Films better than the book

Except The Dark Tower

>boards better than their jannies

Attached: lotr.jpg (342x500, 44K)

What are you people talking about? I'm going to just assume you guys didn't read any of the books . King's works are famous for one thing: that alot of them were adapted horribly. You guys can think of the exceptions but you forgot the dude wrote 10000 books and almost all have been adapted. 10% were good, which is why you know those.

Attached: The Ten Commandments.jpg (550x800, 157K)

Apocalypse Now even though Heart or Darkness is great too

Shawshank - basically the same but they condensed 3 wardens into one guy

Jaws

Ur a gei nigger

Pleb

Shut the fuck up nerd

i bet you read harry pooter too you little bitch

Yeah, but the Painting Arc was a bit boring. More than made up for by the War Arc.

I did. I'm getting fucking owned in this thread.

>The Mist
>The Green Mile
>The Shining
Sorry, user, but King is faggot how wrote shit books with some good ideas in the middle that could only be fixed by decent directors. That's why he's still mad with Kubrick.

Pet Semetary
Dreamcatcher
Maximum Overdrive

All ridiculously bad movies.
I've read Dreamcatcher, it's quite good. Not great, but the book is far better than the movie.

Attached: frozeface.jpgXX0001.jpg (1280x1080, 372K)

>shit books with some good ideas in the middle that could only be fixed by decent directors
>decent directors
That is the trick, user.
Find a good director to fix King's shit.

all Harry Potters

But you're now agreeing with me.

stephen king adaptations may be bad cause they were mostly made for TV with sub-par budgets and also drastic changes but they aren't that bad

>you said they're adapted poorly
>I said his books are shit, but with some good ideas here and there that can only be fixed by decent directors
You're blaming the people responsible for adapting the books, I'm blaming King.

I don't understand how the fuck Stephen King got so famous? The books I've read from him are OK at best.

the elevator blood and the dull quote may be improvements but the rest? the wife is completely unamwatchavle and so is the kid talking with his finger
what exactly are those brilliant changes Kubrick made exactly? changing the ice breaker for an axe?

in this case they're both complete shit

Attached: MV5BMjJmYTNkNmItYjYyZC00MGUxLWJhNWMtZDY4Nzc1MDAwMzU5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzkwMjQ5NzM@._V1_.jpg (1242x1837, 240K)

Many good ideas. Poor endings usually.

But many times it WAS the fault of the directors, not King. King has plenty of stinkers too. So it can be sometimes his fault, sometimes theirs.

I blame King.
You need an amazing director to make something good out of shit. If King was a good writer, that wouldn't be a problem.
There is a reason why he only talk about Darabont and Kubrick's adaptations.

he actually pre-empted the film Jaws with the idea of "high-concept" stories.

his books are page-tuners that can be summarized in one or two sentences very easily in a way that favors word of mouth. so people don't need to actually start reading his books in order to be hooked into buying them.

Carrie (bullied girl in high-school massacres her classmates with her telekinetic powers) got King a $200k advance before it was even published. if you could come up with equally good plots you could do the same today.

Most of them desu.

Psycho

The book was incredibly gay and the ending was terrible. Not a bad book but the film beat the shit out of it

The Shining mini series is better than the movie.

American psycho
After a few I skipped the autistic rant chapters about music and fashion and shit. If you are not familiar with the subjects he talks about it's just painfully boring and uninteresting.

Stephen King's books are basically like In Time: Good concept or a few good ideas, shit everything else.

Attached: in-time-film.jpg (1046x1600, 183K)

>Stephen King writes some shitty short story about a possessed laundry press nicknamed "the mangler"
>somehow gets adapted into an awful movie
>somehow manages to get not one but TWO sequels

The Hunt for Red October

Dr. Strangelove
Barry Lyndon

>Cujo

just like graveyard shift, it shouldve been creepshow episodes

He's right, which you would know if you idiots read a fucking book in your life that you weren't required to

Passion of the Christ

Attached: poe.jpg (500x500, 78K)

The Godfather

maybe the dark tower

every movie is better than the book because it's a better medium but those movies would probably be even better if they followed the books they are adapted on more faithfully

Attached: 1552882199631.jpg (312x445, 42K)

t. no imagination brainlet

yag

It was a different time. No, really.

Calm down Charlie.

on the contrary, I have better imagination than most but film is a better medium, it requires more talent from the actors to the cameras, to the music composers to the craftmans making every piece
Shakespeare and Plato would make cinema now.
Writing is too easy, you can type anything but to actually show it, that involves more talent

Kill yourself boomer

No u

Attached: MV5BM2Q1ZTFhMmYtNDljMS00Y2ZhLWE3M2QtMjYwYmFkYmJmMjI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU0NTI0Nw@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,68 (681x1000, 68K)

Absolutely correct.
Tolkien was an awesome linguist and loremaster, but he could not write for shit.

2/10 made me reply

Blade Runner

fag

Why did this take so long to post?

Alita: Battle Angel