MovieChat Forums > The Dark Tower (2017) Discussion > Movie adaption of Stephen King novels

Movie adaption of Stephen King novels

posted 7 years ago by SonderGaze (7)
32 replies | jump to latest

Hey,

I can now see that the Dark Tower might be a total flop (from critic reviews) - some even dubbing it "the Shart Tower". Although, they are generally happy with Elbas performance.

My question is - has any of Stephen Kings novels translated good to the screen? I know about the Shining, but other than that?

I belive the way he writes is hard to translate, as he often uses metaphors to underline points and storytelling, and it takes skill to be able to convey such messages to the audience. Another writer, Neil Gaiman, has somewhat the same writing style and I belive that those who made the novel American Gods into screentime should take on the Dark Tower. They seems to be able to capture the mystery and depth of the story, while still being able to tell a story with limited means on screen.

I will probably still watch the Dark Tower, although I am prepared to be disappointed :(

PS: I always found McConaughey to be the perfect Roland, but I guess not many agree with me!

[–] lasteven (305) 7 years ago

Personally, I really enjoyed "The Mist" a lot. I haven't seen the original "Carrie," but I've often heard that it was well regarded within the overall body of King's work that made it to the big screen.

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

Thanks man! :) Will check those titles out!

[–] lasteven (305) 7 years ago

You're welcome--enjoy!

[–] Meleractor (4) 7 years ago

Plenty.
I'm guessing you are very young otherwise The Shawshank Redemption would have been your first clue.
There is also:
The Green Mile
Stand By Me
Misery
Pet Sematary
The Dead Zone
1408
Silver Bullet
Christine
The Running Man
Cujo
Secret Window
Dolores Claiborne
Firestarter
Needful Things

The problem has nothing to do with how he writes. The problem is when some asshole comes along who thinks they know better than King how to tell HIS stories. These morons need to check their ego and translate the work of the master to whatever medium they're shooting for while sticking as close to the source material as possible. The heavy lifting has already been done, all they need to do is what the story tells them to like an obedient lacky and they will be fine.

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 7 years ago

Another thing is that horror can sometimes work better on the page than it does on screen. Those topiary animals that come to life in "The Shining" work like gangbusters in the book. On the screen though they look positively silly ... In books, it's all about show. In movies, it's all about suggest. And most filmmakers don't have the first clue about how to suggest -- especially when it comes to horror films, where it's needed most.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1030) 7 years ago

>>>
The problem is when some asshole comes along who thinks they know better than King how to tell HIS stories. These morons need to check their ego and translate the work of the master to whatever medium they're shooting for while sticking as close to the source material as possible.
<<<

I think its the exact opposite. The BEST Stephen King adaptations were ones where King himself had NO creative control over the project and they freely adapted his work to fit the kind of story THEY wanted to tell on the big screen, even if King personally hated Hollywood's "vision" for the film and would have done something completely different, or if the film only loose followed the basic premise of the novel. Examples include:

The Shining (1980 version)
The Dead Zone
Stand By Me
Misery
The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile

Conversely, the WORST Stephen King adaptations were made when he PERSONALLY wrote the screenplay himself and had TOTAL CREATIVE CONTROL to micro-manage the project and bring his "vision" to the big screen as he saw fit. Examples include:

Maximum Overdrive (written & directed by King himself)
Sleepwalkers (original screenplay)
The Shining (1997 mini-series, remade by King himself so it would adhere strictly to his "vision" from the novel because he hated the 1980 adaptation)
Stephen King's Desperation (created and written by King himself)
A Good Marriage (screenplay by Stephen King, based on his own 2010 novella)
Cell (2016) (screenplay by Stephen King, based on his novel)

In short, if you want a good translation of King's work to the big screen, keep Stephen King FAR FAR AWAY from it!

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

King is the George Lucas of literature

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

lol :P

[–] Meleractor (4) 7 years ago

Nonsense.

The shining mini-series is a perfectly serviceable adaptation. And anyone who has read Dr Sleep would know why King felt Kubrick's take was so off base.

As for the other flicks you listed:
Sleepwalkers was B movie goodness.
A Good Marriage was a solid tale with solid performances. Nothing to be embarrassed about there.

I didn't like Maximum override and despised the cell. Which was nothing like the novel.

Movies/mini series like Desperation, Rose Red, The Stand, It, The Langoliers, fall into the hard core fan territory. Anyone who has read and understands King's work knows the bulk of his work does not lend itself to the glossy, generic template that the plebians movie public is used to consuming.

