Poll of the Day > Why do movie directors always screw up Stephen King adaptations?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Obviously the Shining is the exception and the og Carrie is solid but still doesn't do the book justice

I just watched the 2013 Carrie remake and despite having a pretty good cast it was just awful because whoever the director was thought adding Jedi force powers to Carrie's arsenal was a good idea and definitely not taking away from the story

---

Firestarter wasn't a bad adaptation though the book was much better (but they did a good job condensing it).
The Stand was a GREAT adaptation with excellent casting and sound track.
Maximum Overdrive was pretty good as well.

There have been a number of decent ones tbh, but yeah Carrie was not one of them (either version) nor was Christine. The original IT wasn't bad (have not watched the remake. As you mentioned the Shining was about as close as you can get to having one of his books be..better....in film format.


---

I haven't seen every one so there might be right about some of those but I have seem a fair amount and they were all just let downs at best (besides the Shining)

---

Check out Geralds Game if you have Netflix, its actually pretty good

---

I liked the IT movies. Thought Doctor Sleep was pretty good too. The Dark Tower was a huge disappointment.

Green Mile is a good movie, though I'm not sure how it compares.

---

Mead posted...

Check out Geralds Game if you have Netflix, its actually pretty good

Actually I do like 1922 (though I never read that short story so can't tell how good of an adaptation it was) I was just thinking of Hollywood adaptations but I'll check that out

---

1408 is one of my favs

and of course there's always Shawshank

---

wolfy42 posted...

The original IT wasn't bad (have not watched the remake.

Chapter 1 is a solid coming of age movie with an overreliance on jump scares. Chapter 2 is a generic modern horror movie.
---

A lot of SK movies are better than the stories/books they were based on. Christine is a great example. And not just because the opening is fucking awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4koPfEQVo44

Sahuagin posted...

1408 is one of my favs

1408 was a massive disappointment, given the original story. Part of the problem was that the casting was lousy and they were trying to bulk a relatively short story into a feature-length film.

---

Silver Bullet was a pretty good adaptation.

---

Didn't Stephen King say that he preferred the movie ending of The Mist than what he originally wrote?

---

The Mist was pretty great.
---

Honestly with the amount of stories that Stephen King shits out, a lot of them are garbage. And some of those garbage stories turn into garbage movies. Like that Grass movie.

---

I honestly think his stories and style probably aren't all that suited for movies overall.

A story can be a great story, but awful for a movie.

Probably because they haven't snorted as much coke as he has?

---

Sahuagin posted...

1408 is one of my favs

Pretty underrated movie and one of the most faithful King adaptations.

T0ffee posted...

Didn't Stephen King say that he preferred the movie ending of The Mist than what he originally wrote?

I recall that as well. Totally fucked up ending.

---

Muscles posted...

Obviously the Shining is the exception

Shining is actually a terrible adaptation of the book it's based on, which is part of why King has hated it for 40 years, and keeps trying to get it remade.

The real question is whether or not you want a good movie in and of itself, or one that's strongly faithful to the original source work.

There's actually quite a few movies based on King that are pretty good if you just watch them, and aren't comparing them to the original.
---

T0ffee posted...

Didn't Stephen King say that he preferred the movie ending of The Mist than what he originally wrote?

He was likely under contract to say that. The ending of the movie was fucking awful, replacing a wonderful open-ending with a shitty bit of survirony that had already been done in a few movies within the past decade. It's kind of like the Sony hack revealed that the company had strong-armed Bill Murray into staying silent with criticisms.

kind9 posted...

Pretty underrated movie and one of the most faithful King adaptations.

...wtf? Almost none of that is in the original story.

https://screenrant.com/1408-movie-compared-stephen-king-story/

Seriously, stop trolling.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

I honestly think his stories and style probably aren't all that suited for movies overall.

A story can be a great story, but awful for a movie.

