How Stephen King Really Feels About His Worst Adaptations

Stephen King had more than 50 of his novels, short stories, or novels that were adapted to the screen, making him one of the most popular authors. The smooth and direct prose of the author attracts film makers because it is full of accredited characters, and is rooted in the strong sense of the place (often the countryside). Once you chase you in the rhythms of the story, King will slap you in your face with some of the most dread or existential awe. King is often explored the evil evil books under the small America, and the emotional fragility of the childhood, and it is exposed as a lobcer epic with vast myths.

But not all Stephen King’s air conditioner is successful or worth watching. For every “salvation of Shashiank”, there is “cell”; For every “misery”, there are “trucks”. The failure of such films to capture the essence of the source material would disturb many authors. In an interview with Vulture, Stephen King refers to the author of “Rosemary Bibi” Ira Levin, who was “very careful with that [director Roman Polanski] Follow the book closely, all the way to this type of shirt worn by John Casavite’s character. “King does not take this approach itself, and this may be the reason that we have finished such an unequal mixture of the quality of the adjustments.

Most authors treat their books as sacred creativity – like their children – because they spent years in writing, and poured all their creativity and heart in it. But Stephen King was never very precious about his work, which allowed movie factories to run with their own interpretations. “The movies have never been a big problem for me. Movies are films. They only make them. If they are good, this is great. If not, they are not.” This makes us wonder: What allows the king to have his hands with his stories?

In an eagle interview, King explains that his simple position on the cinematic adaptations of his work comes from the writer “Meldid Pierce” James M. Caen, who answered the reporter’s statement that his films were destroyed through films. “No, they did not, all of them are there.” In other words, King is the film and the book as separate Kenyan. King’s feeling about the directors who always imagine his work was, “If this is successful, this would help me do what I want to do, which is writing books.” Regardless of whether it ends up until he is classic like “Carrie” or a train wreck like “Dreamcatcher”, King looks at his books as “unpopular”. He can adopt Laissez-FAIRE because I am fine financially so that I can withstand the risk, and B) I was prolific enough so that I don’t feel very upset about it. “

There is one exception to its cold perspective. The novelist was explicit on “The Shing” for Stanley Kubrick. One of the paradoxes, this is what both /the movie and many critics consider the best adaptation of Stephen King in all times. King hated that Jack Nicholson came out clearly that Machiavelian was clear from the beginning, and that Windy was filmed as a shivering jellyfish of a woman. He also resented the cold, separation, and ridicule of the “Shinging” because it was a very personal story for him as an alcoholic addict. He plays on his fears that the anger and violence that urges his drinking can turn it into a monster that hurts his family. Stephen King has finished producing series to tell a copy closer to his original intentions.