The dance beat to a stephen king story is off-kilter, unorthodox, quirky, strange, and with a mixture of cheese and corn.
Many of his characters have old school "Ayup" sensibilities with super earnest golly gee approaches to danger and disaster who he seems to delight in bringing horrific deaths. A perfect example of this is his own sequence in the movie creepshow. Time and time again he has shown this dynamic whenever he has had a strong hand in the working of an adaptation or show. See the season 5 X-files episode he wrote.
The aforementioned movies are most King-like of his adaptations because they best represent King's sensibilities. Which for the hard core fan far outweighs hollywood gloss and standard expectations. The most pure of King's adaptations isn't really Hollywood friendly at all. In fact, my favorite Stephen King mini-series of all time, which love more than any of his other films is Storm of the Century.
Screenplay by Stephen King himself.

So I find your theory complete rubbish. My biggest problem with King is that he far too often lets fuckwits do whatever they want with his work. Something no creator should EVER do.

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

Hmmm, I must say that this seems like the most logical answer, as the examples you have provided are quite clear and show the trend. Gonna start a twitter-campaign #HBODarkTower2023KeepKingAway :P

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

Nah, I agree more with the other comments here, it is when King himself is meddeling with the transistion to screenplay it becomes "Shart". At least for people who love a good movie and not only a word by word adaption from the books, which seldom are good. - You should propbably tone down your fanboyism, as it is quite embarrasing to read how you answer other people in my thread, quit acting like a manchild.

The parts about writing himself into the novels are examples of utter shite and to me it seemed to be done more in desperation than any plot points, the ending of the series was also completely rushed and had nowhere near the same quality as the first couple of books.

Anyway, only a scarce few of the movies you are referrring to above here even broke an 8 out of 10 in their movie adaption - seeing as King is hailed by many as _the_ top dog writer it is very strange indeed that his works perform so poorly on screen; the Dark Tower as the most recent example.

Besides, most of those movies you are referring to are not equally visually demanding on the part of fantasy as the Dark Tower - of course it was easier to visualize Kings work in the Green Mile as the special effects only need to show bright light from a prisoner. Are you seriously comapring this to, for example, visualizing Blaine the Pain and his trainride over the Wastelands? Dramas and horror are easily 10 times below the amount of skill needed in order to visualize an epic tale of fantasy.

[–] Meleractor (4) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

"Don't ever presume to tell me what to do, unless you are prepared to meet me in person. Which I would be more than happy to facilitate". - Hahahaha - are you real? Please Mr. FBI, don't make me meet you in jail.

"And then you can find out how much of a "manchild" I really am. " - I'm not into either men or children, so it would probably be very lonely (and dangerous I have heard) for you in prison :)

"You don't 'own' anything, unless you are claiming bad taste, which I suspect you have in spades." - Won't argue there!

"What manner idiocy is this? The fuck is that supposed to be, their imdb score? This sounds like populist non-sense, which rarely has fuck-all to do with the actually quality of film or the story it's telling. Which goes double in this society where the majority of the "populace" are fucking mouthbreathers who wouldn't know a director from a projector. Linking the quality of a film with how "popular" it is, is seven shades of moronocism. Simple minded people who are afraid to think for themselves usually cling to such qualifiers."
- Such hipster, and no it was the metascore based on peoples review of the movies.

"But let's face it, someone who creates an idiotic thread asking if there are any good Stephen King adaptations other than "Carrie" or "The Shining" isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with." - Never asked about Carrie though, pay attention.

"And let's clear some other things up:

1. I'm a purist, not a fanboy, a different thing entirely." - Random Internet Guy (2017). Where is point number 2. ?

"What I've found, is that when pissants like you say you don't like it when the creator gets involved what you're really saying is you don't like their work to begin with. You enjoy it when someone takes their work and tries to change it into something that better suits your sensibilities." - Are you a psychologist/pshycic in addition to a facilitator of prison time? :O

3/10 post - some points for effort

/ignore

[–] Meleractor (4) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Spot on list. The only one I object to is The Running Man. That wasn't very good in my, and most people's opinions.

[–] Scape (504) 5 years ago

The Running Man movie is nothing at all like the Stephen King short story.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 7 years ago

As a lover of Stephen King's books and some of the films, I tend to disagree with the idea his novels are hard to translate.

I personally don't think it has anything to do with creative control - whether Stephen King is involved or not. I think it matters if the person directing/writing actually understands the content. That's pretty much it, except maybe where the 80s were concerned and King just wanted to listen to AC/DC and take drugs and make some shitty but hilarious movies.

