Does anyone know if Stephen King liked this movie or not?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Children of the Corn
Thamauturge — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 02:05 PM)
Does anyone know if Stephen King liked this movie or not?
I slew your king, I slew your country. Do these deeds not demand vengeance?
-Judge Gabranth -
slay890 — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 05:04 AM)
He doesn't like most of his stories' adaptations as general. That's because his work is not very suitable for movielization. When you read some of his novels and stories, you see that it is told not much as a narrative that could be directly converted into pictures, but more rather as spiritual and visceral tell, which tickles your own imagination an interpretation of it. In other words-we feel it, not see it.
-
james-mac — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 08:53 PM)
What I have read of his work seems very cinematic, from the dialogue to the narrative flow. I think the problem lies more with the fact that some of the directors have lacked the skill to portray horror effectively. By the way where did you find the word "movielization"?
-
fun-niji — 11 years ago(October 23, 2014 10:09 PM)
Coined it. Probably.
Anyways, I second that. Most stories can be adapted onto film but it comes down not only to its director but also on the screenplay on which it will be working around on.
A good screenplay is the genesis of whether the outcome will be good or bad, imo. -
tb-sch — 10 years ago(October 17, 2015 10:31 AM)
Indeed. His books almost read like books to already existing movies. This seems to lure screenwriters and directors into the trap of not putting enough effort into creating a suitable style. Often, like in COTC, there is just a theme copied, while leaving out the implications, concerning content as well as general style, which then results in something feeling like a straight-to-video production.
I like how Stand By Me instead took an idea and ran with it, coming up with something beyond the original, although reflecting its content.
Same goes for The Shining: a great movie, leaving out the horror-wankery-parts which clearly would not have worked on screen (as the TV adaption proves) of the book and focussing on one clear idea. -
typinghans — 13 years ago(November 06, 2012 04:57 PM)
Stephen King didn't like many of his movies.
Among them were The Shining, Christine, Children of The Corn.
I personally love the 1984 movie though. It's got a great atmosphere and keeps me on the edge of my seat, especially after the cafe scene at the start. A great way to hook an audience!! -
COTCgirl — 15 years ago(November 05, 2010 12:53 AM)
I own a book called "The Films of Stephen King" and in it, it has reviews from King on all of the movies made from his books. This is what it says about COTC.
"My feeling. . . (for most movies made from his books) is like a guy who sends his daughter off to college. You hope she'll do well. You hope she won't fall in with the wrong people. You hope she won't be raped at a fraternity party, which is pretty well what happened to Children of the Corn."
From an interview with Stephen King by Craig Modderno, Published in USA Today, May 1995
So evidentally he hated it.
Janice Van Meter got hit with a baseball. . . it was fabulous! -
Little_Korean — 15 years ago(February 04, 2011 06:21 AM)
"My feeling. . . (for most movies made from his books) is like a guy who sends his daughter off to college. You hope she'll do well. You hope she won't fall in with the wrong people. You hope she won't be raped at a fraternity party, which is pretty well what happened to Children of the Corn."
So I'm guessingthat he didn't like it?
Hard to tell here
When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears -
preppy-3 — 14 years ago(September 12, 2011 05:49 AM)
Who could like this movie? It took a creepy little short story and tore it apart. I saw it in a theatre way back in 1984. At first the audience was quiet and getting into it but the movie slowly (VERY slowly) got stupider and stupider and finally people were laughing at it by the end! King hated this but he hated "Graveyard Shift" even more.
-
Thamauturge — 14 years ago(October 23, 2011 02:43 PM)
Well, to be honest I thought that this movie did a better job than the original story in terms of giving character to the children. The book was much more focused on the couple.
However, the terrible special effects and the overly cliched Hollywood happy ending are the main bad things in the film. It starts out strong and is pretty entertaining throughout, up until those HORRIBLE special effects that really shouldn't have been in the movie at all.
I slew your king, I slew your country. Do these deeds not demand vengeance?
-Judge Gabranth -
tony23-3 — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 12:00 PM)
"However, the terrible special effects and the overly cliched Hollywood happy ending are the main bad things in the film."
I saw the remake last night, and it definitely did NOT have a "Hollywood happy ending". How did the original end? -
Thamauturge — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 02:22 PM)
Well, I haven't seen the TV movie remake.
This one had an ending where Burt and Vicky both live, defeat He Who Walks Behind The Rows, and live happily ever after with the two "good" kids.
I slew your king, I slew your country. Do these deeds not demand vengeance?
-Judge Gabranth -
britney_2005 — 13 years ago(May 11, 2012 09:12 AM)
Actually buddy, millions of people love this 'little' movie! Evidently it has struck a chord with the public considering that it's the longest running series of any Stephen King adaptation. And the story was a very average and unremarkable bit of bedtime reading, which didn't translate well to the screen. And most people despise the remake. In fact, after the remake was released people have started to realise that this movie isn't actually as bad as they originally thought. It certainly took skill to make this movie into a classic. And remember that this movie cost $800,000 to makeStephen King then pocketing 500,000 of that for doing nothing and then preceeded to slate the filmmakers efforts, just as he had done with Kubrick a few years earlier.
PS: Another thing you might want to remember: Stephen King directed 'Maximum Overdrive', therefore he's not in a position to critize other filmakers! -
preppy-3 — 13 years ago(May 11, 2012 09:46 AM)
So"Children" is good because its sequels sucked? Sorry but no. Just cause sequels suck (and most do) it doesn't automatically make the original a classic.
You're rightKing's "Maximum Overdrive" was terrible (he would agree with u BTW) but he's allowed to have his own opinion. Or can he not have an opinion because he made a bad movie? IMO "The Shining" and "Children" were terrible and I agree 100% with King. "The Shining" especially is disappointing considering it was Kubrick who directed it. The guy obviously had no idea how to direct a horror film. He took the book, made ill-conceived changes (why exactly did he kill Halloran?) and managed to destroy a very scary book.