Sadly he did not and he has said in a few interviews he wasn't happy with all the sequels they made to it and felt like they were milking them on the success of his name. I am a fan of Stephen King but I actually like a few of the Children of the Corn movies and some of the movies and TV shows he has been involved in based on his own books lately like Cell and Under the Dome have been really disappointing.
I think the best adaption of a Stephen King novel in the past decade was Haven.

It don't matter if it's raining
Nothing can phase me
I make my own sunshine
And if you think you can break me
Baby, you're crazy
I make my own sunshine

He didn't like it which I find odd because there are some good and genuinely creepy parts of this movie.

There WERE underage pregnancies. The girl who was leading the "communion" was heavily pregnant IIRC.
In COTC 5, somewhere along the line, the age of favor WAS lowered to 18.

From what I've heard, The Lawnmower Man took a Stephen King title and applied it to someone else's story, so SK had his name removed from the film because he wanted to tell the truth that he didn't write the freaking thing.
I had read COTC as a story years ago and it was a great atmospheric piece with neat psychology about fanaticism in children and a clever supernatural macguffin. I agree with someone earlier that the basic premise seems to be lifted from two episodes of the first Star Trek, a TV series to which SK's work makes frequent direct or indirect references, but it seems more like a Joseph Campbell archetype than a lazy plagiarism.
When I started to watch COTC as a movie last night, I expected it to suck, but it was a decent horrifying B-movie in its own right even if it wasn't like the book. I don't mind Hollywood happy endings either. I see the book and movie as two separate entities in their own right.
Some authors just don't write filmable movies. Alan Moore realised this after two films and put a blanket ban on any future adaptations. (Since he had already sold the rights, 2 or 3 movies went ahead after the ban as they were out of his hands.) Harry Turtledove writes great adventure epics but his books are so precise and metronomic that any adaptation would have to change it so much as to no longer be the same storyTurtledove is so unfilmable he doesn't even have an IMDB name entry. Lemony Snicket's "Unfortunate Events" series is a weak story buoyed up by brilliant prose narration which is impossible to translate to film, so the LS movie, while boasting great actors and designs, was doomed to a sucky script.
Some authors like JD Salinger, Ken Kesey, or the aforementioned Alan Moore, can't abide one jot or tittle of their work being changed in a film adaptation, so they decide "no more movies." Others, like Michael Crichton, Dan Brown and JK Rowling, just let it ride and don't mind that many elements have to be changed or cut when their work is put on film.
You make some very valid points, and I agree with a lot of them, but there are also some areas of concern as well.
Where I agree is that not everything in a novel will translate well to the screen. Almost all novels, when they are adapted, have to change some things around. I'm a writer myself and I accept this.
But what I find harder to accept is when Hollywood sees fit to change certain themes and the whole plot of the story. A good example here is
Bram Stoker's Dracula
. This 1992 film by Francis Ford Coppola was a true masterpiece on some levels, and an equally true failure on others. The acting was good, the atmosphere, special effects and sets were magnificent and I really did enjoy the movie.
The weak point of BSD was the abysmal script. It changed the story from a basic battle between good and evil (the English vs. the Count) to that of a sappy love story between Mina and Dracula that is not even hinted at in the book.
Now, the Dracula story can be told on screen, remaining true to the basic story of the novel and yet still have it to work well. The BBC did this in their 1977 presentation
Count Dracula
. It made some changes in the novel but at the same time, it was true to Bram Stoker's classic work, and it is my favorite adaptation of the story. This in case you are interested, is from the BBC's Masterpiece Theater collection.
I thought that the adaptations of Tom Clancy's works that I have seen were good. The scripts for
Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games
, and
Clear and Present Danger
, were all well done, telling their respective stories well. I haven't heard of any negative feelings about these films from Clancy. But I do know that Clancy was not happy at all with the film,
Sum of All Fears
, feeling that they changed too much from the book. Since I have yet to see SOAF, I cannot comment directly on it but the changes that I have heard about do not sound to me like they were needed.
Another example of a good adaptation comes from the SK novel,
The Stand
. This is easily my favorite work by SK and he did the screenplay, keeping it reasonably close to the source novel. Although opinions will differ on this, with some thinking the result was nothing short of catastrophic, I thought the mini-series turned out very well and it is one of my all-time favorite films.
To sum up then, while re-working some scenes will often be needed to make the translation, complete revisions, such as Coppola with BSD are seldom necessary or advised.

The Lawnmower Man was not too bad for 1992. I remember it was hot in video stores, it was sold out for weeks when it comes out. So it probably make tons of cash on video, and not bad in theaters. Plus, Jeff Fahey is solid.. Austin O'Brien was a good kid and Pierce Brosnan broke up in the US finally ! So all in all, not the best, but far from the worse !
Last Movies
: - Transformers 4: 4/5

