What makes a good SK adaptation?

[Dani~]

How does one translate a Stephen King novel into a great movie?

In the movies you've seen what did they do right? what did they do wrong?

What would be your advice on making The Dark Tower series?

In thinking about Shawshank which in my opinion is the best adaptation and a great move, I believe one of the best decisions was to have Morgan Freeman narrate throughout. In that way the nuance of Stephen's writing was front and centre.

[Prince of Darkness]

Hi,

To me, the best SK adaptions (ie. The Mist) are those that stick very closely to what the novel or story portrayed.

As with The Mist, it was pretty much the same as in the story, except for the ending.

That being said, to do a succesful movie series of The Dark Tower, J.J. Abrams would have to make them at least seven movie (one for each novel) and direct them nearly exactly to the finest details that are mentioned in the novels.

Great actors that also suit the characters would help a ton! Seriously, I wouldn't be able to imagine anybody as Roland.. but it really wouldn't help if the actor looked EXACTLY like my imagine of Roland (Clint Eastwood) but couldn't act worth a darn.

So in truth, J.J. Abrams would have to do such a good job that it is the equivalent of creating life-size replicas of Gandhi, Buddha, or Jesus, out of dry sand.

Sorry, couldn't resist the thought.

Long days and pleasant nights

[aptpupil]

Dani, I think a big part of it is to do with how the main character or characters is/are portrayed. We build a picture in our minds of how a character looks and acts (helped by SK's characterisations of course), and we don't want any subsequent movie to deviate far from that. They can mess with some other parts, but not the hero (or villain).

I've seen some great actors do justice to SK's main characters (Tim Robbins, Christopher Walken, Tom Hanks, Jack Nicholson etc), and some lesser ones perform much less convincingly.

[Bryan James]

James Franco could do Young Roland.

Need some makeup (or rather makedown) but I can see that working.

BJS

[LadyHitchhiker]

Well great actors like Tim Curry, Greg Sinise, and Jonathan Brandis certainly don't hurt a movie adaptation!

[Sawney Beane]

I ´ve notice that the best adaptations are those wich come from short novels or stories.I guess it´s easy for the filmmakers to stick to the story and the script.If THEY WANT to stick to the story,that is.I´m still trying to figure out how can anyone spoil a simple and straight story like The Lawnmover Man...I know,I know,(I can hear all of you "AAAARGH¡¡NOT AGAIN¡),but still...

[Black Suit]

Everything that makes a good SK adaptation has been mentioned..

1. They have to stay faithful to the material they are adapting.
2. They have to create the mood, atmosphere of the story.
3. They have to cast the appropriate actors for the roles.
4. And the last thing they should do is get's King's approval.

without #4 .. an adaptation would be pointless.

[danie]

I also think that sometimes, when they try to make a movie from one of King's books, if it's really supernatural and horror-like, it bombs because they simply can't capture the horror without it coming out cheesy.
When you read it, it seems so scary and real, but then when it's on the screen, it sometimes just looks funny and stupid. Some directors and actors manage to portray it well, but most of the time, a movie cannot capture what our minds can so readily imagine.

[Dani~]

All good points, thanks. A lot of the time when reading I find myself inside the character's head and so much of the good stuff happens there. I can't see many ways to transfer those moments onto film. And I guess that's why, despite the great writing, a lot of Stephen King adaptations are not that well received by fans of his novels and stories.

I hope that narration is used to some extent in The Dark Tower.

[marew1]

Adaptation needs to be more aligned with the original story to be successful. Leaving too much out can hurt the adaptation.