Monday, April 28, 2014

More Magazines

I know what you're thinking: "sure could go for a Snickers ice cream bar right now."  Well, go ahead and treat yourself, says I.

I know what else you're thinking: "has this guy not run out of magazines to yammer on about yet?"  Turns out, no; no, I have not.

Yammering commences:




I've never seen any of the sequels to Psycho, including the one directed by Mick Garris.  Also including Bates Motel, which is not a sequel, or really even a prequel.  None of these things appeal to me in the slightest.

You know what appeals to me?  Stephen King.  Also, graceful segues.



The King stuff is minimal in this issue, but it begins right inside the front cover, with this advertisement:




That's right!  For a mere $59.98 -- a penny less than $59.99! -- you, too, can own a VHS tape of two short student films!

I snark, but I'm the guy who once used to spend anywhere from $50-$100 on laserdiscs.  I'm almost positive I spent $100 on The Stand when it came out, for instance.  Oh, the shame...

Speaking of shame, there's an article about Stephen King, the first-time director whose new movie, Maximum Overdrive, was coming out soon.

Some good quotes from King in this one, despite the article's brevity:
  • "Sooner or later this was bound to come up, because there've been so many movies made from my stuff and there've only been about four of them that have been well-reviewed.  The question for me isn't 'Why don't I do something about what they're doing to my work?', but 'Can I do something about what they're doing to my work?'  If I can't do it with this I can say I didn't know what I was doing, that I need another chance, but I won't buy that.  Either Overdrive works or it doesn't."
  • "In some of the movies based on my stuff, there's a trace of what I do.  There's some of it in Children of the Corn, there's a lot of it in Cujo, none in Firestarter.  So I thought, maybe if they let me make a picture, maybe it will translate.  Maybe not.  We'll find out."
  • Evidently, King did not write the movie with the idea of directing, and he credits production designer Giorgio Postiglione with talking him into taking the assignment.  "Giorgio said to me, 'Stephen, you must direct this picture,' and I said, 'No, I couldn't do that.'  And he said, 'But you must.  For anyone else, Dino say, "ees too much."  For you, anything.' "

The issue also contains a review of Silver Bullet.  Would you be surprised to learn that it is a mostly negative review?  Of course you wouldn't.



Because I'm a Disney fan, I'm sort of a Ashman / Menken fan by default, so it sort of bothers me that I've never seen their version of Little Shop of Horrors.  (Disclaimer: technically, I have seen it, but it's been so long that I no longer claim the viewing.)  I'll get around to it eventually.

This issue has a brief article about the upcoming slate of films from Taft/Barrish Productions, which include The Running Man, which is set to star Arnold Schwarzenegger.  (Schwarzenegger is also mentioned as a potential Fred Flintstone in the company's Flintstones film!)  Here are some highlights from the article:
  • Producer Keith Barish, evidently speaking on the subject of the novel being a Richard Bachman as opposed to a Stephen King book: "I bought it" [for production] "with the understanding that we would use King's name on the advertising.  To this end I want the novel relaunched without the nom de plume prior to the movie premiering."
  • Barrish continues, "To me, the novel appeared to have great potential as an action picture.  It also has something to say in  futuristic context.  Without striving for Blade Runner and the enormity of that production, I hope to get at the crux of where we are going when television and the government become one and the same.  The instrument by which the government deflects the populace from concentrating on all the major issues is to return to the Roman Arena."
  • Rob Cohen, president of Keith Barrish Production, clarifies: "Running Man won't be a special effects oriented fantasy per se.  The stunt aspect of the film is far more important.  The ideas are special effects ideas in terms of the way video can manipulate life and truth in order to give the public what it wants, or more to the point what the government wants them to believe."  
  • Cohen goes on to say a few things that might have continued resonance in 2014 (you be the judge): "Video is wonderful but it is also very flexible and therefore extremely dangerous.  If a government truly wanted to do certain things, they could rearrange truths to their own ends by controlling the network.  The network really is the villain of the piece here as America's middle class has dwindled to nothing -- you are either very rich and part of the media elite, or you are poor and struggling.  I don't want the film to be excessively political although in some ways there's no escaping that."
  • Cohen talks a bit about the previous version of the film, which was to star Christopher Reeve, and mentions something that I don't think I knew: that the movie actually began filming!  The director was Rambo helmer George Pan Cosmatos, and let's see if Cohen's subtle comments reveal anything as to why Cosmatos was let go: "It was the worst experience I've ever had in the business.  Cosmatos was the least talented, least cooperative, and the most horrible person I've ever had dealings with.  We fired him after spending $700,000 on the picture.  He committed to make it for $11 million but when he turned in the final budget it was $18.6 million.  He had a clear case of Rambo-itis and I knew we were in the middle of a disaster.  I like Reeve, though, but I wasn't sure if they were the right combination.  When I found that Reeve had doubts about Cosmatos too, we terminated the agreement and took a big chance on starting it all over again."

