Stephen King: Novelist or Movie Maker?

Your thread name combined with the post would indicate that he is a novelist. Also, is that (your avatar) the protagonist from Fight Club punching himself in the face repeatedly?

I agree though - the books are a lot better. Although some of them suck. Most are great, however - thus making the bad ones easy to ignore.

Am I the only one who's tired of these movies base on King's novels? READ THE BOOKS!!! They're 10x better. Literally, ten times.RiSkyBiZ-13

I actually liked shawshank better then the novel alot. The Mist is also a very good movie.

is that (your avatar) the protagonist from Fight Club punching himself in the face repeatedly?

Brmarlin

...yes.

[QUOTE="Brmarlin"]

is that (your avatar) the protagonist from Fight Club punching himself in the face repeatedly?

RiSkyBiZ-13

...yes.

Awesome....

Well being 16 and watching movies, and liking them, then finding out Stephen King wrote a book about it, made me read alot of this books out of intrest. I read mist and just saw the movie tonight. I saw it and read the book...heh book was lots better.

I would call him a Novelist, cuase all the books based of movies...well the books are just better then the movies

Most of his books are awful and all feature the same character with a different name.NearTheEnd

Not really. I have read alot of his books and most of the main charaters are of diffrent backgrounds and age.

Most of his books are awful and all feature the same character with a different name.NearTheEnd

The Stand, IT, Pet Semetery, Cujo, Carrie have the same characters ? Thats not how i read them.

Most of his books are awful and all feature the same character with a different name.NearTheEnd

So my sneaking suspicion that Roland was Margaret White is true!

Most of his books are awful and all feature the same character with a different name.NearTheEnd

that's pretty much a series. nothing wrong with series.

Most of his books are awful and all feature the same character with a different name.NearTheEnd

Well, you just proved that you never read a single one of his books. Saying that about Hemmingway would be st00pid, but more accurate than saying that about King.

Am I the only one who's tired of these movies base on King's novels? READ THE BOOKS!!! They're 10x better. Literally, ten times.RiSkyBiZ-13

If we're talking about The Mist, I actually prefer the movie.

Most of The Mist was taken straight out of the short story, with a few minor changes here and there. Most of the changes didn't really matter all that much.

Most of the rest of the changes I thought made the story better.

And keep in mind, I'm mostly talking about SMALL things.

But for example, the sex scene being removed. In the original story, it ferlt COMPLETELY out of place.

They made the religious folk a LOT more of a threat in the movie. I remember in the short story, they wanted to sacrifice the boy as well. More specifically, Mrs Carmody called out to sacrifice the boy. But in the movie, tyhey were a LOT more vicious. They actually sacrifice som,eone before that, and still want more bloodshed.In the movie, the dad actually has to fight them off. This makes the exodus from the store a LOT more believable, as you REALLY get the sense that there's no way in hell they can spend another night there.

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"]Am I the only one who's tired of these movies base on King's novels? READ THE BOOKS!!! They're 10x better. Literally, ten times.MrGeezer

If we're talking about The Mist, I actually prefer the movie.

Most of The Mist was taken straight out of the short story, with a few minor changes here and there. Most of the changes didn't really matter all that much.

Most of the rest of the changes I thought made the story better.

And keep in mind, I'm mostly talking about SMALL things.

But for example, the sex scene being removed. In the original story, it ferlt COMPLETELY out of place.

They made the religious folk a LOT more of a threat in the movie. I remember in the short story, they wanted to sacrifice the boy as well. More specifically, Mrs Carmody called out to sacrifice the boy. But in the movie, tyhey were a LOT more vicious. They actually sacrifice som,eone before that, and still want more bloodshed.In the movie, the dad actually has to fight them off. This makes the exodus from the store a LOT more believable, as you REALLY get the sense that there's no way in hell they can spend another night there.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"]Am I the only one who's tired of these movies base on King's novels? READ THE BOOKS!!! They're 10x better. Literally, ten times.o_sausage

If we're talking about The Mist, I actually prefer the movie.

Most of The Mist was taken straight out of the short story, with a few minor changes here and there. Most of the changes didn't really matter all that much.

Most of the rest of the changes I thought made the story better.

And keep in mind, I'm mostly talking about SMALL things.

But for example, the sex scene being removed. In the original story, it ferlt COMPLETELY out of place.

They made the religious folk a LOT more of a threat in the movie. I remember in the short story, they wanted to sacrifice the boy as well. More specifically, Mrs Carmody called out to sacrifice the boy. But in the movie, tyhey were a LOT more vicious. They actually sacrifice som,eone before that, and still want more bloodshed.In the movie, the dad actually has to fight them off. This makes the exodus from the store a LOT more believable, as you REALLY get the sense that there's no way in hell they can spend another night there.

Don't really think it's all that necessary.

I don't think I said anything that hasn't already been shown in the official movie trailers.

The Green Mile was a better movie than his book... as was the Shawshank Redemtiontccavey2

also Stand by Me