MovieChat Forums > Golden Years (1991) Discussion > what the heck is the reviewer talking ab...

what the heck is the reviewer talking about.. there is no book!!!


where does the IMDB get their reviewers from... there is no book of "Golden Years." it was written precisely for television. it was not based on any previous Stephen King work. it did not "stray from the book". the "book was not better". because there is no book, short story or novel that "Golden Years" was based on. come on, if you are gonna review a Stephen King movie, you should know what the movie was based on.... and not make up things...

reply

He should also note that Stephen King, while prolific and popular, is truly a hack.

reply

A hack? What a moron. Let's see you write a friggin' book. He writes very well and has a great imagination. I've only been disappointed with about 10% of his writing. I'm sick of hearing and reading people who want to mentally flush King down the toilet. Get a clue and maybe read something he's written, maybe.


"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."
--The Naked Gun

reply

[deleted]

IMDB: Breeding ground of the anonymous ***hole.

_______________________________________

Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'.

reply

excellent! right on Walkin Dude!

reply

Umm, just in case anyone cares I want to also put my two cents in. I was a HUGE Stephen King fan when Golden Years came out and trust me, it was touted and talked about as being the first thing that he wrote directly to the TV, it was NOT based on a previous work. The people who have reviewed this and say that the book was better are out and out LIARS. Golden Years was an original Stephen King story written for the TV, just like Storm of the Century years later...

How soon we all forget...

-Madmadhatter..............

reply

Storm of the Century was finally published as a screenplay in hardcover just a few years ago... I wish he'd publish this one too :)

reply

Me too, and actually wrap it up. I'd like to know what would have happened, if it had continued.

reply

If I remember correctly, in a 1994 Larry King interview he was asked if he was going to write an ending to it. King said no.


"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."
--The Naked Gun

reply

lol. The_Walking_Dude, you're funny.

reply

Unfortunately Yes...
Sadly it has become just that...

reply

Haha, careroevil trys to sound intelligent and thinks it will automatically give him/her the upper-hand in an argument. How many books have you sold? When you've sold more thn King then you have the right to criticise. Until then STFU! King is awesome.

reply

Yeah. That makes sense. And Ed Wood, Jr. was a hell of a director too.

reply

some people have a beautiful language and some people know a lot of fancy words which they try hard to use in sentences. careroevil no doubt belongs to the second cathegory. of course, 10 months have gone by since that particular post so maybe this has changed now..

on topic: i don't even remember how this ended, but i do remember being disappointed! at the moment i'm looking forward to the tv movie "desperation" since that was one of the few later books by king that i enjoyed.

(i speak my native language beautifully by the way..)

reply

I'm still waiting for more insults and grammatical instruction from the master, caresomething.


There is no night as deep as this
Inevitable mind's abyss
Where I now dwell with foes alone

reply

On/T: I read the review, and it didn't say that there wqs a book made of this, just that the reviewer was a fan of King's books. I remember when this show was cancelled, they just ended it in the middle of the season, so we got no ending, that is why I was disappionted.

Off/T: careroevil is obviously just a Troll, we do not pay attention to Trolls, it just gives them what they want.

reply

Wow...he's obviously trying too hard to project his wide vocabulary. Apparently he's displaying insecurity in his own intellegence..ehhh to each's own.

reply

But have you ever been PUBLISHED? My guess is NO, not with your lack of grammar and spelling skills.

reply

[deleted]

Then, what IS a good writer? He entertains people to the point that they can't put his books down until finished. Isnt that the point? However, just analyze his books...they are all the SAME PLOT!!! Something evil...comes to town...kills a lot of people...small group of good guys must save the world...unfortunately, most of them die in the process. That is the plot of NEARLY ALL his books and screenplays. Only things that change are the evil forces. I stopped reading years ago. He's like the book version of the Sci Fi Channel's made for TV movies. Bad creatures comes to town..kills a lot of people...etc. etc.

reply

Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, Firestarter, Cujo Christine, Pet Sematary, Misery, The Dark Half, Gerald's Game, Dolores Claiborne, Hearts in Atlantis Rose Madder, The Green Mile, Bag of Bones, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, From A Buick 8, Lisey's Story, Duma Key, Rage, The Running Man and Thinner. None of these meet your description of the plot of "Nearly all his books".

