Stephen King !! [Archive] - Horror.com Forums

MoonLit Meadow

06-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Yeah, I have to agree with Urge...alot of his books have been turned into movies, but most of them haven't done too well or received much acclaim...and he didn't MAKE them...

Although I must admit every time Pet Sematary is on I HAVE to watch it....it's like a trainwreck that I just can't turn away from. ;)

Besides, I always get a kick out of how the father ( I can't remember his name at the moment) just doesn't understand the phrase "enough is enough". He keeps going back and digging everyone up when HE KNOWS what's going to happen;)

Umm...this post is way longer than it needs to be.
That's all. :D

MisterSadistro

06-13-2005, 08:51 PM

Apparently Urge and Moonlit have enough sense to explain that King is an author and not a film maker (or at least not a good one). If the noob would've read down a bit further, he/she/it would've seen there is a Books forum. Apparenty reading is not their strong point. How many book reports did you do in school on King books after renting the video instead ? It might explain your confusion. :D
CK

bloodrayne

06-13-2005, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by urgeok
he's made one film.

maximum overdrive.

some king. Actually...He also directed Sometimes They Come Back Again (1996) and the remake of The Shining...

MisterSadistro

06-14-2005, 12:04 AM

Nope. He was actually a third unit director, which is the equivalent of giving someone a camera to shoot pick-up shots (ie crowds, landscapes, etc) without any acting or plot related points. Basically he shot filler footage.
CK

bloodrayne

06-14-2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by MisterSadistro
Nope. He was actually a third unit director, which is the equivalent of giving someone a camera to shoot pick-up shots (ie crowds, landscapes, etc) without any acting or plot related points. Basically he shot filler footage.
CK Okay...I'll give you that for the Shining remake, but he DID make sure that everything was the way he wanted it, and that it stayed close to his story since Kubrick pissed him off so bad with his omissions and changes in the original...

BUT...He DID direct Sometimes They Come Back Again...It's listed in his filmography along with Maximum Overdrive, for directing...

MisterSadistro

06-14-2005, 12:24 AM

Stephen King's Film Biography (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000175/)
Can we just ship this off to the Books section already, BR ? It's late and I'm sure there's film spam that needs to be flamed or an actual question about making a film I might be able to help out with. I'm getting sidetracked with this LOL
CK

bloodrayne

06-14-2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by MisterSadistro
Stephen King's Film Biography (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000175/)
Can we just ship this off to the Books section already, BR ? It's late and I'm sure there's film spam that needs to be flamed or an actual question about making a film I might be able to help out with. I'm getting sidetracked with this LOL
CK Okay then...Move along...But, before ya do, here's one for you ;)

King's Filmography (http://movie-cast.com/stephen_king.htm)

And this thread has actually remained a discussion about King's 'film making'...So, I'd say it's pretty relevant here :)

AUSTIN316426808

06-15-2005, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by bruzzeler
Oh what ?!?! Here is a Thread about filmmkers but no one posted anything to the King of Horror ???
Now its done!! I think the King of Horror is really Mr. King! If you think of Horror, you think of Stephen!

www.stephen-king.de

!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR FANS !!!!!!!!!!

He's an author not a filmmaker.

when I think of horror I don't think of Stephen to tell you the truth I don't think of anybody paticular because there is no ''king of horror'' and if I were to give someone that title it wouldn't be him, most of his books are the same with different characters and slightly changed plots/origions. If you're going to call somebody the ''king of horror'' how about Karloff,Hitchcock,Romero ect. Basically someone who actually might deserve it, but I stick with my previous statement that there is no one ''king of horror''.

Maybe you could say masters of horror which would imply that there's more than just one person who's got a lock on how to make a good horror film and everybody else is below him because it disrespects people like Cronenberg,Carpenter,Argento people who actually know something about filmmaking.

And about the debate over wether he did the Shining remake or not,If he did do the Shining remake he doesn't really deserve any credit for it, he was mad at the changes Kubrick made when in fact he should've got down on his knees and thanked him for what he did to what apparently would've been a shitty movie if King would've had his way back then.

MoonLit Meadow

06-15-2005, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808

And about the debate over wether he did the Shining remake or not,If he did do the Shining remake he doesn't really deserve any credit for it, he was mad at the changes Kubrick made when in fact he should've got down on his knees and thanked him for what he did to what apparently would've been a shitty movie if King would've had his way back then.

LMAO. I agree. None of SK's movies turn out that well. He should definately be greatful for the success the original "Shining" has had.

The_Return

06-18-2005, 01:27 PM

Hey Rayne...

According to both IMDb and the box for Sometimes the Come Back...Again, a guy named Adam Grossman directed the sequel to Sometimes they Come Back. He also directed Wes Craven's remake of Carnival of Souls....

bloodrayne

06-21-2005, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by The_Return
Hey Rayne...

