I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Well but
It's a sequel to the books so I hope he has some character growth!
I'm very much thinking Jake will never get dropped this time around.
Or that could be why they're focusing so much on Jake to begin with so it'll resonate properly when it occurs. I'm all fine with changes to the story, and getting a good King adaptation; i, unfortunately, don't have the faith in good King adaptations where he has a lot of control. King's on the record as disliking Kubrick's The Shining because of the superficial changes, and the removal of the more inexplicably supernatural elements; with a very deft hand in the later, imo. And if King prefers Weber's The Shining to Nicholson's... I just don't have very much faith in him being able to translate his storytelling panache to the screen.
It really makes me think of Kubrick's advice on adapting novels to the screen; you don't adapt good books.
What are the good King adaptations to youse guys?
Great
Green Mile
Shawshank Redemption
Stand By Me
It
Carrie
Kubrik's Shining
I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Even if they weren't apparently getting the aesthetic and the atmosphere and etc. all wrong, I'd be distressed by the fact that they're moving away from that harsh, flawed Roland and those key moments in the book.
But there's a lot of King's writing, both good and bad, that is essentially unfilmable. The brutal death and abandonment of children doesn't exactly rake in summer blockbuster cash. Nor does the level of surreality and incoherence that often defines the books.
The idea that Roland is on the road to redemption is a great part of the series and its conclusion, but to sell that without cheapening the whole arc of the character they'd have to convey how brutal and horrific that redemption has been.
I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Well but
It's a sequel to the books so I hope he has some character growth!
I'm very much thinking Jake will never get dropped this time around.
Or that could be why they're focusing so much on Jake to begin with so it'll resonate properly when it occurs. I'm all fine with changes to the story, and getting a good King adaptation; i, unfortunately, don't have the faith in good King adaptations where he has a lot of control. King's on the record as disliking Kubrick's The Shining because of the superficial changes, and the removal of the more inexplicably supernatural elements; with a very deft hand in the later, imo. And if King prefers Weber's The Shining to Nicholson's... I just don't have very much faith in him being able to translate his storytelling panache to the screen.
It really makes me think of Kubrick's advice on adapting novels to the screen; you don't adapt good books.
What are the good King adaptations to youse guys?
Shawshank, Green mile , Christine, Cujo kind of?, Needful Things .
I definitely agree with the bolded, but I feel like the movies are better than the books on the first two, but I've never read the books so that could just be bias. I'm not sure if King had a producer credit on them, or how impactful it was off the top of my head.
I'd add Langoliers, and I'd put Salem's Lot in the acceptable, but I feel like King's writing is better trusted with strong directors with a vision than him having a lot of control. He's definitely a mean Story by credit, but I'm
not sure faithfulness or King control is necessary for his work to make good movies, it might even be deadweight on some projects.
+1
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I've just had kind of a thing against King and strong control of his screen adaptations from the ridiculousness of his position on The Shining. I feel like that's a big part of why it's taken so long for this project to get going, and why there could be some issues with it. I don't even remember how long Howard's been in pre-production on it.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
But you aren't exhibiting a bias when stating a movie you've watched is better than a book you've never read
That's just being uninformed.
I mean, I've set down his books in the past and never returned and I was asking for those that have read both's opinion. I'm sorry I asked questions about something I'm uninformed in. I thought that's what questions were for.
I think it's a little ridiculous to expect someone to have read King's entire oeuvre in order to comment on being weary of his contributions in his works adaptations to the screen. Again, it's a matter of opinion anyway. I have read Langoliers and Salem's Lot which is why I brought those two up. I was talking about what Preacher chose, and was just pointing out that the movies were academy award winners/nominees and had incredibly talented film production crews. I'd definitely take Frank Darabont over Ron Howard for any adaptation. Not sure whose work I care for more all told, though.
MadCaddy on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
But you aren't exhibiting a bias when stating a movie you've watched is better than a book you've never read
That's just being uninformed.
I mean, I've set down his books in the last and never returned and I was asking for those that have read both's opinion. I'm sorry I asked questions about something I'm uninformed in. I thought that's what questions were for.
I think it's a little ridiculous to expect someone to have read King's entire oeuvre in order to comment on being weary of his contributions in his works adaptations to the screen. Again, it's a matter of opinion anyway. I have read Langoliers and Salem's Lot which is why I brought those two up. I was talking about what Preacher chose, and was just pointing out that the movies were academy award winners/nominees and had incredibly talented film production crews. I'd definitely take Frank Darabont over Ron Howard for any adaptation. Not sure whose work I care for more all told, though.
