Stephen King’s edgy take on November 22

The potency of JFK’s assassination in the American imagination is distilled in this trailer for the Hulu Series based on Stephen King’s time-travel novel

16 thoughts on “Stephen King’s edgy take on November 22”

  1. Personally, I’m waiting for “Mena”…. With Tom Cruise portraying Barry Seal..I want to see how they deal with the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush/CIA trail of lies, deceit, money and blood…

    It seems to have been delayed for some reason…wink wink….

  2. well, what King (and the filmmakers)should have done was have Franco get to the window, stop Oswald from shooting – and then watch as JFK gets shot from two other places –

  3. The fact that stuff like this gets made, while the proposed film of David Talbot’s “Brothers” rots in perpetual limbo, is deeply disheartening.

    One longs for a serious, talented, and committed filmmaker to do for Kennedy what Spielberg did for Lincoln. Sadly, today’s mainstream media seems to prefer mooning over the myth of Camelot — or glibly debunking it — to grappling with the complex and brilliant man that JFK really was.

    1. I think the film based on Lamar Waldron and Thomas Hartmann’s book “Ultimate Sacrifice” has been shelved too.

      Part of it is politics. Hollywood is afraid or unwilling to produce another controversial conspiracy film like Oliver Stone’s “JFK”.

      The other problem is financial. Political dramas and thrillers don’t do well at the box office. However, the television show format has had more success recently with popular shows like “Homeland” and “House of Cards”.

      The thing this “11-22-63” show has going for it is Stephen King. It’s being advertised more as a science fiction thriller than a political or historical thriller. The whole Sci-Fi/fantasy angle will likely attract a bigger audience than something which comes across as politically polarizing on a controversial subject.

  4. I’ll be watching this. I really enjoyed the book, even though it, ultimately, takes the “Oswald acted alone” position. I just love time-travel fiction. The book picks a side on a controversial event, for the purpose of telling its fictional story. It’s understandable.

    The story wouldn’t work if King had taken the “Conspiracy” stance, anyway. What would happen? His hero punches out Oswald somewhere in the depository, and JFK just gets shot from the knoll, or at the trade mart, or at the airport, or somewhere else a few months later? There’s no way 1 guy, even a time-traveler, could’ve prevented JFK’s assassination if it happened the way many of us believe it did. And I can disagree with Stephen King about JFK and still enjoy his books.

    Anyhow, yes, some people will watch this and assume, because of it, that Oswald really did act alone. But those people would probably never have tried to learn anything more about the assassination anyway. But, if just a handful of curious people watch the mini-series and decide to go dig deeper, I’d say it’s worth it.

  5. Any mainstream, popular entertainment treatment of the coup d’etat, regardless of the absurdity of its conclusions, expands the general public’s exposure to the bloody toothpaste that has long been out of our country’s tube. Particularly in the digital era., if this is a Mockingbird-like effort by the deep state, it will ultimately boomerang. Certainly should help the 2017 JFK records release effort.

  6. I found the book engaging as it went along, disturbing in its conclusions, and overall an insult to the memory of John F. Kennedy. Fiction, yes, but very much a political book. Also the way Marina is presented as a dough eyed, dimwitted, helpless exotic beauty … speaks volumes of King?

  7. JJ Abrams is a fantastic filmmaker and I’m excited to see this. Time travel is a very tricky subject but supposedly King handled it very well. Kinda sucks that I’ll have to subscribe to Hulu for a couple months to see it.

  8. Interesting that it mentions “the CIA pulled the trigger” because that is not the position of the book or Stephen King at all. He’s certain that it was Oswald.

    1. Maybe that point of view has become more realistically acceptable to some. The CIA pulled the trigger part.
      Maybe the research community, this site included, influenced that.
      A glimmer of hope?

      1. Hi Ronnie

        I hope you’re right but I tend to agree with you and Leslie that it’s a Mockingbird-type attempt and the bit about the CIA is just to tempt those who don’t believe in the LN story to watch it.

        Call me cynical. But I don’t think any of the recent LN movies have done that well have they?

  9. Propaganda. “Operation Mockingbird” is singing, again. Watch it and wonder for yourself. If 65-85% of U S Citizens believe in Conspiracy Reality then this Oswald did it fiction is an attempt to counter that opinion.

    1. Ronnie, I agree, and beyond it being tasteless – if this clip is any indication – it’s an affront to responsible, contemporary history. Perhaps in another fifty years Americans will be as desensitized as we were prior to being informed of the real facts behind Lincoln’s assassination. But the reality is, they won’t have the excuse those generations had; we know we are witnessing another layer in the attempt to cover up the conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

      I hope the film has a disclaimer; if not I believe it should be “boycotted”.

      a somewhat simplistic description of the term:

      ‘From then on, the word ‘boycott’ has been widely used to describe the shunning of people, organisations or countries that do not respect human rights. The tactic of boycotting was used widely in Ireland during the Land War. Therefore, not only did the people of Mayo successfully organise against Captain Boycott, but they also added a new word to the English language.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top