AdaptingStephen Kingbooks into movies is not easy, but some adaptations make sweeping changes to the source material for better or worse. Pretty much from the start of his successful writing career, Stephen King has also been one of the most popular authors for Hollywood adaptations. Since 1976’sCarrie, King has been a household name for books and movies.
King’s unique writing style is both a positive and a negative when it comes to making movies out of his books. On the one hand, the stories are cinematic even before they leap off the page, but therein lies the problem too. Stephen King’s approach is impossible to replicate, and that means that many adaptations have to make big changes.
SomeStephen King movieshave to excise entire portions of his books, while others only need to neatly trim off an extra character or plot thread. Even the best Stephen King movies have not remained entirely faithful to the Maine-based wordsmith’s original vision, much to the chagrin of the author himself.
When it comes to his short stories, filmmakers usually have to use their imaginations and dream up worlds that exist outside the boundaries of the original tale. Even when King himself helmed an adaptation of one of his stories, it ended up making pretty substantial changes. The changes aren’t always bad, and they can sometimes save an otherwise lackluster movie.
Hearts in Atlantisis one of Stephen King’s often forgotten adaptations, though it isn’t without its merits. Based on the short story collection of the same name, the Anthony Hopkins vehicle makes changes to the source material in a few notable ways. Perhaps most glaring is its title, which comes from the second story in the collection.
Ironically,the movie actually adapts the first story in the collection, “Low Men in Yellow Coats”, the book’s longest tale. The movie ignores Ted Brautigan’sconnection to theDark Toweruniverse, and even recontexualizes the Low Men. The changes help to make the movie more coherent for casual fans, but strips it of its Stephen King flare.
BecauseGraveyard Shiftwas based on a relatively tiny short story,the 1990 film adaptation had to add quite a bit to flesh it out to feature length. What started as a tale of workplace cruelty and humorous comeuppance changed into a more straightforward story about giant killer rats that live beneath an old mill.
King has never hid his EC Comics influences, especially in shorter works, and “Graveyard Shift” is like something out ofTales from the Crypt. Unfortunately,the movie’s quest to be a more conventional horror story also robbed it of its charm. It also changes key details about the rats, which strips the story of any symbolism it may have had.
Despite the fact that most ofStephen King’s booksand shorts have been adapted,“The Mangler” never seemed like it needed the big-screen treatment. However, horror maestro Tobe Hooper helmed a 1995 movie based on the chilling tale, and it kept the framework while changing and adding things too.
First and foremost,the motivation of the possessed machine was completely altered, with Robert Englund’s Bill Gartley being responsible for its hexing. This shifts the focus to him, which undercuts the original story’s nightmarish theme of randomness. No matter how it’s folded,The Manglerwas probably never going to come out in the wash.
It took decades, butThe Boogeymanfinally adapted one of Stephen King’s most frightening short stories. Hailing from theNight Shiftcollection, the original piece was far too brief to make into a movie, so the 2023 film is only loosely based on King’s work.Lester Billings and Dr. Harper are both present, but their roles are changeddrastically.
Harper’s family becomes the focus, with the entity being forced upon him by Billings upon his death. This is quite a change since Harper is revealed to be the titular creature at the end of the original short. The movie was never going to have the nightmarish quality of the short, butit could have preserved more of King’s essence.
Stephen King’s epicDark Towerbook series is his fantasy magnum opus, and even connects to many of his other works. Unfortunately,the 2017 movie version attempted to compress thousands of pages of lore, characters, and adventure into one package, thus delivering a product that was both overstuffed and unsatisfying.
Jake is made the main character, which isn’t a terrible idea, except it decenters Roland, the real focus of the series.
As for changes,the number of things the movie altered is nearly endless, with the most egregious being the roles of the characters. Jake is made the main character, which isn’t a terrible idea, except it decenters Roland, the real focus of the series. It also shuffles the order of events, lessening the emotional impact they were supposed to have.
The original adaptation of King’sPet Sematarywas a largely faithful attempt, butthe 2019 remake tweaked things unnecessarily. Probably in an effort to justify its own existence, the modern version adds creepy imagery that wasn’t in the books, and even ties back to Indigenous folklore in a way that is too specific for its own good.
Silly changes, like switching which child is killed, felt arbitrary, butthe biggest change came from the motivation of the reanimated characters. What was originally a story about the dangers of irrationality in the face of grief became an all-out monster movie. The titular cemetery has too much power over the characters, which strips away its heady themes.
Only now getting the attention it deserves, 1987’sThe Running Manis avastly underrated Stephen King movie. That being said,it makes some pretty major changes to its source material, though they aren’t all for the worse. to slot Arnold Schwarzenegger into the lead role, Ben Richards is ostensibly transformed into a bona fide action hero.
The world ofThe Running Manis also much more vibrant in the movie, with bombastic characters and explosive scenarios. The book, by contrast, is much more dour and depressing, though neither is better than the other. The film adds supporting characters for Ben to interact with, and the fatalistic ending is completely altered.
The Mistwas helmed by Frank Darabont, who had previously had success with Stephen King adaptations. His 2007 film of the eponymous novella was largely faithful to the source material, thoughit was necessary to flesh out certain details to reach feature length. Though the movie also tones down the ham-fisted religious commentary, it’s the ending that’s the biggest change.
1994
89%
1999
79%
2007
73%
King has admitted he isn’t good with endings, and the finale toThe Mistwas originally a boring conclusion to an otherwise great story.Darabont threw out any ambiguity and delivered one of the darkest endings ever, one that’s still divisive today. The quality of the ending is debatable, but it’s one of the few necessary changes.
Stanley Kubrick’s take onThe Shiningmight be considered the best Stephen King movie of all time, but it is quite different from the source material. Though the basic idea is still the same,Kubrick used King’s ideas to create a labyrinthian nightmarethat is as haunting as the many specters that inhabit the Overlook Hotel.
The biggest changes come with how the story is told, andthe structure of the book is ignored in favor of an impressionistic sketch. Small details are also altered, such as Jack’s use of an axe instead of a roque mallet, and many of the smaller tweaks are improvements. King disavowed the adaptation, but he can’t deny its quality.
1992’sThe Lawnmower Manwas so different from its source material thatStephen King took legal actionagainst the production. Borrowing the name from his 1975 short, the film isn’t about a lawn service run by strange worshipers of Pan, but is instead a techno-thriller about altered human consciousness. As such,The Lawnmower Manisn’t even really a King movie.
The film isn’t actually that bad, and features an interesting but cheesy story. Pierce Brosnan stars, and the 1992 hit even spawned a sequel. No futureStephen Kingadaptation will ever be as different asThe Lawnmower Man, because no filmmaker would ever try to pull such a trick on the King of Horror again without facing legal ramifications.