It is unclear from Cohen's comments whether Reeve filmed anything prior to the plug getting pulled.  Cosmatos would go on to make Leviathan in 1989, and would follow that with the now-classic Western Tombstone.  He made only one other film before his 2005 death: 1997's Shadow Conspiracy, a poorly-reviewed Charlie Sheen movie.

This issue of Cinefantastique also contains at least two pieces of gold regarding Star Trek, but you'll have to read about them at Where No Blog Has Gone Before.  Sorry 'bout that.



They don't just put any old doofus on the cover of Time, so October 6, 1986 clearly marks an important point in King's career.

Seeing as how that's the case, let's have a look at the whole thing:




  • As fun and historically important (to King's media career, at least) as this article is, it strikes a LOT of false notes with me, beginning with that opening paragraph, the tone of which is essentially, "What a fuckin' weirdo..."
  • I was unfamiliar with the Nicholas Daniloff situation.  Thanks, Wikipedia!
  • "A black"...?  Alright, lookit: I was born in 1974, and have lived the entirety of my life as a white male in Alabama.  So let's be clear about something: I know racial slurs.  But I don't believe I have ever once heard anyone use the phrase "a black" as a descriptor.  Who says that?!?  Who says "a black"?  As in, "I wonder if they will ever cast a black to play Doctor Who?"  Is this one of those things where I'm just ignorant and also too ignorant to know I'm ignorant?  Maybe.  Either way, my sense of things is that even in 1986, Stefan Kanfer would have been better-served reworking certain aspects of that particular paragraph.
  • I have encountered many japes about the length of certain King novels.  They've always confused me a bit, because surely it's a non-issue.  Surely you either enjoy King's work (in which case having a novel be 1138 pages instead of -- for example -- 286 pages is a good thing) or you don't (in which case you probably shouldn't be reading his books regardless of their length).  Maybe you get a pass which gives you the right to complain if you are a paid reviewer, but if that's the case, then such if your lot in life for having a job in which you fucking read books for a paycheck; suck it up, you fucking whiner.  No matter which of these things is the case, you really have nothing to complain about.
  • You will have noticed that the photo on the right-hand side is cut off.  It's part of a photo that spills from the next page all the way over onto part of the preceding one, and (as always) my scanner can't handle more than one page at a time.  Luckily, Google Images offered up the image, which was taken by Ted Thai.  Here it is:





 Awesome.




  • Pay attention to that photo of Sissy Spacek as Carrie White; that's a production still, and what appears to be the case is that Spacek was posing while a light-level reading was being taken.  See the fellow with the light-meter behind and to the side of her?  I thought that was pretty cool when I noticed it.
  • "Every ethnic group has spun folktales of the ungrateful dead."  Why not say "every culture" instead?  Why insist on breaking it down by "ethnic group"?  Very odd.
  • For the record, yes, it is true: almost the entirety of this page is spent discussing anything BUT Stephen King.  Setting the stage by talking about Henry James is undeniably useful in the broad sense of understanding King's place in American literature; but that's maybe a subject best left for a different medium than the mass-market magazine profile story.



  •  "Ursine"?!?  Wow.
  • What is there about the name "Tabitha Spruce" that is particularly unlikely?  Methinks this writer is full of shit.
  • In our ongoing march to be a part of the rest of the world, Tuscaloosa recently acquired its first-ever Dunkin' Donuts.  I like donuts.



  • How great is that photo of King directing -- I should probably type "directing" -- Maximum Overdrive?  That cat just ate a canary or two.
  • If I am ever hired to produce a movie about the life of Stephen King -- which seems unlikely -- then I am going to make sure to include a role for his flat-topped muse.  Those will be some amusing casting sessions.
  • Hey, fucko: you used the phrase "a black" to describe one of It's characters earlier, so I'm not sure you have earned the right to criticize anyone else's grammar and/or prose.