I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Well but
It's a sequel to the books so I hope he has some character growth!
I'm very much thinking Jake will never get dropped this time around.
Or that could be why they're focusing so much on Jake to begin with so it'll resonate properly when it occurs. I'm all fine with changes to the story, and getting a good King adaptation; i, unfortunately, don't have the faith in good King adaptations where he has a lot of control. King's on the record as disliking Kubrick's The Shining because of the superficial changes, and the removal of the more inexplicably supernatural elements; with a very deft hand in the later, imo. And if King prefers Weber's The Shining to Nicholson's... I just don't have very much faith in him being able to translate his storytelling panache to the screen.
It really makes me think of Kubrick's advice on adapting novels to the screen; you don't adapt good books.
What are the good King adaptations to youse guys?
Shawshank, Green mile , Christine, Cujo kind of?, Needful Things .
I feel like the movies are better than the books on the first two, but I've never read the books
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
But you aren't exhibiting a bias when stating a movie you've watched is better than a book you've never read
That's just being uninformed.
I mean, I've set down his books in the last and never returned and I was asking for those that have read both's opinion. I'm sorry I asked questions about something I'm uninformed in. I thought that's what questions were for.
I think it's a little ridiculous to expect someone to have read King's entire oeuvre in order to comment on being weary of his contributions in his works adaptations to the screen. Again, it's a matter of opinion anyway. I have read Langoliers and Salem's Lot which is why I brought those two up. I was talking about what Preacher chose, and was just pointing out that the movies were academy award winners/nominees and had incredibly talented film production crews. I'd definitely take Frank Darabont over Ron Howard for any adaptation. Not sure whose work I care for more all told, though.
I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Well but
It's a sequel to the books so I hope he has some character growth!
I'm very much thinking Jake will never get dropped this time around.
Or that could be why they're focusing so much on Jake to begin with so it'll resonate properly when it occurs. I'm all fine with changes to the story, and getting a good King adaptation; i, unfortunately, don't have the faith in good King adaptations where he has a lot of control. King's on the record as disliking Kubrick's The Shining because of the superficial changes, and the removal of the more inexplicably supernatural elements; with a very deft hand in the later, imo. And if King prefers Weber's The Shining to Nicholson's... I just don't have very much faith in him being able to translate his storytelling panache to the screen.
It really makes me think of Kubrick's advice on adapting novels to the screen; you don't adapt good books.
What are the good King adaptations to youse guys?
Shawshank, Green mile , Christine, Cujo kind of?, Needful Things .
I feel like the movies are better than the books on the first two, but I've never read the books
That is a bit of a ridiculous statement to make.
There was more to that post, and I used the word feel and admitted my bias even in what you quoted. There is not gonna be any 100% factual stance on this.
How can you say the movies are better than the books if you never read the books?
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
But you aren't exhibiting a bias when stating a movie you've watched is better than a book you've never read
That's just being uninformed.
I mean, I've set down his books in the last and never returned and I was asking for those that have read both's opinion. I'm sorry I asked questions about something I'm uninformed in. I thought that's what questions were for.
I think it's a little ridiculous to expect someone to have read King's entire oeuvre in order to comment on being weary of his contributions in his works adaptations to the screen. Again, it's a matter of opinion anyway. I have read Langoliers and Salem's Lot which is why I brought those two up. I was talking about what Preacher chose, and was just pointing out that the movies were academy award winners/nominees and had incredibly talented film production crews. I'd definitely take Frank Darabont over Ron Howard for any adaptation. Not sure whose work I care for more all told, though.
I think Roland's original character from the books is way better than the idea of him as a better person less willing to throw people away for his quest. I hope they don't erase the most important part of this first book, with Jake.
Well but
It's a sequel to the books so I hope he has some character growth!
I'm very much thinking Jake will never get dropped this time around.
Or that could be why they're focusing so much on Jake to begin with so it'll resonate properly when it occurs. I'm all fine with changes to the story, and getting a good King adaptation; i, unfortunately, don't have the faith in good King adaptations where he has a lot of control. King's on the record as disliking Kubrick's The Shining because of the superficial changes, and the removal of the more inexplicably supernatural elements; with a very deft hand in the later, imo. And if King prefers Weber's The Shining to Nicholson's... I just don't have very much faith in him being able to translate his storytelling panache to the screen.
It really makes me think of Kubrick's advice on adapting novels to the screen; you don't adapt good books.
What are the good King adaptations to youse guys?
Shawshank, Green mile , Christine, Cujo kind of?, Needful Things .
I feel like the movies are better than the books on the first two, but I've never read the books
That is a bit of a ridiculous statement to make.
