No Right Answer: Best Stephen King Movie Adaptation

[emeraldrafael]

I'd love to see a decent film series done of Dark Tower.

...
Everything I hear about the film they are making makes me sad inside.

...

What film? <url=http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31502>they pulled the plug on the whole thing to my knowledge. Then <url=http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/10/24/the-dark-tower-film-gets-a-lower-budget-but-better-ending.html>they cut the budget and got a new ending (though if this ends any other way then the way the back ended I have a feeling that fans will be severely pissed/disappointed), and now they're looking for a studio, though <url=http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/10/25/the-dark-tower-tv-series-ends-up-at-hbo.html>I guess its supposed to go to HBO, but that may fuck with the whole three films two tv series idea of it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

...

Fans generally confuse translating and adapting. A word-for-word copy of the original source material is a faithful translation, not an adaptation. If you don't try to do your own interpretation of the material, why are you doing it? For me, it's no other reason besides to cash in on the property. Doing your own thing shows creativity in the artist, and to do anything else shows laziness in the filmmaker. The trick is to separate the art from the medium. If you cannot do that, you cannot enjoy most films because a lot of what's considered the best films of all-time, are translated liberally.

While I'll agree that adaptations shouldnt necessarily be straight up transfers (even though most everyone of Kings best movie adaptations he had a very close and personal hand in making) and that having that director's different view on it (why the Dark tower series under Ron Howard working with King seems like such a great idea and potentially the new Stand By Me), you cant call hat Kubrick does an adaptation. Adaptations should still have a major semblance to their original subject. Kubrick (in my mind and i would be willing to guess others' minds) three biggest adaptations (The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and Lolita) are radically different than their sources to such an extent that Kubrick very nearly just makes a different story and only uses the names for any linking to the fanbase. In a very real sense you could watch any of the three movies I mentioned, change the names and title of the films Kubrick made, show them to the same audience and they would think they are entirely different properties.

and that is not good adaptation. thats just straight up theft of name and or straight up laziness on part of the director because he cant come up with a good enough reason to do these projects without attaching them to a notable name so he can get a green light.

 

[squid5580]

There is a Shining (and Carrie for that matter) remake(s) that are more faithful to the books dammit. Shining is 6 hours long and stars the blonde guy from "Wings" (yeah old series I know). And other than the fact it doesn't star Jack it is way better than the 70's version (same with Carrie).

 

[surg3n]

Damn theres so many... some of which might not be remembered, like The Running Man, or Thinner.

Personally I like Thinner, because it has a severely hot gypsy chick in it, but it's really not much of a horror movie.

I have to go with IT , I think that is a brilliant film and a brilliant book, Christine would be my second choice.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

in my opinion it has to be the Shawshank Redemption

 

[DTWolfwood]

wait ppl are complaining about women dressing up like skanks on halloween?! wtf are they gay?!

and I like the Green Mile. Fan of Michael Clarke Duncun

 

[Lunar Templar]

-.-

the right answer is 'The Green Mile'
(no, i don't care that I'm several months late, i just watched it)