It can depend, particularly given his "short stories" aren't necessarily so short. Otherwise he's done quite a few novels as well. I believe most of his novels have become films, but he has tons of short stories that haven't been adapted at all (ie, not in a tv show either)

Otherwise some of his short stories have appeared in anthologies, which is a better fit than making a ton of shit up so it'll be movie length. The movie Cat's Eye, for instance, includes his stories "Quitters, Inc" (which is great both as a short story and in film) and "The Ledge." Humorously, the worst story of the bunch -- "General" -- was a new creation.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Shining is actually a terrible adaptation of the book it's based on, which is part of why King has hated it for 40 years, and keeps trying to get it remade.

The real question is whether or not you want a good movie in and of itself, or one that's strongly faithful to the original source work.

There's actually quite a few movies based on King that are pretty good if you just watch them, and aren't comparing them to the original.

The Running Man film is certainly a lot more fun than the book, despite changing pretty everything.

---

As an aside, to be fair...you have to admire how proficient King is at writing regardless of how his adaptations into movies go. His shit doesn't always land, but he's definitely the George Carlin of horror fiction.

He's not cranking out a dozen short stories between novels like titans of sci-fi like Asimov or Clarke did for anthologies, but this man has more or less cranked out an 800 page or more novel and a half dozen shorts every year for...longer than I've been alive.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and this man is shooting all day, every day. That deserves recognition even if his catalog is as inconsistent as Pink Floyd's in terms of literary genius or prowess.

Bands, sitcoms (with entire rooms of writers) and working stand-ups can't even pretend to keep up with King's sheer level of creativity or output in terms of attempts. Shakespeare couldn't keep up with King.

He's not the greatest writer that ever lived, but he's probably going to go down in history as the most prolific writer in the history of the english language. The man works at a clip that the 5 o'clock news couldn't keep up with, and he's not reporting on "what is", he's inventing it all whole-cloth.

Stephen King will always have my respect as an author on sheer technical proficiency as a writer.

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

His shit doesn't always land, but he's definitely the George Carlin of horror fiction.

Which is really one of those remarks where it could be taken as either a mild compliment or a heavy-handed insult.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

He's not cranking out a dozen short stories between novels like titans of sci-fi like Asimov or Clarke did for anthologies, but this man has more or less cranked out an 800 page or more novel and a half dozen shorts every year for...longer than I've been alive.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and this man is shooting all day, every day. That deserves recognition even if his catalog is as inconsistent as Pink Floyd's in terms of literary genius or prowess.

Bands, sitcoms (with entire rooms of writers) and working stand-ups can't even pretend to keep up with King's sheer level of creativity or output in terms of attempts. Shakespeare couldn't keep up with King.

While people make a big deal about his work rate, it's not like there aren't other authors -- including ones in his same space -- who are doing the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King_bibliography

Dean Koontz is a pretty immediate example. He's had years where he's released three 400-600 page novels. He's also a horror author whose work has been widely adapted (although not nearly as much as King's)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Koontz_bibliography

There are also a lot of authors where it's hard to fully evaluate the body of their work. For example, Ray Bradbury has about 40 short story anthologies (and over 400 short stories to his name, some of which haven't been republished in an anthology) as well as assorted novellas (and it's worth noting that some of King's works are novellas rather than novels), as well having written novels, children's books, plays, non-fiction, stuff he's done for radio, tv, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury_bibliography

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Stephen King will always have my respect as an author on sheer technical proficiency as a writer.

Seems more consistency than technical proficiency =p

---

I think alot of the bad reputation comes from all those 80's movies that were made from mediocre novels, like Firestarter, Cujo, Christine, and Pet Sematary and made into forgettable movies. The adaptations have been better lately in part because at this point King has more say in creative control and has a say in the director as opposed to just selling the right to a studio and leaving it all to chance.

Zeus_LLC posted...

Dean Koontz is a pretty immediate example. He's had years where he's released three 400-600 page novels. He's also a horror author whose work has been widely adapted (although not nearly as much as King's)

I like Dean Koontz too, but like King he's wildly inconsistent from book to book, and unlike King, he has made nowhere near as much of a cultural impact with his body of work.

Zeus_LLC posted...

