The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Stephen King, as I'm sure most of you know, is a very popular horror writer. He has been writing bestselling novels for over twenty years now, and he is hugely popular.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Page:
I think its all summed up by
"Andy dupre crawled through 3 an a 1/4 miles of s**t
and came out the other otherside smellin as sweet as daisy"
(or summit like that)
I allways feel sad for brooks
"Andy dupre crawled through 3 an a 1/4 miles of s**t
and came out the other otherside smellin as sweet as daisy"
(or summit like that)
I allways feel sad for brooks
Can someone tell me why everytime I watch that film by the end I feel so good about myself. Is it because Red has been in Shawshank so long that when he leaves it makes us feel damn ass good. Is it because we relate to the characters so much that be the warden gets ass spank we feel damn ass good. I dunno by every I know who has seen the film feels damn as good after it.
The Shawshank redemption is an excellent film
The plot is intelligent and the charachters believable and you can relate to them. I love this film.
Is in the mouth of madness one of his with sam o neil.
This is twisted and quite freaky, its cool.
The plot is intelligent and the charachters believable and you can relate to them. I love this film.
Is in the mouth of madness one of his with sam o neil.
This is twisted and quite freaky, its cool.
Bearing in mind, not only is it the director...
(speaking of which, wasnt the guy who directed Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile aqused of following the books to copletly, and not 'cenimising' them properly?... Just odd because they are two of my faves)
But the screenplay...
(What was that book linked with Gerald Game... about the omwan who is aquased of mudering the woman she works for, and who had killed her husabd ytears earlier? ... Anyway, whe made into a film, they pretty much completly stripped the book, and rerote it for the move?)
But mainly because (as Mr King is often reminding us) that for every good book he writes, there are half a dozen dodgy ones on the book shelfs? ... If you pick a dodgy story, you'll have a dodgy flick...
(speaking of which, wasnt the guy who directed Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile aqused of following the books to copletly, and not 'cenimising' them properly?... Just odd because they are two of my faves)
But the screenplay...
(What was that book linked with Gerald Game... about the omwan who is aquased of mudering the woman she works for, and who had killed her husabd ytears earlier? ... Anyway, whe made into a film, they pretty much completly stripped the book, and rerote it for the move?)
But mainly because (as Mr King is often reminding us) that for every good book he writes, there are half a dozen dodgy ones on the book shelfs? ... If you pick a dodgy story, you'll have a dodgy flick...
Having read and watched more King than is good for me, I have come to the conclusion that it's not just the good film/bad film scenario.
Stephen King's books are full of strong characters that are developed over time, most of his horror comes from the psychological elements of the characters, rather than the in-your-face type of horror used in blockbuster films.
Now the problem with this type of novel being turned into a film is that there are always those mainstream audiences, particularly in America, that want the slash and scare routines to appease them and won't settle for anything where characters are more developed than a block of 2 by 4. When King's film adaptions are done by directors who will take a risk and produce something more akin to the book, it often succeeds as a film in its own right. This still works if the book is different to the film, The Shinning, Carrie and Dolores Clairborne being examples of building strong character driven stories. Stand By me was also one of the strong films from Stephen King's bag of stories, taken from the short story, The Body.
Where directors throw the idea of characters out the window and go for the shock horror style, it seems to fall a bit flat. Children of the Corn could have been a lot better, for instance, if you actually cared about the lead characters.
A good example that highlights how this can work in one movie is IT. The first part of this is truly riveting, and the first half of the second part moves along at a fair pace. When you get to the last bit, however, there is the shock horror element with the terrible monster at the end which kind of spoils it a bit.
I have a soft spot for The Stand, as, although it doesn't come anywhere near the book for epic stories, it still stands out as an excellent TV miniseries and has a lot of major characters. In fact, I've just finished watching it again on DVD (it comes on an impressive double sided twin layer disc, featuring all 6 and a half hours, plus an interesting documentary)
The miniseries of The Shinning looks interesting, particularly as King has taken the reigns to make it as close to the book as possible, but I guess that Jack Nickleson's performance in the original film overshadows it somewhat.
It's frightening to think that King might not write any more stories, he is going to finish anything that remains outstanding, but after the car accident he isn't the same person he used to be.
Stephen King's books are full of strong characters that are developed over time, most of his horror comes from the psychological elements of the characters, rather than the in-your-face type of horror used in blockbuster films.
Now the problem with this type of novel being turned into a film is that there are always those mainstream audiences, particularly in America, that want the slash and scare routines to appease them and won't settle for anything where characters are more developed than a block of 2 by 4. When King's film adaptions are done by directors who will take a risk and produce something more akin to the book, it often succeeds as a film in its own right. This still works if the book is different to the film, The Shinning, Carrie and Dolores Clairborne being examples of building strong character driven stories. Stand By me was also one of the strong films from Stephen King's bag of stories, taken from the short story, The Body.
