Stephen King Movie Adaptations

Post Number:**#16** by **Amber098724** » 28 Feb 2011, 19:23

I've only seen a couple of Stephen King movies. I meanly just read his books. But I've seen the Langoliers, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Needful Things, and 1408 and enjoyed them all. Then again I'm not really all that hard to please lol.

Post Number:**#17** by **Newoctoberissue** » 19 May 2011, 12:14

I hate his movies. I only hate them though if i read the book first. Everytime i have read the book and watched the movie for the first tiem after, I get so upset. ha that's why now i just don't watch them.

Post Number:**#18** by **StoneGolem** » 02 Jun 2011, 18:07

I think one of the things that have made King successful is what he actually writes vs. what he allows the reader to imagine.
I remember once watching this behind the scenes making of the movie ALIENS. They said they only showed portions of the alien because if you see all of it, it looks ridiculous.
IN THE SAME WAY, what King does is guide your mind in a way that you create a lot of the suspense. If you notice, the more supernatural books usually the worse the movie.
The movie Langoliers sucked because in the end, they all looked like turds with teeth.
I would love to see adaptations of the DARK TOWER series, but will a legless woman killing people with plates from a wheel chair look cool on the big screen? Or is that just something that ONLY works in your head.
I don't know, maybe.

Post Number:**#19** by **Sophius** » 03 Jun 2011, 11:10

knowing Hollywood, it's likely that that plate throwing won't be included, conidering that it appears that they are going to try to fit the fifth, sixth, and seventh book into one movie. I'm honestly skeptical as to whether Susuannah will actually be legless.

Post Number:**#20** by **ShipOfFools** » 03 Jun 2011, 16:24

I do. I sometimes even love them, even if they deviate from the plot of the original storyline. Like The Shining is brilliant, Christine is brilliant, and Needful Things is just as good as the book (despite being as far removed from the book as possible.)

Cujo, I have to say though, was completely awful. I usually find that the directors concentrate more on the blood and gore effect, rather than finding the storyline and the "heart" of the book. Which usually makes the movies look cheesy, and while they work great as horror movies, they usually are mindless drones of the original books they were based off of.

Post Number:**#21** by **Scotta.clark** » 09 Jun 2011, 05:18

I have seen many movie, like Green Mile. The plotting of story is great.

Post Number:**#22** by **Bighuey** » 29 Jun 2011, 19:56

I think the worst adaption was Christine, they really ruined that one. The best I think was The Green Mile and The Dead Zone, the first version with Christopher Walken.

Post Number:**#23** by **Mel Carriere** » 11 Aug 2011, 22:26

Stephen King is great, but he sells his ideas to the cinema far too cheaply. The Shining, The Green Mile, and The Mist are great movies, but all the rest are pretty much B movie fare. His rotation on the Sci-Fi channel is downright embarrassing. I wish he wouldn't sell his soul so cheaply.

Post Number:**#24** by **Bighuey** » 12 Aug 2011, 08:58

Its all about money. Hes made millions from those b-movies.

Post Number:**#25** by **StephenKingman** » 12 Aug 2011, 11:20

Mel Carriere wrote:Stephen King is great, but he sells his ideas to the cinema far too cheaply. The Shining, The Green Mile, and The Mist are great movies, but all the rest are pretty much B movie fare. His rotation on the Sci-Fi channel is downright embarrassing. I wish he wouldn't sell his soul so cheaply.

There is more to it that that though, it depends on the actors and directors involved in these pictures whether they are of good or poor quality, creative differences flare up all the time between an author and his or her vision and the director charged with providing the finished product. King hated the Kubrick version of The Shining so he made his own series in 1997. Yes, he does want the money and hence why so many of his short stories and movies are sold out but he does have some creative vision (seen in his hits Misery and Shawshank etc) but he cant control everything.

Post Number:**#26** by **Vogin** » 14 Aug 2011, 13:40

I wanted to say I saw just The Green Mile, but then it struck me that 1408 was King's work too. I liked both, although obviously The Mile lies on the very top of all book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

Post Number:**#27** by **Bighuey** » 14 Aug 2011, 19:21

Vogin wrote:I wanted to say I saw just The Green Mile, but then it struck me that 1408 was King's work too. I liked both, although obviously The Mile lies on the very top of all book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

I didnt know 1408 was a King story. Isnt that the movie with Jim Carey? It was ok, but kind of confusing.

Post Number:**#28** by **Fanofwords** » 15 Aug 2011, 00:15

Personally, the only three adaptations I find to be as good or better than the novel would be The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and The Green Mile. Not to say that I didn't enjoy others like The Mist or Misery I just thinjk that King is meant to be read. He has a way of captivating my mind that just doesn't usually translate to the big screen in the same way.

Post Number:**#29** by **Vogin** » 15 Aug 2011, 03:05

Bighuey wrote:
Vogin wrote:I wanted to say I saw just The Green Mile, but then it struck me that 1408 was King's work too. I liked both, although obviously The Mile lies on the very top of all book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

I didnt know 1408 was a King story. Isnt that the movie with Jim Carey? It was ok, but kind of confusing.

No idea who that guy was but it was definitely not Carey

I don't think horrors are his cup of tea anyway...

Post Number:**#30** by **Maud Fitch** » 15 Aug 2011, 07:43

1408 is a 2007 psychological horror film based on Stephen King's short story of the same name directed by Swedish director Mikael Håfström and starring John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson.
Source imdb.

Stephen King Movie Adaptations

Who is online

Navigation