Stephen King Adaptations

[BetterButter]

Gerald's Game

[BetterButter]

[BetterButter]

Mike Flanagan Will Adapt Stephen King’s DOCTOR SLEEP

[starri]

Doctor Sleep is a much better book than it had any right to be, but the book's single scariest scene (books really don't scare me often, and this was legit terrifying) is about 

Spoiler

9/11

and while I don't know if seeing it onscreen would be on poor taste or not (I lean toward yes), I would be VERY uncomfortable seeing it dramatized.

Edited January 27, 2018 by starri

[BetterButter]

Stephen King’s ‘The Tommyknockers’ in Works as Movie From James Wan, Roy Lee

[ferjy]

Doctor Sleep coming November 8. Ewan McGregor starring as Danny Torrance. 

[BetterButter]

 

[txhorns79]

On 9/28/2015 at 2:18 PM, paramitch said:

I agree with you on Dolores Claiborne, which is a movie whose atmosphere kind of wraps around itself like a fog. The actors are all just superb and it stays with you.

For me, Dolores Claiborne is one of the best adaptations of a Stephen King book.  They excise some of the sillier aspects of the book, and while all the actors give sensational performances, the scenes between Judy Parfitt and Kathy Bates are a freaking masterclass.  You know these women, you know their lives and you see how they ended up where they are.  I can watch this movie anytime it is on.    

 

[BetterButter]

Edgar Wright To Direct Stephen King’s ‘The Running Man’ At Paramount Pictures

[Luckylyn]

13 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

Edgar Wright To Direct Stephen King’s ‘The Running Man’ At Paramount Pictures

I’m a big Edgar Wright fan.  I haven’t read The Running Man and only vaguely remember the Arnold Schwarzenegger adaptation.  So I don’t have any particular preconceived notions.

[BetterButter]

 

[Spartan Girl]

I watched the new Firestarter on Peacock. It SUCKED.

Spoiler

They completely changed the ending, making John Rainbird into a fellow mutant and sort-of good guy even though HE KILLED CHARLIE’S MOTHER. And she goes off with him after torching the Shop. I am not even making this up.

A creepier Charlie does not work. It never was who she was. Oh, and she apparently is telekinetic and telepathic instead of just a firestarter. Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

[AimingforYoko]

It was trash. It was like the budget ran out halfway through the shoot schedule. I mean, the '84 version with Drew and a phoning-it-in George C. Scott as Rainbird was no masterpiece, but compared to this dreck it was Godfather I & II combined.

[Spartan Girl]

52 minutes ago, AimingforYoko said:

It was trash. It was like the budget ran out halfway through the shoot schedule. I mean, the '84 version with Drew and a phoning-it-in George C. Scott as Rainbird was no masterpiece, but compared to this dreck it was Godfather I & II combined.

I just rewatched the original, and yeah it was cheesy AF but Drew elevated it. Her Charlie was a child that was put through the wringer, yet her kind heart, her love for her father, and the fact that she never wanted to hurt anyone until she was absolutely pushed to the brink is what got audiences to root for her. And the remake screwed up all three of these thinks. Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Oh and 

Spoiler

Andy mind-raping Charlie into burning him and that lady together?! UGH.

 

[MaggieG]

I lost interest in Firestarter after the mom died and they didn't seem to care. I stuck around to watch Zac though 😍

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, MaggieG said:

I lost interest in Firestarter after the mom died and they didn't seem to care. I stuck around to watch Zac though 😍

True, Zac was a very hot dad. I just wish their relationship was as close as it was supposed to be.

Did anyone else think Keith David (from the original) looked like a grown-up version of Georgie in Young Sheldon? I swear he does.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[joanne3482]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:07 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Once I saw that scene I should have just followed my instincts and turned it off right then. She never would have done that. 

I also hated the situation with Irv and his wife. The whole thing was such a mess!

[joanne3482]

On 5/14/2022 at 3:53 PM, Spartan Girl said:

A creepier Charlie does not work. It never was who she was. Oh, and she apparently is telekinetic and telepathic instead of just a firestarter. Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

I'm listening to the audiobook of Stephen King's version because it's been so long since I read the book and I was curious. In the book she does have a touch of the other two abilities, but nowhere near a significant power. Although he does explain that the fire and telekinesis are sort of related. Which, if you think of the original movie, makes sense as Charlie steals the coins from the pay phones. The fire wouldn't have made the machines give those up. This was also how she knows the shop was coming to the farm.  The book also hints at Charlie liking the power but being terrified of it as well, but not in the way updated Firestarter showed. The funny part is that now that I'm revisiting the book, it is impossible for me to imagine Charlie as anyone but Drew and her dad as anyone but David Keith.  