• Neighbors: 4/5
• Non-Stop: 4/5

From what I've heard, The Lawnmower Man took a Stephen King title and applied it to someone else's story, so SK had his name removed from the film because he wanted to tell the truth that he didn't write the freaking thing.
I had read COTC as a story years ago and it was a great atmospheric piece with neat psychology about fanaticism in children and a clever supernatural macguffin. I agree with someone earlier that the basic premise seems to be lifted from two episodes of the first Star Trek, a TV series to which SK's work makes frequent direct or indirect references, but it seems more like a Joseph Campbell archetype than a lazy plagiarism.
When I started to watch COTC as a movie last night, I expected it to suck, but it was a decent horrifying B-movie in its own right even if it wasn't like the book. I don't mind Hollywood happy endings either. I see the book and movie as two separate entities in their own right.
Some authors just don't write filmable movies. Alan Moore realised this after two films and put a blanket ban on any future adaptations. (Since he had already sold the rights, 2 or 3 movies went ahead after the ban as they were out of his hands.) Harry Turtledove writes great adventure epics but his books are so precise and metronomic that any adaptation would have to change it so much as to no longer be the same storyTurtledove is so unfilmable he doesn't even have an IMDB name entry. Lemony Snicket's "Unfortunate Events" series is a weak story buoyed up by brilliant prose narration which is impossible to translate to film, so the LS movie, while boasting great actors and designs, was doomed to a sucky script.
Some authors like JD Salinger, Ken Kesey, or the aforementioned Alan Moore, can't abide one jot or tittle of their work being changed in a film adaptation, so they decide "no more movies." Others, like Michael Crichton, Dan Brown and JK Rowling, just let it ride and don't mind that many elements have to be changed or cut when their work is put on film.

You're absolutely right about "The Lawnmower Man". I saw the movie years ago, so I only remember bits and pieces and then I recently read the actual story and all I can say is WTF! It's one of the few King tales that I haven't been able to make heads or tails out of.

I remember him hating a lot Lawnmower Man
The thing about THE LAWNMOWER MAN is the movie was originally nothing like his short story, and it still isn't really. It was altered a tiny bit so the film-makers or the studio or somebody could use Stephen King's name as a marketing ploy. The film was originally supposed to be called BEYOND CYBERSPACE or something like that.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

I'm going to watch this.

He was very involved in Pet Sematary and he directed Maximum Overdrive is it just me or except the lame sequels of his films like Pet Sematary 2 or Children of the Corn 2,3,4,5, 666, etc, etc that he did not like and approove and did not hate the movies of his books ? I remember him hating a lot Lawnmower Man but except theses, they are not that bad !!!
Last Movies
: - Star Trek Into Darkness: 4/5

• Pain & Gain: 3,5/5
• Oblivion: 4/5

This message has been deleted.

But i think that's just it as far as King is concerned. It's the fact that really none of his books that were adapted during that time were close to his original writings. I think the only film adaptation that was close was Pet Semetary. I just looked up the plot for the written version of COTC and it's night and day difference with essentially the children (and the demon) winning.
But COTC got chopped up quite a bit, the couple was essentially supposed to be doomed out the gate as they are in a marriage on the rocks. There's the plot point about Malachai's girlfriend (taken out for obvious reasons due to the idea of an underage pregnancy). Then there's the whole part at the end where the demon demands that the age be lowered to 18 so all 19 year olds (including Malachai) had to commit ritual suicide.

I'm not sure of his exact opinion. I don't think he liked many of the films based on his work anyway. But producer Donald P. Borchers, who also directed the TV remake, mentioned that King politely said "these film-makers would go on to do good work" or something like that, which Donald took as a negative opinion about the film. In retrospect even Donald appears to dislike this original film. On the remake's DVD he talks about doing the story justice and regretting the happy Hollywood ending, despite the fact it was his idea in the first place.
I've seen the remake. I bought it years ago but had never gotten around to it. It's pretty good. I honestly think I like the first film better, but it's better than some of the sequels. I haven't seen them all, and the ones I have I haven't seen in years.
I read King's short story ages ago, but I never really cared that it wasn't adapted faithfully in the original film. Including Malachai's girlfriend this time was a interesting idea, but she didn't really have a whole lot to do, it's almost as if she was in it simply to have the exact same ending from the short story.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

You got a stutter?

oh brother "buddy" Get over it!
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

oh I get it! We're not supposed to post unless we agree with you! I'm not your buddy.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

oh I get it! We're not supposed to post unless we agree with you! I'm not your buddy.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

oh I get it! We're not supposed to post unless we agree with you! I'm not your buddy.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

oh I get it! We're not supposed to post unless we agree with you! I'm not your buddy.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

By that rationale, you can't ever say that any film is better than the source material, but in this case, it's clearly true, as it is with The Godfather and a handful of other films.
The film hits artistic heights that the book never strives for. They are considerably different works of art.

King hated it and saying it's better than the book is ridiculous. Without the book there wouldn't have BEEN a movie.

The Shining is the finest horror movie ever made, probably the best example ever of a film being better than the source material.

I've never seen The Shinning yet. And it's not because of some "high" principal of sorts but just something personal - and nothing towards the film, director, writer, writer(s), etc.
Anyways, my best friend then saw The Shinning with other friends from school - this was some years ago. And she told me that it did not scare her one bit but made her cry incessantly. She told me she felt total sadness for the character played by Jack. So, it just goes to show, not everyone will have the same reaction as the expected majority would.

A lot of people disagree with me but seriouslythe movie never scared me. Not once. Most people seem to love it just because Kubrick did it. Kubrick was a great filmmaker but every filmmaker has their bad movies. IMO this was Kubrick's. Never saw the mini series but heard it was terrible.