There was more to that post, and I used the word feel and admitted my bias even in what you quoted. There is not gonna be any 100% factual stance on this.
For my final ride on this carousel of insanity:
The problem is that what you were doing was not being biased. It was being uninformed.
I would definitely disagree that King has written a lot of "Schlock." He's written a lot and some is better than others, but overall the vast majority is at the very least serviceable. I would absolutely argue that he should go on any list of "great" modern writers. There's a reason he's so prolific, he writes some damn good stories.
Which is one of the reasons I'm hopeful for a lot of nods at crossovers to other works. It'd be cool to have a Stephen King Cinematic Universe.
I would definitely disagree that King has written a lot of "Schlock." He's written a lot and some is better than others, but overall the vast majority is at the very least serviceable. I would absolutely argue that he should go on any list of "great" modern writers. There's a reason he's so prolific, he writes some damn good stories.
Which is one of the reasons I'm hopeful for a lot of nods at crossovers to other works. It'd be cool to have a Stephen King Cinematic Universe.
I agree, and we kindve already do. I was just making statements about my opinion on King's production involvement and the merits of him having a lot of power over the quality of the work.
I'm very much in favor of a Stephen King Cinematic Universe, he writes good stories that aren't unfilmable on their face value; he does rely on inner narration a lot, and there are certain dejavu and other such things that definitely won't translate. His take on Vampire's would've been much preferred than what ended up overtaking the zeitgeist.
I just don't think King's a good screenwriter, or producer.
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
I didn't even know they made a movie out of it. I did not care for that one at all. It's a big reason for my current distaste of King. I also didn't like the story layout of 11/22/63. It was a weird book. I also get the samesies feeling from a lot of his romance stuff, especially when I read this one.
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
I liked Cell the book, but I figured the movie would be pretty terrible. Cusack alone, man doesn't make good movies anymore.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Lot's of King's screen work's (but not all) are victims of it being done on the cheap.
With proper budget behind it I think this and IT are going to kill this summer..... Especially IT.
And that's one of the few things King does have direct control over. He can choose who he sells and let's adapt his works. I wouldn't begrudge him if his early adaptations were all on the cheap, or if he wasn't the most commercially successful author in history.
The first IT scared the bejesus out of me when I was 7, I think. Can't really say i can comment on the faithfulness of the adaptation because it was the first King book I remember reading, but I can't remember the specifics of the beats. Both were successful at what they were trying to do. Gonna be fun to see the new one.
I'm hoping for a good Dark Tower adaptation more, though. I'm a sucker for Gunslingers and metanarratives.
This makes me more hopeful for the project, all told.
I was just looking for a discussion about what makes good adaptations or how best to utilize novels and the screen.
I was also looking to bash a little on King because him and Kubrick feuded for years after it, and I'm a hopeless Kubrick fanboy.
I didn't realize it was a sequel until the discussion around the trailer happened, buuuut:
If this is just gonna turn into a "perfect run" now that Roland has the Horn, I'm a little worried that we'll lose a lot of the conflict that makes him interesting.
TheBlackWind on
PAD ID - 328,762,218
+3
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
I liked Cell the book, but I figured the movie would be pretty terrible. Cusack alone, man doesn't make good movies anymore.
I don't know how they fucked it up so bad; it's at the very least an interesting take on a zombie concept - and not the fact that the zombies are created by cellphone use. Moreover that it's a roadtrip story, where most zombie fiction I've consumed are siege stories. Even Romero's most politically overt and underrated zombie flick, Land of the Dead, was half siege story half battle story.
Add in the fact that the zombies are capable of, essentially, data-sharing through a network, it's an intriguing premise, but woof.
Woof, I say.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I haven't watched what they did with 11/22/63 yet which is the rare example of a King book I've read, and has a screen translation I haven't seen. I'll probably get around to it after I get done watching Handmaiden's Tale.
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
I liked Cell the book, but I figured the movie would be pretty terrible. Cusack alone, man doesn't make good movies anymore.
I don't know how they fucked it up so bad; it's at the very least an interesting take on a zombie concept - and not the fact that the zombies are created by cellphone use. Moreover that it's a roadtrip story, where most zombie fiction I've consumed are siege stories. Even Romero's most politically overt and underrated zombie flick, Land of the Dead, was half siege story half battle story.
Add in the fact that the zombies are capable of, essentially, data-sharing through a network, it's an intriguing premise, but woof.
Woof, I say.
Glad I decided to give it a pass.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This makes me more hopeful for the project, all told.
