit. . . I agree with these people. Not that George Lucas ruined my life, but that there are a few problems with Star Wars -- the prequels in particular.
One of the scenes is a parody of Misery, in which a red haired woman wheels George Lucas into a room and announces it's a big day for George. What's going on? "You're new studio, silly. So you can keep writing Star Wars. You're going to rewrite episode three George. But this time, you are going to do it correctly. You're going to make it the way I want to see it." There is a final scene in which George and the red haired woman fight it out.
Director Alexandre O. Philippe gives the fans lots of room to complain. And complain they do! For starters, they complain that Lucas added scenes. They complain that he changed scenes; in particular, Greedo shot first. OH MY! That gets people going. The fans complain that the frames are
The fans also complain about the prequels. A lot of stuff I totally agree with. Yes, mesa hates Jar Jar Binks. I thought the Darth Vader "Nooooo" at the end of Episode 3 was the realm of melodrama. Mediclorines (no, I do not know how to spell that), were also dumb. But, it didn't ruin my life!
I like the documentary, simply because it pays tribute to the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special. Of course, my favorite part is princess Leia singing.
STEPHEN KING
Like Goerge Lucas, Stephen King has taken more than a few liberties with his work. In particular, two works stand out -- and they're huge. In fact, the two biggest fan bases in the world of Stephen King are the two area's he has reworked; The Stand and The Dark Tower.
Now here's the thing, I like the changes. I like the rewrite of Dark Tower 1. I like the expanded version of The Stand. In fact, if anything, I think the works King has rewritten could stand even more revisions. Simple things -- like prices in The Stand were dated even by 1990's standards.
I think the artist maintains the right to keep working on something all they want -- because it ultimately belongs to them, not us.
Know where King fans really go crazy? MOVIES! Oh my. . . King fans get really uptight when a King movie comes out. "Better not mess thsi up!" Fans will warn. As if it is possible to mess a story up. See, here's the deal: No matter how much a book is revised -- it's still there. King has said this, and I buy this argument hook line and sinker.
You can't ruin the story because it exists in a form that can't be taken away. In fact, you cans till read the original version of The Stand. . . if you want! I did a couple years ago (and kept a journal). It was a joy -- but I still like the revisions more than the edited.
So, though I complain sometimes -- bring it on!
- Give us expanded versions.
- Give us re-edited books.
- Give us remakes of the reamkes of the remakes.
Just please. . . please. . . please. . . let the children of the corn die.
Now, if I could just find a picture of Stephen King in carbonite. . .
STAR WARS HOLIDAY SPECIAL:
By the way, why do the Wookie's have clothes on their home planet, but run around the galaxy naked? Anyway, here is the princess' special song. (3:35) The whole thing is posted at youtube.
Seven Reasons We Read Stephen King, #2 : He's Mean
 |
| Who woul do this to a high school prom? Stephen King would ! And it's just mean. |
Here is another reason the constant reader remains faithful to King's writing: He's Mean.
Yep, it's true. He's one mean dude. Don't get all gushy about all the nice things he does for people; flying troops home for Christmas and paying for people's heating bills -- the truth is, ice runs in those veins.
Okay, the man Stephen King is a great guy. But wait! The writer can be one cruel, heartless, mean monster. Most writers don't have the guts to be mean! (refer to article #1 in this series).
I will mention this right now, and get it out of the way: Stephen King is a murderer. Yep, he is. I'm not producing the list because it will "spoil" some stories -- but how many favorite characters has Mr. King killed? A lot! There was that nasty bomb in The Stand. And a not so pleasant death in 11.22.63. I believe a few people died in Duma Key -- and it wasn't pretty! What made that scene with George in IT so scary? The fact you knew Stephen King was mean enough to actually let the monster chow down on little Georgie! Could Danielle Steele have done it? No. But then, after reading a few pages of Danielle Steele, I'm wishing I was little Georgie.
King isn't satisfied to just kill characters -- he delights in some pretty nasty death sentences. There's very few lethal injection's in a King book. He's more likely to kill a character with more. . . creative methods.
Seriously, I couldn't believe it when a youngster shot himself in the head in one King novel. A kiddo! Is anyone safe? No! But just the fact that he would do something like that made me come back again. Gives the reader the feeling, "I gotta keep reading, I don't know what that mean writer will do next!"
King might try and tell us he's not that bad; the bad boys are the George Stark's and Richard Bachman's -- but I don't think so! As Machine goes about the gruesome murders in a Stark novel, I can hear Stephen King's villainous laugh coming from the shadows.
Here are some mean things Stephen King did to us:
1. Christine. That name alone should cause you to shiver a bit. The novel is a "take no prisoners" type book. It's straight horror, and I love it! It's painful to endure such darkness as a reader -- and what keeps us going back! It's the sure knowledge that King is mean enough to keep making it worse!
