There have been 99 tv and film adaptations of Stephen King movies?!?!

[WinterRose]

That depends really. Back in high school, they had an edition of Cycle of the Werewolf. It's King's take on the whole werewolf thing, the same way Salem's Lot is really his definitive take on vampires. It was originally concieved as a calendar project that turned into a novel. Berni Wrightson provided the illustration for it.

The edition I got to see back in school had King's screenplay treatment in the back as well. Which I try to emulate when I'm working on a script myself. His script was later turned into 'Silver Bullet' (Gary Busey). Now the screenplay followed his story pretty well. To the degree that when you read it, you thought, "Wow. I bet this'd be pretty good as a film." At least I thought that.

And we know how THAT film turned out.

Just cos he wrote a screenplay to a film that was just wrong in every sense doesn't mean he should get the flak for it too. Ask any writer whose work has been adapted for the screen. It's more the norm for the concept to get butchered than make it intact. Either in changes, or execution, the breaks are usually against a good book when it's getting made. The movie has a LOT to live up to. And often times, it simply can't.

A lot of the problem with Steve's adaptations I'll wager is that so much of what makes his books as good as they are is what's happening inside the characters as well as to them. So many movie are pretty much limited to what we can SEE happening.

With good actors, we may get some of that subtext and what's going on in their heads or hearts. And you really need SUPER-actors to get a lot of what King writes across. His whole schtick is taking normal people and putting them into THE most messed up situation possible and letting us see how they react. Then he pours gasoline and fire ants onto them for good measure and starts flicking matches at em.

All the internal dialogue, telepathy, empathy, emotion and backstory you can't really get on screen without voiceovers, flashbacks that interrupt the flow of the movie's pacing, or inventive filmmaking that most studios aren't going to risk money on when they need stuff that fits the money formula.

[joespam]

I haven't seen the John Carpenter-directed Christine in a good long while, but it can't possibly suck as bad as most bad King adaptations. Anyone have an opinion?

[Andy Kuhn]

and they pretty much all suck! simply amazing!

i'd say that the percentage of good stephen king movies is about equal to the percentage of good movies hollywood produces in general. just my opinion.

[Kefky]

Chroneberg's dead zone is not only a really great movie, but it's also pretty damn close to the original source, which makes it a great adaptation too.

[UltimateQuintessa]

I haven't seen the John Carpenter-directed Christine in a good long while, but it can't possibly suck as bad as most bad King adaptations. Anyone have an opinion?

I saw it for the first time last year. I thought it was a decent adaption.

[Fourthman]

That depends really. Back in high school, they had an edition of Cycle of the Werewolf. It's King's take on the whole werewolf thing, the same way Salem's Lot is really his definitive take on vampires. It was originally concieved as a calendar project that turned into a novel. Berni Wrightson provided the illustration for it.

The edition I got to see back in school had King's screenplay treatment in the back as well. Which I try to emulate when I'm working on a script myself. His script was later turned into 'Silver Bullet' (Gary Busey). Now the screenplay followed his story pretty well. To the degree that when you read it, you thought, "Wow. I bet this'd be pretty good as a film." At least I thought that.

And we know how THAT film turned out.

Just cos he wrote a screenplay to a film that was just wrong in every sense doesn't mean he should get the flak for it too. Ask any writer whose work has been adapted for the screen. It's more the norm for the concept to get butchered than make it intact. Either in changes, or execution, the breaks are usually against a good book when it's getting made. The movie has a LOT to live up to. And often times, it simply can't.

A lot of the problem with Steve's adaptations I'll wager is that so much of what makes his books as good as they are is what's happening inside the characters as well as to them. So many movie are pretty much limited to what we can SEE happening.

With good actors, we may get some of that subtext and what's going on in their heads or hearts. And you really need SUPER-actors to get a lot of what King writes across. His whole schtick is taking normal people and putting them into THE most messed up situation possible and letting us see how they react. Then he pours gasoline and fire ants onto them for good measure and starts flicking matches at em.

All the internal dialogue, telepathy, empathy, emotion and backstory you can't really get on screen without voiceovers, flashbacks that interrupt the flow of the movie's pacing, or inventive filmmaking that most studios aren't going to risk money on when they need stuff that fits the money formula.

Of course he should get some of the flack for it. There's no reason he couldn't have thought out all of the above BEFORE he took the money for an adaptation.

[WinterRose]

Of course he should get some of the flack for it. There's no reason he couldn't have thought out all of the above BEFORE he took the money for an adaptation.

I think I've heard him say he doesn't worry about the adaptations for the most part unless he's directly involved. Once it goes to hollywood, it's usually out of his hands. All of the above isn't so much his responsibility. It's his agent's. That's the person whose responsibility it is to represent his interests.

