|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Apr 7, 2017 7:55:27 GMT
What horror novels would you like to see done as a film adaptation?
Gil's All Fright Diner
Nick Sharman's The Surrogate
The Repairman Jack Series (e.g. The Tomb & Nightworld)
Swan Song, but I wouldn't mind seeing some of Robert MaCommon's early stuff like The Night Boat and They Thirst.
In regards to film adaptations would you rather it be completely faithful to its source material or the director/writers getting the creative control of the story's vision. For better or worse, there always seems to be some sort of chopping and changing.
The Keep is one film I don't mind, but I would really like to see a faithful reshot of the novel. Then there's The Mist, where I actually prefer the film's ending over the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Apr 7, 2017 10:13:56 GMT
Charlie Higson's The Enemy series
For a supposed "young adult" horror series I thought it was pretty amazing.
Set in London after a worldwide outbreak of a disease that has turned any adult, or anyone reaching adulthood into cannibalistic zombie like creatures. It is set in a fairly short space of time considering the scale of the story over 7 books - and some of the books feature none of the characters in the earlier ones, but their stories all crossover up to the final volume. It would make a great TV series but I think it would be highly impractical and expensive - it would need a young cast which considering the time it would take to film, would grow on screen, unlike the books - the only way around this is if they filmed the individual groups adventures at the same time under different productions - but who would invest that much money and time?. The number of desolated London locations would be expensive to arrange and/or duplicate also. And then there is the death - would their be an outcry about so much killing of children by adults and kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 8, 2017 3:40:51 GMT
I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of a Richard Laymon novel. Any of these would be ideal for a movie; Flesh, Funland, One Rainy Night, Midnight's Lair, and Savage. Actually, there was once an attempt to get the Laymon novel Resurrection Dreams developed into a movie, but unfortunately it never got made. Must have stayed in development hell.
I usually prefer that a movie remain faithful to the source novel. I was really disappointed in the adaptation of the Stephen King book Needful Things. I hated the way they changed the ending, and far too many details were left out. That one should have been made into a TV miniseries because there was just so much ground to cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Apr 10, 2017 9:50:11 GMT
I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of a Richard Laymon novel. Any of these would be ideal for a movie; Flesh, Funland, One Rainy Night, Midnight's Lair, and Savage. Actually, there was once an attempt to get the Laymon novel Resurrection Dreams developed into a movie, but unfortunately it never got made. Must have stayed in development hell. I usually prefer that a movie remain faithful to the source novel. I was really disappointed in the adaptation of the Stephen King book Needful Things. I hated the way they changed the ending, and far too many details were left out. That one should have been made into a TV miniseries because there was just so much ground to cover. Good call on Richard Laymon. I remember liking The Woods are Dark. Needful Things is one of the few Stephen King's I haven't read, or even watched. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 11, 2017 1:41:48 GMT
I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of a Richard Laymon novel. Any of these would be ideal for a movie; Flesh, Funland, One Rainy Night, Midnight's Lair, and Savage. Actually, there was once an attempt to get the Laymon novel Resurrection Dreams developed into a movie, but unfortunately it never got made. Must have stayed in development hell. I usually prefer that a movie remain faithful to the source novel. I was really disappointed in the adaptation of the Stephen King book Needful Things. I hated the way they changed the ending, and far too many details were left out. That one should have been made into a TV miniseries because there was just so much ground to cover. Good call on Richard Laymon. I remember liking The Woods are Dark. Needful Things is one of the few Stephen King's I haven't read, or even watched. The Woods Are Dark was the first Richard Laymon book I read and it still remains one of my favorite Laymon books. Lots of gruesome and nasty stuff in that one. If a movie was made from that it would likely be banned in most countries, LOL. Just curious, did you read the first edition that came out in 1981 or the revised edition from 2008? (the revised one is actually Laymon's original intended version) |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Apr 14, 2017 11:43:04 GMT
Good call on Richard Laymon. I remember liking The Woods are Dark. Needful Things is one of the few Stephen King's I haven't read, or even watched. The Woods Are Dark was the first Richard Laymon book I read and it still remains one of my favorite Laymon books. Lots of gruesome and nasty stuff in that one. If a movie was made from that it would likely be banned in most countries, LOL. Just curious, did you read the first edition that came out in 1981 or the revised edition from 2008? (the revised one is actually Laymon's original intended version) It would have to be the first edition, as it was about 15 years ago when I read it. But that's interesting to see there's a revised uncut edition. I gotta check that out. I might also try get ahold of his Beast House Chronicles too. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 15, 2017 22:24:00 GMT
The Woods Are Dark was the first Richard Laymon book I read and it still remains one of my favorite Laymon books. Lots of gruesome and nasty stuff in that one. If a movie was made from that it would likely be banned in most countries, LOL. Just curious, did you read the first edition that came out in 1981 or the revised edition from 2008? (the revised one is actually Laymon's original intended version) It would have to be the first edition, as it was about 15 years ago when I read it. But that's interesting to see there's a revised uncut edition. I gotta check that out. I might also try get ahold of his Beast House Chronicles too. Interesting history behind The Woods Are Dark. When Laymon submitted his first manuscript to Warner Books, they were dissatisfied with it and asked that numerous changes be made including removing certain chapters and expanding on other plotlines. And that was the first edition that was published in 1981. Then a few years later after Laymon passed away, his daughter, Kelly Laymon, took on the painstaking project of restoring it to her father's original version. And that was the revised version published in in 2008 by Leisure Books. About halfway through, each version become completely different novels. Personally, I prefer the first version by Warner. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Apr 16, 2017 8:59:41 GMT
It would have to be the first edition, as it was about 15 years ago when I read it. But that's interesting to see there's a revised uncut edition. I gotta check that out. I might also try get ahold of his Beast House Chronicles too. Interesting history behind The Woods Are Dark. When Laymon submitted his first manuscript to Warner Books, they were dissatisfied with it and asked that numerous changes be made including removing certain chapters and expanding on other plotlines. And that was the first edition that was published in 1981. Then a few years later after Laymon passed away, his daughter, Kelly Laymon, took on the painstaking project of restoring it to her father's original version. And that was the revised version published in in 2008 by Leisure Books. About halfway through, each version become completely different novels. Personally, I prefer the first version by Warner. Thanks for that little insight. So it's that big of a difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 16, 2017 13:47:44 GMT
Interesting history behind The Woods Are Dark. When Laymon submitted his first manuscript to Warner Books, they were dissatisfied with it and asked that numerous changes be made including removing certain chapters and expanding on other plotlines. And that was the first edition that was published in 1981. Then a few years later after Laymon passed away, his daughter, Kelly Laymon, took on the painstaking project of restoring it to her father's original version. And that was the revised version published in in 2008 by Leisure Books. About halfway through, each version become completely different novels. Personally, I prefer the first version by Warner. Thanks for that little insight. So it's that big of a difference? Yes there are a lot of differences between the two editions after Johnny rescues the two girls and the Dills family from The Trees. |
|
