why do most Stephen King film adaptations suck so much?

[The Dez]

he is the best author in the world but off the top of my head i can only think of about 6 films made from his works that were any good; the shining, misery,shawshank, salem's lot(just), dead zone and stand by me. most of his stuff from the past decade has become much more complex then earlier novels and i think this makes it much harder to turn them into decent films.

[TobyDammit]

I love his books, but I think the (sometimes)
excessive detail in his books makes the job of adapting his work for the screen, all the
more difficult.

What I think he needs is someone who can retain what works for the screen and get rid
of what doesn't.

[bloodybitch]

easy.they get cut out all the GOOD stuff.and replace it with crap.:rolleyeyes;

[the night watchman]

Basically what Toby said: An average SK book is around 400-600 pages. A novelization of a movie usually runs about 200 pages. What the filmmakers have to do to adapt and average-lenght King novel is compress the storyline so much that the nuances of character, as well as other details, are lost.

Also, you have to remember that everyone has their own visualization of what they are reading. A filmmaker's may no conform to your own.

[Drained_Insane]

I only like Stand By Me, Dolores Claiborne, Misery, Shawshank, The Shinning, and The Stand. Oh well, no one these days can turn a book into a good movie.