Where directors throw the idea of characters out the window and go for the shock horror style, it seems to fall a bit flat. Children of the Corn could have been a lot better, for instance, if you actually cared about the lead characters.
A good example that highlights how this can work in one movie is IT. The first part of this is truly riveting, and the first half of the second part moves along at a fair pace. When you get to the last bit, however, there is the shock horror element with the terrible monster at the end which kind of spoils it a bit.
I have a soft spot for The Stand, as, although it doesn't come anywhere near the book for epic stories, it still stands out as an excellent TV miniseries and has a lot of major characters. In fact, I've just finished watching it again on DVD (it comes on an impressive double sided twin layer disc, featuring all 6 and a half hours, plus an interesting documentary)
The miniseries of The Shinning looks interesting, particularly as King has taken the reigns to make it as close to the book as possible, but I guess that Jack Nickleson's performance in the original film overshadows it somewhat.
It's frightening to think that King might not write any more stories, he is going to finish anything that remains outstanding, but after the car accident he isn't the same person he used to be.
Bag of Bones was rather slow moving, but I was able to get into it immediately as part of the story involves children and pregnancy, and it just so happened that I read it shortly after the birth of Malibu, my first daughter.
In response to The Godfather, I agree with you 100% that it's down to the director whether they can turn a good book into a decent film. But the King trying to get back the money he lost on Shawshank, with the Green Mile? No.
The Green Mile, when first released in text form was done so as an experiment. King wanted to see if a serial novel could work, similar to the way that many of Charles Dickens novels where released to the public (each month the next chapter would be published as part of a 'magazine' though they weren't really magazines as we know them now). The Green Mile was released over 6 months, each month revealing the next chapter. As such, each chapter ended on a real cliffhanger, so it was interesting to see how well this converted to a movie.
Another thing, when they do turn Stephen King books into films, why do they bother with sequels? They're always trash!
Sometimes They Come Back Again, Children of the Corn 2 - 4, Pet Cemetary 2 (starring Edward Furlong). What next, Misery 2?
In response to The Godfather, I agree with you 100% that it's down to the director whether they can turn a good book into a decent film. But the King trying to get back the money he lost on Shawshank, with the Green Mile? No.
The Green Mile, when first released in text form was done so as an experiment. King wanted to see if a serial novel could work, similar to the way that many of Charles Dickens novels where released to the public (each month the next chapter would be published as part of a 'magazine' though they weren't really magazines as we know them now). The Green Mile was released over 6 months, each month revealing the next chapter. As such, each chapter ended on a real cliffhanger, so it was interesting to see how well this converted to a movie.
Another thing, when they do turn Stephen King books into films, why do they bother with sequels? They're always trash!
Sometimes They Come Back Again, Children of the Corn 2 - 4, Pet Cemetary 2 (starring Edward Furlong). What next, Misery 2?
I got part way into Bag Of Bones (is that what it's called?) and by that time I was bored.
I've heard a lot of good stuff about his books, but at the moment I prefer Dean Koontz.
I've heard a lot of good stuff about his books, but at the moment I prefer Dean Koontz.
Forgot about Children of the Corn - I have four out of the five and think they are all pretty good!! Considering they are only based on Stephen King's short stories I think they make great movies!!
The most important player in making a good movie is surely the director. Yes the sceenplay, actors crew, blah blah blah are important but if you haven't got someone creative or smart to interpret the material you'll end up potential smulch.
Stephen King has written many book, most of which have now been told through the medium of the silver screen. However, are his books any good and has 'his' films been sucessfull?
Personally, I don't rate his as a writer. I've read 'Salem's Lot, IT (which took me years) Depression and Carrie, none of which scared me or grabbed my attention as much as the usually tree pulp I read.
As for his films:
Carrie: De Palma made this film, literally and because of his creativity. Almost every shot was different. Sure, the storyline was important as anything but it was how the film was so well paced oving from different temps and squeezing every human emotion out of you in a split second that was so greeat about that film. The film is about an ugly and unpopular retard who finds out that she has telekinetic powers and uses them against everyone who crossed her path (No, not a biopic of Anee Widdecomb) so King's the creative juices is obviously flowing. The film was great, not really scary and the storyline was good.
1:0 To King
The Shining:
Kubrick attempting to master another genre, and doing it damn good. Still people say the Kubrick film's are boring! What's wrong with them! Anyhow, the film has it all, the storyline is simple and effective, a boy has a skill called the shining were he is able to communicate with this guy. But the main character is Nicholson, a writer gone psycho in an isolated haunted hotel. Like all Kubrick films you have to watch it at least 3 times over to fully understand the film. Unlike Carrie the film scares, occationally funny but brilliantly constructed. But what's truely disturbing is that Mr King hated it. In fact he made his own Shining which bombed big time. It's difficult to call this one, the storyline is not exacted creative but it works so I'll give it to him, but the fact that he thought the movie was poo takes it right back away.