According to both IMDb and the box for Sometimes the Come Back...Again, a guy named Adam Grossman directed the sequel to Sometimes they Come Back. He also directed Wes Craven's remake of Carnival of Souls.... Hmm...Wonder why it was listed in his filmography that way...Mistake?...Or, perhaps he only assisted?...

urgeok

06-22-2005, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by bloodrayne
Hmm...Wonder why it was listed in his filmography that way...Mistake?...Or, perhaps he only assisted?...

they try to attach his name to as many things as possible ..

Marketing.

look at all the books he 'endorses' as if he even reads them ..
he gets paid to do that.

alkytrio666

06-22-2005, 05:16 AM

AUSTIN316426808

06-24-2005, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
they try to attach his name to as many things as possible ..

Marketing.

look at all the books he 'endorses' as if he even reads them ..
he gets paid to do that.

I hate when they do that bullshit, if I made a film and the studio went and plastered someone else's name on it I'd be ticked the fuck off personally.

urgeok

06-24-2005, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I hate when they do that bullshit, if I made a film and the studio went and plastered someone else's name on it I'd be ticked the fuck off personally.

not if you were looking for the big breakthrough and it automatically 10X your box office take because it was suddenly deemed viable due to an endorsement ...

i'd do it .. once.

AUSTIN316426808

06-24-2005, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
not if you were looking for the big breakthrough and it automatically 10X your box office take because it was suddenly deemed viable due to an endorsement ...

i'd do it .. once.

Yeah but what about the people like the genius who started this thread who are going to think Stephen King(or whoever) made the film?

azathoth777

06-29-2005, 06:03 AM

I don't see King as all the great. All the movies/mini-series based on his books ( Kubricks Shining excluded) suck. I liked his books when I was in Junior High, but now... not at all.

Unaboner3000

06-30-2005, 08:22 AM

I have all of King's books. I think he will be regarded as one of the greatest 20th century authors. The Stand, IT, and his Dark Tower books are classics and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a college Literature class as required readings.

The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).

Of his 50 or 60 novels, I can only think of two that made good movies, Misery and The Green Mile. That was because they were relatively short books in terms of King (400 pages or so), and dealt with very few characters, and in the case of The Green Mile you really didn't have to develope the Coffey character. (We never know his past or anything about him). Misery the movie only works with an amazing performance by Kathy Bates, and The Green Mile only works because the director took over 3 hours (which is needed) to tell the story right.

urgeok

06-30-2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
I have all of King's books. I think he will be regarded as one of the greatest 20th century authors. The Stand, IT, and his Dark Tower books are classics and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a college Literature class as required readings.

The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).

Of his 50 or 60 novels, I can only think of two that made good movies, Misery and The Green Mile. That was because they were relatively short books in terms of King (400 pages or so), and dealt with very few characters, and in the case of The Green Mile you really didn't have to develope the Coffey character. (We never know his past or anything about him). Misery the movie only works with an amazing performance by Kathy Bates, and The Green Mile only works because the director took over 3 hours (which is needed) to tell the story right.

he will be seen as the greatest seller .... not one of the greatest writers.
he's not that great of a writer.

Unaboner3000

06-30-2005, 08:45 AM

he will be seen as the greatest seller .... not one of the greatest writers.

Well, certainly something can be said for selling more books than anyone. But I agree, that doesn't qualify him to be considered as one the greatest writers. I think he qualifies based on his writing. He seems to be one of those authors you either love or hate. Some just hate his writing style. He's longwinded, very detailed, and sometimes tries to be over-literary. To some people (myself) this is great. To others (girlfriend) he is not the quick and easy read that they are after.

urgeok

06-30-2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
Well, certainly something can be said for selling more books than anyone. But I agree, that doesn't qualify him to be considered as one the greatest writers. I think he qualifies based on his writing. He seems to be one of those authors you either love or hate. Some just hate his writing style. He's longwinded, very detailed, and sometimes tries to be over-literary. To some people (myself) this is great. To others (girlfriend) he is not the quick and easy read that they are after.

if you ever end up taking a university level english course ... trust me - he isnt mentioned as a 'Great' writer ..

just a very successful one. He writes for the masses - he is easy to read- accessable - nothing too difficult or challenging ...

he is a 'best seller' not a master.

i'm not being a snob - just relaying some facts ..

I'm a fan of modern classics ..

Graham Greene, Summerset Maughan, D.H Laurence, Daphne Du Maurier, Charles Dickens, etc ...

those arent even the masters and no one would dare mention Kings name in the same sentance as them ..

Unaboner3000

06-30-2005, 10:00 AM

He writes for the masses

To some degree, but not to the degree Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy, or Dean Koontz do. At least he doesn't recycle the same story over and over and over again. As far as selling millions of books, he shouldn't be viewed as a poor writer because of this. And he does write what he wants to write and not necessarily what readers want him to write.

Recent examples would be The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Hearts in Atlantis, which certainly were out of the norm from his usual stuff. He wrote a non-fction book about writing called On Writing (obviously knowing it wouldn't be a bestseller). And King took 30 years to write all seven Dark Tower books, despite the bitching and moaning of fans.

