No Right Answer: Best Stephen King Movie Adaptation

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

uro vii:
Was that the Angry Videogame Nerd?

I was wondering that too.
P.S. this episode has been the best as far as the pictures, they had me laughing the entire time.

Chris wins due to hating Stephen King. That guy's a hack.

RonHiler:
mronoc, you are what I like to call, wrong.

You can say the Shining was a good movie (I disagree, but that's a matter of opinion). You can say the book is a good read (it is). But the movie is disqualified as an adaptation of the book, and therefore not eligible to be included in the voting. The book and the movie have NOTHING to do with each other. The names of the characters are the same. The name of the hotel is the same (The Overlook). Otherwise, they are two entirely separate things with no relation whatsoever. You can't call it an adaptation, it was a complete rewrite. Kubrick obviously thought he could do a better job writing the story than King could, and that's what he attempted to do.

Huh? Have you actually seen the movie? Except for a few details, it's basically the same as the book. Hell, it's better.

Huh? Have you actually seen the movie? Except for a few details, it's basically the same as the book. Hell, it's better.

Yes, I have. Have you read the book?

I don't know what you consider "a few details" but entire plot points were changed. They are nothing alike.

shawshank redemption fo sho.

The mist is Stephen King's biggest attempt at trying to be all lovecrafty (fear of the unknown) I'd probably agree.

The_root_of_all_evil:
There is a Wrong Answer, and it's The Shining.

Ignoring the myriad differences between the book and the film - most notably, Jack Torrance doesn't start out crazy - Kubrick torturing Duvall.

The Mist I haven't seen, but it wins by default.

Carrie is still FAR better though.

What about the 3ish hour 'stephen king's the shining'? (it was made for TV and therefor not as graphic, but much more faithful and made in the 90's)

Huh? Have you actually seen the movie? Except for a few details, it's basically the same as the book. Hell, it's better.[/quote]

Not to mention that in the book "It" one of the characters is a writer who wrote a book 'the glowing' and he briefly complains about a hacked to pieces hollywood version.

ace_of_something:

What about the 3ish hour 'stephen king's the shining'? (it was made for TV and therefor not as graphic, but much more faithful and made in the 90's)

Never saw that, but now I have to.

The real winner of this week is Daniel.

But the REAL winner is Heinz ketchup.

I'm happy with the turn out.

I liked The Mist, I thought it was very well done.

And that ending, don't get me started on that ending!

Love it.

Hell, The Mist was an alright film, I gotta say. And King himself praised the different ending

I didn't like The Shining in all honesty, but I won't go and raise points already raised multiple times.

As with many others here though, I gotta say Shawshank and The Green Mile are excellent. Especially The Green Mile. Made me tear up a little.

I own just about every one of King's books ._. That's a little disheartening.

I've always enjoyed Needful Things.
I see it as an insight on desire and entitlement, betrayal and selfishness. What person reading this hasn't had those thoughts? I know I have.

The Mist had Starkiller in it. STARKILLER. Wins by default.

All the other King movies look too boring for my taste. I'm sorry, they might have been good books and amazingly crafted movies, but too dry for my taste nowadays.

Anyone who doesn't think The Shining is an adaptation, needs to look up the definition of Adaptation.

To sum up: it's an alteration in the structure/function in order for it to survive in the environment.

Yes, there are changes, but it's for the better. If any one has seen the other "more faithful" version of the story done in the late 1990's, you will know that it's complete crap compared to Kubrick's interpretation of the story.

The film is a classic for a reason and a true fan of the Shining would recognize that and accept it as a different medium.

Shawshank Redemption or 1408. Green Mile is arguable.

moviedork:
Anyone who doesn't think The Shining is an adaptation, needs to look up the definition of Adaptation.

To sum up: it's an alteration in the structure/function in order for it to survive in the environment.

Yes, there are changes, but it's for the better. If any one has seen the other "more faithful" version of the story done in the late 1990's, you will know that it's complete crap compared to Kubrick's interpretation of the story.

The film is a classic for a reason and a true fan of the Shining would recognize that and accept it as a different medium.

Actually I'd disagree. I read the shining before I saw it, and while not trying to sound hipster, the film just couldnt compare. especially not THAT film. Kubrick tore that book apart to re work it when he could have just made a faithful adaptation. Kubrick wanted to take that and make it his own, something he did with lolita as well. It carries none of the theme or feel of the book, and personally I left the film completely disappointed. when I saw kings adaptation, I thought it was much better of one, rather than Kubricks. was it as good of a film by itself? no, probably not, but made for tv usually cant compete with feature length.

Kubricks shining is a good film, thats not the question. its just not a good adaptation.

Also, you took that definition way to take that definition too literally and used the biological meaning. perhaps the definition of a FILM ADAPTATION specifically fits better eh?

I like how you guys had the Spirtied Away screenshot. You guys should do what is the best Hayao Miyazaki film.

dont forget maine

Justin Murphy:
There is a right answer and its Stand by me

Anyone who doesn't agree with this statement can suck my big one you cheap dime store hood!

I do love The Shining though, I have always loved The Shining.

EDIT: IT has a great turn my Tim Curry but Misery is the scariest, because the supernatural isn't scary.

Just to extend things, I'll vote for worst adaptation, The Lawnmower Man.

Essentially, they took the name, and then just slapped someone else's script on it.

Wasn't Shawshank Redemption the highest rated movie on IMDB at one point? I guess that answers the question of which has more mass appeal, at least.

