King Dethroned, Part 2
While I mentioned how so many of King's stories fall flat when pushed onscreen, in the interest of fairness, it's important to note ones that were, in fact, quite good.
Some of these, I think, are the result of having good directors who shape the story to fit the screen and bring out the best of his stories, versus ones who slavishly try to emulate the King story. There's a dance, there, and good/great directors are able to do it.
These aren't in anything but chronological order, as they're all good movies:
CARRIE (1976)
THE SHINING (1980)
CREEPSHOW (1982)
CHRISTINE (1983)
THE DEAD ZONE (1983)
STAND BY ME (1986)
MISERY (1990)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994)
THE GREEN MILE (1999)
THE MIST (2007)
GERALD'S GAME (2017)
DOCTOR SLEEP (2019)
I'd caveat that I didn't quite love DOCTOR SLEEP, but there are scenes in it that are fantastic, and it was an ambitious revisiting of THE SHINING world, so, I threw that one in. I threw CHRISTINE in there because John Carpenter made that one his own distinct movie in the adaptation.
Anyway, I think the above are some of the best King adaptations to screen. They hold up as movies on their own merits, and aren't as captive to the King story confines (e.g., small town New England folksy folks imbued with Baby Boomer bromides facing some nefarious supernatural monstrosity).
Obviously, any writer would be happy to have that many of their stories made into movies (clunkers or classics), but it's interesting to me why some King adaptations are actually good, and some stink.
Some people just love everything King does, but I don't. As I said in the other post, I haven't read anything of his since '87, so maybe my own view is somewhat jaundiced compared with his more ardent fans.
I guess, excepting DOCTOR SLEEP, there hasn't been any of his more recent work that's struck my fancy, so there it is. But the dozen above are all very solid movies sourced from his books.
When King finally dies, it'll be interesting to see what comes of that. He's created an enormous body of work, and there is nobody (sorry, Joe Hill) who will ever be King again, in terms of his writerly dominance of a particular genre.
Will the publishing industry cook up some diabolical union involving ghost writers and Joe Hill to continue writing Stephen King books after he's gone (conjuring up the specter of VC Andrews, here). I guess we'll find out.
But the money hole created by his passing will be significant, and publishing will have nobody able to fill it. Count on trad publishing doing the most cynical thing they can to keep that money train rolling for them.
Some of these, I think, are the result of having good directors who shape the story to fit the screen and bring out the best of his stories, versus ones who slavishly try to emulate the King story. There's a dance, there, and good/great directors are able to do it.
These aren't in anything but chronological order, as they're all good movies:
CARRIE (1976)
THE SHINING (1980)
CREEPSHOW (1982)
CHRISTINE (1983)
THE DEAD ZONE (1983)
STAND BY ME (1986)
MISERY (1990)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994)
THE GREEN MILE (1999)
THE MIST (2007)
GERALD'S GAME (2017)
DOCTOR SLEEP (2019)
I'd caveat that I didn't quite love DOCTOR SLEEP, but there are scenes in it that are fantastic, and it was an ambitious revisiting of THE SHINING world, so, I threw that one in. I threw CHRISTINE in there because John Carpenter made that one his own distinct movie in the adaptation.
Anyway, I think the above are some of the best King adaptations to screen. They hold up as movies on their own merits, and aren't as captive to the King story confines (e.g., small town New England folksy folks imbued with Baby Boomer bromides facing some nefarious supernatural monstrosity).
Obviously, any writer would be happy to have that many of their stories made into movies (clunkers or classics), but it's interesting to me why some King adaptations are actually good, and some stink.
Some people just love everything King does, but I don't. As I said in the other post, I haven't read anything of his since '87, so maybe my own view is somewhat jaundiced compared with his more ardent fans.
I guess, excepting DOCTOR SLEEP, there hasn't been any of his more recent work that's struck my fancy, so there it is. But the dozen above are all very solid movies sourced from his books.
When King finally dies, it'll be interesting to see what comes of that. He's created an enormous body of work, and there is nobody (sorry, Joe Hill) who will ever be King again, in terms of his writerly dominance of a particular genre.
Will the publishing industry cook up some diabolical union involving ghost writers and Joe Hill to continue writing Stephen King books after he's gone (conjuring up the specter of VC Andrews, here). I guess we'll find out.
But the money hole created by his passing will be significant, and publishing will have nobody able to fill it. Count on trad publishing doing the most cynical thing they can to keep that money train rolling for them.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Vicki
(new)
Jun 08, 2023 10:39AM
The last of his novels for me was DUMA KEY. in my opinion he's past his expiration date. I found myself rolling my eyes with his fixation on farts and cancer (mentioned in almost every novel he and his clan put out). Also, his novels are entirely too long with excess fluff and filler. Nah, over it (him).
reply
|
flag
Yeah, I get it, for sure. As I said, I haven't read his work since '87! I just moved on. I think, like many of us, he writes because he's compelled to, and because he's got such a massive profile and audience, it allows him to get work out there that otherwise wouldn't pass muster. Heh, I'll have to blog about that, too!
