See? This kind of presumption of the truth of the bandwagon is precisely why I, for one, felt it necessary to take another Doper to task for judging a movie without having seen it. In that other thread. Or two.
Oh and, monster, here’s a good overview of the case for Showgirls. A lot of critics are coming out of the woodwork to acknowledge that there’s a lot more going on in this movie than anyone was willing to admit when it was new.
Thread after thread after thread exists that explains why Showgirls is at the very least an interesting exercise in satire, and those explanations aren’t always written by lissener. Lots of respected critics think so, and lots of respected Dopers think so. lissener is hardly alone in his regard for the movie. Unless someone hasn’t been paying attention at ALL, it’s obvious that Showgirls isn’t considered a wonderful movie by many just because lissener says so. This just seems like blatant lissener-baiting.
This thread, however, is about Stephen King.
Hijacking is NOT good. Yes, sometimes our threads do wander a bit, but we’re taking this one back to Stephen King and the undead.
Gah… and here I was so thrilled with myself for being able to remember the names of the wife and cat. Thanks for the correction… LOUIS Creed is the dad from Pet Sematary, whereas VICTOR Creed is “Sabretooth” from the *X-Men * comic books. I always get those two confused.
I wonder what would happen if Sabretooth were buried in the Pet Sematary.
He gets a future in US politics.
I don’t understand why people keep returning to this “there is no answer” point anyway, when not only is there one, it’s been cited, and then there are other ‘reasons’ as well being explored. Just because Stephen King once said that there are creatures in his world that simply exist on their own accord doesn’t mean that everything he ever writes is given no backstory.
I don’t understand either. Since in any fictional story, everything that happens does so because the author decided it would, giving that as an answer is a non-answer.
BTW, I agree with your earlier analysis of the symbolism of the events in the novel.
I can’t tell from the tone of your posts if you think this is a fault in King’s work, or if it’s just one of the many things you hate about him.
I mean, I’m aware that you hate King, and lord knows I’m not trying to paint him as a contemporary Dickens or anything, but I guess I’m not particularly swayed by efforts to make me think “because he said so” is a flawed reason. Yeah, a lot of the stuff in his books happens because he said it happens. So what?
No, as I meant to suggest, that’s inevitable in any fantasy work. My problems with King are not that he writes fantasy.
Ah. When your dissatisfaction with King collided with your quite right answer to the question, I thought maybe you were extending your dissatisfaction to all such authors.
Tone problem, probably mine.
Please disregard my comments vis-a-vis Showgirls. I apparently read something into Liberal’s response that wasn’t there.
Now back to bashing Stephen King. Or not. Hey, whatever turns you on.
No . . . Showgirls is a wonderful movie because of boobs. Any more questions? 
Hold it right there! King at his worst is a much better writer than Dickens!
I meant to comment on that as well. The only writer I’d paint as a contemporary Charles Dickens is Danielle Steele.
Yeah, I’m usually blameless when it comes to tone problems.
What?
Liberal has not participated in this thread.
In all fairness, that’s because it wasn’t in there when the movie was new. It was only after the movie was panned that Verrhoeven took it and buried it in the Pet Sematary that people realized something evil was going on.
What came back was Showgirls: The Directors Cut DVD
I’m… sorry. I tried not to. I really did.
FYI, there is no “director’s cut” of Showgirls, only the original released version. It’s also the only Verhoeven movie on DVD without a director’s commentary.
I was just kidding.