Stephen King on writing horror...

B

brianluce

Carbonite Member
This was touched upon in another thread. It's a great pointer. Q&A

Q: scariest book you've ever read? Why was it so frightening?

A: Really scary books (“The Exorcist” is a good example) succeed because we come to know and care about the characters. I like to say, “It's the PEOPLE, stupid” — NOT the monsters!
 
I know I'm goign to get all kind sof piles of **** for saying this, but the film the exorcist..dumbest and least scary film I've ever seen. I'm well aware of how old the film is and how horror has changed so much, but it ended up to me as being a film about nothing, nothing happens cept devil child being a dickhead and playing with a cross.

I completelly understand what they were trying to do as a film, make it seem as real as possible or at leats make it seem 'plausable' but it was a joke to me.

All my life I've heard how scary this film is and how its the greatest horror ever and it still ranks so high as a film to this day, and myabe all the years of hype ruined it for me..but after watching this movie twice in a year now I can thelp but call it a great big pile of over rated ****.

I cared NOTHING for any characters other than Father Karras, and even then it was lukewarm. I cant give this movie any credit, wonder if the books any better?
 
brianluce said:
This was touched upon in another thread. It's a great pointer. Q&A

Q: scariest book you've ever read? Why was it so frightening?

A: Really scary books (“The Exorcist” is a good example) succeed because we come to know and care about the characters. I like to say, “It's the PEOPLE, stupid” — NOT the monsters!
Click to expand...


Brian, what more can you say about this?

The point seems to be make the hero sympathetic. If so, for horror, is this even more important than other genres?

thanks
 
Wrathborne said:
I know I'm goign to get all kind sof piles of shi* for saying this, but the film the exorcist..dumbest and least scary film I've ever seen. ?
Click to expand...

You won't get grief from me. It's all what you like. I thought "The Exorcist" and "Blair Witch" were genius. Brutal and terrifying. But some people hated both. It's a matter of taste. While it's a true a majority of people loved both, a lot didn't like either.

Heck, I'll admit it, "Citizen Kane" bores me. I don't like it. I also think Scorsese, In N Out Burgers, and Ron Popeil's Pocket Fisherman are all vastly overrated.
 
Ha ha, well nice to know there are others out there who share my tastes a little. though I'm not really a stephen King fan myself (great writer, doesnt quite know how to end a lot of his stories) I do agree with him on that quote.
 
Last edited:
I do have to admit I do not care to much for Stephen King movies and I have never read any of his books. I do however respect his work and all he has done in film. I also like his answer to question, if I had the chance to be mentored by him I would take it in a heart beat though.
 
It is all about the characters... and I'd like to add that I think this is true to ALL genres equally... perhaps it is less important on horror and therefor it is easier to make a movie work if it is a horror film... it is the characters that separate good from exceptional directors + cast and of course, also the DOP... perhaps it is more evident on horror because of the amount of terrible character development, performances and direction that litter the genre... so when you see a horror movie with great characters you are floored as you might not expect to see that when you walk into the theater knowing the premise is about killer bees or some other type of moster or whate-have-ya...

BTW... the reference to exorcist was made about the book not the movie... and I too thought the movie was a bit boring... too slow at times... but if you let yourself go and look at the kid as a kid you might know... as your possible son/nephew/little cousin... well then you might think otherwise about the film...

"It is about the PEOPLE, stupid!"... hehe... love it...

In my current opinion, all stories --in any medium-- exist with the only purpose of sharing the WHY and HOW not the WHAT... how someone deals with a situation and why they do it that way. It is only interesting when you understand why a given character reacts to a situation in a given way... it is about why the killer kills and not about the killing... how the person that wasn't a killer became a killer... and also how the person reacts to the situation... so it isn't about the guy killing, but about how killing makes him feel about the reason why he does it.

It is interesting when you get the person living "it"... then you relate, then it hits home.
 
One of the reasons EXORCIST succeded financially and critically is that it broke the taboo of showing dreadful things happening to innocent children. It's hard to pull that off without seeming offensive, exploitive, or flat out turning everyone off. EXORCIST was able to walk that razor edge. It takes a deft touch to do that as well as big time production values and a top drawer cast--all of which the EXORCIST had in spades and is why, to this day, for MOST people, the EXORCIST still packs a wallop.

For most of us, EXORCIST and ALIEN are still the gold standard of the horror genre.
 
This is an interesting thread, let's not have it shut down due to language and personal attacks.

Thanks,

e
 
Gentlemen, keep this cool and lay off the personal attacks. It doesn't matter who started it; it doesn't matter how you normally relate to people -- here, it doesn't fly.
 