King is not going to get up one morning and think, "Man, these poor readers need some sunshine! I better lighten up on this horror." No sir! He doesn't care if his book gives you a bad day, or keeps you awake at night. And what makes it worse, I'm pretty sure he enjoys it. He relishes the title "America's Boogeyman." He's happy when you are shivering under the covers too scared to visit dreamland.
2. The Dark Tower. Oh sure, the misery is over now -- but some of us remember waiting years (YEARS!) for mean ole Stephen King to get his pen and paper out and once again follow the Beam. But was he worried about us? No! He just wrote what he wanted, forgetting the tower all together for spells while he hammered out Misery and The Green Mile and stuff like that. Sure, we read the other stuff, always wondering: "When is the next tower book coming out?" Did King care that we were waiting? No! He wrote at Roland's prompting, not ours.
I saw an article recently that George Lucas would not make any more Star Wars films because the fans made him so miserable. People say things to Lucas like, "You ruined my life!" And so, off he goes to sulk and not make anymore Star Wars. See, the problem is, Lucas isn't mean enough! He should say, "Forget the fans! It's not their story, it's mine!" Go ahead, inflict Jar Jar Binks on us.
King doesn't take opinion polls on which way a story should go. I mean, I was not a happy camper when I reached the end of the Dark Tower. Did mean ole Stephen King care? No! Get this, our misery brings him satisfaction.
I leave you with this: Would anyone want to live inside a Stephen King novel? NO! Because you never know how he's going to mess with you! He has discussed the possibility of Charlie from Firestarter and Danny from The Shining meeting up. Are those two characters hiding in a closet somewhere, screaming, "No! Make him leave us alone!" Sure, I can think of a priest who thought the horror was over with Salem's Lot, but King turned up years later with more fun in his bag.
Would you ruin a high school prom? No! Because you're nice. But Stephen King would, because he's mean. And that's one reason we read him! Because Mr. King is not afraid to do all kinds of cruel stuff to his characters.
No, this article was not written by Stephenie Meyer.
What I Learned Today
I watched two movies today. First, Pet Semetery 2 (thanks AMC fear fest). The second movie I watched was Return of the Jedi. By the way, both had people getting electrocuted!
.
So here's what I learned:
Pet Semetery 2: Don't bury your moms boyfriend in a pet semetery.
Return of the Jedi: Don't install a bottomless pit in your throne room.
.
These are important life lessons. You're welcome.
.
So here's what I learned:
Pet Semetery 2: Don't bury your moms boyfriend in a pet semetery.
Return of the Jedi: Don't install a bottomless pit in your throne room.
.
These are important life lessons. You're welcome.
Star Wars ipad briefing
We all know about King's interest in the ipad. What you should check out is the Star Wars ipad briefing. I'm with Hon Solo on this one. However, Quite insightful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbHF63b7g50&feature=popular
King on Kindle and ipad: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20357892,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbHF63b7g50&feature=popular
King on Kindle and ipad: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20357892,00.html
The Empire Strikes Back Turns 30
30 years ago today we were transported back to the world of Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader and Princess Lea. With the release of The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas hit a home run. Of the six movies, Empire is by far my favorite. It’s dark, the snow battle is beyond awesome, the chase through the asteroids is great and most of all we learned that Darth Vader is Luke’s second cousin – or something like that.
.Oh, and another great thing about Empire – there was no annoying Death Star super spaceship that could blow up planets. The Death Star left me rolling my eyes, even as a kid. A cool idea, but who’s the idiot who connected an external tunnel to the self destruct button? Did they not think that someone might fly down their little canyon and press the self destruct button? And then they did it again in Jedi! But I digress. Anyway, Empire is full of good, head on battles. Walkers, Falcon, Star Destroyers – and no teddy bears whomping on the Scout Walkers.
.I'm passionate about Star Wars because it was so central to my childhood. It was everything! I had the toys, posters (I hung them with nails, to my parents chagrin) and used metal shelves to land spaceships on pretending they were mighty Star Destroyers -- never a lame Death Star. I went to school every day with a Empire Strikes Back lunch box, until it rusted. Star Wars was something my grandparents knew nothing about; my prents accepted as important, but didn't know just HOW important it was.
.
The King Connection:
.
So I found myself asking: is there a connection to the Stephen King universe? Well, of course there is! Lawrence Kasdan co-wrote the script for The Empire Strike Back also directed Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher.
So I found myself asking: is there a connection to the Stephen King universe? Well, of course there is! Lawrence Kasdan co-wrote the script for The Empire Strike Back also directed Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher.
.
In Wolves of the Calla, King described the robot andy as looking like C-3PO.
.
In Wolves of the Calla, King described the robot andy as looking like C-3PO.
.