  • Now, Steve . . . don't you mean to say "how does it feel to be a black" instead?
  • The thought of Stephen King being too much of a spendthrift to buy himself a pair of lizard-skin boots cracks me up.  I suspect poor Tabby has had many an occasion to roll her eyes at her husband over the course of the years when it comes to shopping for amenities.  All jocularity aside, though, this attitude is almost certainly a big part of the reason why even later in his career, King's novels tend to focus on characters who are not exactly serving caviar and champagne for lunch.



  • That's a pretty great family photo.  I like that mischievous gleam in Joe's eye; you can tell that kid's up to something devious.
  • "Well, maybe not at the well-wrought sentence or the lapidary essay."  Fuck this guy.
  • I'll be honest: I'm glad King never finished "Livre Noir."  Because if he had, I might -- might, mind you -- feel the urge to learn to read French, just so I could read the story as King intended it.  And clearly, that would be madness.  So, yes, glad that did not come to pass.
  • "Plus an original story for TV..."  Wha...?!?  This must surely be a reference to Golden Years, which would not come to pass for nearly five years yet.  Did King already have that series mostly finished THIS early...?

There are some good moments in this article, but overall, it's clear that the writer looked down his nose at King the entire time and would have much rather been writing an article about Proust or Don DeLillo or somebody.  His tone is very much of the "it's mildly interesting, but it's crap" variety.

Speaking of crap, let's talk about Fangoria.

 




The Predator gets the most love on the cover, but in terms of page-count, Stephen King rules this issue: there are articles on It and Graveyard Shift, plus an interview with King himself.
 