I was just looking for a discussion about what makes good adaptations or how best to utilize novels and the screen.
I was also looking to bash a little on King because him and Kubrick feuded for years after it, and I'm a hopeless Kubrick fanboy.
I didn't realize it was a sequel until the discussion around the trailer happened, buuuut:
If this is just gonna turn into a "perfect run" now that Roland has the Horn, I'm a little worried that we'll lose a lot of the conflict that makes him interesting.
This makes me more hopeful for the project, all told.
I was just looking for a discussion about what makes good adaptations or how best to utilize novels and the screen.
I was also looking to bash a little on King because him and Kubrick feuded for years after it, and I'm a hopeless Kubrick fanboy.
I didn't realize it was a sequel until the discussion around the trailer happened, buuuut:
If this is just gonna turn into a "perfect run" now that Roland has the Horn, I'm a little worried that we'll lose a lot of the conflict that makes him interesting.
Well
it's a better run. Not necessarily the last run.
The only way they could make this "the final run" is if they play it straight for a while and then have the cycle bomb drop at the end of the second half, even though book people already know whats going on.
Do we know what the actual plan is at this point? 3 movies, 2 movies and a limited run series? Just this one movie? How far are they going and how too quick will it happen?
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The idea of this movie as a sequel more than an adaptation is clever
But that sequel is probably a less interesting story than the story we already have, and one way to tell is that Stephen King didn't choose to write that one
This makes me more hopeful for the project, all told.
I was just looking for a discussion about what makes good adaptations or how best to utilize novels and the screen.
I was also looking to bash a little on King because him and Kubrick feuded for years after it, and I'm a hopeless Kubrick fanboy.
I didn't realize it was a sequel until the discussion around the trailer happened, buuuut:
If this is just gonna turn into a "perfect run" now that Roland has the Horn, I'm a little worried that we'll lose a lot of the conflict that makes him interesting.
Well
it's a better run. Not necessarily the last run.
and even then,
there's nothing to say that the last run would be 'perfect' or without sacrifice.
Posts
Great
Green Mile
Shawshank Redemption
Stand By Me
It
Carrie
Kubrik's Shining
Good enough
1408
Mist
Dreamcatcher
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its kind of both, really.
Even if they weren't apparently getting the aesthetic and the atmosphere and etc. all wrong, I'd be distressed by the fact that they're moving away from that harsh, flawed Roland and those key moments in the book.
But there's a lot of King's writing, both good and bad, that is essentially unfilmable. The brutal death and abandonment of children doesn't exactly rake in summer blockbuster cash. Nor does the level of surreality and incoherence that often defines the books.
The idea that Roland is on the road to redemption is a great part of the series and its conclusion, but to sell that without cheapening the whole arc of the character they'd have to convey how brutal and horrific that redemption has been.
I definitely agree with the bolded, but I feel like the movies are better than the books on the first two, but I've never read the books so that could just be bias. I'm not sure if King had a producer credit on them, or how impactful it was off the top of my head.
I'd add Langoliers, and I'd put Salem's Lot in the acceptable, but I feel like King's writing is better trusted with strong directors with a vision than him having a lot of control. He's definitely a mean Story by credit, but I'm
not sure faithfulness or King control is necessary for his work to make good movies, it might even be deadweight on some projects.
I know I know. Everyone gave me crap for that back when it came out and I liked it. But I enjoyed it!
Maybe I would hate it if I saw it now, but I remember liking it
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because they got Oscars and were helmed by incredible production teams, and part of the reason I haven't read King's entire oeuvre is that there's a lot of schlock. I admitted it's bias from me saying it, but I don't feel like it's a widely disputed position to have? I mean, are you making the claim Shawshank the book is better than the movie?
I'd say they are on par with each other, but I can safely make that claim because again I read the actual books. Green Mile the book was better than the movie. Needful things goes both ways, the book has more elements to it the movie didn't, but the movie is a tighter experience.
And I don't think King's position on the shining is ridiculous. Just because you like the movie doesn't mean he had to and Kubrick did alter the ending of the story pretty dramatically.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This makes me more hopeful for the project, all told.
I was just looking for a discussion about what makes good adaptations or how best to utilize novels and the screen.
I was also looking to bash a little on King because him and Kubrick feuded for years after it, and I'm a hopeless Kubrick fanboy.
So I'm not allowed to ask a question of widely held positions where I acknowledge my bias? Would you rather I just lied? I don't really get what you think this road of discussion does other than make me not want to contribute. Shawshank and The Green Mile movies were big deals you couldn't miss the buzz about and were singled out for exceptional merit by the industry they came from; the same can't be said for King's
books. I've given King a fair shot, and he's definitely produced some good works (The Dark Tower series being my favorite. I liked The Drawing of the Three and Wolves of Calla enough to be persuaded to try reading more King.) I just wouldn't put him on my list of great writers.