He does get involved sometimes. Like making them take his name off of 'The Lawnmower Man' which was so not his story, he wasn't having them use his name to draw people to it thinking he did it.

For the most part, he banks his checks and tries not to worry how many versions of 'Sometimes They Come Back' there are now. I don't grudge it from him. He's still a badass writer, no matter how many directors have turned his work into steaming turdburgers. He's got kids to put through college and things. Probably medical bills too.

I'm glad he's still interested enough to help turn out better adaptations of stuff that's gone before. (IE: Stephen King's The Shining) I daresay, having had as much practice as he has doing screenplays while working on some of the better ones, and the ABC stuff he's done in the last 10 years, he's gotten better at it and has more of a feel now for what works onscreen as opposed to what doesn't. He probably has people to help him with that too.

I'm honestly hoping they'll go back and redo some of the good stuff that didn't make it to screen intact. Like a really REALLY good miniseries version of Salem's Lot. (the remake BLEW, and doesn't take The Dark Tower into account where it should.) I'd LOVE to see what they could do with something like Cycle of the Werewolf nowadays. With Wrightson's werewolf designs as the basis for the computer work? Ohhhh yeah. Just think about what they did with the werewolf in Dr. Who: Tooth & Claw and you can see the possibilities.

Some things they got right the first time around. The Dead Zone, Firestarter, The Stand, Misery, The Langoliers, Delores Claiborne, Shawshank and the Green Mile. I can't speak to Pet Sematery, as I've still been too much of a pussy to watch that one. But some of the other stuff BEGS to be remade.

I mean can you imagine a properly done version of Needful Things with Kiefer Sutherland reprising his Stand By Me role of Ace Merrill? It would own so hard his readers around the world would sit straight up in their beds, cock their ears and go, "Something wonderful just happened."

Holy shit... they did Tyger. Hell, I did an audio version of Tyger a few years ago. That's great! I need to get off my ass and finish recording Dolan's Cadillac.

[Fourthman]

I'm not sure where you're standing here, but I think we're all King fans. I'm not accusing the guy of being directly responsible for the bad films, but if he left them to his agent and didn't worry about them then at the very least the guy is passively responsible in part for bad films being made. I'm not saying he should change a thing about how he does it, because honestly, being partially responsible for all the bad films is the price of being partially responsible for all the good ones as well.

[MACK!]

I haven't seen the John Carpenter-directed Christine in a good long while, but it can't possibly suck as bad as most bad King adaptations. Anyone have an opinion?

Thanks for reminding me of that one. I can't believe I forgot to mention it. When I saw it as a kid I really enjoyed it.
And I listened to the John Carpenter commentary just a week ago, and it was really insightful to hear his approach to it.

[MACK!]

That depends really. Back in high school, they had an edition of Cycle of the Werewolf. It's King's take on the whole werewolf thing, the same way Salem's Lot is really his definitive take on vampires. It was originally concieved as a calendar project that turned into a novel. Berni Wrightson provided the illustration for it.

The edition I got to see back in school had King's screenplay treatment in the back as well. Which I try to emulate when I'm working on a script myself. His script was later turned into 'Silver Bullet' (Gary Busey). Now the screenplay followed his story pretty well. To the degree that when you read it, you thought, "Wow. I bet this'd be pretty good as a film." At least I thought that.

And we know how THAT film turned out.

Just cos he wrote a screenplay to a film that was just wrong in every sense doesn't mean he should get the flak for it too. Ask any writer whose work has been adapted for the screen. It's more the norm for the concept to get butchered than make it intact. Either in changes, or execution, the breaks are usually against a good book when it's getting made. The movie has a LOT to live up to. And often times, it simply can't.

A lot of the problem with Steve's adaptations I'll wager is that so much of what makes his books as good as they are is what's happening inside the characters as well as to them. So many movie are pretty much limited to what we can SEE happening.

With good actors, we may get some of that subtext and what's going on in their heads or hearts. And you really need SUPER-actors to get a lot of what King writes across. His whole schtick is taking normal people and putting them into THE most messed up situation possible and letting us see how they react. Then he pours gasoline and fire ants onto them for good measure and starts flicking matches at em.

All the internal dialogue, telepathy, empathy, emotion and backstory you can't really get on screen without voiceovers, flashbacks that interrupt the flow of the movie's pacing, or inventive filmmaking that most studios aren't going to risk money on when they need stuff that fits the money formula.

I remember reading that book as a kid with the Berni Wrightson art.
That was a fun read as a kid.

I like the cycle idea too.