The Stand is obviously the book you're describing. "It" has elements of your description. Tommyknockers, Needful Things and Insomnia have a few as well.

So, did you mean to say "This is the plot of a small fraction of his books"?

reply

I agree. Let us not forget the amazing stories Stephen King has given us that will forever rest in the pop culture psyche -- "The Shawshank Redemption," "Stand By Me," "The Green Mile," to name a few.

People can not chalk him up to a shock-value horror/science fiction writer. He is a great storyteller. I think people who find some of his more character-driven work dull probably have a dulled mind...

reply

His novels mostly suck, but he is a god of short fiction.

reply

What people seem to not understand is that thinking someone is a "hack" is not the same as disliking entertaining fiction. Perhaps those who find books written purely for entertainment, a beach read, should stick to autobiographies or books on the recommended reading list at university.

It is entirely possible to enjoy Stephen King as well as Kurt Vonnegut.

What's truly important is that people READ. Read books that pique your interest; don't concern yourself with the opinions of others who find it acceptable to insult the great majority as idiots simply because they don't share the same opinion of their preferred reading material.

I greatly admire the author of the Harry Potter series. Why? Because she singlehandedly motivated an entire generation of children to pick up a book and read. That's admirable. A child becomes interested in one book and that will lead to another book, then another, etc.

A large vocabulary is a good thing to possess. However, if it's used by the pretentious as a weapon to protect their own smugness, then it is as limp as a wet noodle.

reply

"He should also note that Stephen King, while prolific and popular, is truly a hack. "

Yes he is. Most of his stuff is spefically written for TV or movies and is quick buck stuff. He's made a heap of money off juvenile literature but damned if we didn't watch it.

reply

Trying......HARD....NOT....to...say......STFU..........


Aw screw it,

S T F U!

(Alright fine Dan Brown sucks, I agree with you there, but that's it.)

reply

indeed...and I am now one of two who have noticed that the reviewer did NOT say this was based on a book, nor did he say "the book was better" or "strays too far from the book". Unless, of course, there was another review posted that I missed.

reply

Stephen King is NOT a good writer. To use the argument that he obviously is because his books sell means nothing.

But using the opposite argument ("He's popular because he's a bad writer") makes you King Brainiac of Intellectville, right?

Get off your high horse, ass.

reply

[deleted]

let me qoute King (Stephen, not Elvis) :

"When you start selling alot of books, you become a hack"


and when comparing King to others, have in mind :

Rowling writes books for children, so don't spit on her for lack of anything, there is ALOT of fantasy for grown people

Brown got the best publicity and didn't spend a dime : Catolich church gave him all the publicity



and u can't say he doesn't write well; he has an enormous vocabulary, vast imagination and he writes in diffrent styles, he doesn't use the same all the time.

reply


I loved the old Stephen King. To be quite honest with you I think his creative
period expired probably around 1993-1994. To say that he is not a good writer can be argued I guess, but to say that he has a terrible imagination is absurd. The man has a brilliant imagination even if the execution isn't always good.
"Salem's Lot" "Pet Sematary" "The Shining" "Christine" "Misery" "Different Seasons" "The Dead Zone" "The Stand" "Carrie" "Eyes of the dragon", that's when he was dark and good, now he either repeats himself or his novels are totally ridiculous.

reply

What about the dark tower series. I find that(them) one of the best fantasy pieces ever written. He also writes exellent short stories like thos in "everything's eventual" and "nightmares and dreamscapes". All in all i really can't say he's a bad writer.

