Stephen King makes sense

[Jedi Master Carr]

I found this article on theforce.net, Stephen King comments on AOTC
Steve: Seen Clones?
S.K. (laughs) You sound like that ad: "Got milk?" No. Next week, I think. I've been waiting for the crowds to thin. I'll probably enjoy it. People have gotten into the habit of expecting far too much from those movies, you know-from the first one on, they've been loving recreations of the movie serials that George Lucas must have been hooked on as a kid-the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers stuff. Nothing expresses that so clearly as titles like "A New Hope" and "The Attack of the Clones," or whatever it is. And then the critics act pissed because they're getting popcorn movies instead of Truffaut.

I liked his response he understand the movies and basically is calling the critics morons, of course King has had a similar problem with critics.

[JMK]

Finally, someone who comes out and describes with pinpoint accuracy what a movie is: entertainment.

[Ilyn Pyke]

Originally posted by JMK
Finally, someone who comes out and describes with pinpoint accuracy what a movie is: entertainment.

Those were my thoughts exactly. Critics always compare entertaining movies by criterias that are out of context. Yes, SW movies are flawed when constantly scrutinized by these critical, closed minds. I am not bashing SW BTW. Just stating the facts on "critics"!

[Jedi Master Carr]

King knows this because his works has been bashed by critics too so he knows what is going on here. King has also written a lot of entertainment type writing to so I consider him sort of an expert.

[JonathanLB]

Well, I am surprised to learn from TFN that there are actually supposed (self-proclaimed) "Star Wars fans" who really only like the movies for their "entertainment value" and their special effects. I heard a few fans saying, "Let's face it, none of us like Star Wars for its story! It's just great eye candy and a lot of fun." Ugg, fans like that make me want to grab my Uzi and go postal. That is not a Star Wars fan, it's an imposter, get IT out of our fan base! lol.

King's point is well seen, but if the critics are looking "so hard" at the SW movies, they should be seeing the same depth that most of us Star Wars fans appreciate and they should REALLY like the films. Unfortunately, that's not the case, they are simply too stupid. Sad.

[ReaperFett]

I dont trust anyone who interviews himself;)

[Doc Milo]

In interviews I've read with King, he's said that critics oftentimes ask him "So, when are you going to write anything serious." (To which he usually responds that his writing is serious.)

Think of the arrogance that portrays by those asking the question. Just because King writes primarily in the horror genre his works are not "serious?" This is the same attitude that the Academy has against sci-fi and most other genre films.

It's the reason why critics don't understand the SW films. They don't go into them with an open mind. They've got most of their review written: "The new SW film is short on characterization, plot and dialogue, but the visuals are simply stunning." Watch the film for a few specifics and they run out of there. No thought involved. No attempt to understand the film in context of the other films. It's not a serious film, thus they don't treat it in a serious manner.

But . . . to me, if you make your living as a film critic, you should go into every movie you are going to review with an attitude of professionalism, and intent on giving it a serious review. They owe their readers that much.

[JonathanLB]

I agree with that, as a film critic myself. I think it's unfair to dismiss a film before it even starts.

I think we all go into each movie with a certain bias, sure, but you need to watch the movie fairly. You can't say, "No matter what, I am not giving this film more than 3 stars" or whatever.

I've been wrong about movies before. I thought Fight Club would be HORRIBLE. I was expecting one of the worst films of the year, lol. My pre-release enthusiasm climbed when I heard David Fincher did it, though, but I was very unease about it. No matter, I ended up giving it an easy 4 stars and it remains one of my all time favorite films. So I can definitely go into a film with a bias against it and come out converted, hehe.

I can also go into a film expecting for sure it's going to be great and come out thinking, darn, that was a bit disappointing.

I am good about predicting what I will think of a film before I go into the theater, though. I think everyone should be, or if they're not, there must be something wrong with their analytical capabilities.

I guarantee that 90% of the time I can call what I will rate a film within 1/2 star accuracy.

I would have said Windtalkers would be 3.5, and I'm going to give it 3 stars, it was nearly 3.5, I am still kind of deciding, but I think it gets 3.

I thought Bourne Identity would be 3.5. It was.

I thought Ya-Ya would be one of the worst of the year, 0 stars. It was 0 stars.

AOTC: thought 4, was 4.

Spirit: thought 2.5, was 2.5 (nearly 2, hehe)

Insomnia: thought 3, was 3.5 (nearly 4, so I was impressed)

Changing Lanes: thought 3, was 4, so there was an exception.

Generally you should be able to rate a movie before you even see it and be accurate most of the time simply because you know enough about it to tell how good or bad it'll be, but there are other times where the previews are misleading and you end up liking it way better than you thought you would

I don't know how any good critic could consider sci-fi not a "serious" genre. I think sci-fi is the best genre, book or movie, and it is THE ONLY genre (w/fantasy, I mean) that has any potential for future growth. Everything in comedy has really been done before. It can be done again with new people in new ways and still be really funny, but sci-fi can create entirely new worlds that simply don't exist. That possibility makes the genre as limitless as the universe. Same goes with fantasy. They are superior genres, above and beyond all of the rest, and should be taken that way. A lot of sci-fi films in the past may have sucked, but that was only the limits of technology. Now, it's not like that anymore. LOTR is proof of that.

Still, I do not take most comedies seriously. Nor should they be taken seriously most of the time. I mean, gross-out teen flicks are never going to be as good as any serious movie. I consider a few comedies quite serious, though, and they would rank among my top films. For instance, Groundhog Day and Mrs. Doubtfire both have important real life messages, not to mention they are hilarious, so they are my first and second favorite comedies (in reverse order I think though).

Also I thought Orange County was a serious comedy. Of course, it's totally goofball a lot of the time, but beyond all of the silliness you have a serious message: you are not defined as a person by what college you attend. You can become anyone you want no matter WHERE you go! That's a strong message, and an accurate one I feel that could not come at a more appropriate time (with so many more people going to college and getting rejected from their first or second choices, etc.).

[Jinn Fizz]

I've long been a Stephen King fan, so reading these comments from him makes me happy :rollin