@KingCobra686 said:

Objectively, this movie is pretty bad. There's no denying that. The plot is dumb, the science is obscenely unfounded, and most of the characters are horribly overacted. The movie is fun to watch for the cheesy AC/DC backed action scenes though, and shots of guys blowing up tractor trailers with heavy weapons.

Was that King's intent, or did he intend for this to be taken seriously? I havent seen/read all of his stuff, but I have yet to see anything that was intentionally cheesy from him.

I honestly don't know if S.K. meant for this film to be a cornfest or not. But man, is it funny! I've never gotten through it.

I mean he was coked out of his mind the entire time he was making the movie, if that explains anything for you.

I never saw this, but I remember reading the original short story "Trucks" and thinking it was deliberately over-the-top. I'm guessing if King directed this, it must've had some serious dark comedy. Think of the movie Creepshow from a couple years earlier, remember how much dark comedy was in that one... ("I want my caaake!") with a hilarious cameo by Stephen King himself playing the goofy trailer park reject, delivering the funniest line "Meteor sh!+" (not to mention when he looks in his pants "oh no not THERE!")

I think we often overlook his wicked sense of humor. It's lowkey enough to fly under the radar, but it's there. My guess is this flick was meant to be an all-hells-loose party with big explosions, heavy machinery and loud guitars.

King's horror is difficult to interpret visually and attempts to do so have been hit or miss. I think it is in part because he deals with concepts that are more scary due to imagination than due to a monster thingy chasing teenagers with some sharp object.

It's well-documented that King was not happy with Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining (which, ironically, is arguably the most successful adaptation of his work, depending on how you slice it). At any rate, King is not shy about his preference for the 1997 miniseries of the same name as a closer interpretation of his book. And there are those who've read his book The Shining who agree, as well.

I never read Carrie. Apparently King threw the manuscript in the trash, from which his wife rescued it and the rest is history. Not sure to what degree the movie captured it.

I read Pet Sematary. The movie captured it fairly well.

I read The Running Man. The movie is a poor adaptation.

I read The Stand. Hated the show.

I read The Long Walk. Still waiting for an adaptation that may not ever happen (F you, Frank Darabont, for acquiring the rights and then sitting on it).

I have neither read nor seen It. Heard the movie nailed it.

His dramas are a different story (pun intended). I haven't read any of these, but from The Shawshank Redemption, to Stand by Me, and Misery, and The Green Mile, and Dolores Claiborne (and, clearly, he and Kathy Bates like working together), his dramas shake and quake Hollywood with rip-roaring success.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

King's horror is difficult to interpret visually and attempts to do so have been hit or miss. I think it is in part because he deals with concepts that are more scary due to imagination than due to a monster thingy chasing teenagers with some sharp object.

It's well-documented that King was not happy with Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining (which, ironically, is arguably the most successful adaptation of his work, depending on how you slice it). At any rate, King is not shy about his preference for the 1997 miniseries of the same name as a closer interpretation of his book. And there are those who've read his book The Shining who agree, as well.

I never read Carrie. Apparently King threw the manuscript in the trash, from which his wife rescued it and the rest is history. Not sure to what degree the movie captured it.

I read Pet Sematary. The movie captured it fairly well.

I read The Running Man. The movie is a poor adaptation.

I read The Stand. Hated the show.

I read The Long Walk. Still waiting for an adaptation that may not ever happen (F you, Frank Darabont, for acquiring the rights and then sitting on it).

I have neither read nor seen It. Heard the movie nailed it.

His dramas are a different story (pun intended). I haven't read any of these, but from The Shawshank Redemption, to Stand by Me, and Misery, and The Green Mile, and Dolores Claiborne (and, clearly, he and Kathy Bates like working together), his dramas shake and quake Hollywood with rip-roaring success.

You've read a lot more King than I have! I agree his horror doesn't always get a faithful adaptation, probably because horror is a very visual genre so the director's style takes precedence over the writer's. Especially with an 'auteur' like Kubrick who likes to rewrite half the story, I can see how The Shining would disappoint King.