I think you inherently have to alter a work when adapting to the screen and shot for shot faithful adaptations have made some of the worst book to screen transistions.
Somewhat relatedly, I've always loved "Adaptation".
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2459408409
But you aren't exhibiting a bias when stating a movie you've watched is better than a book you've never read
That's just being uninformed.
Which I think was the main point Preacher was trying to make.
Yeah I'm saying you can't reasonably make a claim when you've never read the book. You have no basis for that decision.
Like I prefer LOTR movies to the books, but again I read the books, so I'm coming at that position from an informed one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean, I've set down his books in the past and never returned and I was asking for those that have read both's opinion. I'm sorry I asked questions about something I'm uninformed in. I thought that's what questions were for.
I think it's a little ridiculous to expect someone to have read King's entire oeuvre in order to comment on being weary of his contributions in his works adaptations to the screen. Again, it's a matter of opinion anyway. I have read Langoliers and Salem's Lot which is why I brought those two up. I was talking about what Preacher chose, and was just pointing out that the movies were academy award winners/nominees and had incredibly talented film production crews. I'd definitely take Frank Darabont over Ron Howard for any adaptation. Not sure whose work I care for more all told, though.
No one is getting onto you for asking questions.
It was
That is a bit of a ridiculous statement to make.
There was more to that post, and I used the word feel and admitted my bias even in what you quoted. There is not gonna be any 100% factual stance on this.
For my final ride on this carousel of insanity:
The problem is that what you were doing was not being biased. It was being uninformed.
Which is one of the reasons I'm hopeful for a lot of nods at crossovers to other works. It'd be cool to have a Stephen King Cinematic Universe.
I agree, and we kindve already do. I was just making statements about my opinion on King's production involvement and the merits of him having a lot of power over the quality of the work.
I'm very much in favor of a Stephen King Cinematic Universe, he writes good stories that aren't unfilmable on their face value; he does rely on inner narration a lot, and there are certain dejavu and other such things that definitely won't translate. His take on Vampire's would've been much preferred than what ended up overtaking the zeitgeist.
I just don't think King's a good screenwriter, or producer.
Sound track alone.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Haven't seen it!
Nor have I seen Misery.
I should probably fix that.
It's one of the best Emilio Estevez fights a demon truck movie ever!
Misery is a touching love story.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The last King book I remember putting down halfway was Cell. I also know a lot of his mid '90's work wasn't up to snuff for adolescent me, and I didn't make it through The Stand, but I think I had the unabridged edition. Which, again, to me argues he needs a good editor.
Oh, the movie Cell is so fucking bizarre and bad.
Liked the book, though. I wasn't in love with it - it moved a little too fast for my liking and there wasn't enough substance to what I perceived to be the message, but it was still a fun ride.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
With proper budget behind it I think this and IT are going to kill this summer..... Especially IT.
I didn't even know they made a movie out of it. I did not care for that one at all. It's a big reason for my current distaste of King. I also didn't like the story layout of 11/22/63. It was a weird book. I also get the samesies feeling from a lot of his romance stuff, especially when I read this one.
I liked Cell the book, but I figured the movie would be pretty terrible. Cusack alone, man doesn't make good movies anymore.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And that's one of the few things King does have direct control over. He can choose who he sells and let's adapt his works. I wouldn't begrudge him if his early adaptations were all on the cheap, or if he wasn't the most commercially successful author in history.
I'm hoping for a good Dark Tower adaptation more, though. I'm a sucker for Gunslingers and metanarratives.
I didn't realize it was a sequel until the discussion around the trailer happened, buuuut:
I don't know how they fucked it up so bad; it's at the very least an interesting take on a zombie concept - and not the fact that the zombies are created by cellphone use. Moreover that it's a roadtrip story, where most zombie fiction I've consumed are siege stories. Even Romero's most politically overt and underrated zombie flick, Land of the Dead, was half siege story half battle story.
Add in the fact that the zombies are capable of, essentially, data-sharing through a network, it's an intriguing premise, but woof.
Woof, I say.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Glad I decided to give it a pass.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well
Do we know what the actual plan is at this point? 3 movies, 2 movies and a limited run series? Just this one movie? How far are they going and how too quick will it happen?
But that sequel is probably a less interesting story than the story we already have, and one way to tell is that Stephen King didn't choose to write that one
and even then,