Let's take a stroll through them each in turn, beginning with the interview with King:
  • King's expectations for the upcoming movie Misery: "Obviously, I have very high expectations based on the tracks records of the people involved," King says.  "Knock on wood, but at this point in his career" [director] "Rob" [Reiner] "has not made a bad movie."  [Screenwriter] "William Goldman has done some incredible things over the years, he's been a really consistent screenwriter and has adapted some really tough books, like A Bridge Too Far.  When it came to the subject of Misery, there was no question of letting Rob have it, and when he decided he was going to direct as well as produce, I was delighted by the decision."
  • "I just read an interview with Goldman the other day and he said the picture's going down well with preview audiences.  But who knows?  It could still end up going down the toilet.  In the movie business, nobody knows."
  • On the subject of the soon-to-be-broadcast two-part miniseries adaptation of It: "All I've seen of It is an hour of continuous footage.  They're editing right now, as we speak, and I should be seeing most of it next week.  The producers are happy and confident.  The network doesn't want me to see it, but they're in a bind because they would like me to promote it.  I said, 'You're not getting any interviews out of me, not even the damn TV Guide, if you won't let me look at it.  It's my damn book and I worked on it for three years.' "
  • "There was a real question whether It was going to happen at all because of the medium," King continues.  "Again, the screenplay they got, Lawrence Cohen's six-hour version, was a damn masterpiece.  When they asked him to cut it down to four hours, George Romero just threw up his hands and walked because he didn't think it was enough space.  But Cohen still did a pretty good job."  I'm not particularly a fan of the movie ABC ended up making, and the thought that they could have had a longer version with George Romero as the director makes me want to go sit in the corner and weep silently for a moment.  Good thing there's all this transcribing to do...
  • Regarding Garveyard Shift, which the author had seen in rough-cut form: "Given that the original's a short story and this is a movie, it bears an amazing resemblance to the short story as written.  It's still a Marxist horror story.  It's about the proletariat and the overclass that exists on the sweat of the proletariat's brow, and it puts them into an intense class struggle, and there's a monster underneath the mill that's sort of this cannibalistic creature, so it's all there.  But when you take away all this Marxist gobbledygook, it's basically a story about 'Take this job and shove it.'  There are a lot of marvelous blue-collar people in the movie."
  • "But I haven't made my mind up yet," King continues.  "The jury's still out for the final verdict.  The way I look at these things, I'm much more interested in whether or not it works on my level and moves me.  There are things I like about it a lot.  Brad Dourif gives a bang-up performance as the exterminator.  He gives this wonderful speech, talking about how he first got involved exterminating rats in Vietnam, and he says to this guy, 'Listen, I ain't one of yer baby-burnin', flashback syndrome Vietnam vets like you see Bruce Dern playing in all them movies, so quit yer grinnin'.'  He's good: he really sells the part."
  • King continues, "There's also this scene where they're flooding the mill and all these rats are flowing out on this muddy water, and they're floating on bits of board and shingles and the Beach Boys are singing 'Surfin' Safari.'  It's funny.  The rats are bobbing along, and they look like they're surfing.  So" [director] "Ralph Singleton has a sense of humor.  It's mean and it's miserable, but I relate to that.  He came out of it with a lot more than I expected."  Unless my memory has failed me, the final cut of the film does not contain "Surfin' Safari," nor is it edited comically as King describes it.  His version sounds . . . interesting.
  • Answering a question about which of the tales in Four Past Midnight he likes best, King has this to say: "I guess it's a tie between 'The Langoliers' and 'The Sun Dog.'  I like 'The Sun Dog' because the main character, Pop Merrill, is kind of the dark side of Jud Crandall in Pet Sematary.  He's a real nasty guy.  And I like 'The Langoliers' because it harks back to that real visual trip where you can see everything, sort of like a Steven Spielberg feel of where everything is and how everything works.  For me, that part was really neat."
  • On the subject of Mary Lambert's hire as the director of Pet Sematary: "I saw" [her previous film] "Siesta and was excited by it.  I didn't understand everything that was going on in the movie, but it had some incredible visuals and I thought, 'Here is somebody who has a lot of guts.'  When I met her I found out she was a rock and roll fan and had done a number of videos, and she was hip to the Ramones and wanted to use them in the movie.  I liked her whole attitude towards the film, and there was this exciting prospect of working with a director who might just do anything.  In a way it was a real gamble, a big roll of the dice.  And it became more and more obvious that if we waited for George" [Romero, who was initially slated to direct the film] "we were going to be waiting for a long time."
  • On the subject of whether the New York Times' negative review of Four Past Midnight had hurt: "Yeah, sure it hurts," King says.  "But I have to face facts.  I'm not John Skipp and Craig Spector anymore.  I was once.  I was a punk, an outsider, but not anymore.  I am the establishment now; I'm the New York Yankees of horror.  And as far as that goes, what can I say?  Clive Barker is the Oakland Athletics of horror.  The only thing we can continue to do is write as well as possible and try to ignore the mounting pressure to do something really outrageous.  You have to watch out for that or you can totally overshoot the mark.  But I am in the process of finishing a book that is going to gross out a lot of people.  I'm going to get a lot of those reviews next year about how tasteless and vulgar I am, and I do sort of treasure those.  A review like the ones in the Times where he's basically saying, 'Well, he's gotten old and safe, and we've read all this shit before' -- that hurts.  But when they say you're vulgar and tasteless you know you got through.  They heard ya!"

Now, let's pull just a few teensy-tiny morsels out of the other King-related articles, beginning with the Tim Curry piece:
  • Asked what he thinks of Stephen King as an author, Curry -- who evidently has a copy of The Stand within the reporter's eyeline -- answers, "Well, I always get the books.  He's an extremely entertaining writer.  He's really good at that stuff.  I really like The Shining too -- I would have liked to have done the film version.  He certainly gives actors plenty of opportunities."  Imagine!  A circa-1980 Tim Curry playing Horace Derwent for Stanley Kubrick!  Ah, if only...
  • Asked if he expects to be remembered first and foremost for playing Frank N. Furter in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Curry says, "It's funny -- I get asked that an awful lot, and I really don't know the answer.  Because it has played for 15 years, it's very often the way that people get introduced to my work, so they're either interested enough to watch other things I've done or they're not.  Certainly, from the kinds of letters that I get, people are interested in the range of the work rather than just that character.  But you can't ignore the fact that it was an incredibly strong character, and one that's pretty difficult to top."  How do you do?  I . . . see you've met my . . . faithful handyman . . .
  • Graveyard Shift director Ralph Singleton reveals something interesting: "Paramount sent me up to the Pet Sematary set because they were having some problems, but it was nothing that couldn't be worked out.  Mary Lambert, the director, was understandably a bit nervous about having me around, but I made it clear that I wasn't there to take the directorial reins away from her.  My role was to act as associate producer, and I never strayed outside those boundaries."  Intriguing...
  • Singleton on Stephen King, whom the director had hoped to corral into a cameo role as a millworker: "Yes, we'd been wanting Steve to do the scene, and he was willing, but things just couldn't be juggled to accommodate everyone.  Steve's a very busy man, and he's tied up with his latest book.  Truthfully, though, I can't say enough about Steve King.  He's the Hawthorne of the 20th Century.  He's a treasure.  I wanted to inject as much of his feel into our film as possible.  That's why it's officially called Stephen King's Graveyard Shift.  The masses are hungry for King -- they know a true talent when they see one."
If I had only this issue of Fangoria to go by and had never seen Graveyard Shift, I'd be pretty excited about it.  The general consensus seems to be that everyone associated with is pretty excited about its prospects.