reply

Wow! The message boards never cease to amaze me. I originally posted the first message in this thread almost 3 yrs. ago, and at the time "Golden Years" review was pitiful. The reviewer had written his review as he had "watched the movie and the book was better." The same lame argument every person who has watched a King movie has.
Stephen King is in one word... R-I-C-H!!! What he writes and does is eaten up by the general public. Who doesn't care anything about things such as good writer, good prose style, good use of vocabulary, etc. All most people who love King want is a good scare. A good 1, 2, 3 or 30 day read (however long it takes a person to read a book.) Most people who aren't rabid King fans read his novels and when they're done, put it down, and are content. They got what they wanted. A nice read, a good scare and maybe a few goosebumps. That's what King wants. He certainly doesn't need his work reviewed with a fine tooth comb. He wants his fans to basically have fun reading his work. I do, and obviously by his sales, alot of others do too.

reply

I have to agree with those who say King is a hack. I did like him in my teen years but I really didn't know any better. Once I became an adult and started studying English Lit and reading a more diverse range of book I realized that King was a hack. Every once in a while I read the newest King when I feel like pure entertainment and nothing else. King did once say he was the "literary equivilant of a Big Mac and Coke" and it's true. The last Stephen King book I read was Cell and it was actually better than his more recent novels. I specifically stopped reading King after Dreamcatcher because it was literally *beep* Even Cell was flawed.

reply

well Frederick M, when you write something on the level of Dickens or Balzac, so not just to be entertaining but also a story with a deep point give me a call, and an ISB number of your book so I can buy it.

EVERY book has a point, and a lesson to learn. That is today less important because there is so many good writers, but there are only a few authors who can write a very good book


Good, bad - I'm the guy with the gun

reply

EasterOfSouls wrote:

"well Frederick M, when you write something on the level of Dickens or Balzac, so not just to be entertaining but also a story with a deep point give me a call, and an ISB number of your book so I can buy it"


What is with you bloody mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging, troglodyte IMDb users saying "Well, I'll wait until you write X then you can criticize Y"? No, that is no a bloody answer to my statement about King sucking. Just because I haven't written on par with Dickens doesn't mean I can't criticize King or anyone else.

Do I have to be a great cook to enjoy great cuisine? Do I have to be an excellent painter to know great art? A great film maker to enjoy good film? No. None of
these are true. To believe otherwise is seriously ignorant.

It's a useless statement used by fan-boys whenever their precious "artist" is being attacked. It seems every thread on IMDb has that answer now. I'm sick of you idiots.

reply

well, nice answer. but...

since you read english literature, i presumed that you would know what makes a "good" book. It isn't an idea that will take your breath away, it's the way it's written. That's why I mentioned Dickens - a great storyteller, and in my opinion, King is right there besides him. Because, if an author can make a great read out of an bad idea, he's all right with me.

And actually, yes, you have to know how to cook or to paint at least as a learner, because if you don't you can never really apreciate the art. And don't tell me it's like that because it ain't. If I never read anything else except King you could say to me that I'm a troll, and a fan and I don't know whatelse, but I read plenty of books by other authors so i know what I'm talking about.

Cheers mate.

reply

I bought the Dickens/King comparison years ago when I was a huge King fan but I don't buy it any more. First of all, it's King who makes the comparison between himself and Dickens. He did so in the introduction for the Green Mile when he mentioned there were riots to get the next chapter of a Dickens novel. It just seems like King trying to pump up his ego.

Secondly, almost everything Dickens wrote was amazing and poignant. This is untrue of King. There are books which are good like The Stand but he's also pissed out some pretty god-awful books. Dreamcatcher comes to mind, which was a 700-page fart joke. Rose Madder was pretty awful as well and there are several more absolutely awful King books.

