In his book "Danse Macabre", King wrote (& I'm paraphrasing, it's been years since I read it) "It was easy to suspend disbelief when Kolchak investigated the Las Vegas vampire. With added effort, we could believe in the Washington strangler. Once the series got going, it was harder. By the end of the series, you got the feeling even the writers didn't take it seriously".
share[deleted]
That's why some of his recollections of certain shows he talked about in the book were not always accurate.
Plus, he wrote "Danse Macabre" around 5- 6 years after "Kolchak" ended, & this was before it was out on videotape. He was reminiscing about a show he probably hadn't seen in years!
I personally had no issue with any of the storylines on this show (even some of the truly 'bad' ones) mainly because Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were so damn cool in the lead roles.
They 'made' the show for me.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
...Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were so damn cool in the lead roles.
I agree with Doom
shareAbsolutely agree with you doom !!!!
shareCBS had been rerunning Kolchak late at night for years before Danse Macabre was published, so it's not only likely that King would catch it from time to time, but also that he, being a well-off writer, had an early VCR and taped them...
shareCBS had been rerunning Kolchak late at night for years before Danse Macabre was published, so it's not only likely that King would catch it from time to time, but also that he, being a well-off writer, had an early VCR and taped them.
The only credibility problem I saw was that so many cases happened in Chicago! Why was this city the center of paranormal activity?
Otherwise,I did enjoy some of Stephen King's early novels like "Carrie" and "Salem's Lot",even "The Shining"(Though the film was better,despite Mr. King's objections!)
Do I agree with Mr. King?
Why, yes. Yes, I do.
The, er, variable quality of Mr. King's work, especially when brought to the big OR small screen, does not elevate the quite goofy, if fun, series that we all loved so well very far above the level of low comedy.
Well "The King" needs to shut his stupid fat mouth!. Kolchak kicks ass. Be it in the two movies or all 20 episodes of the show. It's far more entertaining to watch Kolchak go at it than it is to watch or read a story these days that's done by The King.
"I'm a Pantera's box you do not want to open!"
I def. agree, I mean, it feels like there are 10 episodes in row where they use the same god damn monkey suit. I still love the show though but they cut some massive corners for certain.
shareAlso, just my take but...
After 'Maximum Overdrive', Stephen King shouldn't even be allowed to watch this show, much less comment on it.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Yeah, and while King's a good novelist and short story author, as a screenwriter he's not very good at all- even when he's adapting his own work. No sense of pace.
shareI agree.
I think Pet Sematary is a perfect example. I hope I'm not the only one that thinks that's a really great book but total piece of crap movie.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
I recorded Pet Semetary on VHS when it premiered on the movie channels (while watching it - it was the first time I saw it), but I never had any interest in watching the recording - I ended up recording over it. I don't understand why Stephen King speaks out against the show - look at the various creatures that show up on the awesome show Supernatural. One main difference between the two shows is that Carl stumbled onto the supernatural while the Winchesters actively seek out the phenomena, but both shows deal with similar subject matter. I have both shows on disk (and none of Stephen King's material).
shareKing's welcome to his opinion. However, I remember how his statement that "Thriller" was the best ever horror anthology series wet my appetite to see it. When I finally did, however, I was generally underwhelmed. Kind of shocked, too, that King would rate it above other such shows like "The Twilight Zone", "Night Gallery", and "The Outer Limits". And whereas most of the Thrillers I've seen really struggled to stay interesting over the course of an hour, despite it's sometimes bad special effects "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" always held my interest from start to finish. I think King was maybe basing his opinion of "Thriller" on his reaction to it as a kid, and that maybe it's time he re-evaluated both it, and "K:TNS".
shareDoes he have any monetary interests in any corporation affiliated with "Thriller" ?
share[deleted]
I'm not sure I would even give him those compliments. His stories always seem to have almost deus ex machina climaxes to me. I get strung along and all of a sudden the conclusion comes and I wonder, "Where the heck did that come from?" I don't have the intention of re-watching so much as one of the various horror movies and mini-series based on his works. Stand by Me is an exception, but it's not horror and he had very little to do with it. But things like The Stand and The Langoliers wasted my time once and I refuse to do it again. Even cult classic It wasn't all that great to me.
shareYeah, as author of the original novel, King likely wasn't able to be objective enough to accept and fully appreciate what Kubrick did with the film adaption.
share[deleted]
There is a different tenor in the TV movies than in the series. Perhaps due to the time constraints of a tv series vs. a tv movie.
The episodes are all supernatural based. The last one, The Sentry, is akin to the Horta episode from the original Star Trek and marred by the poor special effects.
The last one is the weakest of all the story lines although there are some good stretches of dialogue.
I disagree with what SK wrote as I found the episode 16, Mesops, and 17, Aztecs, excellent. The latter being my favorite.
[deleted]