What's wrong with Stephen King?

[nasty]

So, I'm bored and alone watching "The Shining,"(Kubrick's version.) What the hell is up with King, saying this movie, "hurts people." Just because it simplified his book dosn't mean it's bad. So why, I ask, make a stupid TV Mini-series that last 3 days, but is BY FAR much worse. Just accept the original for what it is, one of the finest Horror movies ever made. OK, nuff said.

 

[RisiaSkye]

It's one of his most popular books. He's got a lot of loyal followers/readers/fans. Many were VERY disappointed with Kubrick's simplistic version, which failed to develop the characters as they were written, and didn't really examine Jack's alcoholism as the major problem, a point the book makes rather obvious. Kubrick made an interesting movie.

It just had very little to do with the novel is was allegedly based on.

Shelly Duvall as Wendy, fer cripessakes? Gimme a break. I find it hard to believe that she can be part of any "A"list cast. She's such a black hole of talent. And it's physically painful to look at her. Not to split hairs, but she's hardly the beauty the books describes. Of course, that's a fairly minor point in comparison to the way the actual story got butchered.

But I did love Scatman Crothers. Although everyone says he was a nightmare to work with, becaus he was too drunk to work half of the time.


Besides, if we ever sell billions of books, and make the publishing and film industries truckloads of cash, we can prolley make a few ego-serving demands, too.

 

[nasty]

I'm a HUGE fan, as well

I guess I'm one of the few people that didn't really care that the movie was a simplistic version of the book. I just took it for a DAMN GOOD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!! I liked the ending of the movie better, actually. The hedge maze had a more claustraphobic feel to it than the animals.

 

[CRaZy]

Stephen King is a mastercraftsman at what he does. It is impossible to capture his complex characters and nuances of plot completely in the film medium. I think both versions stand alone just fine. And I love Jack.

 

[nasty]

Jack RULES!!!!!!!!

Nicolson plays the ultimate maniac. One of my favorite parts in the film is when he is just standing infront of the window staring at his family, every second he goes nuttier. How could you not like the line "HERE'S JOHNNY?" UNBELIEVEABLE how that worked SO WELL in the script.

 

[Guest]

I'll tell ya what's wrong with King. He's TOO fuckin' tame!

 

[beckbabe]

The Shining...it was good, I could care less though. I can't even think Stephen King's name without thinking"finish the fucking series!" 7 years between each book...I hate him, OK, it's a love -hate thing .

 

[Debbie]

I think Stephen King is great
He scared me witless as a teenager reading his books and he started the ball rolling on my horror obsession. No Im not a freak i just love to read a book that scares me to death. And movies that leave chills up my spine.
I always read his books before the movie as I find the movie is changed from the storyline.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Anyone remember the tv version of 'The Stand' hell that was 8 hours long and barely touched base on many of the things that book includes. To make a King book into a movie that has everything in it would be impossible because it would be so damn long. I am even just talking about his books that run in the 4-5 hundred page range. But wouldnt you just love to see "The Dark Tower" series turned into a movie (after he completes the damn thing of course) and I think I have the perfect man to play Roland, Clint Eastwood.

 

[nasty]

A "Dark Tower" film would be AWESOME

But, it will not happen. He'll probably be dead before he finishes the movie. Sure, he MIGHT finish the book, but then he would have to make all the deal in finding a director, actors, etc. Your right about "Ther Stand." The film was EXCELLENT,!!!!!!! but it would have to of been 4 hours longer to even come close to the book.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Only 4 hours???? Probaly more like 12.

 

[nasty]

I dunno

I didn't think the movie was THAT off the mark. Perhaps I'll have to read it again.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Which one have you read? The old 600 page version? Or the Complete and Uncut which is 1100 pages? How about a compromise....he should have doubled the length.

 

[nasty]

I read

The uncut version. For some reason I didn't find it to be A WHOLE LOT different than the movie. At least not 12 hour different. But as I said, I may ned to read it again.

 

[SunnyGirl]

The Shining...it was good, I could care less though. I can't even think Stephen King's name without thinking"finish the fucking series!" 7 years between each book...I hate him, OK, it's a love -hate thing .

*laughing* I feel the same way about that series, Beck. Wish it would just move onto the next book!!! I mean four years and no fifth book yet? *sigh* I guess patience isn't one of my virtues

And I do have to agree with RisiaSkye on this one.

"It's one of his most popular books. He's got a lot of loyal followers/readers/fans. Many were VERY disappointed with Kubrick's simplistic version, which failed to develop the characters as they were written, and didn't really examine Jack's alcoholism as the major problem, a point the book makes rather obvious. Kubrick made an interesting movie.

It just had very little to do with the novel is was allegedly based on. "

I've only seen two of his movies that managed to keep fairly close to the plot of the books. The Green Mile, which missed a lot of key elements, but what can you do? It would have had to have been 6 or 8 hours long to encompass the whole series of books.

And Shawshank Redemption...this one was very very close to the actual story and I was quite impressed when I seen it.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Shawshank is definately the best adaptation of one of his books into a movie by far. Even though I do believe they changed alot of the years into some more recent.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Re: I read

The uncut version. For some reason I didn't find it to be A WHOLE LOT different than the movie. At least not 12 hour different. But as I said, I may ned to read it again.

I dont know, but the one thing that bothered me most about the movie was how they had Naomi and Larry meet in New York when they met in Maine as Larry was following Harold's trail after the original woman he met in New York killed herself with pills. Plus Joe was actually with Naomi when she and Larry met in Maine, also Joe should have been potrayed as the animalistic creature he started and later reverted back into in the book after the news of Mother Abigail leaving the Free-Zone.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Whoops the Naomi's I refer to are suppose to be Nadine Cross.

 

[SunnyGirl]

Psssst, SleepingWarrior..it's Nadine

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Fixed that 1 minute before you did so my dignity is saved....for now.

 

[SunnyGirl]

Nice save!!

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Ty, now I will save you from the boring stuff I could bring up about Trashcan Man that wasnt portrayed in the movie version either. LOL

 

[Young Knave]

I agree, Nasty.

Stephen King should cut Kubrick a little slack. Kub was trying to condensce a 500 page novel into a two hour movie. What are you going to do. Shawshank was very loyal to King's the book version, but that story was a fraction of the length of the Shining.

I thought the movie was superior to the book in several ways. For instance, there were no killer shrubs in the movie. The ending of the movie rocked as well. Dug the maze.

 

[beckbabe]

Thanks Sunny, I feel better knowing so many people are willing him to live long enough to finish the series. Shawshank Redemption was excellent. I also thought Needful Things was very close to the book.

 

[nasty]

I sure hope so

Let's all hop[e he stays alive long enough to finish "The Dark Tower" IT RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!