The same can't be true of Dickens. I think we're late enough into King's career to see if he would have a cultural impact. He has had some impact, that's undeniable. There was a resurgence in popularity of horror films and books in the 70s and 80s but that doesn't speak much about King's work itself.

reply

I don't understand where any or you are coming from here. I haven't seen Golden Years, infact, until today, I didn't know it existed. I have on the other hand read about 40 of Stephen King novels(own another 10 or so I need to get to), I've also read Dickens and seen films based apon both or thier literature. The day any of you write something as good as either of those writers, will be the day I take your opinion on thier writing seriously.

They are writers, they are both highly rated ones infact. When Stephen King has made millions from his books, how can you say they are rubbish? ESPECIALLY the comment about Dreamcatcher being a 700page fartjoke, I'm not saying it's his best novel, I personally prefer a majority of his older writing to his newer work, but I found parts of Dreamcatcher truly disturbing, in both the book and film. I feel the same way about most of his work.

Why bother viewing things based apon his writing, if you don't like his writing to begin with? Is it jsut so you an post responses such as these?

Not to mention Stephen King is the only person to ever compare himself to Dickens and it wasn't so much a comparison as it was an 'example', or an 'explanation' as to why he decided to bring out The Green Mile as a series, instead of a complete novel.

Also in response to the person who original began this thread, the reviewer, if you're refering to fc2collins, never mentioned this series was created from a book. He said, and I quote "Of course, I have a soft spot for Kings material, since I enjoy his books and personally count him as one of the great living American writers" Which was the only mention of Stephen Kings books and in no way a statement making the assumption that this series was originally a Book. ~Rach~

reply

What is this exactly?

'I put the diamond in the coat,.....I put the coat on her!'

reply

this whole argument about whether King is a hack or not is pointless. the way i see it, if an author is able to tell a story, and you enjoy reading it, then what else matters? just because you can't say that King's work is on the Level Of Dickens or other great authors of substance doesn't automatically make him bad. is he a great writer? well, that's debatable. i think his work is good, not so much great. is he a great STORYTELLER? hell yes. just because he doesn't write great novels that make you think, the so-called "cerebral" novels doesn't mean he's bad. King is exactly what he described himself as, someone else already posted it, "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and a Coke." his work isn't meant to be taken as seriously as most critics who hate him take it. i don't think he's trying to be a great writer, just a great storyteller. there is a difference.

as for the argument of "well you write a book as good as King, or sell as many copies, then you can criticize" is ridiculous. in that case, no one would be able to critique any of King's books, because he has sold more books than any other author in history. also i laugh when people make this comment, then do the same thing by saying "i thought it was good" well you just told the last guy he can't criticize, so how come you can critique it?

now, as for the topic at hand, i didn't care much for this movie, particularly the ending. same with Storm Of The Century, the ending was just bad, bad, bad. i think King should stick to writing books honestly. and considering this thread started more than 3 years ago, i'm pretty sure the review it was based on has been changed by now.

reply

Personally I like him I think he is a good writer but here is what i think on the matter for what two cents its probally not worth..lol. I say if you like him great if you don't thats your problem there are plenty of other authors out there to pick and choose from ,don't critisize a person just for trying to make a living(although he could have retired long ago with the money he has already brought in) and really if he is that bad then why does the general public seem to think he is that good?










Roll dem bones doc....

reply

The first book hooked me. It was just so damn cool. It created a setting I could really get into.

Then King tried to tie it into all his other books with mixed (mostly bad) results. IMO, the only interruption of the downward trend in the next 5 books was Wizard and Glass.

I was so disappointed with the 6th book I never read the last one.

reply

look I'm resurrecting this argument, I have every book King wrote, I haven't read all of them, but of those I have I liked really only 5 of them (i've read 12). Carrie was disjointed, too many view points, like he was trying to stretch the story. The Shinning had a few parts that were just boring, the movie was better for so many reasons (too many to list). The Stand is awesome, I'm almost done with it. The Regulators was kind of interesting, but for the most part failed. 'Salem's Lot was really good. And the Dark Tower books are also very good and tie many of his stories into one stream (beam). Cell was stupid and stolen (a Japanese movie called Pulse comes to mind). The Green Mile was ok, not his best. he has no best book, but his short stories top every book he has written.

thats my argument, not like anyone is going to read this but, hell I'm the first poster in almost a year.

reply

i read it, so no worries there.

a few things to comment on.

