|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 25, 2017 11:36:56 GMT
Long days and pleasant nights to all you Stephen King fans (and greetings to all the rest of you). On September 21, 2017, the "Master of Horror" turns 70, and it seems Hollywood is determined to honor the year of King's special birthday by adapting - and mostly fucking up - even more of his work than usual (not that he will mind: King is never shy to lend a hand when Tinseltown's least talented people need help screwing up his work). I've been a hardcore fan of the author for the better part of my life, and because I'm also a film nerd, this recent surge of movies (and TV-shows) based on his work inspired me to do an "editorial" on Stephen King adaptations. Naturally, attention-seeking whore that I am, I'd now like to share that with whomever is interested (fans and haters alike). If you like it (or hate it), feel free to speak your mind in the editorial's comment section. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 25, 2017 12:16:15 GMT
I scrolled through for a bit, great work though I have to admit I didn't read a ton as I've never been a huge King fan. Some of the adaptations are great while others are straight up unwatchable. I love The Shining but it's as far away from the book as you can get and King himself hates the film from what I understand. King has an interesting take on adaptations; his motto when Hollywood calls is literally, "Take the money and run." Most authors with his body of work would have an ego about creative control, or at least heavy opinions on adaptations but he doesn't seem to (outside of his disdain for my favorite horror movie).
Thanks for sharing, I'm sure it was a labor of love and if one person on Earth enjoys it, it was worth creating in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 25, 2017 13:29:09 GMT
I scrolled through for a bit, great work though I have to admit I didn't read a ton as I've never been a huge King fan. Some of the adaptations are great while others are straight up unwatchable. I love The Shining but it's as far away from the book as you can get and King himself hates the film from what I understand. King has an interesting take on adaptations; his motto when Hollywood calls is literally, "Take the money and run." Most authors with his body of work would have an ego about creative control, or at least heavy opinions on adaptations but he doesn't seem to (outside of his disdain for my favorite horror movie). Thanks for sharing, I'm sure it was a labor of love and if one person on Earth enjoys it, it was worth creating in the first place. Cheers, mate, I appreciate it! And I agree, King really doesn't seem to have a big ego when it comes to adaptations of his work. Sadly, that's also the reason why so many of them suck...  |
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Aug 25, 2017 16:54:06 GMT
It seems to me that the adaptations of his non- horror works usually turn out better than the adaptations of his horror works. IT could be the exception that tests the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 25, 2017 18:33:00 GMT
It seems to me that the adaptations of his non- horror works usually turn out better than the adaptations of his horror works. IT could be the exception that tests the rule. You're 100% right (although Misery, Carrie, The Shining and The Mist arguably belong into the horror genre). But that's the thing about King adaptations: the fewer fantastical/sci-fi/horror elements his stories contain, the more filmmakers seem to realise that there's actually interesting characters and great worldbuilding in them. Consequently, films like The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, Misery or the Green Mile had a chance to come really close to what King actually wrote. But it seems like the moment Hollywood puts the label "horror" on any work by King, they ignore all the great characters and quality storytelling in it and go straight for the horror (or sci-fi/fantasy) elements. But that approach ignores a simple truth: the "less grounded" aspects of King's writing only work so well because they build on great storytelling; without the authentic feeling world and the compelling characters King created the horror is meaningless, even ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 25, 2017 18:51:46 GMT
Good article.
The metaphor about buying a gold mine and mining the sh-t was apt, imo. So many of his adaptations either don't have the fund or power to make the visuals adhere to the source material. Or else they just stray too far away.
I think King grew a newfound respect for filmmakers after he tried his hand at Maximum Overdrive and saw it kind of flop even though it's kind of a cult classic today.
I'm a big fan of Kings novels but King is a very visual storyteller. I think that's part of the reason a lot of his stuff doesn't go well. Picturing his world in your mind is a lot easier than trying to recreate it on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 25, 2017 18:53:40 GMT
I watched an older TV version of It, |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 25, 2017 19:00:31 GMT
I watched an older TV version of It, Yes. It's closest conceivable image to Its true appearance in our world is hat of some kind of spider creature. |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 25, 2017 19:06:14 GMT
I watched an older TV version of It, Yes. It's closest conceivable image to Its true appearance in our world is hat of some kind of spider creature. Thanks for clearing that up!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 25, 2017 19:07:29 GMT
Yes. It's closest conceivable image to Its true appearance in our world is hat of some kind of spider creature. Thanks for clearing that up!!!! No problem. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 25, 2017 19:39:24 GMT
Good article. The metaphor about buying a gold mine and mining the sh-t was apt, imo. So many of his adaptations either don't have the fund or power to make the visuals adhere to the source material. Or else they just stray too far away. I think King grew a newfound respect for filmmakers after he tried his hand at Maximum Overdrive and saw it kind of flop even though it's kind of a cult classic today. I'm a big fan of Kings novels but King is a very visual storyteller. I think that's part of the reason a lot of his stuff doesn't go well. Picturing his world in your mind is a lot easier than trying to recreate it on screen. Hey, cheers for reading the whole thing. I agree: King is a very visual storyteller. And you're right, budgetary reasons certainly play a role. Still, if you look how little films like District 9, Chappie, Lucy, John Wick, The Conjouring or The Mist cost to make (all had bdugets ranging from 20-40 million), and how filmmakers like Spke Jonze or Michel Gondry are able to create fantastic visuals on very limited budgets, I'm fully convinced it's possible to make outstanding films based on King's work without a blockbuster production. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 19:44:05 GMT