There are also a lot of authors where it's hard to fully evaluate the body of their work. For example, Ray Bradbury has about 40 short story anthologies (and over 400 short stories to his name, some of which haven't been republished in an anthology) as well as assorted novellas (and it's worth noting that some of King's works are novellas rather than novels), as well having written novels, children's books, plays, non-fiction, stuff he's done for radio, tv, etc.

I didn't specifically mention Ray Bradbury, but I figured Clarke and Asimov covered that general wheelhouse by way of an example.

---

Zeus_LLC posted...

It can depend, particularly given his "short stories" aren't necessarily so short. Otherwise he's done quite a few novels as well. I believe most of his novels have become films, but he has tons of short stories that haven't been adapted at all (ie, not in a tv show either)

Otherwise some of his short stories have appeared in anthologies, which is a better fit than making a ton of shit up so it'll be movie length. The movie Cat's Eye, for instance, includes his stories "Quitters, Inc" (which is great both as a short story and in film) and "The Ledge." Humorously, the worst story of the bunch -- "General" -- was a new creation

Length isn't the only factor imo, most of his stories are pretty absurd. They're amazing to read, but I'd imagine a nightmare to realize to the screen.

And then of course you have length issues, like The Dark Tower. There's no way to make that into a movie, should be a series. The first book is so dry and drags, and the series is kinda massive. I actually enjoyed it for what it was, and I thought Idris Elba and Matthew Mcconaughey actually did well enough. It was just doomed to be not so good. People had high expectations, and honestly even as someone who has been obsessed with the books I question why they did. It was doomed to failure.

Zeus_LLC posted...

He was likely under contract to say that. The ending of the movie was fucking awful, replacing a wonderful open-ending with a shitty bit of survirony that had already been done in a few movies within the past decade.

Nah. The thing you have to keep in mind with King is that he's kind of a sadist.

The movie ending was crueler and more sadistic than the one he came up with. Of COURSE he loved it.



Zeus_LLC posted...

The Running Man film is certainly a lot more fun than the book, despite changing pretty everything.

I agree completely - the original story was kind of bleh, but the movie was awesome fun.

That being said, judged by the criteria of being loyal to the source material, the movie is kind of an abject failure.

Which is why it kind of helps to define what we mean by "good adaptation". What makes a good adaptation to one person might be absolute dogshit for someone else.

Is Starship Troopers a good film if you like cheese and the message it's trying to convey, or terrible because it's deliberately shitting on every theme the original story was trying to express? Is I, Robot a horrible movie for completely misunderstanding Asimov's entire narrative philosophy and hijacking the name of his book and some of the characters in it to tell an almost unrelated story Asimov would have hated, or is it cool because the Fresh Prince starring in a 2 hour product placement commercial is kind of ironically amusing?

Fortunately, movies like The Seeker exist, which resolve the problem by being absolute shit in every possible axis on the spectrum, failing both as anything resembling a faithful adaptation of a prior work OR as a worthwhile entity in and of itself. Like a black hole, it sucks joy out of the universe simply by existing, accelerating the entropic decay of our universe. So we can hate it on every level simultaneously.
---

Zeus_LLC posted...

Dean Koontz is a pretty immediate example. He's had years where he's released three 400-600 page novels. He's also a horror author whose work has been widely adapted (although not nearly as much as King's)

The problem with Koontz is that, for most people who are even aware he exists, he's almost universally seen as a shittier King who writes the same sort of stories, only worse, and that nearly every film adaptation of any of his books ever made was terrible. So if people know him at all, their expectations for him are so low as to be almost inapplicable.

And I say that as someone who binged through a LOT of both Koontz and King in high school. I don't think I'd ever put them on the same level in any way.

To loop it back around to just proliferation of content, I'd say Asimov is one of the few writers who was both extremely prolific but also fairly high up in the estimation of most people who've read his work. He's one of the more famous sci-fi writers, and while he was certainly capable of stinkers, a LOT of his work is pretty highly rated (or outright loved). But I'm also biased, because he's one of the few sci-fi writers I personally find all that interesting at all.
---

Koontz has some good stories but the way he writes gets on my nerves so I have a hard time bingeing his work

---

redlem posted...

