The Book was better than the Movie....

I've tried to get through a Stephen King book, but I think he's an absolutely terrible writer. I know he has a lot of fans, but I don't understand that at all. To me, his writing reads as if it's been written by a 15-year-old. I'm not a huge fan of the films I've seen based on his books, but they've got to be better!

His writing varies a lot, and technically he's not a great writer.  Even with his best stuff, he runs into problems on how to end things.  He has a few basic stories and he rehashes them (at least for a lot of stuff).  That is why I stopped reading him for a long time.  And I remember coming from being on a huge early 20th century classics kick to reading The Dark Half and just wincing the whole way through it.  However, because it helped me get through my teenage years, and some of his stuff is a good yarn it has a place of affection in my heart.  For example, the story that 1408 is based on is really brilliant at describing someone going totally out of his mind.  Totally well done and incredibly frightening.  The film really made a pig's ear out of it, but that entire collection (Everything's Eventual) was pretty decent. For non-King readers, I would suggest Different Seasons (while skipping Apt Pupil if you are squeamish).  But ultimately, he's not a master at anything, but he has moments of brilliance at what he does, which is popular horror fiction and very occassionally he produces something that really should have a more mainstream audience.

But when it comes to King films, if you've avoided The Shawshank Redemption or Stand by Me, you're really missing out.

The Jane Austen Book Club:  Movie better than the book, but I thought the book was borderline rubbishy anyway.  The movie actually clarified stuff in the book and gave better shape (and like-ability) to the characters.

I agree with this entirely.  I really didn't like the book, and I don't know why I saw the movie, but it was a VAST improvement.  Does not liking the book mean I am not as involved in the story, and so willing to accept an interpretation different than my own?  Hmmmmm.....

I wouldn't say the movie was "better" than the book, but I love Merchant-Ivory's version of Room with a View and thought it was lovely interpretation of the book.  Probably because the cinematography really brought the whole era to glorious life.

I saw My Sister's Keeper this summer.  And the movie butchered the story by completely changing the ending.  I thought the ending gave the book something interesting to think about and saved it from overwhelming sentimental dross.

But when it comes to King films, if you've avoided The Shawshank Redemption or Stand by Me, you're really missing out.

Nope, I have seen both of them and like them ... though maybe didn't love either of them.

So I was wrong before when I said I couldn't think of a film I'd seen without reading the book - there are two right there!  

To me, he's one of those writers who's - as you put it - not great technically, and I do appreciate good writing. And the work of people like King I feel make better films than they do books. I'd put John Grisham and Dan Brown in that category. Their books are rubbish, but they make for decent films, I guess. With Grisham, whenever I've read one of his books, I've felt as if I were reading a screenplay - it's as if he's already counting the money he's going to make from the movie as he's writing the book. Ka-ching!

I like Stephen King and I will other authors who are technically proficient.  I am reading them for different reasons. 

But I disagree the King books make better movies.  So many of his characters are dealing with internal struggles that the films can't really portray, or don't do it well.

Jack Nicholson in the Shining?  What was that performance other than a guy who was already crazy going more crazy?  I know that lots of people disagree, but I just didn't like it. 

I liked Shawshank, but the only big plot deviation was the reason why the kid wouldn't testify on Andy's behalf.  In the movie the guards kill him, in the book he recants in order to go to a prison with more privileges, weekend release etc.  It just didn't work as well for me.

The Stand miniseries was ok, but was beset by the cutting of major characters, budget issues and some seriously bad acting. 

I fear for the Talisman. 

On the other hand, if anyone on here is a Dark Tower fan, the graphic novel adaptation has been amazing and well worth it.  If only they could undo the last two books in the series and I would be happy.  No author, anywhere, should write themselves into their stories unless it is non-fiction. 

Agreed Bookgrl.  I love King and have read nearly everything he's written, with the Dark Tower series at the top of my faves (and even tho he opted for the Deus ex machina ending, it worked extremely well given the overall story).

But the movies are always so bad, miss huge bits of story, cannot portray the characters in the correct manner, etc.

As far as The Shining is concerned, I prefered the second made for tv movie done as opposed to the Nicholson one because the Nicholson one wasnt as true to the book.


I didnt know The Talisman was being made... I am a bit apprehensive.

And Dreamcatcher?  Horrid.

Well, The Talisman has been in production for about three years now and when it was first published in paperback it had the soon to be a major motion picture label on it.  HA!

Dreamcatcher terrible, but I wasn't a fan of that book.  I am not sure I made it to the end of that one.

Otoh, The Girl who Loved Tom Gordon was really good and I just bought it for my dh since we went hiking there this summer. 

I also liked the tv miniseries of The Shining better for sticking with the ideas of the books, but oh that kid.  He was annoying.  They are remaking It as we type.  I thought that one was ok. 

