|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 28, 2017 0:48:33 GMT
A lot of people seem to disagree, but I thought the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary was superb - as good as the novel on which it's based, in fact. A profound sense of dread permeated the entire film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 28, 2017 1:02:01 GMT
I liked Pet Sematary a lot. There were a few differences from the books but that rarely bothers me when it's done well. Which I thought it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 28, 2017 11:21:22 GMT
A lot of people seem to disagree, but I thought the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary was superb - as good as the novel on which it's based, in fact. A profound sense of dread permeated the entire film. Pet Sematary perfectly captured the horror aspects of the novel, I agree. But I personally always felt the characters were nowhere near as rich as they were in the novel, which - in my mind - sets it apart from the best King adaptations. To me, Pet Sematary goes in the same category as It and Salem's Lot, in that it gets the dread and the scares right, but the protagonists aren't very compelling. Still very watchable, though, and definitely among the better King adaptations. |
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 29, 2017 23:10:50 GMT
A lot of people seem to disagree, but I thought the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary was superb - as good as the novel on which it's based, in fact. A profound sense of dread permeated the entire film. Pet Sematary perfectly captured the horror aspects of the novel, I agree. But I personally always felt the characters were nowhere near as rich as they were in the novel, which - in my mind - sets it apart from the best King adaptations. To me, Pet Sematary goes in the same category as It and Salem's Lot, in that it gets the dread and the scares right, but the protagonists aren't very compelling. Still very watchable, though, and definitely among the better King adaptations. Have yet to even read IT, let alone watch the 1990 or 2017 adaptations. No spoilers please! Salem's Lot, on the other hand, is one of my favourite King novels. Indeed, I'd say I enjoyed reading it more than any of the others. The 1979 TV miniseries captured some of the book's atmosphere, but I too found the characters very stilted and was very disappointed with it in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 30, 2017 14:09:07 GMT
Have yet to even read IT, let alone watch the 1990 or 2017 adaptations. No spoilers please! Salem's Lot, on the other hand, is one of my favourite King novels. Indeed, I'd say I enjoyed reading it more than any of the others. The 1979 TV miniseries captured some of the book's atmosphere, but I too found the characters very stilted and was very disappointed with it in the end. Yep, Salem's Lot is such a perfect novel, it's one of my favorites too. I love how it slowly builds suspense and introduces all the characters - until the horror takes over. It's the only vampire novel that can hold a candle to Bram Stoker's original Dracula in my opinion. There were two great things in the adaptation, though: the casting of James Mason (although he doesn't really resemble the Straker from the book) and the vampire design. Also the pacing was good. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 30, 2017 16:30:52 GMT
I know I'm the odd man out here, but I don't think Dreamcatcher is that bad of a film.I agree.
It certainly could have and should have been better but it is still a fun movie.
I haven't read the novel though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 30, 2017 20:42:20 GMT
What's wrong with most Stephen King adaptations?
A) They seem to get made by B or C list directors for the most part. Not all of them, but most. And B) That they get compared to the books.
Which is unfair. Movies and books are different mediums and use different tools to convey their story. With the use of language King is able to create a mood and offer description that sets a particularly scary tone. Movies use visuals and performances which clearly are different tools than language, mood and description.
That being said, there are some very good Stephen King movies. Shawshank anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 30, 2017 20:43:46 GMT
I don't think that anything is wrong with most Stephen King film adaptations. There have only been a few that I thought were bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Aug 31, 2017 7:31:26 GMT
What's wrong with most Stephen King adaptations?
A) They seem to get made by B or C list directors for the most part. Not all of them, but most. And B) That they get compared to the books.
Which is unfair. Movies and books are different mediums and use different tools to convey their story. With the use of language King is able to create a mood and offer description that sets a particularly scary tone. Movies use visuals and performances which clearly are different tools than language, mood and description.
That being said, there are some very good Stephen King movies. Shawshank anyone? That's actually a very valid point you're making about the directors. The 8 best films based on King's work (well, they're the best in my opinion anyway) were all made by outstanding directors: Brian De Palma (Carrie), Stanley Kubrick (Shining), David Cronenberg (The Dead Zone), Rob Reiner (Stand by Me, Misery) and Frank Darabont (Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Mist). As for the mood, I believe a good director/screenwriter is able to translate that mood/atmosphere to his own medium (just look at Rob Reiner's and Frank Darabont's King adaptations). I personally always felt most of the bad or mediocre adaptations suffer from focusing too much on the horror/fantasy plot; doing King's writing justice means you have to make the characters as interesting and appealing as they are in the novels and really invest in authentic worldbuilding. The supernatural elements in his books work so well because they happen to characters we really get to know and care about (which is also one of the main points I tried to emphasize in the article). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 7:55:51 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Sept 1, 2017 7:43:05 GMT
I don't think that anything is wrong with most Stephen King film adaptations. There have only been a few that I thought were bad. Really? If you've read the novels, you must be a very generous person calling only a few of those adaptations bad  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 1, 2017 11:03:18 GMT
I don't think that anything is wrong with most Stephen King film adaptations. There have only been a few that I thought were bad. Really? If you've read the novels, you must be a very generous person calling only a few of those adaptations bad I don't share (what must be) your beliefs about what the relation between novel source material and films should be. I have no problem with films being quite different from source material. I have no expectations that certain things should be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Sept 1, 2017 15:50:09 GMT
Really? If you've read the novels, you must be a very generous person calling only a few of those adaptations bad I don't share (what must be) your beliefs about what the relation between novel source material and films should be. I have no problem with films being quite different from source material. I have no expectations that certain things should be the same. Fair enough. That's actually a very healthy attitude. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 16:36:27 GMT
The problem with a lot of Stephen King adaptations is that they're made by studios who aren't willing to fully commit. Let's face it, King's imagination conjures images and events in his books that are expensive to put on film, and studios like their horror cheap (for the most part). Filmmaking technology has only really caught up with King's imagination with the dawn of the new millennium.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Sept 3, 2017 18:37:10 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. You're right, Cell should have been a kick-ass, tight zombie movie. It had two great leads, and the script was even written by King himself. I have no idea how they managed to fuck it up this badly. |
|
