Children of the Corn- which movie was better in your opinion?

[C. J.]

I remember the first time I read this story just being terrified the first time the characters encounter the children. Then I saw the 1984 film... and felt that there was a lot that should have been done better.

I will explain more if people want to discuss it. So ... am I wrong about the original theatrical version or do you think the TV-movie version that debuted on the Syfy channel was better? And explain why.

[[deleted user]]

Sorry but I thought both of them weren't good. But that may be just me.

[C. J.]

I read the story and it just had such a huge impact on giving a slow dread and then the final surprises kept me on the edge of my seat!

In my opinion the 1984 film had too many weird additions to it. Though I get why they expanded it (the original work it was based on was as one critic called a "short short-story") I wish it adapted it better. I did not like the beginning of the film as I felt that it wasn't done in a convincing way (kids are in a diner and out of nowhere, in slow, gory fashion they try to slaughter the customers) though I liked that there was a mystery behind it.

I was terrified of the story's ending where the "one behind the rows" personally kills the main character. In this film he (or it) is reduced to some kind of shining, yellow glow.

Anyone else see the TV-movie version?? What do you think of it exactly? (the reasons you did or did not like it...)

[C. J.]

Sorry I forgot to answer my own question up top!

I think the TV-movie one that premiered on the Syfy channel was better. Though it happened to be closer to King's original vision I found it more effective as well.

[C. J.]

I hope more people post their opinions on here. I really would like to hear the reasons people liked one or the other film or dislikes(or even the sequels if they want!).

[Scott]

I haven't seen the SyFy (ugh) film but I only saw the 1984 film recently and thought it was surprisingly decent. The young man who played Isaac was fabulous and perfect. I'm afraid I don't remember the original story well enough to compare the two.

[Rade]

I read the story and I saw one of the movies (don't remember which). I remember it had a kid name Malacai that scared me big time. He was too religious and too weird. I think this movie was on SyFy. I also saw Shining made for TV movie and found it surprisingly more according to the book.

[Nic]

I thought the 80s version was great. The music was great and the kid that played Isaac was fantastic for a child actor of that time period.

[C. J.]

Nic wrote: "I thought the 80s version was great. The music was great and the kid that played Isaac was fantastic for a child actor of that time period."

Speaking of him, did you know he reprises his role as Isaac in a sequel called Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return?

[Nic]

Yeah I saw something about that.

[C. J.]

I kinda like the Children of the Corn sequels. I guess it is because for me they come on the television and they probably play best that way (television than watching them on DVD).

[Scott]

Nic wrote: "I thought the 80s version was great. The music was great and the kid that played Isaac was fantastic for a child actor of that time period."

He was actually not a child, but an adult with a medical condition that I do not recall the name of offhand.

[C. J.]

Jason wrote: "Sorry but I thought both of them weren't good. But that may be just me."

I like your comment. Do you think that you feel that way because the mind can only come up with the best "version" of the written story or do you think that both filmed versions were just unsatisfactory and could have been done better?

[[deleted user]]

Children of The Corn 3 all the way...

[[deleted user]]

CJ wrote: "Jason wrote: "Sorry but I thought both of them weren't good. But that may be just me."

I like your comment. Do you think that you feel that way because the mind can only come up with the best "ver..."

Hey I'm sorry I took so long to get to you. I'm going to have to say its because the mind can only come up with the best version. Not liking The cable T.V version is proof of that. Technically it was faithful to the Novella, so yeah The imagination of the reader is alwayse the best way to go.

[C. J.]

Jason wrote: "The imagination of the reader is alwayse the best way to go."

Yeah and I have read that people don't like the main characters that are stranded in the cable t.v. version so that sometimes affects their thought. Maybe it is "who should I root for?" or something.

Imagination can always make people "see" the characters differently as they read the story. You are right. That can never compete to something on film.

[[deleted user]]

CJ wrote: "Jason wrote: "The imagination of the reader is alwayse the best way to go."

Yeah and I have read that people don't like the main characters that are stranded in the cable t.v. version so that some..."

Which is why the book reader is almost Never satisfied with ANY film version of the book that they have just read.

There would be exceptions but they are Never the rule.

[C. J.]

Jason wrote: "Which is why the book reader is almost Never satisfied with ANY film version of the book that they have just read.

There would be exceptions..."

And writers have to realize that movies have to be different when they adapt the book to screen because not everything in their book plays out as well on the screen (books are more internal, films are more visual for example) and EVERY thing doesn't have to play out the same for the screen version. Writers don't like any changes done to their work for the film version it seems.

[[deleted user]]

I Can't say I blame them, but I think if they were given a choice as to how to film Their work, they would go with a lengthy Premiere cable Miniseries/ "Show". At least with a 6 - 12 hour adaptation of their work, the screen writer has the time to tell the story and build the character to the way that they potrayed.

Not to be confused with a regular televison version of their work, which in My opinion is the worst way to adapt. Doing it that way, the network would poduce 20 episodes with more than half of them being Stand alone of "Fill in" Episodes in between then have 5 or 6 eppisodes that are faithful to the book or at least crucial to the story line and even then the characters are watered down and the story has to fit the 44 minute formula that the network requires.

Example: the vampire diaries, Pretty Little Liars.

I Hate to see what they are going to do with "Hannable" ( The character from silence of the lambs. )

[C. J.]

Kyle ~Special K: Rebel Leader~ wrote: "I loved the 1984 film starring Linda Hamilton. I hated the remake, even though the screenplay was by King himself. Just awful"

I just looked it up. The remake was actually not written by King just a closer film version than the other film. Though there were strange parts in the 2009 one that didn't have anything to do with the story that were just pointless.

[C. J.]

Jason wrote: "I Can't say I blame them, but I think if they were given a choice as to how to film Their work, they would go with a lengthy Premiere cable Miniseries/ "Show". At least with a 6 - 12 hour adaptatio..."

Yeah whenever a show does a version of a book it is always very loosely based on it. Ones like The Dead Zone or "The Firm" (John Grisham) which I think got cancelled.

[C. J.]

I feel that I have to admit something. I have not seen the Children of the Corn remake all the way through. In fact I don't think I saw the beginning of it but what I know is that it seemed to have more elements of the story in it than the 84 version. Though I didn't appreciate the gratuitous scene in the middle of it where I was uncomfortable (you probably know what I am talking about...).

I understand that they had to take a small story and stretch it out to feature film but I just didn't really feel entertained or thrilled much by the 84 movie version. My opinion.

(Plus I liked how in the story the main character sees the "thing behind the rows" face to face. That scared me and I liked it was in the remake or hinted at at the very least!).