Question regarding book to movie adaptations

The movie was loosely based on the book.

While the movie's story was changed from that of the book, there were elements that King wrote in the novel as "Richard Bachman" that were still in the movie, so he deserved to be credited.

 

Well, the movie "The Running Man" had a character named "Ben Richards" who was on a sadistic game show entitled "The Running Man". It came out in 1987.

Stephen King wrote a novel under his pseudonym "Richard Bachman" titled "The Running Man" about a man named "Ben Richards" who was on a sadistic game show entitled "The Running Man". It came out in 1982.

Since the novel came out BEFORE the movie, if they didn't give credit to Stephen King, then could have successfully sued them.

Cut away all the differences, and they're essentially the exact same story

 

I just can't agree with that. The core of the book--a man playing a hyper-dangerous reality show to support his family--is entirely absent in that shclock fest of a film. Like many book-ti-film adaptations, the filmmakers took the basic premise and left the rest.

Also, they took out the plane stuff--those scenes were argueably the best in the whole book.

 

And if they didn't give credit to Stephen King for that premise, then he would have had a legitimate case for a lawsuit.

 

That's the unanswerable question for Hollywood

 

One of many unanswerable questions for Hollywood.

 

I get what you mean. I think "Inspired by the book The Running Man" and that sort of thing would be more appropriate than saying it is an adaptaion.

 

Maybe the scripwriter read "The Running Man", and he felt inspired to write a similar story with the same characters. Is that so bad?

And if that indeed happened, he must credit Stephen King for the original idea, because he DID write the book that inspired him.

And books are not comic books. They are some things that work in a literary medium that don't work in a visual one.

If Alan Moore were to adapt "Catcher in the Rye" or "The Once and Future King" in a comic book, he'd have to change a lot of things.

 

It doesn't work that way. The filmmakers probably bought the rights to use the book. What they did with the material afterward is up to them. A sucky idea, but thats what happens. Look at Alan Moore's stuff. He said he cant do anything because he doesnt have the complete rights.

Plus it is not uncommon for movie scripts to start of loyal to the book only to become something completly different after numerous re-writes. Look at Die Hard w/a vengance and Ocean's 12. They both started as scripts seperate from the respective franchises as Simon Says and Honor Amongst Thieves to eventually be retooled to be sequels after numerous re-writes.

 

"The Running Man" movie made no sense. They took what could have been an entertaining cat-and-mouse type thriller and made WWF Smackdown before its time. Nothing is the same but the name of a character and the fact that it's a tv show.

"The Bourne Supremacy"... I've ranted at length about that movie many times on the Hype. It had nothing- NOTHING- to do with the book it took it's name from. The main character was barely the same.