1. why are people going on to a message board of an extremely obscure tv mini series of over ten years ago to bash the works of the same writer? get a life.

2. Taste is taste. simple as that. if you don't like a writer, just say that, then don't go on to totally kill your own arguement by explaining how the five, ten, or fifteen of his books that you read were just 'written terribly'. If they were so bad, why didn't all of you stop after the first 'horribly written book'? again, get a life.

3. i consider the dark tower series to be one of the greatest pieces of writing that i ever read.

reply

Comparing King to Dickens is an interesting idea. There are few similarities in tone and theme. However, Dickens's work does present a richly detailed picture of 19th century English life. King's writing evokes contemporary American life vividly, once you set aside the supernatural and SF elements.

The ultimate test, of course, is that of time. People are still reading Dickens 130 years after his death. While some of his books are overwritten, since he was paid by the word and wrote magazine serials, almost everyone has heard the names of characters such as Uriah Heep, Oliver Twist, the artful Dodger, David Copperfield, Mr. Micawber, and many more. Even people who have never read Dickens have probably heard such immortal lines as "Please, sir, I want some more" and "Tell wind and fire where to stop, but don't tell me."

King is currently the bestselling author on Earth; however, it remains to be seen if people will still be reading his work in 150 years, or 200 years. Some of my favorite authors will probably not have the same appeal two centuries from now (Philip K. Dick comes to mind). If I had to bet, I'd wager that King will not be read much 200 years from now, if only because his work is so tied into pop culture.

I liked King's earlier work (up through "Pet Sematary"); after that it becomes hit-or-miss for me. As he became more successful, he had no incentive to cut and consequently many of his books go on much longer than they need to. He also writes so much that he ultimately repeats himself (there's no avoiding this). Rod Serling, a very talented writer, said that towards the end of the original Twilight Zone series he had cranked out so many scripts that he was losing his sense of what was good and what was bad. Stephen King has never taken a break but continues to produce long novels at a very rapid clip, and as a result the quality has declined.

As for GOLDEN YEARS, the script isn't that bad. The production is badly done, very cheap and flimsy, and it isn't up to snuff. King's later scripts STORM OF THE CENTURY and KINGDOM HOSPITAL are excellent, some of his very best work. In fact those two scripts showcase what King does best.

I start drinking coffee, and look what happens.



We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.

reply

Hello,

I first want to say that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Now that I'm passed that I doubt any of the previous posters will ever see this. Stephen King has done some amazing work in his lifetime I am sure that there have been times his name has been slapped on something to make it sell ie. children of the corn 2 3 4 5 6 and however more they made with "based on a book by Stephen King" on the box so folks will buy. But saying he is an idiot and can't write is flat wrong. I'll tell you who the idiot's are. Those that get in flame wars and crack their nuckles and use their "superior vocabulary" to make themselves feel better. You don't have to have a "superior vocabulary" to make a point. Writing is about style and Stephen King has weaved more magic through his books than most of you guys with your "superior vocabulary" will ever be able to grasp. So don't down the guy because he may not appeal to your tastes. Oh, and maybe next time you try to take someone down (care) in a flame war try not to show your "Godly intelligence" it's just a sign of your week feeble mind.


Life is not a support-system for art. Its the other way around.
Stephen King 1997

reply

I was wondering the same thing - what are those reviewers talking about?

I saw reviews from these users IDs that all say they have read the book and how it's better than the DVD (or show or movie):

Patrik from Sweden
Kool Karl from England
Fiendish_Dramaturgy from .: Fiendish Writings in the Dark :.

There was no book! It was never published,
not even after the cancellation of the show!

reply

Then why did none of of you report the review as fake? You should!

The gene pool could use a little chlorine......

reply

[deleted]