Because people read King as a 'horror' guy, then that's what they're trying to convey all the time. But his stories are very much genre hybrids - they're about drama, love, history, etc as much as anything else, but they're simply stuck under that horror umbrella because they're not specifically SF or fantasy and because that's what he's mostly known for. But even his SF and fantasy stories are not just straight SF or fantasy. Neil Gaiman is a great example of a hybrid writer - his stories are never just horror or just fantasy, either, if you know what I mean. It's never just about ghosts or about dragons.

The Dark Tower is one of his most genre-hybridized novels, so I'm not surprised if it doesn't turn out amazing, given how directors these days can't even do justice to films set in one genre. But we'll see.

[–] CraigJamesReview (1459) 7 years ago

They're long but not hard to translate. I've actually been a fan of most, even Dreamcatcher I thought was kinda cool.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/rEXvFXvTxto

[–] SonderGaze (7) 7 years ago

Hmm, maybe I actually agree with this - hence my point that the ones who made American Gods seemed to understand the way Neil Gaiman wanted to tell the story :)

Yeah, I also think many are stuck on the idea that he is a horror guy - and many of the actors and directors maybe grew up with his masterpieces, which were mostly horror? For me it was diferent, i read The Dark Tower first, and was kinda surprised when discussing him and IT or Carrie as his best works (in writing).

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 7 years ago

I read Christine first, then Dark Tower, and I kind of connected the two because you know, a car that's alive - I know the novel is horror-based, but it's also such a fantasy thing for a car to be alive. Same as IT. Kids who are bullied standing up against this ancient darkness - that's also such a fantasy thing, too. I don't think anyone thinks of Harry Potter as horror, maybe because there's more 'magic' in it, but there's magic in almost all of King's stories.

[–] Gary O. (997) 7 years ago

The Stand was (and is)my favorite King novel, was made into a very good ABC mini-series in 1994. I enjoyed the mini-series largely because it was very faithful to the novel.

Granted, it was not perfect, but it is still one of my all-time favorite DVD's.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 6 years ago

The Stand gets a lot of flak but I actually really liked it, too.

[–] Gary O. (997) 6 years ago

The Stand gets a lot of flak but I actually really liked it, too.

Many will not agree with me here, but I thought both movie versions of The Shining were boring, especially the Kubrick film. For some reason the story did not appeal to me.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 6 years ago

I can see why you'd say that. I really can.

[–] Gary O. (997) 6 years ago

I can see why you'd say that. I really can.

Thank you for not name-calling. When I said that I didn't like the Kubrick film on IMDb, I was called a troll, and mentally deficient, among other things.

This site has relatively few of that kind.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 6 years ago

The downside of sharing opinions online = sharing them anyway you want, without courtesy or consideration and disregarding the very basis of sharing, which is to be heard by the other person/people. I think pretty much everyone sharing online has been attacked at some point. So much fun (sarcasm).

And I'm being serious. I can totally see how someone could find both movies boring; just because I find entertainment in one or both, doesn't mean that's true for everyone.

[–] Gary O. (997) 6 years ago

The downside of sharing opinions online = sharing them anyway you want, without courtesy or consideration and disregarding the very basis of sharing, which is to be heard by the other person/people. I think pretty much everyone sharing online has been attacked at some point. So much fun (sarcasm).

And I'm being serious. I can totally see how someone could find both movies boring; just because I find entertainment in one or both, doesn't mean that's true for everyone.

Valid point and although I usually try to be courteous when I disagree with someone over a movie, not everyone seems to think this is necessary. Unless I am provoked, I reply with courtesy as you seem to. But some people...........................

There's this one guy on a gun forum who has managed to alienate a good portion of the membership and finally I put him on ignore. Much better than fighting him all of the time.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 6 years ago

Ha. I mean, it's a gun forum. It was bound to happen. I used to fight back, thinking reason would win or at least get the other person to see my point of view, even if they didn't agree with it. But when people feel strongly, or are straight up trolling, there's no point. You both end up wasting a lot of time.

[–] Gary O. (997) 6 years ago

I have a hunch that it is a combination of both feeling strongly and trolling. It should also be noted in fairness, that he does make some valid points but his way of doing so is very off-putting.

I have been on boards on the old IMDb where, if you didn't just absolutely LOVE their film, the posters would practically take after you with axes and pitchforks. Here, it's much better.

Of the King adaptations I have seen, I liked "The Stand" the best, and Kubrick's "Shining" the least. And I have not seen all them by any means.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6917) 6 years ago

I remember those days (chills). People are generally more civil here, likely because there's a lot less people.

I think I like The Green Mile best, though picking a best of King's is tough. To my recollection - and it's been a fair few years - I think I loathe Storm of the Century the most. I can hardly remember it, but I distinctly recall promising myself not to rewatch it. Ever.