Say what you will about King, he does let film students/theatre people film his short stories for one dollar.  They are subject to restrictions on where they can be exhibited, but it gives people a chance. 

Sorry about the thread hijack!

Jack Nicholson in the Shining?  What was that performance other than a guy who was already crazy going more crazy?  I know that lots of people disagree, but I just didn't like it.  

I agree.  The book was scary on more than just a physical horror level.  And you are right about where a lot of the tension from his books come from.  They probably never could have done justice to 1408 or some of the other stories that relied on more on internal horror.

This has made me think of what has become one of my favourite King stories, Roadwork (a novella in one of his Bachman collections IIRC). It's really a classic story about not living life on life's terms and would translate into a film if it was done by the right person.  But because it has King's name attached to it, it wouldn't be offered to a director that is not going to make it into a blockbuster, and really it's not a blockbuster type of story at all.

The Stand miniseries was ok, but was beset by the cutting of major characters, budget issues and some seriously bad acting.  

It was also overpoweringly smaltzy.  While the book did have a sentimental aspect to it, it balanced the very dark aspects very well.  I am not talking about the literally dark like Flagg, but stuff the brilliantly done character of Lloyd Henreid.  The mini-series is almost pure glurge from the choice of opening songs to

Spoiler: show

Ruby Dee's disembodied ghost head at the end.

The book is pulp's answer to the Great American novel, and rightly so. It's one of his most critically acclaimed works. The mini-series was made to appeal to the people who normally would be watching the disaster or abused wife movie of the week (still popular at that time) with very little thought to those who loved the novel for years.

I forgot about the ending.  

They have also just turned The Stand into a graphic novel.  Part one has just finished and should be released as a collection soon.  

I really liked the Virgin Suicides.  I liked Let the Right One In, but the book was so much better.

I would agree with Jurassic Park, just from the visual aspects and Silence of the Lambs.  It was a very good book, but I just found the film more gripping.  As for the Princess Bride, was it a book first?  If so then the movie was better.   

I saw My Sister's Keeper this summer.  And the movie butchered the story by completely changing the ending.  I thought the ending gave the book something interesting to think about and saved it from overwhelming sentimental dross.

I just saw this on the flight home from the states and I was so MAD that they chnaged the ending. I too thought that was what gave the book some depth. Plus there was so much more depth to the characters in the book that they took out of the movie. I was very unhappy.

I loved The Time Travellers Wife but my mom saw the movie before I could, so I was aware that there were some changes. I think they did as well as they could given the concept but I was really dissapointed they took out all the little side stories which gave the big story more depth. I can understand they do this for timing issues but I think if you're going to take on a book then you should do the whole book.

I was really interested to see how they'd do Atonement considering the book is totally internalised. I think they did a fairly good job of it but didn't they change the ending too? I can't remember.

I've never seen a movie which has lived up to the book.

I liked the film The Color Purple more than the novel, actually. Though I think it was sad they felt they had to remove the lesbian aspects of the book for the film. It was the only thing that would've made the film better, IMO.

They probably never could have done justice to 1408 or some of the other stories that relied on more on internal horror

I don't think it's been made into a movie, but Gerald's Game was good for this internal horror as well.

And I agree about The Stand miniseries.  

I have the movie Desperation waiting in the wings to be watched, but I'm worried about it's quality as I never heard anything of it at the time of release.

Movie actually better than the book:
The Princess Bride

I have to disagree on this one.  The book was so wonderfully tongue-in-cheek that I think taking it quasi-seriously as a movie lost a bit of the fun of reading the book.  I loved the asides by Goldman, as well as the occasional "Oh, let's skip this part because it's really boring" bits.

Although, to be fair, I'm another who thinks it's rare that a movie is better than the book.  In fact, I can't think of one instance where it's 100% true.  The only one that comes to mind is A Room With a View, but I wouldn't say that the movie was better than the book so much as the did an almost spot-on translation to film.

I
Although, to be fair, I'm another who thinks it's rare that a movie is better than the book.  In fact, I can't think of one instance where it's 100% true.  The only one that comes to mind is A Room With a View, but I wouldn't say that the movie was better than the book so much as the did an almost spot-on translation to film.

Aaahhh, the ending in the film was different to the book. They went for the happy bit as opposed to the book's darker punch...

Aaahhh, the ending in the film was different to the book. They went for the happy bit as opposed to the book's darker punch...

Hence the "almost".  I'm actually surprised they changed it as, by modern standards, it's not that unhappy an ending.  Ah well.

I have to disagree on this one.  The book was so wonderfully tongue-in-cheek that I think taking it quasi-seriously as a movie lost a bit of the fun of reading the book. 

What did you find quasi-serious about the movie?  I don't think there's any seriousness in it at all.  But I frankly found the book a bit tedious.