Stephen King explained what makes two movie adaptations of his books 'bad films to watch'
The renowned author admitted the two movies 'should have been good' but just 'aren't'
Stephen King is known for delivering chilling novels which in turn have created some hugely popular horror movies, but the renowned author has admitted there are two of his adaptations that he claims just aren't 'good' to watch.
Ask anyone to name five horror movies, and chances are there'll be a King adaptation nestled in there - if they're not taking up the entire list.
The author is responsible for stories including The Shining, IT, and Pet Sematary, to name a few, though his novels have also been turned into dramatic adaptations such as The Shawshank Redemption.
Commenting on the success of his novels in the film space, per Far Our Magazine, King said: “Several honourable adaptations have come from this 30-year spew of celluloid. And the best of those have had few of the elements I’m best known for: science fiction, fantasy, the supernatural, and pure gross-out terror."
Advert
He continued: “The books that do have those elements have, by and large, become films that are either forgettable or outright embarrassing."
Looking back on all of the movies that have been created off the back of his novels, he named two in particular which he claimed just aren't 'good' - and you might be surprised to hear what they are.
If your favorite King horror is the 1980 classic The Shining or the 1983 movie Christine, then it's bad news. Unfortunately, the author feels these particular adaptations are, quite simply, 'boring'.
King explained: “Others, I’m thinking chiefly of Christine and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, should have been good but just, well, they aren’t. They’re actually sort of boring. Speaking for myself, I’d rather have bad than boring.”
King's comments might prove heartbreaking for all the people who contributed to The Shining's 93 percent Popcornmeter score on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's actually not the first time the author has shown his distaste for the horror starring Jack Nicholson.
In a 2016 interview with Deadline, King said: "When we first see Jack Nicholson, he’s in the office of Mr. Ullman, the manager of the hotel, and you know, then, he’s crazy as a s**t house rat. All he does is get crazier.
"In the book, he’s a guy who’s struggling with his sanity and finally loses it. To me, that’s a tragedy. In the movie, there’s no tragedy because there’s no real change. The other real difference is at the end of my book the hotel blows up, and at the end of Kubrick’s movie the hotel freezes."
Though King might feel these two particular adaptations could have been stronger, they're not likely to stop being fan favorites any time soon!
Topics: Stephen King, Horror, Film and TV
Emily Brown