Cheap looking tv productions

[davidbo32]

Why are so many of Stephen King's books made into really bad tv movies or mini series with B or even C actors? IT, The Stand, Creepshow, Maximum Overdrive and Lawnmower man comes to mind.. Stephen King should be much more selective about who he lets produce and direct the movies based on his books. I haven't seen any after the ones I mentioned so maybe the newer ones are better, but I was turned off by the titles I mentioned.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

So you haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Stand by Me, Misery, Dolores Claiborne or The Mist then?

And Lawnmower man was NOT an SK adaptation, apart from the name.

He has said that he considers the movies as 'dead skin sculptures', which seems like an excellent attitude to me.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Sundrop]

AWJS (and what John said)

It's all in how you look at it. Some of the adaptations I liked more than others, but I wouldn't call the actors 'B' or 'C'. IMO most of the actors did a good job.

Please do have a look at The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Stand by Me, Misery, Dolores Claiborne and The Mist. Really top notch IMO.

[Teddy Duchamp]

Got to agree with John and the others here.

Apart from those absolutely wonderful classic films which I imagine will be remembered in years to come ........sorry to repeat but

The Green Mile
Shawshank
Misery
Stand by Me (where I got my username Teddy)


Even the ones which arent considered "classics" I feel some of them did a good job.

Pet Sematary - while it nowhere near had the atmosphere of the book still was a good movie.

I thought Cujo was well adapted apart from the end where it completey copped out for a "nice" ending!

The Mist was a good movie!

I thought the telly series of Salems Lot was as near to the book as you could get.

Also "the Stand"..............I really dont know that you could have improved very much on the series - a film wouldnt have done the long story justice - I know that in this day and age technology has come a long way and there could have been more "scary images" in it...........but to my mind the story was excellently adapted - apart from Molly Ringwald who was the worst Frannie ever!

So yes, to a certain extent I agree that there were a couple of disappointments but I think MOST have been well done.

[karend3]

The remake of Salems Lot with Rob Lowe was good, Shawshank redemption and Green Mile were excellent, Dolores Claiborne even though it told the story differently from the book was still awesome. The Stand was great. In the younger years King didn't have the power he does now. The Shining was redone because of him and it was more to the book, so was Carrie which most people don't know and it was more like the book, of course Rose Red was excellent.

[thymeoperator]

that carrie remake...i remember not liking it personally, but aside from that, i remember there was a sequel made, 'carrie 2: the rage', which i never saw - knowing now that there is also an SK book called 'the rage' is there a connection in there?

[thymeoperator]

another thing this thread just made me think is that movies are almost NEVER as good as the books, because there's not enough time in a film to match the length of the book, and everyone has their own personal ideas of what the characters are like and what scenes are like, etc. and when you put it on screen it obliterates that mental image you built up. so i'd say the answer to the question of why are so many of these films bad is just that films don't usually do books justice and there are a LOT of terrible movies out there in general, not just stephen king ones. i really hated 'it' i must say, but i'm sure it's hard to tell how a film is going to turn out when you first agree to adapt the story into a movie, and also everyone has their own opinion (i see there are also lots of people on here who love that film), it's just so subjective. and when it comes down to it, i just don't see how anyone could do a film of that story and do it proper justice.

[xville]

Langoliers, Tommyknockers and The Stand were pretty bad.


But that's tv back in the day. I saw some SK short stories that had proper budgets attached (william hurt was in one as a hit man getting rubbed out by toy soldiers) and they kicked ass.

[Mr Nobody]

A lot of it will be out of SK's control anyway. Studios buy options and it's them that decide who will helm, what the budget is, etc. SK might have more say now, because he's become a cultural icon, but even then studios will want their way. You can make good, even excellent, movies on a relatively small budget (i.e. The Mist), but not everyone has the skill, time or casting ability to do it.

[BlackThorn]

Okay, now I'm totally gonna scan this thread for Stephens incognito response. So everyone out there, pretend as hard as you can, and make yourself believable when you defend why so many of his movies do look extremely low production, which is kind of absurd coming from the best writer (for me) in the world...

I mean, did you not network enough man? Or are the badasses all jelous of your power, so they won't give you a leg-up? I don't expect you to do the Ridley Scott thing, but I don't expect Ridley Scott to write Desperation anytime soon either.

Soooooo, why are yours so cheezy Steven? (not that I don't like it that way...)