Stephen King TV adaptations

[Tempogen]

Hi Guys,

Well, the thing I always wondered, and really wanted to basically complain about, is how some TV and movie adaptations of Stephen king masterpieces disappointed me.
I know I know, it's like any other, i'm sure some hard core fans of Tolkien would complain about the hobbit... or would they ?
Looking at the titles that were turned into a movie - and there are a lot - I see some pretty awesome films, to mention a few : The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, The green Mile, 1408... those are just a tiny sample of movies that rose up to the challenge of giving the written works justice, not that I am in any way a film critic or knowledgable in the field, but as a "consumer", my opinion is that these movies had a great cast, directing, and all in all just good movies to watch.
The stark contrast between these and say, thinner, which really to me at least seemed low budget and with all respect to everyone involved, a disappointment.
My biggest disappointment was under the dome. never mind that it is so different from the story, but the cast... man in my opinion - again not trying to bash anyone - the acting is so bad, it's just so ... Hammy. I mean it's clear a lot of money went into making it, and that's why i'm using under the dome as an example, being the more recent one.
( I became kind of leery to watch anything else after it, so as not to spoil what i view are perfect books )
The question : why are some productions really good, and others completely bad ( again in my opinion ) ? you can't blame the story because that is something we all agree is not the problem. what went wrong there?

Would love to hear the opinion of other users on different stories that were turned into TV movies in particular, and if i'm totally off here please correct me.

Thanks

T

 

[Dana Jean]

Hey T, welcome!

 

[Ashcrash]

Well movies based on his books are just that........based. But I know some people who have never read his books and love his movies without even realizing who he is. So I guess it is one of those things!

welcome to the SKMB

 

[GNTLGNT]

...it's hard to argue with one's subjective opinions...though many do, just to be a pain in the keister...what entertains you and makes you feel good is all that matters...for me, Golden Years and Kingdom Hospital have been a couple of good TV gigs from the maestro...the TV reworking of The Shining I enjoyed as well...

 

[blunthead]

Welcome to the SKMB! sK's paid his Hollywood dues; nevertheless, due to the incredible complexity of the process of making a movie some projects will get lost in translation. At least nowadays sK is taken seriously. It only takes a couple Oscar nominations.

 

[Tempogen]

Thanks for the input guys. Maybe SK is not really involved in the screenwriting and casting, and we never know what the contracts for these things look like. and yes it's a subjective opinion, and really not arguing or anything I just feel that some of SK's finest works were mangled.
I'm going to give a non-SK example of book that was turned into a movie : Philip Pullman's the golden compass, from His dark materials trilogy. now I don't know if you read the trilogy, but I did years before the movie, and like a stephen king book I couldn't put those down. the story is so good and immersive, and i was excited to hear they were making a movie. the sheer horror of the abomination they made, would probably be bad publicity for the books.
Maybe I seem a bit too passionate, I just love SK's books, and it's a staple for me. I mean seriously i'm glad that he's so prolific because I always have something to read, and there are so many books I didn't read. obviously, a nutty fan

I wonder what Cell ( the movie ) is like ? didn't even know about it ....

 

[Maskins]

Thanks for the input guys. Maybe SK is not really involved in the screenwriting and casting, and we never know what the contracts for these things look like. and yes it's a subjective opinion, and really not arguing or anything I just feel that some of SK's finest works were mangled.
I'm going to give a non-SK example of book that was turned into a movie : Philip Pullman's the golden compass, from His dark materials trilogy. now I don't know if you read the trilogy, but I did years before the movie, and like a stephen king book I couldn't put those down. the story is so good and immersive, and i was excited to hear they were making a movie. the sheer horror of the abomination they made, would probably be bad publicity for the books.
Maybe I seem a bit too passionate, I just love SK's books, and it's a staple for me. I mean seriously i'm glad that he's so prolific because I always have something to read, and there are so many books I didn't read. obviously, a nutty fan

I wonder what Cell ( the movie ) is like ? didn't even know about it ....