[BetterButter]

‘Salem’s Lot’ Officially Skipping Movie Theaters to Stream on Max in 2024

[ferjy]

On 5/14/2022 at 4:53 PM, Spartan Girl said:

 

Spoiler

Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

Sorry, I know this is an older post… but just came across it. 

The thing I like about Stephen King’s stories is he developed his characters well. The screen adaptions always seem to miss that, going for special effects or cheap scares instead. 

 

 

[ferjy]

On 3/12/2024 at 10:27 PM, BetterButter said:

‘Salem’s Lot’ Officially Skipping Movie Theaters to Stream on Max in 2024

Ooh, thanks for this. Any more news on the release date? Can’t wait to have a look. I loved the book and both adaptions, especially the 1979 series, which is rated far too low, IMO. The special effects were good for the day, and it’s one adaption of a Stephen King novel where they developed the characters (to some extent, at least) which Stephen King has always been good at.

 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, ferjy said:

Ooh, thanks for this. Any more news on the release date? Can’t wait to have a look. I loved the book and both adaptions, especially the 1979 series, which is rated far too low, IMO. The special effects were good for the day, and it’s one adaption of a Stephen King novel where they developed the characters (to some extent, at least) which Stephen King has always been good at.

 

As per Wikipedia, Salem's Lot has an unspecified release date on Max and will get a limited theater release in the UK and Ireland on October 11th. Sounds like there's been lots of issues behind the scenes, since it was initially due to be released in September of 2022,  but it was delayed and then lost its release date to Evil Dead Rise. King himself questioned why WB was holding it back, so I guess he's not always involved in the film adaptations.

[BetterButter]

Salem’s Lot Lives! Inside the Retro Retelling of Stephen King’s Vampire Story

[BetterButter]

 

[millennium]

On 9/12/2024 at 2:25 PM, BetterButter said:

 

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

Spoiler

No character development.   No gradual stripping away of disbelief among the characters -- "vampires?  really?" -- then everybody just takes it on faith.  Actors move from scene to scene like speed-dating.

Reckless tinkering with the characters from the novel.  Many are eliminated, others are merged.   At least one male character now female.   In this film, Mark Petrie is a black kid with a black family, which is fine, except I think a small town in Maine in the 1970s would have shown more hospitality to the vampires than they would an African-American family.   The writers missed an opportunity to use the local bigotry as symptomatic of the ailing town.

A number of the scenes from the novel were merely given lip service or deleted altogether. 

Weak actor as Ben Mears.   Susan Norton was okay.  Alfre Woodard is ageless, I think. 

Judging by the ending, we're apparently supposed to believe only about 20-30 people live in Salem's Lot despite it having the appearance of a full-fledged, well-kept New England town.

Barlow looks like a Marilyn Manson costume from Spirit Halloween stores.

Straker can't hold a candle to James Mason from the 1979 series.  Straker is played by the same ham who was Euron Greyjoy in Game of Thrones.   Need I say more?

If you're a fan of the novel, the only reasons to sit through this are the setting and cinematography.   The Marston House is decent (the full shots are probably CGI) and the producers wisely filmed in small towns in Massachusetts, so it has a real enough New England feel.   Why they didn't film in Yarmouth, Maine and towns along the Royal River, I don't know.  Those places are only a couple hours or so from Massachusetts and furnished the original inspiration for the novel.

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Edited October 4 by millennium

[hypnotoad]

Quote

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Spoiler

Absolutely agree with everything in your post. My god this was terrible. It was supposed to be set in the 70s and yet didn't feel like that era at all. What was the point of the Ben Mears character? There was absolutely nothing about his childhood trauma, nothing really about the Marsten House (Unless I just missed it in my boredom). Everyone immediately believes it's vampires.

The 'love' story between Susan and Ben was ... ridiculous. The entire ending at the drive-in was so dumb, I swear brain cells were dying as I watched it.

Alfre Woodward deserved so much better.

I decided to watch the 2004 mini series tonight and that sure wasn't much better.

My advise is to stick with the original mini series. While not perfect, it's much better than the other adaptations.

So disappointed.

