Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, there have been a number of good adaptations of King's fiction. The Shining, though disliked by some because it isn't 'faithful to the book' (which ignores the fact that it's essentially impossible for a film that isn't at least 10 hours to long to be 'faithful' to a 400+-page book) is a masterpiece. The Shawshank Redemption is much loved, and though I agree that it's certainly an enjoyable view, I do think it's a rather thin feel-good film. Stand By Me is brilliant. Misery was very good. Carrie, The Dead Zone, and The Green Mile were all good films.
Second, it's not like novels generally become great movies. Look at Cormac McCarthy. One adaptation that was great (No Country For Old Men), another that was decent (The Road), and two that sank like stones (All The Pretty Horses, Child of God). It's been a mixed bag with F. Scott Fitzgerald as well. The same is true of many other authors.
Third, most authors (of the ones who have their novels adapted) have their canon cherry-picked for the best fiction to be turned into films. With King, damn near everything he's ever written has been a film. Consider Children of the Corn. It's, what, a 40-page short story? They were scraping the bottom of the barrel when that one was chosen as source material for a film.
Fourth, a lot of King films have been done cheaply, intended solely to make money without any interest in the artistic aspect because 1) it's got King's name on it, so it'll be a cash cow, and 2) blood and guts, not cinematic brilliance, it's what puts butts in the seats for horror films. Back to Children of the Corn - its budget was $800k. Even in 1984 this was nothing. The odds of such a film being good are long just by its nature. And then they cranked out eight sequels. The Lawnmower Man (and its sequel!). Graveyard Shift. The Mangler (and its sequel!). The Night Flier. Sometimes they Come Back (and its sequel!). These films, all based on short stories, were doomed to failure before there was even a script, much less a budget, director, cast and full production crew. It's no wonder there's so many dogs in his adaptations. King works are either cheap cash cows or given decent budgets and directed by good by not great directors and cast with popular actors who are good but not great. The sole exception? The timeless The Shining. You want to see a jaw-dropping King film? Have the Coens do 'Salems Lot or Tarantino do The Running Man. That's what happened when Stanley Kubrick got his hands on both a King novel as well as a top-notch actor in Jack Nicholson.
Fifth, most readers want film adaptations to replicate their reading experience, which is nonsensical. Films are things of sight and sound. They show. Stories are things of thought. They tell. Stories are viewed mostly from inside the mind of one or more characters. Save for occasional and inevitably (out of necessity sparse use of voice-overs, films are almost entirely external. They are such vastly different forms that the films almost always diverge significantly from the written material (and the ones that don't are invariably bad). So a decently-adapted film is going to enrage a lot of literary fanboys who want the film to be the same as the book (in which case they should just read the book again).
The directness of King’s approach over the past four decades has made him one of Hollywood’s most dependable sources of original material; nearly every one of his novels and stories has been adapted for film and television. King has encouraged this process, making it a policy to grant the rights to his short stories to first-time directors for $1.
One of the best adaptations of one of his books is actually Dolores Claiborne. The way the book was written didn't lend itself to translation to film, but the way it was handled was excellent.
I think his books are difficult to translate into movies because there's just so much detail. It takes a talented person to pull out what can actually be used.
That being said, the best film versions of his books (in my opinion) are: The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and Misery.
I was incredibly disappointed in The Stand, Pet Sematary, The Shining, Needful Things and The Tommyknockers. I absolutely loved all of those books, but the movies were just bad.
Storm of the Century was a very good movie. I know it was written for film, but that proves that he can definitely write good content for movies. His books are just a completely different beast.
Hulsker 1856, excellent post. Among my favorites are Stand By Me, The Shining, The Dead Zone, and The Green Mile. Sometimes films are even better than the written work, but perhaps rarely. I think The Shining is a good example of this, myself. Wow. What a film.
On the subject of films that are 'not faithful to the book'.
Apocalypse Now
Blade Runner
No Country for Old Men
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Four films that are nothing less than great cinematic achievements. All four differ so substantively from the novel that they're essentially telling a different story. They're all great because they did not bind themselves to the source material.
Back to Children of the Corn - its budget was $800k. Even in 1984 this was nothing. The odds of such a film being good are long just by its nature. And then they cranked out eight sequels. The Lawnmower Man (and its sequel!). Graveyard Shift. The Mangler (and its sequel!). The Night Flier. Sometimes they Come Back (and its sequel!). These films, all based on short stories, were doomed to failure before there was even a script, much less a budget, director, cast and full production crew.
Children of the Corn was actually a huge hit for audiences. Critics panned it. But the movie made a ton of money and developed a cult following on cable and video.
Those movies got churned out because the '80s loved horror movies. Some were great. Some were terrible. Some were so terrible that they were great. And a lot were somewhere in between. That is where I would put Children of the Corn . Is it a cinematic masterpiece? Not even a little. Was it a fun B-level horror movie? Oh, yeah. Given the genre and the era, Children of the Corn is actually a fun little horror flick.
Creepshow is another one that critics loved to hate back in the '80s but has since developed a huge cult following. It is one of the great ones.
I will agree with you guys that The Shining was a very good adaptation.
Interestingly, Stephen King himself HATED that movie! He said it was cheesy, over-acted, and not true to his writing... which brings up a relevant point, in that he rarely gets involved with the screen adaptations of his work. Did you know he usually sells their rights for a dollar, if anything, so he can't be blamed if it sucks? He did say he regretted not having a piece of "Shawshank Redemption," and was shocked at how amazingly it turned out. He didn't think there was enough content (as a short story) to fill two hours, let alone so darned well.
Btw, I got this information from the afterward of "Doctor Sleep." Very interesting stuff!
Quote:
I never saw or read The Green Mile, so I can't comment on that.
It's a terrific book AND movie, imo... definitely worth your time, whichever you pick (of course I recommend both).
Interestingly, Stephen King himself HATED that movie!
I just watched The Shining again (it's been a while) - it's on Netflix at the moment - Wednesday night, and the whole time I was thinking this isn't scary!!
Then the movie ended, and all of a sudden I really didn't feel like getting up and walking through my dark apartment to go to bed! First time I ever watched a movie where the fear didn't hit until after it was over. And it was mostly from a set and production standpoint, not from the storyline at all.
Hulsker 1856, excellent post. Among my favorites are Stand By Me, The Shining, The Dead Zone, and The Green Mile. Sometimes films are even better than the written work, but perhaps rarely. I think The Shining is a good example of this, myself. Wow. What a film.
Did you see The Shining before you read it? That's about the only way I would ever understand someone thinking that movie was better than the book. The only thing good about the movie was Jack Nicholson and Scatman Crothers. I watched the film directly after finishing the novel, so that was probably why I wasn't very impressed. I will admit to seeing the film recently and liking it better, but I still can't stand what they did to Danny's character, and Shelley Duvall just gets on my nerves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