Cujo! A terrible book that became a terrible movie. A very faithful adaptation!

Rawne1980:
I'd love to see a decent film series done of Dark Tower.

Your read my mind. I think it would work better as several mini-series though.
Everything I hear about the film they are making makes me sad inside.

OT - Desperation was pretty good, as was the Mist.
Shawshank is a good contender, but it was heavily fleshed out from a short story, rather than an adaptation of a full length novel. Same thing with 1408.
The Stand could do with an update.
I'd probably have to side with Stand By Me though, if you forced me.

Good thing the Mist won, as it's awesome.
The Shining... sucksssssssss hard. I mean, I was around 10 when I first saw it, and I was so not impressed. IT was much better at the time, but overall Mist takes the cake, Misery coming close.

Not a King buff here, but if he wrote Shawshank, I'll go with that. The Shining is a good movie (IMO, anyway, and it's the only one that I've both read and seen) but it's not a good adaptation. Too much was changed.

Quite a few people here are mentioning IT. I'm not because I've never seen it; the clown gives me super jeebies. One day I'll gather the mettle. But not today. Or any day soon. Might need to stock up on clean underwear too.

emeraldrafael:

moviedork:
Anyone who doesn't think The Shining is an adaptation, needs to look up the definition of Adaptation.

To sum up: it's an alteration in the structure/function in order for it to survive in the environment.

Yes, there are changes, but it's for the better. If any one has seen the other "more faithful" version of the story done in the late 1990's, you will know that it's complete crap compared to Kubrick's interpretation of the story.

The film is a classic for a reason and a true fan of the Shining would recognize that and accept it as a different medium.

Actually I'd disagree. I read the shining before I saw it, and while not trying to sound hipster, the film just couldnt compare. especially not THAT film. Kubrick tore that book apart to re work it when he could have just made a faithful adaptation. Kubrick wanted to take that and make it his own, something he did with lolita as well. It carries none of the theme or feel of the book, and personally I left the film completely disappointed. when I saw kings adaptation, I thought it was much better of one, rather than Kubricks. was it as good of a film by itself? no, probably not, but made for tv usually cant compete with feature length.

Kubricks shining is a good film, thats not the question. its just not a good adaptation.

Also, you took that definition way to take that definition too literally and used the biological meaning. perhaps the definition of a FILM ADAPTATION specifically fits better eh?

Fans generally confuse translating and adapting. A word-for-word copy of the original source material is a faithful translation, not an adaptation. If you don't try to do your own interpretation of the material, why are you doing it? For me, it's no other reason besides to cash in on the property. Doing your own thing shows creativity in the artist, and to do anything else shows laziness in the filmmaker. The trick is to separate the art from the medium. If you cannot do that, you cannot enjoy most films because a lot of what's considered the best films of all-time, are translated liberally.

Blunderboy:

Rawne1980:
I'd love to see a decent film series done of Dark Tower.

...
Everything I hear about the film they are making makes me sad inside.

...

What film? they pulled the plug on the whole thing to my knowledge. Then they cut the budget and got a new ending (though if this ends any other way then the way the back ended I have a feeling that fans will be severely pissed/disappointed), and now they're looking for a studio, though I guess its supposed to go to HBO, but that may fuck with the whole three films two tv series idea of it.

moviedork:

emeraldrafael:
...

Fans generally confuse translating and adapting. A word-for-word copy of the original source material is a faithful translation, not an adaptation. If you don't try to do your own interpretation of the material, why are you doing it? For me, it's no other reason besides to cash in on the property. Doing your own thing shows creativity in the artist, and to do anything else shows laziness in the filmmaker. The trick is to separate the art from the medium. If you cannot do that, you cannot enjoy most films because a lot of what's considered the best films of all-time, are translated liberally.

While I'll agree that adaptations shouldnt necessarily be straight up transfers (even though most everyone of Kings best movie adaptations he had a very close and personal hand in making) and that having that director's different view on it (why the Dark tower series under Ron Howard working with King seems like such a great idea and potentially the new Stand By Me), you cant call hat Kubrick does an adaptation. Adaptations should still have a major semblance to their original subject. Kubrick (in my mind and i would be willing to guess others' minds) three biggest adaptations (The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and Lolita) are radically different than their sources to such an extent that Kubrick very nearly just makes a different story and only uses the names for any linking to the fanbase. In a very real sense you could watch any of the three movies I mentioned, change the names and title of the films Kubrick made, show them to the same audience and they would think they are entirely different properties.

and that is not good adaptation. thats just straight up theft of name and or straight up laziness on part of the director because he cant come up with a good enough reason to do these projects without attaching them to a notable name so he can get a green light.

There is a Shining (and Carrie for that matter) remake(s) that are more faithful to the books dammit. Shining is 6 hours long and stars the blonde guy from "Wings" (yeah old series I know). And other than the fact it doesn't star Jack it is way better than the 70's version (same with Carrie).

Damn theres so many... some of which might not be remembered, like The Running Man, or Thinner.

Personally I like Thinner, because it has a severely hot gypsy chick in it, but it's really not much of a horror movie.

I have to go with IT , I think that is a brilliant film and a brilliant book, Christine would be my second choice.

in my opinion it has to be the Shawshank Redemption

wait ppl are complaining about women dressing up like skanks on halloween?! wtf are they gay?!

and I like the Green Mile. Fan of Michael Clarke Duncun :D

-.-

the right answer is 'The Green Mile'
(no, i don't care that I'm several months late, i just watched it)

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here