 

[Anela]

18 hours ago, millennium said:

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

  Reveal spoiler

No character development.   No gradual stripping away of disbelief among the characters -- "vampires?  really?" -- then everybody just takes it on faith.  Actors move from scene to scene like speed-dating.

Reckless tinkering with the characters from the novel.  Many are eliminated, others are merged.   At least one male character now female.   In this film, Mark Petrie is a black kid with a black family, which is fine, except I think a small town in Maine in the 1970s would have shown more hospitality to the vampires than they would an African-American family.   The writers missed an opportunity to use the local bigotry as symptomatic of the ailing town.

A number of the scenes from the novel were merely given lip service or deleted altogether. 

Weak actor as Ben Mears.   Susan Norton was okay.  Alfre Woodard is ageless, I think. 

Judging by the ending, we're apparently supposed to believe only about 20-30 people live in Salem's Lot despite it having the appearance of a full-fledged, well-kept New England town.

Barlow looks like a Marilyn Manson costume from Spirit Halloween stores.

Straker can't hold a candle to James Mason from the 1979 series.  Straker is played by the same ham who was Euron Greyjoy in Game of Thrones.   Need I say more?

If you're a fan of the novel, the only reasons to sit through this are the setting and cinematography.   The Marston House is decent (the full shots are probably CGI) and the producers wisely filmed in small towns in Massachusetts, so it has a real enough New England feel.   Why they didn't film in Yarmouth, Maine and towns along the Royal River, I don't know.  Those places are only a couple hours or so from Massachusetts and furnished the original inspiration for the novel.

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

I was disappointed, too. I would have liked to see it as a series. 

[millennium]

1 hour ago, hypnotoad said:

So disappointed.

 

I read today that a couple months ago Stephen King tweeted he had seen the movie and "liked it."

Apparently it was originally meant for a screen release but was put on the shelf during Covid (it was supposed to come out in 2022). 

 

[hypnotoad]

Quote

I read today that a couple months ago Stephen King tweeted he had seen the movie and "liked it."

I'd be curious to know what he liked about it! All these filmmakers did was use the title of the book and the character names to make a generic vampire movie. 

Quote

Apparently it was originally meant for a screen release but was put on the shelf during Covid (it was supposed to come out in 2022). 

I did read that. Honestly I'm glad it wasn't in theaters.

[bosawks]

The ambition Mike Ryerson showed as a vampire makes it seem vampirism can be a improvement.

[Palimelon]

Sounds like Twilight, which, ugh.

[hypnotoad]

Quote

Sounds like Twilight, which, ugh.

It's not that bad!! At least the vampires don't sparkle!

It's just generic. It barely has anything to do with the book on which it's supposed to be based. There is no character development at all. The editing is insane - like there are no transitions or anything between scenes. A couple of times I felt like I might have hit the ff button by mistake because the cut from one scene to the next was so abrupt.

Though I was thrilled to see a Nosferatu type vampire rather than the Dracula in a cape type.

[SlovakPrincess]

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

And yet.  Somewhere around the halfway mark something happens with the script and everything just gets very dumbed down and wooden and clunky and all the depth falls away from the characters and everybody starts going through the motions.          

It seems like they wanted to do something with the idea of a "dying" town being vulnerable to evil, nobody truly good (as the sheriff claims), the town simply trying to ignore the Glick family tragedy and hating outsiders, and the sad, drinking priest ... etc.  But it's not explored at all.  Everybody quite literally disappears instead.  

[bosawks]

I'm not going to lie when Susan's gun-toting mama showed up in the final act wearing that Carly Simon circa 1972 floppy hat I Iaughed out loud.  It was fantastic.

Way to commit to the bit, or bite if you want a vampire pun.

[Anela]

On 10/6/2024 at 2:38 PM, SlovakPrincess said:

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

 

That scene in the woods, was the best scene. 

[paramitch]

Oof, I was so psyched for this, but yeah, it was bad. And not even in a fun, schlocky way -- just kind of banal and forgettable.

There were a few nice creepy moments -- the boys in the woods, the sick guy in the corner of the diner -- but not enough.

The irony is, I don't think the original actual story of 'Salem's Lot is all that good to begin with. It's a modern-day Dracula ripoff by King with several placeholder/stock characters (poor Susan, Father Callahan, etc.). But it is fun and genuinely scary.

I did think the miniseries from the 70s was really good -- I still remember how scary the vampire kid at the window was, and I absolutely loved the ending (which was different from the book's, and genuinely sad and haunting).