I think alot of the bad reputation comes from all those 80's movies that were made from mediocre novels, like Firestarter, Cujo, Christine, and Pet Sematary and made into forgettable movies. The adaptations have been better lately in part because at this point King has more say in creative control and has a say in the director as opposed to just selling the right to a studio and leaving it all to chance.

Uh, what? Cujo, Christine, and Pet Sematary were extremely popular novels that became pretty fucking huge films to this day. And, for Christine and Pet Sematary (probably also the others, but I haven't those), the problems with those novels are things emblematic of King's work as a whole -- things that haven't improved (and may have even gotten worse) as the years went on.

Second, and more importantly, most of King's really great adaptations came from that earlier era. You don't exactly hear a lot of people talking about how the new Carrie is so much better than the first one -- quite the opposite. As for forgettability, in 20 years do you honestly think anybody is going to be talking about Gerald's Game?

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I like Dean Koontz too, but like King he's wildly inconsistent from book to book, and unlike King, he has made nowhere near as much of a cultural impact with his body of work.

I was more specifically addressing your remarks concerning work rates, not quality or cultural impact. Granted, publication isn't necessarily the best metric for work rates anyway, since somebody like SK is likely to get all of his stuff published whereas a lot of other authors will have a few other novels that they haven't managed to sell.

It's worth mentioning that SK supposedly writes about 2,000 words or 6 pages a day which hardly puts him in a league of his own.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Length isn't the only factor imo, most of his stories are pretty absurd. They're amazing to read, but I'd imagine a nightmare to realize to the screen.

Other than the Long Walk, I can't really think of anything that can't be adapted to either tv or a film.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

And then of course you have length issues, like The Dark Tower. There's no way to make that into a movie, should be a series. The first book is so dry and drags, and the series is kinda massive. I actually enjoyed it for what it was, and I thought Idris Elba and Matthew Mcconaughey actually did well enough. It was just doomed to be not so good. People had high expectations, and honestly even as someone who has been obsessed with the books I question why they did. It was doomed to failure.

I thought they were doing it as a series?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The problem with Koontz is that, for most people who are even aware he exists, he's almost universally seen as a shittier King who writes the same sort of stories, only worse, and that nearly every film adaptation of any of his books ever made was terrible. So if people know him at all, their expectations for him are so low as to be almost inapplicable.

And I say that as someone who binged through a LOT of both Koontz and King in high school. I don't think I'd ever put them on the same level in any way.

I enjoyed Phantoms, which is what got me interested in his work. However, a lot of the things he's had adapted -- such as Odd Thomas -- probably sucked in their original form. Even as a YA novel, Odd Thomas seems kinda fucking lousy.

---

How did I miss this thread, this is totally in my wheel house, and not many people realize The Running Man was a stephen king adaptation (dude was black and it was waay diff).

Also, they NEED to make a TV adaptation of The Long Walk, it's my favorite short story actually, and they could totally do it, if they do it animated maybe (I think blowing kids brains out wouldn't go over well otherwise).

I don't/didn't always like his work (especially after the hit and run episode in real life, he seemed to just be angry after that), but he has written some seriously great pieces of work. I also love his music in many of his movies.

There are other books they really should have adapted. The Talisman is FINALLY being made into a movie (not sure when it's releasing). Since it's mostly fantasy (even if in modern day) it's very different than most of his books (other than maybe The Dark Tower to some degree). I do think it should probably have been a mini-series not a movie though.

For the most part though, his books were quite often made into movies/mini-series etc, often people not even realizing they were based on a steven king novel (Stand by me for instance, which is very similar (but not as ..well....deadly) based off The Body). The raft was made into a film as well if I remember right (not sure if Rage ever was) but Thinner was, so I think pretty much every Backman book except maybe the rage was eventually adapted.

Dude is or certainly at least was, a freaking genius at writing. I have not been feeling his latest books for awhile (again pretty much since the accident/hit and run), but in the old day? Back when you know there just wasn't as many actual options for horror/sci fi/fantasy? He was up there in the running for my favorite author and THE only one in my top 20 that wasn't a sci fi/fantasy writer only.

