Films

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
I think there is a reason the ones that turned out the best have a fairly simple story and not a overload of characters. Like Green Mile, Misery, Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemption and Dolores Claiburne. Then a lot has to do with understanding the book which some either doesn't do or doesn't care about and uses it to tell their story instead. Like Shining. Not a bad movie but not close to what King wrote in his book.
 

Leif

Expose yourself to your deepest fear.
Aug 11, 2015
450
2,260
If you haven't read the story first, you may have a different opinion on the movie. In general, I agree. I think you are right when you say King writes with such a depth that it is hard to portray this in a movie at times.
 

mal

content
Jun 23, 2007
4,714
27,243
61
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
It would depend on their plan of attack. If they tried to stay true to the written word by visualizing the book then I think they would have some trouble. If they tried to capture the mood/truth of the story, regardless of following the written word as it unfolds, then I think they have a better chance. Definitely depends on the screenplay and direction. My own personal opinion is that some directors can capture the truth of the story in three minutes of film whereas lesser directors would take 25 minutes or longer. Just my 2 cents worth, mal.
 

blunthead

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2006
80,755
195,461
Atlanta GA
11890942_10156231625895001_2687555104219857894_n.jpg
 

Maskins

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2015
640
3,700
I think a lot of King's best novels heavily rely on the characters inner monologue to explain their motivations and a lot of them also have quite a large cast. Combine the two and it is very hard for supporting characters not to appear as simple stereotypes. I always take Dreamcatcher as an example. In that there are whole sections of psychic communications and even confrontations within the mind of characters. In the film, they just didn't work. Plus, none of the characters got the level of detail they did in the book.

Very often the best film adaptations are those with a simple story to tell or one that focuses on a smaller cast of characters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skimom2 and Rrty

Rrty

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,394
4,588
Very interesting thread. And the issue about the inner monologues -- excellent point, I would highly agree with that. Also, as DiO'Bolic said, there was that one film he did; however, I don't think that was all bad, from one point of view (but I get the point -- if he can't do it, then who can?).

However, as we discussed in another thread, movies are different nowadays. They tend to be better made (or seem to be, anyway). I think a movie made of It, for example, would be a pretty good film, so long as the moviegoers go for the look/atmosphere of a Scream-type film, or any of the quality lower-budget offerings we see today, such as The Conjuring. I believe, for instance, that the The Dark Tower films will be fine because they will probably follow the blockbuster template of the Rings/Hobbit fantasy films.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maskins

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,683
92,168
USA
I think a lot of King's best novels heavily rely on the characters inner monologue to explain their motivations and a lot of them also have quite a large cast. Combine the two and it is very hard for supporting characters not to appear as simple stereotypes. I always take Dreamcatcher as an example. In that there are whole sections of psychic communications and even confrontations within the mind of characters. In the film, they just didn't work. Plus, none of the characters got the level of detail they did in the book.

Very often the best film adaptations are those with a simple story to tell or one that focuses on a smaller cast of characters.
images-1.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maskins

Lernsten

Member
Sep 5, 2015
15
81
47
What is your point of Wiev When it comes to casting the main caracter?
Take for instance the Dead Zone, wich i havet read, is Christopher walken believeble in his portrayel?
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
What is your point of Wiev When it comes to casting the main caracter?
Take for instance the Dead Zone, wich i havet read, is Christopher walken believeble in his portrayel?
I don't have so much of a problem with Walken as with all the other characters and simplifications that is made. Walken was OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lernsten

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
62
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
There are various reasons but here are two areas I think are problems

#1 - The length of the novel. It's impossible to do a faithful adaptation of a large novel. There just isn't enough time in a 2 hour movie. I think that's why the novellas and shorter novels work much better.

#2 - Money and I mean too much of it. Stephen does not write Hollywood formula type stories and when a lot of money has been laid out for a movie, the investors want nice safe tried and true formula with happy endings for the masses. The more money that is being spent for a movie (or a TV series) generally means the more formula you're going to get unless you have a Scorsese type name director that can get his way. Watch the documentary on the Dark Half blu-ray and see what George Romero went through. George had never had a budget that big and he got bulldozed by the suits. I think The Dark Half turned out good but it could have been much better if George Romero could have got his way on a few things.
 

Rrty

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,394
4,588
Fljoe, I would say that a lot of King's stuff is commercial. Some of his later output, like Bag of Bones and Lisey's Story, maybe not so much, but I think something like Under the Dome has a compelling premise. I agree that Hollywood can interfere; it's unavoidable I suppose considering the money at stake.

Someone should offer King $5million and say make a movie (as a writer/producer) with a concept that can be done as cheaply as possible; you keep whatever is left, plus you get profit participation. He'd probably come up with a great low-budget film to compete with the likes of The Conjuring's and the The Purge's of nowadays.