Under the topic, "Stephen King writes Star Wars" poster Johnny Flynn writes, "the villains in the book, the Wolves (riders on horses), use these futuristic weapons called light sticks to do their dirty work. In the finale of that book, when the riders come to town and finally use them in a battle, it is revealed that the light sticks are actually light sabers. King says this with some awe in the book and, in fact, It seems that most of the wolves’ weapons are derived from Harry Potter or the Star Wars series, just as most of the books’ language derives from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings." http://boards.theforce.net/star_wars_community/b10012/14802220/p1/
.I already suggested that the best director for the Dark Tower would be George Lucas. I won't repeat what a good idea I think this is -- inspired -- brilliant -- like it's from another universe -- we're talking Yoda level of thinking here, okay. http://talkstephenking.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-thought.html
.Dark Tower Star Wars ConnectionRemember what the file about Big Jim in Under The Dome was named? You bet you do. . . it was the "Veder file" wasn't it! Liking Big Jim to Darth hismelf was a little over the top. Just because Big Jim wasn't nearly as cool as Darth Vader. See, Darth wasn't one bit wimp, but Big Jim was really a giant wimp. Big Jim wouldn't have fought Luke Skywalker, he would have gotten one of his pee-on's to do it.
.Stephen King Empire Strikes backI also already noted that Stephen King's Carrie shared casting with George Lucas' original Star Wars.
.Stephen King Star warsIn 1980, when Empire Strikes Back came out, Stephen King had two big projects hit the public. First, the movie The Shining was released and second his novel Fire Starter was published. Also in 1980 Stephen King's short story The Mist first appeared in a collection of stories titled Dark Forces.
.
Now for the big question: Dare I tell my wife that when I drive our mini-van, I still pretend I'm flying the X-Wing fighter? Then she might understand those tickets. . .
Lucas and The Dark Tower -- Just A Thought!
Who should be doing the Dark Tower series? Put aside all the Ron Howard excitement for a moment, okay. This is just a thought -- but it's a good one; How about George Lucas. You know, the Star Wars dude!
.
Here's why:
.
1. He used to making strange movies. And Dark Tower needs to be strange.
.
2. They can do awesome stuff over at Skywalker ranch. The special effects won't be a repeat of the Langoliers.
.
3. He knows what's involved in creating an entire universe. And that's what the Dark Tower is, a universe. Lucas thinks big. He's dealt with stories with massive amounts of characters.
.
4. He's already a ka-jillion-aire, so he wouldn't be in it for the money.
.
5. If he's focused on a new project, he will finally stop re-cutting the Star Wars films. And giving us cartoon versions of Star Wars. And, not to mention, Star Wars 3D. . . please, give this man a new project! Redoing Star Wars every few years is like Picasso painting over his classic's with new touch-ups because he can finally afford better brushes.
.
6. He could get Harrison to be Roland. By the way, did you knwo that duel audions were held for carrie and Star Wars? Yep, it's true! Harrison Ford would make a great older Roland (Wolves and beyond). And Roland ages quickly in the series.
.
7. The idea of a "used universe" is perfect for the Dark Tower series.
.
8. The Dark Tower has several Star Wars moments. (Roland hypnotizing people -- "these aren't the droids you're looking for.") C3PO is mentioned in Dark Tower 7.
.
There you go. No news, just another annoying opinion from a nervous fan. I think everyone wants to say to those preparing to put their hands on the Dark Tower series, "Don't mess this one up!" We better not get another Children of the Corn here.
.
Here's why:
.
1. He used to making strange movies. And Dark Tower needs to be strange.
.
2. They can do awesome stuff over at Skywalker ranch. The special effects won't be a repeat of the Langoliers.
.
3. He knows what's involved in creating an entire universe. And that's what the Dark Tower is, a universe. Lucas thinks big. He's dealt with stories with massive amounts of characters.
.
4. He's already a ka-jillion-aire, so he wouldn't be in it for the money.
.
5. If he's focused on a new project, he will finally stop re-cutting the Star Wars films. And giving us cartoon versions of Star Wars. And, not to mention, Star Wars 3D. . . please, give this man a new project! Redoing Star Wars every few years is like Picasso painting over his classic's with new touch-ups because he can finally afford better brushes.
.
6. He could get Harrison to be Roland. By the way, did you knwo that duel audions were held for carrie and Star Wars? Yep, it's true! Harrison Ford would make a great older Roland (Wolves and beyond). And Roland ages quickly in the series.
.
7. The idea of a "used universe" is perfect for the Dark Tower series.
.
8. The Dark Tower has several Star Wars moments. (Roland hypnotizing people -- "these aren't the droids you're looking for.") C3PO is mentioned in Dark Tower 7.
.
There you go. No news, just another annoying opinion from a nervous fan. I think everyone wants to say to those preparing to put their hands on the Dark Tower series, "Don't mess this one up!" We better not get another Children of the Corn here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
