To appreciate dave mustaine level coked up king, you shouldn’t watch the ‘did okay’ movie, nor the earlier ‘this is terrible’ one, you should go get ‘It’ part 1 and 2 as books :D
Stephen King’s books tend to be both very long and contain a lot of internal monologue. That’s very much not film-friendly. “Faithful” adaptions tend to drag and have a lot of tell-don’t-show, which makes for a “terrible” film. Unfaithful ones tend to change and cut a lot, which makes them “terrible” adaptions. For instance, “The Shining” film has very little to do with the book, but is an absolutely phenomenal movie. King hated it.
“IT” the Tim Curry version has Tim Curry in it, who was absolutely fantastic. A lot of material from the book was cut out - I’m thinking it could be 80% or more. That includes the scene where the children have a gang bang in the sewer. Out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, and it’s never mentioned again if I remember correctly. That might make it a “terrible” unfaithful adaption, but you know something? I’m alright without seeing that.
Idk, I just meant young king was wild. As for movie adaptations, I think dr sleep did well. Just because you dragged shining into this, ofc it’s great:D Kubrick does stuff and jack nicholson stars, it was a good movie, but can understand king hated it.
Then again, the man himself directed maximum overdrive, and that movie sorely needed Bruce Campbell energy:D
Tbf, I actually enjoyed rose red and storm of the century where he was kinda hands on. <- irrelevant afterthought
E: it was pretty weird when first read, but the stand and dead zone won me over later :D
I must admit that i’ve seen my fair bit of films in the genre too but never heard of the term
To appreciate dave mustaine level coked up king, you shouldn’t watch the ‘did okay’ movie, nor the earlier ‘this is terrible’ one, you should go get ‘It’ part 1 and 2 as books :D
The earlier one can’t be all terrible. They got Tim Curry to play Pennywise
Stephen King’s books tend to be both very long and contain a lot of internal monologue. That’s very much not film-friendly. “Faithful” adaptions tend to drag and have a lot of tell-don’t-show, which makes for a “terrible” film. Unfaithful ones tend to change and cut a lot, which makes them “terrible” adaptions. For instance, “The Shining” film has very little to do with the book, but is an absolutely phenomenal movie. King hated it.
“IT” the Tim Curry version has Tim Curry in it, who was absolutely fantastic. A lot of material from the book was cut out - I’m thinking it could be 80% or more. That includes the scene where the children have a gang bang in the sewer. Out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, and it’s never mentioned again if I remember correctly. That might make it a “terrible” unfaithful adaption, but you know something? I’m alright without seeing that.
Idk, I just meant young king was wild. As for movie adaptations, I think dr sleep did well. Just because you dragged shining into this, ofc it’s great:D Kubrick does stuff and jack nicholson stars, it was a good movie, but can understand king hated it.
Then again, the man himself directed maximum overdrive, and that movie sorely needed Bruce Campbell energy:D
Tbf, I actually enjoyed rose red and storm of the century where he was kinda hands on. <- irrelevant afterthought
E: it was pretty weird when first read, but the stand and dead zone won me over later :D
Yeah, I’ve never seen it, and don’t want to. I’m just a fan of Tim Curry. I still maintain his best role was in C&C