Source Material Doesn’t Matter And Stephen King Proves It

Written by Robert Scotchi Posted 13 seconds ago

Whenever a novel is converted into a movie, there are always some complainants who complain that the book was better. Although this complaint is sometimes valid when looking at the film source material, it usually looks like flexibility of people who just want everyone to know that they have already read.

That’s good, but let’s talk about it Bright For one second. Stanley Kubrick, quoted in 1980, on Stephen King’s novel, has proven his ability to stay as one of the best psychological horror films ever, for a good reason. Although King has reduced his position over the years, he is famous for the movie Kubrick for his denying the source material.

The source of the material is just a source

If you read Bright Then see a Cubic modification, it is painfully clear that he used the source material as a starting point for his own ideas. Creative freedoms were taken to formulate something like King’s work loosely while continuing to capture its main topics. Film industry also had restrictions in 1979, forcing Kubrick and his team to be creative in visual elements.

That famous inner maze? It is not in the book that contained Tobyari sculptures walking. Ax and “this Johnny!”? And not in the book either. Do you know what it was? Rock hammer.

King’s novel includes the Torrance family, Jack’s decline in madness, and the Overlock hotel as a channel and a catalyst for its disintegration. It is a great novel, but it is not the best source of a quoted film.

Stephen King wrote his own brilliant scenario, which is terrible

Do you remember the movie adapted in 1997 for television? Bright Written by Stephen King himself? Maybe not. But if you are interested in what happens when the movie is 100 percent loyal to its source, you can broadcast the 273 -minute catastrophic movie on Tubi later this month and see yourself.

Not only Stephen King “bright”. In the source of the source, the scenario was written by Its special authors. It is not good. It is four and a half hours of the production value of TV series. Critics described it as boring and unknown, most of whom prefer Cubic’s cinematic style over the original author’s style.

Here, we finally got the hedge animals that walk, the rock hammer, and the personal touches that King believed that Kubrick missed when modified the source material. At the height of his addiction to alcohol while he wrote the novel, King felt a profound connection with his story, as Jack Tourance struggle reflected his struggle. It was precious to him.

The problem is that King is not a way out. He is an author. And when the story means a lot, it is an incredible story. You cannot blame him for feeling that Cubic made a mistake, but Kubrick was a cinematic director who took his profession seriously and knew how to translate ideas visually.

Once a book is published, it becomes open to interpretation. I am quite sure that JD Salinger did not want to shoot John Lennon when he wrote The mask in the ryeBut what happened, not his mistake. It is strange that there is a website for conspiracy theory dedicated to proving that Stephen King killed John Lennon, but this is a topic for another day.

1980 movie is the best adaptation

Regardless of the source materials, Kubrick gained his reputation as an innovative cinematic director who precedes his age by light years by eating his work with a monastic mania, and this is often at the expense of his representatives’ mind. She is well documented by her brutality Bright Production was good, especially given the treatment of Sheli Duval at the photography site.

Production manager Roy Walker once described the exact approach that Cubrick followed to achieve the achievement Bright Signature look. Kubrick had a replica of the entire Overlook Hotel Hotel in its production office. He was hovering over hours with mini lights and camera, taking pictures, sending them to develop them, studying the results, and doing it again. This process took days, but weeks. The crew members often asked if they would start filming.

Kubrick has even developed a system of encrypted numbers to match his mini -pictures with the real group. The legend says that when the crew compared them, the lighting was completely identical.

Kobrick took the original material written and raised by Stephen King, and turned it into something entirely of its own. His obsessed interest in detail is what made the film creative, and it is a skill that Stephen King may never enjoy. Sorry, but this is true.

You can enjoy both things, so there is nothing wrong

Here lies the problem: deviations from the source matter are often reprehensible, but there is no reason to insist that the book was better. Bright Written by Stephen King is a classic literary book. Reconsider if it is for a while. It is an advanced course in suspense and psychological terrorism. Bright This film is written by Stanley Kubrick, a cinematic masterpiece, and it cannot be denying its ingenuity, whether you are a movie lover or ordinary viewers. Both stand alone, but the latter cannot exist without its material source.

If the source material is great, and the quoted movie takes creative freedoms but still provides something great, then this is a dual victory. You can enjoy the same story at two different levels. As for the 1997 King’s version, which has been loyal to the source material, you can see it yourself. It is terrible.