Should filmmakers stick religiously to the source material?
In the case of Stephen King adaptations, it can work very well both ways…
This article comes fromDen of Geek UK.
I watchedThe Shiningrecently, a film I havent seen for at least 15 years, maybe more.
Watching it again, now, Im surprised at how powerful it still is.
Everything and everyone within that terrifyingly claustrophobic environment is superbly realized.
He still wants to protect his family.
The casting of Jack Nicholson in the film instantly changed the character of Jack Torrance.
Perhaps, but the fact remains that Nicholsons Jack Torrance is a completely different animal to his literary counterpart.
Unfortunately, the truth about Bachmans identity came out pretty quickly, essentially derailing the experiment.
Theres no arena in the book.
No one can forget the words onThe Shawshank Redemptions movie poster Fear can hold you prisoner.
Hope can set you free.
But as wonderful asThe Green Mileis, it doesnt quite match the sheer brilliance ofShawshank.
Its hard not to be moved when watchingStand by Me, or when reading The Body.
Jesus, does anyone?
So, the question is: Is it right to tweak Kings source material to fit the directors vision?
Based on the history of King films a genre unto themselves the results have varied.
The answer lies with the filmmaker him- or herself.
Ultimately, it seems that King adaptations are only as good as the filmmakers behind them.