1:1
Shawshank Redemption:
I believe that the film was sold for a wisecracking $1. Shame on him. But the film was great. Masterful story telling and despite knowing about the twist you could watch it over and over again. What will scare King fans ae that it's not scary. The film is about redemption (go figure), friendship and trust. The storyline is one of the best ever and the film flows so well. Great story from King.
2:1 to the King
IT:
I watched this when I was 6 and I ended up with sheperds pie in my pants. The film is one of my favourites and though the storyline is not really orignal as it seems like he made it up as he went along. But enjoyable to watch anyway. However it not because of King.
2:2
The Green Mile:
It seems like King is trying to get some of the cash he follishly lost from Shawshank. The film attempts to be hearbreaking but fails miserably. The acting were good from Hanks that other guy, what's his name? Ah anyway the biig fat guy was good. Damn he's on the tip of my tongue.
3:2 Against King
Childrenof the Corn:
Imagine if kids ran the world. Ahhh. The film is decent and did fairly well, the idea is not exactly inspiring but it's decent.
3:3
Final verdict: Stphen King is obviously multi talented, but after his own version ofthe Shining he he's probably blacklist from every producer as possible director. However all of his films has been sucessful to certain extents (excluding his own adaption of the Shining') But there are much better writer out there who's scribes haven't been considered. King's films work because the are horror, and any half decent director can make that point entertaining. If you take Catcher in the Rye and try to make that into a film it would be much harder to make it entertaining. And anyway the best two films of from King are the one's he's rejected Shawshank and Shining.
So there, his books makes movies butmany others could probably be better.
Well just a thought.
Stephen King has written many book, most of which have now been told through the medium of the silver screen. However, are his books any good and has 'his' films been sucessfull?
Personally, I don't rate his as a writer. I've read 'Salem's Lot, IT (which took me years) Depression and Carrie, none of which scared me or grabbed my attention as much as the usually tree pulp I read.
As for his films:
Carrie: De Palma made this film, literally and because of his creativity. Almost every shot was different. Sure, the storyline was important as anything but it was how the film was so well paced oving from different temps and squeezing every human emotion out of you in a split second that was so greeat about that film. The film is about an ugly and unpopular retard who finds out that she has telekinetic powers and uses them against everyone who crossed her path (No, not a biopic of Anee Widdecomb) so King's the creative juices is obviously flowing. The film was great, not really scary and the storyline was good.
1:0 To King
The Shining:
Kubrick attempting to master another genre, and doing it damn good. Still people say the Kubrick film's are boring! What's wrong with them! Anyhow, the film has it all, the storyline is simple and effective, a boy has a skill called the shining were he is able to communicate with this guy. But the main character is Nicholson, a writer gone psycho in an isolated haunted hotel. Like all Kubrick films you have to watch it at least 3 times over to fully understand the film. Unlike Carrie the film scares, occationally funny but brilliantly constructed. But what's truely disturbing is that Mr King hated it. In fact he made his own Shining which bombed big time. It's difficult to call this one, the storyline is not exacted creative but it works so I'll give it to him, but the fact that he thought the movie was poo takes it right back away.
1:1
Shawshank Redemption:
I believe that the film was sold for a wisecracking $1. Shame on him. But the film was great. Masterful story telling and despite knowing about the twist you could watch it over and over again. What will scare King fans ae that it's not scary. The film is about redemption (go figure), friendship and trust. The storyline is one of the best ever and the film flows so well. Great story from King.
2:1 to the King
IT:
I watched this when I was 6 and I ended up with sheperds pie in my pants. The film is one of my favourites and though the storyline is not really orignal as it seems like he made it up as he went along. But enjoyable to watch anyway. However it not because of King.
2:2
The Green Mile:
It seems like King is trying to get some of the cash he follishly lost from Shawshank. The film attempts to be hearbreaking but fails miserably. The acting were good from Hanks that other guy, what's his name? Ah anyway the biig fat guy was good. Damn he's on the tip of my tongue.
3:2 Against King
Childrenof the Corn:
Imagine if kids ran the world. Ahhh. The film is decent and did fairly well, the idea is not exactly inspiring but it's decent.
3:3
Final verdict: Stphen King is obviously multi talented, but after his own version ofthe Shining he he's probably blacklist from every producer as possible director. However all of his films has been sucessful to certain extents (excluding his own adaption of the Shining') But there are much better writer out there who's scribes haven't been considered. King's films work because the are horror, and any half decent director can make that point entertaining. If you take Catcher in the Rye and try to make that into a film it would be much harder to make it entertaining. And anyway the best two films of from King are the one's he's rejected Shawshank and Shining.
So there, his books makes movies butmany others could probably be better.
Well just a thought.
Stephen King books make amazing films!! I thought Christine was excellent and who better to direct it than the man of horror John Carpenter!! IT was another great film I thought, The Green Mile, Carrie and the Stand were all very good also!! As for The Shining I actually prefer the film than the novel, not the Stephen King version though!!
Page: