Is Lorne one of Stephen King's monsters?

IT

Clown
Lives in Maine
Preys on children

I dont know but in the video with the christmas hat, when he laugh, he became ugly as fuck.

I get more of a Sutter Cane vibe from Lorne.

That bothers alot of people. It's strange but I can somewhat understand it in the context of the story. But maybe that's just me trying to justify a strange scene from my favorite author.

Stephen King's overuse of colloquialisms and rhyming slang takes me out of his books. He also doesn't know how to rein it in with the violence sometimes. Then there's the creepy shit like writing a kid orgy in It.

He's a great storyteller but his dialogue is awful a lot of the time. It almost makes me think he should collaborate with someone who knows how real people talk. Then his books would be perfect.

There must be something in the water in Maine that creates such utter goofballs as Lorne and Stephen King.

The guy who was driving the trawk that hit Stephen King that one time sounds like someone who would hang around with Lorne, while at the same time coming across like someone ripped straight from a page in a King book. The circularity of life, hah?

Lord of the Chicken Pot Pies
Pride and Precious Little Princess
The Cawd Delusion

he can’t write any characters but his standard “Mainer” characters well, regardless of skin tone. King usually resorts to tired and offensive stereotypes when writing ALL of his human characters. I read a lot of his stuff back in High School, 20-some-odd years ago, and read a book or 2 of his later stuff as well and it’s always been true of him.

The other thing I can’t stand about him is how much of an asshole he is when it comes to adaptations of his work. He spent a couple of DECADES bitching about how he hated Kubrick’s take on “The Shining” and how a 100% authentic-to-the-book movie would have been better. Then when he finally got the chance, and the 4 hour long completely by-the-book version was made it totally flopped because it sucked. He did the same thing to a lesser extent with “Christine”. That’s a 500 page book that’s about 200 pages too long. It’s painfully obvious that King knows NOTHING about cars/mechanics from reading the book, and there’s no way you could pack all of that book into a 2 hour movie, yet he bitched and moaned about the screen version and how John Carpenter screwed up. If King has such a problem with the way his works were being adapted, why didn’t he just refuse to cash the checks or insist on the movies adhering to the books in the contracts he signed when he sold the rights? King is the kind of guy who complains because he just like complaining. Rain or shine, night or day, always complaining.

I do agree with earlier posts stating that he DOES have talent, though, and is a good storyteller. He’s just not my cup of tea. My wife likes him well enough, though.

It’s because it was condensed, some aspects of characters aren’t 100% by the book, and because the ENTIRE thing wasn’t crammed into a 2 hour movie, even though it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to do the movie 100% by the book because Chrysler never built a 4-door ‘58 Fury and the ‘58 Fury never came with a 318ci engine, (both of these erroneous examples are in King’s book). That sounds like tiny details but it’s not to King. Let’s remember that one of his biggest beefs with Kubrick was his casting of Shelly Duvall as Wendy in “The Shining” because King wrote her character as having had blawnde hair and the “body of a cheerleader”.

Funny thing is that the "made for TV" ones were the ones where King was given the most creative input, ESPECIALLY with "The Shining", but "The Stand" is another good example.

I actually liked the Kubrick version of The Shining more than King's.
King's best book to movie translations have always been his non-horror, in my opinion. I thoroughly enjoyed The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and Stand By Me.