One would think that adapting any of acclaimed author Stephen King’s literary works into a top-tier film or television production would be fairly simple. But it’s not. So, why is it so difficult to successfully adapt a Stephen King work? There are a few that can be considered, but it basically boils down to these two reasons.

Translation to Screen

While King is the master of prose when it comes to horror, fantasy, sci-fi, and non-genre subjects like crime, it is not easy to translate what he writes into a visual medium. Sometimes the dialogue which flows like water on page can come off as stilted and clumsy, especially if a character goes off on a rant. A narrative tool that King uses a lot is internal dialogue and narration to convey the characters’ thoughts. This technique is hard to pull off in visual medium where showing is prefered to telling.

Other times the prose is let’s just say a bit too much for a visual story. IOW, given the amount of screen time available in a film, putting TV aside, there is only so much material that can be adapted. Many of King’s best known works like It, The Stand or the Dark Tower books run over thousands of pages. Turning epic novels like those into two-hour plus films is nearly impossible. It is one of the main reasons why attempts to turn his classic novels like The Stand failed to make it out of the gate as a film despite many attempts because there was so much material to cut out that the result would be a poor adaptation of the source material. Just look at The Dark Tower film that came and went a few years ago. To most, the film was an ill-conceived attempt to adapt the multi-book epic about the Gunslinger Roland and his mythic quest across worlds and realities. What The Dark Tower did was give viewers a truncated sprinkling of Roland’s quest that left many feeling dissatisfied with an unfinished story.

The more successful adaptations like The Shining, Carrie, The Dead Zone, Cujo, Stand By Me (adapted from The Body), The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist were based on more typical novels that were just a few hundred pages. Also, in the case of The Mist, Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption, those were based on novellas which seem to be the perfect amount of story to translate into screen.

One viable option is to adapt mammoth epic novels into two-part films as was done with It. While the film versions of It differed in structure, the adaptations more or less captured the essence of the novel with the first film focusing exclusively on the main characters when they were children while the second film picked up the characters as adults when they confronted the evil entity Pennywise. This approach would work best for The Dark Tower Saga or any of King’s narrative which can be quite long and involving.

The other obvious option, which has been done to some success, is to adapt his works into television mini-series or shows. Some of the best examples include ‘Salem’s Lot, The Stand, 11/22/63, The Outsider and Nightmares & Dreamscapes. Adapting The Dark Tower Saga into this format is honestly the only viable way to present the expansive storyline and do it well.

The Skill of the Translators

One important reason as to why it is so hard to adapt Stephen King works is due to the quality and skill of the filmmakers and showrunners and scriptwriters. While many gifted behind-the-scenes creators successfully adapted King’s works like Stanley Kubrick, John Carpenter, Frank Darabont, Rob Reiner and Andy Muschietti, far too many inferior creators took a hand into mangling and ruining King’s classics. It is lamentable that someone like Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan or Scott Derrickson never helmed a Stephen King film (there were reports that years ago, Spielberg was involved in an adaptation of The Talisman, but that never came to be). Just think of how something like Under the Dome, Cell, and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon would have turned out if James Wan or Robert Eggers or Ari Aster were at the director’s chair with the projects.

But sadly as we know all to well, it is very difficult to line up the best writer, director, producer or actor to fit in with a King work of art. Reasons for this are all over the place and tend to be due to timing and budget. These days it is not likely that a studio can afford to hire Spielberg to take on a King book. There is also the possibility of dueling visions. A more high-profile director can and will take liberties with the source material much to King’s detriment. The most famous example was Kubrick’s version of The Shining, which King detested even though it is considered not only one of the best King adaptations but a classic horror film.

The same goes for television productions. All too often King’s works whether they’re long-form epics or short stories wind up becoming inferior TV shows or limited series. During the ’90s, the heyday of King TV adaptations, many of his more famous stories became big event TV mini-series with mixed results, but hardly any of them stood out as masterpieces. The best adaptations were for The Stand, although that limited series had its issues, ‘Salem’s Lot, which came out in the ’70s, It, and original productions like Storm of the Century. Other works like the more faithful adaptation of The Shining and The Langoliers failed to impress viewers. If only someone like Vince Gilligan or Terry Matalas could spearhead a proper TV adaptation of The Stand or The Dark Tower Saga.

Despite many failed attempts, the versatility and durability of Stephen King’s stories guarantee that eventually the right team will come along and created the best version of his works. This happened with the It films which were immediately better than the original TV mini-series and may happen later this fall when the second film version of The Running Man is released (being that is directed by Edgar Wright, there’s a decent chance it will outshine the original film). It has been possible to get cinematic masterpieces based on King’s works and it has happened, so it will continue to happen.

José Soto