I'd love to see King do a serious writing/directing project with one of his horror stories to 'see' how he thinks. One of my fav horror movies is Exorcist III (book: Legion) which was written & directed by the original Exorcist author William Peter Blatty. The movie reads like a book, slow suspenseful pacing, lots of intelligent dialogue, and there aren't a lot of camera theatrics or spastic edits. No cats jumping out at you lol (would love to read a book that makes that trick work). It made me rush out and read the book which I thoroughly enjoyed.

But like you said, King's stories are such successful blockbusters, the checks are rolling in, and I don't think he's in any hurry to take on the extra job of directing.

@rooprect said:

You've read a lot more King than I have!

Meh, he's written so much more than I may ever have time to attempt to read. But that's part of his gift. He's prolific, multi-genre.

After The Stand, I started The Tommyknockers but, egad, could not even get halfway through that thing. Whaddya know, King calls it an "'awful book', due to his drug addiction while writing the novel, though acknowledges the story's potential, 'There’s really a good book in here, underneath all the sort of spurious energy that cocaine provides, and I ought to go back.'” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tommyknockers#)

I agree his horror doesn't always get a faithful adaptation, probably because horror is a very visual genre so the director's style takes precedence over the writer's. Especially with an 'auteur' like Kubrick who likes to rewrite half the story, I can see how The Shining would disappoint King.

I'd love to see King do a serious writing/directing project with one of his horror stories to 'see' how he thinks.

When I read The Stand, I was a tad disappointed with where King his story. It starts out as a sci-fi thing about a virus wiping out most of the population, that was interesting. But then he veered off into a spiritual, apocalyptic battle between good and evil, which was fine, but almost felt like a bait and switch.

Frank Darabont, perhaps the most successful person to make movies out of King work, worked on The Stand, and I tend to believe my frustration was his, and that inspired him to go make The Walking Dead which (at least, up to "the prison" and, perhaps, Terminus) feels like what I thought The Stand ought to have been, and Darabont got it. And, that's why I had high hopes that his acquiring the rights to The Long Walk promised a splendid adaptation of that fantastic story written by King under his nome de plume, Richard Bachman (along with The Running Man, Road Work, and Rage).

One of my fav horror movies is Exorcist III (book: Legion) which was written & directed by the original Exorcist author William Peter Blatty. The movie reads like a book, slow suspenseful pacing, lots of intelligent dialogue, and there aren't a lot of camera theatrics or spastic edits. No cats jumping out at you lol (would love to read a book that makes that trick work). It made me rush out and read the book which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Old school!

Have you seen Pet Sematary? If not, it's worth a read it; then see the original 1989. The remake 2019 isn't bad, but hardly an improvement even with its twist. At any rate, it's sad, a tragedy. You watch this main protagonist fall into the abyss and you keep shouting "No, don't do it" to no avail... I only mention it because you mentioned jump-scare cats and the cat in Pet Sematary...ewww, ugh, I can...hear it...smell it...my skin crawls just thinking about that thing!

But like you said, King's stories are such successful blockbusters, the checks are rolling in,

Yep, that dude is "successfull", isn't he?!

and I don't think he's in any hurry to take on the extra job of directing.

Yeah, directing is not his thing. He's got one directing credit here on TMDb - for this one, Maximum Overdrive!

@KingCobra686 said:

Objectively, this movie is pretty bad. There's no denying that. The plot is dumb, the science is obscenely unfounded, and most of the characters are horribly overacted. The movie is fun to watch for the cheesy AC/DC backed action scenes though, and shots of guys blowing up tractor trailers with heavy weapons.

Was that King's intent, or did he intend for this to be taken seriously? I havent seen/read all of his stuff, but I have yet to see anything that was intentionally cheesy from him.

The non-validity of the "science" -- that's what sunk the silly film for me, for sure. Maximum Overdrive is great for laughs, pref. had at late nights.