# Charles Dickens and Stephen King (and other writers whose works are filmed)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [December 8, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378 "2006-12-08T18:51:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/1 "2006-12-08T18:51:20Z")
Rather than hijack the thread on dumping books – from that thread:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
(I just hate reading Dickens; give me the movie any day!).
[/QUOTE]
Some readers and reviewers have noticed a similarity between Dickens and Stephen King. I haven’t read enough Dickens to be able to compare them, except to say I think both writers are wordy and create interesting secondary characters. They’re also apt to go into long asides that don’t advance the plot. Dickens is a bit more subtle when interjecting his personal philosophy and politics.
But if it’s true that they’re similar, why do film adaptations of Dickens’ work turn out so much better than King’s? (Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that they **are** better.)
Is it because we’re not as familiar with Dickens, so we don’t notice when a film maker strays from the story? Or do the film makers stick to the story, and that’s what makes the difference? What do you think?
I guess this could apply to other “classic” writers whose books have been filmed – Trollope, the Brontes, hell, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc. Do directors have more reverence for that material, so they leave it alone?
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/2 "2006-12-08T19:21:45Z")
It’s the accents. Us Americans are suckers for anything with a British accent.
Plus Stephen King’s source material actually for the most part sucks. Silk purse, sow’s ear. Even the material that doesn’t suck (which is the short stories because they’re goddamn _short_) when they get turned into movies suck because there isn’t enough material to fill an entire 90-minute movie from a 25-page short story.
---
### Author:  [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/3 "2006-12-08T21:12:13Z")
I seem to remember reading that Dickens was pretty upset with the 1955 film adaptation of **A Christmas Carol**.
What?
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/4 "2006-12-08T22:13:51Z")
Well, actually even Dickens’ novels tend to get treated a little (not much!) loosely in film, more so in recent times than in the past. I think today’s directors simply feel they are entitled to jigger around the source material, because no one cares (mostly because no one READS any more).
---
### Author:  [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/5 "2006-12-09T00:49:22Z")
I think Dickens is easier to translate simply because melodrama (with spices of humor and social commentary) are much easier to relate on the screen than supernatural elements derived from description-heavy prose (especially when such supernatural elements are often are more effective when you see them in the mind’s eye rather than being obliged to show a too-literal version onscreen). The biggest challenege with Dickens is that his books are often so long, that many story strands, secondary plot threads, and supporting characters are gutted of all impact, or ignored altogether.
I would dispute that there are that many more quality Dickens film adaptations (I’m not counting TV miniseries, with which I’m largely unfamiliar). There are quite a few respectable, staid, “faithful” Masterpiece Theater-style adaptations, but the only ones I can think of that are genuinely good movies are Lean’s **Great Expectations** , Cukor’s **David Copperfield** , and the Alistair Sim **Christmas Carol**. Most others that come to mind are fine, but not particularly notable except for some memorable characterizations (usually by Alec Guinness).
Certainly, I think Cronenberg’s **Dead Zone** , De Palma’s **Carrie** , and Kubrick’s **The Shining** are even matches to the three I listed above. What happens, though, is there are a lot more genuinely bad King adaptations (sometimes by King himself), so on a weighted scale, they may not compare. But pitting the best vs. the best, I think it’s a close race.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/6 "2006-12-09T02:42:33Z")
[QUOTE=Otto]
It’s the accents. Us Americans are suckers for anything with a British accent.
[/QUOTE]
True, but I don’t think Guinness or Olivier (or Jude Law) could have saved Tommyknockers.
[QUOTE=Rocketeer]
I seem to remember reading that Dickens was pretty upset with the 1955 film adaptation of **A Christmas Carol**.
[/QUOTE]
But he (in spirit) had to be happy with the Alistair Sim version. That’s my favorite. IMDB lists the title as Scrooge, for some reason. Are they wrong? I’ve seen the movie several times and don’t recall the title as Scrooge.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I think today’s directors simply feel they are entitled to jigger around the source material, because no one cares (mostly because no one READS any more).
[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to Peter Jackson. 🙂
**ArchiveGuy** , that’s a good point, about supernatural elements in movies. The best King adaptations have been the non-supernatural ones, IMHO.