But yeah, this was missing all of that. And the worst part was, it did this weird thing where it was sort of "cheating" or speeding up the passage of the sun. I guess it was done for tension, but the thing is, it was unnecessary -- the tension would've been worse if the sun set more slowly.

On 10/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, millennium said:

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

  Hide contents

No character development.   No gradual stripping away of disbelief among the characters -- "vampires?  really?" -- then everybody just takes it on faith.  Actors move from scene to scene like speed-dating.

Reckless tinkering with the characters from the novel.  Many are eliminated, others are merged.   At least one male character now female.   In this film, Mark Petrie is a black kid with a black family, which is fine, except I think a small town in Maine in the 1970s would have shown more hospitality to the vampires than they would an African-American family.   The writers missed an opportunity to use the local bigotry as symptomatic of the ailing town.

A number of the scenes from the novel were merely given lip service or deleted altogether. 

Weak actor as Ben Mears.   Susan Norton was okay.  Alfre Woodard is ageless, I think. 

Judging by the ending, we're apparently supposed to believe only about 20-30 people live in Salem's Lot despite it having the appearance of a full-fledged, well-kept New England town.

Barlow looks like a Marilyn Manson costume from Spirit Halloween stores.

Straker can't hold a candle to James Mason from the 1979 series.  Straker is played by the same ham who was Euron Greyjoy in Game of Thrones.   Need I say more?

If you're a fan of the novel, the only reasons to sit through this are the setting and cinematography.   The Marston House is decent (the full shots are probably CGI) and the producers wisely filmed in small towns in Massachusetts, so it has a real enough New England feel.   Why they didn't film in Yarmouth, Maine and towns along the Royal River, I don't know.  Those places are only a couple hours or so from Massachusetts and furnished the original inspiration for the novel.

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

I agree about Mark Petrie (although I thought the actor was fantastic and perfectly cast). I also hated that we didn't meet his parents until the movie was almost over. It completely robs that final scene with Barlow killing them of the power it has in the book and earlier incarnations. We should have met Mark's parents early on and seen how close he was to them, etc. Instead, the final scene was almost comical -- "Oh, look, here are Mark's parents! Oh, dear, those were Mark's parents." Etc.

I thought Pullman was okay as Mears -- he tried, and I liked that he looked like an ordinary guy, but the movie removed all the character's backstory and left us with a blank slate. And I didn't think the Susan actress was bad, but she felt miscast to me, like she'd wandered in from a completely different movie and era. 

Also: Oh, THAT'S who Straker was!! Thank you, I could not figure out where I'd seen him before.

On 10/6/2024 at 11:38 AM, SlovakPrincess said:

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

And yet.  Somewhere around the halfway mark something happens with the script and everything just gets very dumbed down and wooden and clunky and all the depth falls away from the characters and everybody starts going through the motions.          

It seems like they wanted to do something with the idea of a "dying" town being vulnerable to evil, nobody truly good (as the sheriff claims), the town simply trying to ignore the Glick family tragedy and hating outsiders, and the sad, drinking priest ... etc.  But it's not explored at all.  Everybody quite literally disappears instead.  

I forgot this, but I loved the use of "Sundown" -- it was one of the only moments in the movie I really liked and that gave me a general eerie feeling. It's such a good song and was used very effectively here (and in the trailer).

And you and Millennium are right about the frantic pacing and lack of attention to the townspeople. The whole tragedy of Salem's Lot is that we care about the townspeople and it's horrible to watch them fall one by one... and in a bigger sense, to see the town die.

I guess on the up side, the perfect adaptation of this book is still out there.

[JAYJAY1979]

I admit I haven't read a lot of Stephen King, but I'm curious why filmmakers are just remaking the same five or six SK books instead of trying to adapt any of his other stories?

I admit I also kind of miss the era of the Big 3 networks because ABC adapted many of his stories... my fav was The Tommy Knockers and the original IT.

[Anela]

1 hour ago, JAYJAY1979 said:

I admit I haven't read a lot of Stephen King, but I'm curious why filmmakers are just remaking the same five or six SK books instead of trying to adapt any of his other stories?

I admit I also kind of miss the era of the Big 3 networks because ABC adapted many of his stories... my fav was The Tommy Knockers and the original IT.

I used to watch the original IT, every time the kids trick-or-treated here (like tonight - they always do it the Saturday before Halloween, here). 

Hulu had some of the ABC versions, this summer, but I don't know if they're still on there. I've hardly watched anything this month.