The Golden Compass is a really interesting one and actually highlights the problems of film adaptations. Firstly, a couple of weeks before the film opened they cut fifteen minutes from the end of the film (because the books ending is really dark and they filmed it as is). So the film just ends for no reason. The studio got nervous because the 'His Dark Materials' books are anti-religion, however obviously this might be controversial so they removed all mention of religion from the film in case it hurt box office. How in earth they were ever planning to film the second and third book (which contain a war against the creator) is anyones guess.

It basically comes down to cash and brand recognition. Stephen King, like His Dark Materials, are brands that paying film/tv watchers recognise. Many times the financers don't care whether they remain true to source as long as it comes in on budget and generates some cash. With the Golden Compass, they shied away from important elements of the book because they were worried it would cost them money.

I think the other issue with adapting Mr. King's works are a lack of understanding with what makes them great. A lot of his books have a killer concept (scary clown, town placed under a dome) and I think lazy film/tv makers think that these are the hooks that make his work so popular. Won't they don't realise is that this is what might attract a reader but what keeps them coming back again and again is great writing and fully developed and relatable characters. The most successful of his film adaptations, in my opinion, are those that put those characters front and center.

 

[blunthead]

Thanks for the input guys. Maybe SK is not really involved in the screenwriting and casting, and we never know what the contracts for these things look like. and yes it's a subjective opinion, and really not arguing or anything I just feel that some of SK's finest works were mangled.
I'm going to give a non-SK example of book that was turned into a movie : Philip Pullman's the golden compass, from His dark materials trilogy. now I don't know if you read the trilogy, but I did years before the movie, and like a stephen king book I couldn't put those down. the story is so good and immersive, and i was excited to hear they were making a movie. the sheer horror of the abomination they made, would probably be bad publicity for the books.
Maybe I seem a bit too passionate, I just love SK's books, and it's a staple for me. I mean seriously i'm glad that he's so prolific because I always have something to read, and there are so many books I didn't read. obviously, a nutty fan

I wonder what Cell ( the movie ) is like ? didn't even know about it ....

I'm really looking forward to seeing what they do with Cell, partly due to the presence of John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson, two favorites of mine. And I enjoy being reminded of the details of what a story's about years after I read it. It's going to be fun.

 

[bobledrew]

With a few exceptions (I think the Lawnmower Man and Children of the Corn folks were about as cynical as you could be), I tend to believe that people doing adaptations want to make the best film they can make. There are a TON of limitations, though.

Productions like IT or Langoliers or Tommyknockers had a whole pile more limitations. When they were being made, network standards and practices were much tighter than they are now, and the "specialty" channels like Showtime, AMC, or HBO weren't options for more graphic violence. Budgets were much tighter, and FX technology was more expensive to run at the top end of things. I think Maskins is correct that the most successful adaptations are those with characters front and centre, but if you think about many of those adaptations (Misery, Green Mile, Shawshank, for example), they were relatively cheap to make. Misery took place on one set, mostly. Cast was small. FX was limited. Green Mile had a larger cast, but still had much action on one set. Shawshank, same same. Compare Misery to IT: 13 member cast to 69 member cast. No FX to tons of FX. And Misery had a $20M budget. I can't find a budget for IT, but The Stand had a $28M budget.

And none of this includes the reality that some people are better at making movies than others, and some people are better at making movie A and crap at movie B. Could be the acting, the producer, the script, the direction, the fact that the star was buried in a mound of Bolivian marching powder... "Sometimes they come back" is true, but "Sometimes they just suck" is also true.

But I don't think anyone goes into a project as big as a movie or TV series with anything but the hope of making something good. It's just that it doesn't always work out.

 

[blunthead]

Michael Crichton addressed the difficulty of adapting an existing story to the screen in terms of the screenplay but saying that the challenge is to take a 400 page novel and reduce it to a 40 page script.