How did that pan out, do you suppose...?





I have very little familiarity with Dark Shadows.  I saw the Johnny Depp / Tim Burton movie, which I quite enjoyed (for the first two acts, at least; the final third was pretty lousy), but I've never seen a single episode of the original soap, nor either of its spinoff movies.

I did watch the above-pictured remake when it aired, however, and while I remember almost nothing about it, I definitely remember liking it a lot.  I was bummed when it got canceled, in fact, and probably would have kept right on watching as long as it was produced.

But we ain't here to yak about Dark Shadows 2.0, we're here to yak about Stephen King, and Cinefantastique has several pages devoted to that topic in this here issue.

Graveyard Shift gets a single page, but it contains a moderately provocative quote from King: "Anybody can make a movie out of anything of mine if they have enough money," he says.  "It it's a major novel, I want to get paid major bucks."  This is a much more cynical comment than the kind we typically get from King, but let's not be too hasty: in the case of Graveyard Shift, it turns out that he optioned the rights to Bill Dunn for a mere $2500.  Dunn, writes Gary Wood, is "an ex-school teacher and fellow Maine resident who was a location scout on Creepshow II and Pet Sematary."  King, you might recall, also taught school prior to his breakthrough; so, reading between the lines, what Graveyard Shift begins to look like is a case of King lending a hand to a kindred soul by means of optioning off one of his short stories for (relatively speaking) a pittance.

Seems less cynical when you think of it that way.

The article also contains the only photo I have ever seen of King on the Graveyard Shift set:




An article about It -- written by Gary L. Wood, whom I can only assume to be a different person than the Gary Wood who wrote the Graveyard Shift piece -- mentions George Romero's near-miss at the directing reins of yet another King adaptation.  There are even a few quotes from Romero about the situation: "I was involved!" Romero says, emphasizing that he was much more than merely in contention for the job (which he could not take due to a schedulign conflict with the remake of Night of the Living Dead).  "I put in a hell of a lot of time.  It's like Pet Sematary, revisited.  I worked with the effects guys.  I did boards.  I must have thousands of pages of scripts and notes."  The Truth Inside The Lie sighs deeply and with regret.

Gary "no 'L.' " Wood returns for the final article in the trilogy, this one about Rob Reiner's Misery adaptation.  He talks with screenwriter William Goldman, who echoes some of King's sentiments from that issue of Fangoria we talked about earlier: "I've heard from people out there that it's one of the hot movies for Christmas, but that means nothing," he says of the film's commercial prospects.  "It may be a flop.  It may be bigger than Batman.  Nobody has the least fucking idea.  That's the thing about the movie industry."

Let's do a little research and see how things turned out at the ole box-office (courtesy of Box Office Mojo).  The opening weekend (November 30 - December 2), Misery pulled in roughly $10.1 million, second only to Home Alone, which was in its third weekend and was already well on the way to becoming one of the biggest hits of all time.  The next weekend, Misery was still in second place, earning $7.1 million and fending off the opening weekend of The Rookie.  It dropped to fifth the next weekend, earning just over $4 million.

The next weekend was Christmas, and while the movie plummeted to ninth place, it brought in slightly more money than it had done the weekend before (a not entirely uncommon scenario at Christmas).  The next weekend was even better, bumping up to $6 million and holding steady in ninth place.  From there, it began the standard post-holiday decline, and by the first weekend in February it was earning only about a million.  However, it had earned a total of $53 million, which was more than all but four other films in the top twenty for that weekend.  The total domestic gross ended up at $61 million, which is even today a perfectly respectable total; in 1990-91, it is short of blockbuster-hood, but nevertheless very strong.