I haven’t seen the Lean or Cukor films you mentioned (off to Netflix). You’re right about Dickens. I checked IMDB – more than 20 Christmas Carols, and only one that’s really memorable.
Thanks for the input, everyone. My thesis has no legs after all. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/7 "2006-12-09T03:14:33Z")
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
But he (in spirit) had to be happy with the Alistair Sim version. That’s my favorite. IMDB lists the title as Scrooge, for some reason. Are they wrong? I’ve seen the movie several times and don’t recall the title as Scrooge.
[/QUOTE]
_Scrooge_ is the British title of the 1951 version. It was retitled _A Christmas Carol_ for American release.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/8 "2006-12-09T03:19:31Z")
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
I checked IMDB – more than 20 Christmas Carols, and only one that’s really memorable.
[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ! Besides the 1951 Alastair Sim version, the 1962 _Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol_, with songs by Jule Styne and Bob Merrill (_Hello Dolly!_) was a favorite television special in the 1960s. And I personally think the musical _Scrooge_ (1970), with Albert Finney, is the definitive movie version, never topped. Sorry, Sim fans!
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/9 "2006-12-09T05:12:41Z")
Bah! George C. Scott is the definitive Scrooge!
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/10 "2006-12-09T15:18:09Z")
[QUOTE=Dr. Rieux]
Bah! George C. Scott is the definitive Scrooge!
[/QUOTE]
Humbug! _I_ was the definitive Scrooge when I played the role in my fourth grade production!
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/11 "2006-12-09T16:53:31Z")
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
But if it’s true that they’re similar, why do film adaptations of Dickens’ work turn out so much better than King’s? (Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that they **are** better.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m not at all sure they are better, once you throw out _A Christmas Carol_. Now that work is wonderfully suited for film adaptation, for a number of reasons. (e.g. It’s short by Dickens standards; the basic plot structure is a classic, and the details can be easily and creatively varied while keeping the framework the same; the story has a clear and obvious message).
But most of Dickens’ novels, I think, would work better as a TV series (mini or otherwise) than as a single movie, because of their length, and their number of secondary characters and subplots and diversions and the fact that they were orignally released and read in serial installments.
---
### Author:  [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/12 "2006-12-09T19:23:45Z")
Anyone who thinks the Dickens makes good movies abviously didn’t see the musical version starring Kelsey Grammar.
I want those two hours of my life back.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/13 "2006-12-09T19:48:44Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
But most of Dickens’ novels, I think, would work better as a TV series (mini or otherwise) than as a single movie, because of their length, and their number of secondary characters and subplots and diversions and the fact that they were orignally released and read in serial installments.
[/QUOTE]
King’s stuff has been fairly well done in mini-series format too. The Green Mile was adapted nicely, and so was The Stand.
---
### Author:  [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/14 "2006-12-09T20:03:30Z")
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
King’s stuff has been fairly well done in mini-series format too. The Green Mile was adapted nicely, and so was The Stand.
[/QUOTE]
The Green Mile was a movie with Tom Hanks. Damn good one, too, but not a miniseries.
Several of King’s works have made damn good movies (Carrie, The Stand (with Jack Nicholson), The Shamshank Redemption, Misery, and Stand by Me come to mind. Unfotunately, most people remember the other ones.
IT was a good miniseries.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/15 "2006-12-09T21:37:53Z")
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
The Green Mile was a movie with Tom Hanks. Damn good one, too, but not a miniseries.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: You’re right. I confused the serialized story with the movie.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-dickens-and-stephen-king-and-other-writers-whose-works-are-filmed/383378/16 "2006-12-09T22:31:40Z")
Probably because Dickens mostly wrote about outer torment and King’s best stuff is inner torment? I mean, I’m no expertitude on literamation, but Dickens’ big thing was society and class structure, yes?
How does that compare to, say, _The Shining_, arguably one of King’s best books, or _The Dead Zone_, or _Carrie_? Most of King’s books take place inside the head of one or more of his characters. In many of his books, though there is an external monster — say, _Christine_ or _Salem’s Lot_ — the books are often about the fear and fascination of the monster rather than the actual fight scenes.
Strip away all that inner conflict, which as booker readamators we have come to expect, and what’s left to _see and hear_ on a screen?