Current Events > Its a travesty that more King adaptations havent gotten oscars

(+) Yeah! (+)

A couple have gotten respect, but considering how many of his adaptations are among the best movies of all time, you'd think he'd have more awards.

I mean, not really, the vast majority of Stephen King movies are garbage. It's just that when they do hit, they really hit.

---

I too am upset "The Dark Tower" movie didn't win oscars for best direction, best script, best acting and best visual effects.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I too am upset "The Dark Tower" movie didn't win oscars for best direction, best script, best acting and best visual effects.

I'm still upset by the adaptation

---

RadiantJoyrock posted...

but considering how many of his adaptations are among the best movies of all time

The Shining and that's it?

---

RebelElite791 posted...

The Shining and that's it?

Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption

---

RadiantJoyrock posted...

A couple have gotten respect, but considering how many of his adaptations are among the best movies of all time, you'd think he'd have more awards.

For me to agree/disagree, I'd really need to know what his films were up against.

Do you have a few quick examples?

---

My favourite King movie is Shawshank and even that I'm not sure I'd consider a GOAT movie. The shortlist of great-ish ones are basically Shawshank, Mile, Shining, maybe Misery. Then theres some good-ish or funny ones below that, and they're all like little rafts floating in a sea of Stephen King poop.

---

I'm reading IT. I'm told the movies are practically an independent entity but I won't watch one until I'm done. I'm 82% done according to my Kindle.

Everyone tells me the first is good but the second sucks. Is this true????

EnglishBullDoug posted...

I'm reading IT. I'm told the movies are practically an independent entity but I won't watch one until I'm done. I'm 82% done according to my Kindle.

Everyone tells me the first is good but the second sucks. Is this true????

The 90's movies/series were a far more faithful adaptation.

The new movies were a bit of fun, but diverge pretty drastically from the source material that make them hard to recognize.

---

EnglishBullDoug posted...

I'm reading IT. I'm told the movies are practically an independent entity but I won't watch one until I'm done. I'm 82% done according to my Kindle.

Everyone tells me the first is good but the second sucks. Is this true????

The first movie was an amazing adaptation but the second was so much worse, it basically felt like two different writers

COVxy posted...

The 90's movies/series were a far more faithful adaptation.

The new movies were a bit of fun, but diverge pretty drastically from the source material that make them hard to recognize.

not really, they both cut out a bunch of shit but the second at least has the fort and a few references to parts of the book neither included.

I like the first more but I wouldnt say its more faithful.

---

Stand By Me > *

Misery and Dolores Claiborne were solid gold.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

not really, they both cut out a bunch of shit but the second at least has the fort and a few references to parts of the book neither included.

I like the first more but I wouldnt say its more faithful.

I'm just not sure how you could arrive at that conclusion unless it had been a very long time since you read the book. I read the book in anticipation of the new movies. I went into the new movies expecting them to be more faithful because that was the narrative surrounding them at the time but it's just not the case.

I mean, the new movies include more fun little winks and nods to events not included in either movie, but that's really not to say they were included in the new movies.

---