Honestly I was mostly Fantasy based (took forever for urban fantasy to actually become a thing), so the fact that I loved so many of his books that were based on present day and often didn't have magic etc in them, is amazing. He could really build a character/characters, and make a story interesting even if most of it was just them walking down a road together.

Honestly, if gun to my head, I had to choose only 20 authors total to ever read books from again, he would probably be on the list.

---

Zeus_LLC posted...

Uh, what? Cujo, Christine, and Pet Sematary were extremely popular novels that became pretty fucking huge films to this day. And, for Christine and Pet Sematary (probably also the others, but I haven't those), the problems with those novels are things emblematic of King's work as a whole -- things that haven't improved (and may have even gotten worse) as the years went on.

Second, and more importantly, most of King's really great adaptations came from that earlier era. You don't exactly hear a lot of people talking about how the new Carrie is so much better than the first one -- quite the opposite. As for forgettability, in 20 years do you honestly think anybody is going to be talking about Gerald's Game?

I was more specifically addressing your remarks concerning work rates, not quality or cultural impact. Granted, publication isn't necessarily the best metric for work rates anyway, since somebody like SK is likely to get all of his stuff published whereas a lot of other authors will have a few other novels that they haven't managed to sell.

It's worth mentioning that SK supposedly writes about 2,000 words or 6 pages a day which hardly puts him in a league of his own.

Other than the Long Walk, I can't really think of anything that can't be adapted to either tv or a film.

I thought they were doing it as a series?



I enjoyed Phantoms, which is what got me interested in his work. However, a lot of the things he's had adapted -- such as Odd Thomas -- probably sucked in their original form. Even as a YA novel, Odd Thomas seems kinda fucking lousy.

I watched Odd thomas the movie before reading the book (which I did read as well, but alot of the umph was misssing because...well, I watched the movie first). I will say the later books didn't really work for me, and honestly the experience watching the movie, was gut wrenching, I was freaking bawling in fact. So the movie freaking rocked.

I don't know if the book rocked if you read it first....but it wasn't as good reading it after watching it...that was for sure.

I figured out the ending to Sixth Sense before the end of the movie when I watched it, so Odd Thomas just basically took me totally by surprise, it was actually pretty awesome. Other than that, never been a big fan of Koontz personally.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Koontz has some good stories but the way he writes gets on my nerves so I have a hard time bingeing his work

My biggest gripe with Koontz is that he spends far, far too much time chewing the scenery. I don't nead every leaf on a tree described in great detail with every insect and animal nest in its branches cataloged before you get to the body hanging by a noose from one of it's limbs when the body is the only thing relevant to the plot.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Also, they NEED to make a TV adaptation of The Long Walk, it's my favorite short story actually, and they could totally do it, if they do it animated maybe (I think blowing kids brains out wouldn't go over well otherwise).

They're teenagers in that. Keep them on the older side of the spectrum, and you're not too far off stuff like the Hunger Games or Maze Runner, so I feel like you could get away with the murdering.

I don't think people would kick-back hard unless they made the kids really young, and really woobie-ish.

Though it feels like they'd have to do a better job of establishing just WHY this is a thing at all. The concept is kind of easier to process when you can explicitly spell out "this is why this society would sanction this sort of behavior in the first place".
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

My biggest gripe with Koontz is that he spends far, far too much time chewing the scenery. I don't nead every leaf on a tree described in great detail with every insect and animal nest in its branches cataloged before you get to the body hanging by a noose from one of it's limbs when the body is the only thing relevant to the plot.

King kinda does that too, but Koontz is more... I dunno the word... flowery? In his writing? Lots of descriptions that sound more like he's trying to be artsy than to actually describe a scene.

King will describe a guy getting out of his car and unbuckling his seatbelt and spend three pages explaining the dude's backstory and his opinions on car brands and his relationship with his wife... and then that character won't even end up being important lol

---

Are movies ever identical to the books?

---

zebatov posted...

Are movies ever identical to the books?

Some can be pretty close. And even ones that are different can hit most of the same notes and establish the same themes and ideas as the books do.

The LotR films were a pretty good example. Purists complaining about the lack of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire notwithstanding, the parts that got left out were rarely all that important to the story, and the rest was fairly faithful.

On the flip-side, the Hobbit movies are an example of films that deviate strongly enough from the book that it starts to become a detriment. The Hobbit films are trying to be The Hobbit crossed with LotR with enough filler and OC Donut Steel content to pad out the run-time, but that really isn't what The Hobbit IS.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Chapter 1 is a solid coming of age movie with an overreliance on jump scares. Chapter 2 is a generic modern horror movie.

Chapter 2 is one of the most disappointing sequels I've ever seen. And it somehow made Chapter 1 worse by adding a bunch of pointless flashback scenes.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

They're teenagers in that. Keep them on the older side of the spectrum, and you're not too far off stuff like the Hunger Games or Maze Runner, so I feel like you could get away with the murdering.

I don't think people would kick-back hard unless they made the kids really young, and really woobie-ish.

Though it feels like they'd have to do a better job of establishing just WHY this is a thing at all. The concept is kind of easier to process when you can explicitly spell out "this is why this society would sanction this sort of behavior in the first place".

I need to re-read it, but I think they touched on WHY it was happening a bit in the book, basically to get the dissadents out of the system early (and later on they were sent to a war or something like Garrety's dad...because he was talking out against the government).

Also think they basically hinted at the fact most of the kids actually kinda wanted to die, and that is what they were really "shooting for" over all. It's been a bit since I re-read it, but there was a bunch of that kinda in the background or something I remember.

Just really enjoy reading it, but now that I can't read books or even my kindle it's been awhile since I read it last. I can/could transfer it to my computer though and read it on here, I probably will do that sometime soon.

---

Zeus_LLC posted...

Other than the Long Walk, I can't really think of anything that can't be adapted to either tv or a film.

That could easily be done.

The worst adaptation was Dreamcatcher. Cut out the best scenes of the book and just randomly made the one guy a alien
---

Zeus_LLC posted...

I thought they were doing it as a series?

There has been talks of it, fortunately. I just hate to say it, but I don't think having that movie was a good idea is what I mean.

Also what I heard was it was starting at book 5 or something. But that might have to do with the sheer amount of flashbacks in that one iirc. I'll admit I'm fuzzy on book numbers since every time I've basically binged the whole series.

Basically, though, I think the movie bombed in part due to the fact that nothing about the series is suited for a movie really. Too long. What do you cut? What do you keep? I think changing stuff as much as they did was the only way they could have done it, but that was apparently a very unpopular choice.

Blightzkrieg posted...

And it somehow made Chapter 1 worse by adding a bunch of pointless flashback scenes.

That's because the movies were supposed to be a solid split. Chapter 1 is just the kids, Chapter 2 is just the adults.

But then people wouldn't shut up about how much they loved the kids in the first one, so the studio panicked and went back in for reshoots so they could add more scenes with the kids into the second movie, in spite of the fact that they were never supposed to be there and they mostly had to make some new stuff up.

It kind of ruins the flow of what was originally intended.



wolfy42 posted...

but I think they touched on WHY it was happening a bit in the book, basically to get the dissadents out of the system early (and later on they were sent to a war or something like Garrety's dad...because he was talking out against the government).

It's possible. It's been a long time since I read it.

I just remembered that they had the "surface" answer of them all being volunteers, with the prize at the end, so you can argue it's free will and not coercion, and each boy had his own motivation, but I couldn't remember if there was an overarching justification for why society as a whole would allow this other than "Ehh, it's a shitty world".

Though on that note, you'd probably also have to make the contestants multicultural and make at least a third of the kids girls these days. Killing 99/100 boys and no girls is sexist!
---

IIRC, The Dead Zone was pretty accurate and an alright movie. I haven't seen it in a long time though.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

IIRC, The Dead Zone was pretty accurate and an alright movie. I haven't seen it in a long time though.

For a second, when I read this, I thought you were saying it was accurate to real life, and I was about to ask just what sort of life experiences you've been having. Then I realized what you actually meant.
---

Never read or seen it but the plot reminds me of something else. Which was the one that had similar clairvoyance but it was caused by getting struck by lightning? I think it may have been a minor character.
---