Gary Wood misspells Kathy as "Cathy" during the course of the article, and also spells "already" as "all ready."  So in the battle of the Gary Woods, I officially side with Gary L. Woods.

Let's jump forward about eight months:




This issue of Fangoria contains a report from a recent talk King gave in Syracuse.  Let's have a look, shall we?






  • IS Cujo in Needful Things?!?  I don't remember that at all...
  • Methinks King is perhaps being a wee bit uncharitable toward Elvis.  I'm not exactly a Presley expert, but I've listened to a good bit of his stuff from every era, and I like more or less all of it.  Jumpsuit-and-karate era included.




  • "Outlander, we have your woman!" is indeed a marvelously awful line.
  • He doesn't seem to go into much in the way of specifics, but please take note at the bottom of the page and the top of the next that King's attitude toward Graveyard Shift seems to have done a bit of a one-eighty since last this post heard him speaking on the subject of that movie.  Was the rough cut King saw (and was quoted on in an earlier Fangoria) considerably better, or did King merely come to his senses?
  • That sidebar about Golden Years verifies -- in case verification is needed -- that the final two episodes were indeed based on outlines crafted by King himself.  Thinking back on that comment in Time about needing to finish the screenplay to an unnamed television miniseries, one contemplates Golden Years and wonders if it was filmed more or less based on whatever King had of the project as of the Time article.  That seems unlikely, but there has to be some reason why King handed off the scripting chores to another screenwriter for the last couple of hours.
  • I'm also reminded of King's predilection toward NOT writing outlines for his books; he has stated on numerous occasions that his method of writing is to discover the story as he writes it.  What considerations made it necessary for him to alter that approach for Golden Years...?



  •  I don't believe I have ever seen King talk about "Before the Play" anywhere else; if so, I've forgotten about it.  It's interesting to see that, at least circa 1991, he was not too high on it.  I think it's pretty good, though arguably not in comparison to the rest of The Shining.  As for "After the Play," which is said to be lost, I'd love to see that turn up one of these days.  I'd enjoy reading that.
  • I'd also enjoy seeing that original final scene to the Kubrick movie.  That'd be wild.  The existing cut ends so strongly, though, that I don't see any way that the scene in the hospital could do anything but blunt the ending's force.  It would probably be like the coda to Vertigo that is on the DVD: not a bad scene, and in fact an interesting one on its own merits, but anathema to anyone who loves the end of Vertigo.  It could never, ever, ever be put back in and work well.  If I had to guess, the same goes for The Shining.  But I continue to hope that the footage will show up in isolation one of these days.


Well, I seem to have reached the 200-character limit that Blogger provides me when labeling posts.  I've determined that that will be my cut-off point for these magazine-roundup posts, so that can only mean one thing:

See you next time.

2 comments:

  1. 1) The special features on the Laser Disc of Tombstone had all of the deleted scenes introduced by Cosmatos. My friend and I to this day still reference those. He finishes every intro with "Here it is - WATCH" in very imitable fashion. From what I remember, I have no difficulty imagining he was crazy-difficult.

    2) Similarly, Dino De Laurentiis, what a character. I would love to sit down King and several other folks who worked with him in that De Laurentiis Era of Cinema and have them just spin off crazy-Dino stories. I was just reading a Doug Moench interview with a bunch of funny ones.

    3) I really enjoy Graveyard Shift and enjoy playing the "Can I catch it on cable" game with it. It always seems to be elusive, but that's part of my whole relationship with it. Anyway, I love that he refers to it as a Marxist tale, as I don't really consider it that at all, but that'll be something fun to keep in mind on the next go-round. As for his final take on the movie, this wouldn't be the first time I disagree with his assessment of a King adaptation.

    4) "Gary Wood misspells Kathy as "Cathy" during the course of the article, and also spells "already" as "all ready." So in the battle of the Gary Woods, I officially side with Gary L. Woods." I enjoyed this.

    5) I love Needful Things, so reading his in-depth comments on it is such a treat. As always, thanks for scanning all of this stuff in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude's middle name is "Pan" -- the odds of him being a handful are pretty good based on that alone.

      As for King's reaction to "Graveyard Shift," I'd just love to know what changed his mind from one screening to the next. Seems like there must be a story of some sort there.

      Delete