MovieChat Forums > Cujo (1983) Discussion > Have to disagree with Stephen King on th...

Have to disagree with Stephen King on this

posted 12 years ago by mr-murph
14 replies | jump to latest

but I'm glad the kid lived in the movie version. I read somewhere that Mr. King was miffed at the change, and truthfully his ending makes more dramatic sense. Even so, I was relieved when I saw the movie when it first came out and I was relieved when I watched it again the other night.

The novel "Cujo" reads a lot like the Bachman books in that most of the characters are really unlikable and have some major flaws. In "Thinner" the lawyer gets exactly what he deserves. "The Regulators" has got to be one of the most unpleasant reads I've ever experienced (and I mean that in a complimentary way). The Bachman books stylistically are tough - nasty people meeting nasty ends, and I see that in "Cujo" as well.

Terrific book. Great movie.

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

that's a good thing.

We're not soldiers and he's not the enemy. He's a pizza man.

[–] sunyboy1 12 years ago

I enjoyed the Bachman books thoroughly, especially The Long Walk and The Running Man. Still trying to get my hands on Rage.

Long Live the New Flesh!

[–] Daphne1D 12 years ago

If you read the trivia for the movie, Stephen King said that he regretted killing off Tad in the book. So it turns out you don't disagree with him ;)

[–] Mark_Graisons_Moustache 12 years ago

In the commentary, the director says King wrote his own draft of the script that was not used, but in that draft, Tad lives.

"Mr. Bond, you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you."

[–] doowopfan 12 years ago

In Stephen King at the movies by Jesse Horsting, King says this is his favorite adaptation.

--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuineaPig 12 years ago

Would've been much better if the kid died.

This is not a signature!

[–] nicksaviking44 12 years ago

In the book, Tad's death seemed like penance for Donna's past sins. The book seemed more true to the theme of the story to me, but having the kid survive in the film wasn't a complete cop-out as Donna's retribution could be interpreted as her mental and physical battle with her suddenly tangible demon (Cujo).

[–] scottiew69 11 years ago

This movie ruined the book! The original ending was perfect for the story. This is the best book by Stephen king and this attempt of a film got it all wrong!

[–] seahawk3133 11 years ago

The kid living or dying didn't matter. The family got through the first demon (Cujo), they still have this terror, the memories of the affair, her injuries and the psycho guy to get through. The woman is going to suffer plenty from this and odds are the marriage won't last anyways

[–] artisticoutbreak 11 years ago

I love the new ending, if the kid would have died, the movie would have sucked!

[–] april_l 11 years ago

I saw the movie (when I was 11) before I read the book (not until I was 13) so I was absolutely devastated when I finally did read it and get to the end. Of course, now that I'm an adult, I can see why the book ended the way it did. The shock of having the child die is very effective. However, I don't mind that the child didn't die in the movie. Maybe if the movie were made today, they MIGHT go with the original ending but I do doubt that.

[–] Godzilla1981 7 years ago

How does it make "dramatic sense"? In a super cynical age, the kid has to die at the end for it to be "dramatically powerful"? I could see a lot of people saying that, like "HOW BRAVE of the filmmakers, as kids usually don't die in films". I wouldn't consider it brave. I'd consider it sadistic. And beyond that, it would be a real sh** of an ending. As if the mom and kid haven't been through enough, nope, kid's dead too. Oh well.

But no, as I'm sure everyone else has pointed out, King actually wanted them to keep the kid alive for the movie. When he wrote stories like this and Pet Sematary, he was in the darkest part of his drunken, drugged up stupor phase, before his family had an intervention, and he finally got sober. It shows, because, honestly, his stories from that era are pretty awful, and VERY dark, mean-spirited, etc. His work post-sobriety, IMO, became much stronger.

[–] Strannger (2007) 7 years ago

I agree. Sometimes king goes for the gruesome instead of happy ending. His novel's nowadays you are most likely to survive.

Now you really have to sacrifice and fight. I think King would let Tad live if written today.