Good article. The metaphor about buying a gold mine and mining the sh-t was apt, imo. So many of his adaptations either don't have the fund or power to make the visuals adhere to the source material. Or else they just stray too far away. I think King grew a newfound respect for filmmakers after he tried his hand at Maximum Overdrive and saw it kind of flop even though it's kind of a cult classic today. I'm a big fan of Kings novels but King is a very visual storyteller. I think that's part of the reason a lot of his stuff doesn't go well. Picturing his world in your mind is a lot easier than trying to recreate it on screen. I think the problem for a lot of the more extravagant stories is that they started trying to adapt them about 20 years too early. They just didn't have the filmmaking tech to do stuff like It, The Langoliers, or The Tommknockers justice. If It is good and makes a huge bundle, the door might open to a lot of King films that didn't work out before for re-adapting. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 25, 2017 20:05:47 GMT
Good article. The metaphor about buying a gold mine and mining the sh-t was apt, imo. So many of his adaptations either don't have the fund or power to make the visuals adhere to the source material. Or else they just stray too far away. I think King grew a newfound respect for filmmakers after he tried his hand at Maximum Overdrive and saw it kind of flop even though it's kind of a cult classic today. I'm a big fan of Kings novels but King is a very visual storyteller. I think that's part of the reason a lot of his stuff doesn't go well. Picturing his world in your mind is a lot easier than trying to recreate it on screen. I think the problem for a lot of the more extravagant stories is that they started trying to adapt them about 20 years too early. They just didn't have the filmmaking tech to do stuff like It, The Langoliers, or The Tommknockers justice. If It is good and makes a huge bundle, the door might open to a lot of King films that didn't work out before might open up for re-adapting. Yes! That's exactly it. And if we're lucky, some of those adaptations might actually turn out good. TDT tried to dumb down the story to cater to mainstream audiences. It seems to take a different approach (it's something Hollywood should do more often): If you convince the specific demographic that is actually interested in the source material or the genre (you know: they’re called FANS) that you're making a faithful adaptation, those people will take note (and in the case of anything written by King, they're many). They will come out and praise and support your film or TV-show on every platform available and give you the best possible marketing for free: authentic hype. And if it’s good, in this age of the internet and social media, there is a huge chance that word will spread beyond the original fan base, and mainstream audiences will start to show an interest too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 22:33:39 GMT
I think the problem for a lot of the more extravagant stories is that they started trying to adapt them about 20 years too early. They just didn't have the filmmaking tech to do stuff like It, The Langoliers, or The Tommknockers justice. If It is good and makes a huge bundle, the door might open to a lot of King films that didn't work out before might open up for re-adapting. Yes! That's exactly it. And if we're lucky, some of those adaptations might actually turn out good. TDT tried to dumb down the story to cater to mainstream audiences. It seems to take a different approach (it's something Hollywood should do more often): If you convince the specific demographic that is actually interested in the source material or the genre (you know: they’re called FANS) that you're making a faithful adaptation, those people will take note (and in the case of anything written by King, they're many). They will come out and praise and support your film or TV-show on every platform available and give you the best possible marketing for free: authentic hype. And if it’s good, in this age of the internet and social media, there is a huge chance that word will spread beyond the original fan base, and mainstream audiences will start to show an interest too. EXACTLY!! Right now, the door is more open than ever for good King adaptations. Maybe even a third Shining adaptations that learns from the both the previous versions and creates a truly rivoting film that's the best of both worlds. Yes, I do believe The Shining Mini-Series has merit, but I have no illusions about it being a classic. |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Aug 26, 2017 1:22:47 GMT
I love Stephen King, seen alot of movies adapted from his books ... will bookmark this thread for later, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 26, 2017 6:17:59 GMT
I love Stephen King, seen alot of movies adapted from his books ... will bookmark this thread for later, thanks! Cool, I hope you find it interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 26, 2017 17:19:52 GMT
I know I'm the odd man out here, but I don't think Dreamcatcher is that bad of a film.
|
|
|
|
Post by tresix on Aug 26, 2017 17:37:47 GMT
I think the TV adaptations usually seem to be better than the big screen ones. Yes, that means I liked Garris' version of "The Shining" more than Kubrick's. But like movie "Carrie" more than TV's.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Aug 27, 2017 4:16:09 GMT
I love Stephen King, seen alot of movies adapted from his books ... will bookmark this thread for later, thanks! Cool, I hope you find it interesting. You've produced an immaculate design. Thanks so much. I'll watch any Stephen King movie, but I must confess, I gave up on 'Under The Dome' around the end of the 2nd series. Yet I still find most King adaptations are at the very least entertaining. Amazing writer. I've more to read, so glad I bookmarked this thread ... |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 27, 2017 14:36:42 GMT
Cool, I hope you find it interesting. You've produced an immaculate design. Thanks so much. I'll watch any Stephen King movie, but I must confess, I gave up on 'Under The Dome' around the end of the 2nd series. Yet I still find most King adaptations are at the very least entertaining. Amazing writer. I've more to read, so glad I bookmarked this thread ... Cheers, mate! And thanks for reading (leave a comment at the end, if you don't mind). As for 'Under The Dome', I gave up after the second episode. Terrible show. But I absolutely love the novel. |
|