King kind of retired after Dark Tower 7 but continues to write for fun, what he wants to write, when he wants to write, no deadlines, and he will only submit works for publishing if he feels they are of good quality. He just published a book about the Red Sox season last year, non-fiction (Maybe some New Englanders will buy it, but I won't). He recently announced he has written a new fiction novel (a crime novel) that he will give to publishers this year, likely in stores next year.

In this respect he quite unusual for a popular writer.

AUSTIN316426808

06-30-2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
At least he doesn't recycle the same story over and over and over again.

you sure about that?

anyway I think he overdoes it, I don't need to know every single detail about a character.

The_Return

07-03-2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
you sure about that?
.

I was thinking the same thing

Congrats on 4k posts Austin, by the way:)

AUSTIN316426808

07-03-2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by The_Return
I was thinking the same thing

Congrats on 4k posts Austin, by the way:)

thanks I didn't even notice it

bloodrayne

07-03-2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).That's why the creatures at the end of IT and Graveyard Shift ended up sucking so bad...Some things are best left up to the imagination...Our minds can produce much more horrifying creatures than an FX crew can...Putting some of these things on screen, kills a lot of what they are supposed to be, and causes them to be a huge letdown when given real, physical form...

You know why kids are so afraid of the 'Boogeyman'?...Because they have never SEEN it...So, their imaginations run wild with the most hideous things they can perceive of (and of course, some things frighten people more than other things do...So, it's a 'personal fright'...Customized for maximum effect for each individual person)...Man's strongest fear is fear of the unknown...

King relies heavily on the imagination of the reader to make his stories good...That's why he feeds so much into the reader's mind...And...That's why his books (and really, ALL books) are SO much better than the movies...

urgeok

07-04-2005, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by bloodrayne
You know why kids are so afraid of the 'Boogeyman'?...Because they have never SEEN it

i've seen the boogyman, and he terrifies me !

scaryminda15

07-08-2005, 11:56 AM

I AGREE WITH THE BRUZZELER. STEPHEN KING IS THE KING OF HORROR. HE MIGHT WRITE BOOKS, BUT HE IS STILL THE KING OF HORROR. THE MOVIES JUST BRING HIS VERSION OF BRINGING THE FEAR INTO YOUR LIFE AND YOU CAN'T REALIZE THAT WELL I DON'T THINK I WANT TO KNOW WELL UNLESS YOU STILL LIKE HIM.BYE: SCARYMINDA15

Unaboner3000

07-08-2005, 03:45 PM

STEPHEN KING IS THE KING OF HORROR

...and YOU are the King of Caps.... :D

alkytrio666

07-12-2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
...and YOU are the King of Caps.... :D

And the king of fuck-tards.

alkytrio666

07-12-2005, 06:14 AM

I don't think a lot of you are being fair. Stephen King is a great writer. Now, he may not be one of the greatest writers, but he's a hell of a good one, and I'm thinking that those of you who say he isn't just don'tlike him, which is all opinion based. Just think of how many books he's cranked out, and how effective they are. And I haven't come across a bad one yet.

AUSTIN316426808

07-12-2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by alkytrio666
Just think of how many books he's cranked out

You can crank out 100 books....

If 5 are good and you copy those 20 times over then that ain't all that great.

People see how much he's done and see his name slapped on a bunch of films that he didn't work on at all and they just think he's ''the king'' because he's done so much.

I'd take a couple great books over alot of repetitive average ones any day.

azathoth777

07-15-2005, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by alkytrio666
I don't think a lot of you are being fair. Stephen King is a great writer. Now, he may not be one of the greatest writers, but he's a hell of a good one, and I'm thinking that those of you who say he isn't just don'tlike him, which is all opinion based. Just think of how many books he's cranked out, and how effective they are. And I haven't come across a bad one yet.

Isn't thinking he's a good writer just opinion based. Cranking out books doen't make you a good writer. Dean Koontz, Michael Crichton, and Jackie Collins crank out tons of books too, does that make them good authors?
Now King is a supermarket author, plan and simple. It may have been different back in the day, but now...

EXTR3MIST

07-22-2005, 05:25 AM

Nonsense - Stephen King is just out of fashion, not out of talent.

When he first came along with Carrie, no-one had read the likes of it before. Now he has spawned so many immitators and wannabes that - together with the rise of video and the internet as primary home entertainment - settling down to a good King story doesn't seem to hold as much unique appeal.

But having done his vampire, ghost and monster stories, he can still produce some very interesting ideas - witness the simple brilliance of The Langoliers (creatures that eat the past), and the sometimes surreal The Tommyknockers.

Zero

08-12-2005, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
Nonsense - Stephen King is just out of fashion, not out of talent.

I think King has written too much. He has some wonderful books - really top notch stuff (even in terms of literary merit). But then it all started going downhill. I recently read From a Buick 8 and thought there was some lovely writing and great characters - but then he couldn't seem to figure his way out of the story. To me that's lazy, hasty writing and - let's be honest here - no EDITING. No editor in the world is going to look at a King manuscript at this point in his illustrious career and say - "gee Steve, kind of gets sloppy at the end." I think this is the death of most "popular" writers in the current economy of mass-production/consumption. People get famous and then stop getting good editing.