I enjoyed The Long Walk and a few other of King's novels, but I usually don't like how they translate to film, minus The Shining.
 
10s said:
Brian, what more can you say about this?

The point seems to be make the hero sympathetic. If so, for horror, is this even more important than other genres?

thanks
Click to expand...

All I know is you have to write characters that people respond to emotionally. Hate them, love them, admire them, feel sympathy for them, whatever. Feel something.

Now, how do you do that? I have no freakin' idea.

I don't think King's comment should be interpreted to mean it's more important in horror, I think he's saying that it's easy to get sidetracked figuring out how many fangs and horns your monter has when the real trick is creating a character aside from the monter that we like and placing that character in jeopardy. "Cujo" was about a sick dog after all and it worked pretty good.
 
I find it interesting that only my posts were considered offensive and deleted.

That said, The Exorcist does a superb job in grounding the story and characters in realism before introducing the special effects and "monster" later on. I, personally, found the subplot dealing with Father Karras' spiritual crisis compelling. The film is also technically superb--groundbreaking in its use of editing, sound, and special effects. Friedkin was a master filmmaker in his younger days, and he accepted nothing less than achieving his complete vision on screen.

Some people may be having a problem trying to visualize the movie by today's standards. The Exorcist is over 30 years old now. Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari probably appear pretty hilarious to contemporary moviegoers now, too, but that certainly doesn't lessen their cinematic importance in history. Though, I was able to catch Exorcist on the big screen a few years ago and I did not feel much of the film's impact had been lost on time.

Just a superb piece of moviemaking and one of my all-time favorite and influential films.
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
I, personally, found the subplot dealing with Father Karras' spiritual crisis compelling. .
Click to expand...

One reason that subplot is so effective is that it dovetails perfectly with the main plot of defeating the demon. The priest's spiritual crisis weakens him which makes fighting the demon that much more difficult.

That's perfect structuring, the pieces fit like they we're made in a machine shop.
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
...The Exorcist does a superb job in grounding the story and characters in realism before introducing the special effects and "monster" later on. I, personally, found the subplot dealing with Father Karras' spiritual crisis compelling. The film is also technically superb--groundbreaking in its use of editing, sound, and special effects. Friedkin was a master filmmaker in his younger days, and he accepted nothing less than achieving his complete vision on screen.

Some people may be having a problem trying to visualize the movie by today's standards. The Exorcist is over 30 years old now. Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari probably appear pretty hilarious to contemporary moviegoers now, too, but that certainly doesn't lessen their cinematic importance in history. Though, I was able to catch Exorcist on the big screen a few years ago and I did not feel much of the film's impact had been lost on time.

Just a superb piece of moviemaking and one of my all-time favorite and influential films.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Ray Milland in The Uninvited? That is a picture that absolutely holds up. Great story too. I think many films become dated and lose their relevance. Styles change. The trick to watching and enjoying the older films is allowing yourself to do so without contextualizing or comparing them against today's standards.

e
 
brianluce said:
This was touched upon in another thread. It's a great pointer. Q&A

Q: scariest book you've ever read? Why was it so frightening?

A: Really scary books (“The Exorcist” is a good example) succeed because we come to know and care about the characters. I like to say, “It's the PEOPLE, stupid” — NOT the monsters!
Click to expand...

And this points out why most of the movies based on King's books are crap. They tend to focus on just the "horror" elements, whereas King's genius is in writing characters and putting the reader inside those characters. There have been a few King books that have made me cry at the end, because I had ended up caring so much about the protagonist. Then I'd see the film, and find that all of the really important stuff was entirely left out...

And I think this is also why I tend not to enjoy King's short stories all that much. There isn't enough time/space to get into the characters, and that makes a lot of the plot elements just seem silly and/or contrived, not really frightening. (Although there was one story, "Sometimes They Come Back", that gave me the willies the night I read it, which happened to be one of the rare times that Tulsa had a really good thunderstorm. I left the light on when I went to bed, but then thought that seemed stupid, so later turned on the radio instead...)
 
KMR said:
There have been a few King books that have made me cry at the end, because I had ended up caring so much about the protagonist. Then I'd see the film, and find that all of the really important stuff was entirely left out...
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. I haven't read any S.K. books, but as far as the movies alone, I always feel like something was left out in them. I think alot of horror movies now adays "try" to be scary and end up not even being scary. I can't remember when was the last time I've seen a movie that actually "scared" me. I can name some horrors I do like but neither scares me.

I also think IMO, I'm more scared for the character instead OF the monster. Those are the best horrors for me.
 
agcohn said:
I didn't like The Shining.
Click to expand...

Oh come on.. :banned:


I've read quite a few SK books and I've always enjoyed them. The movies don't always translate well but The Shining is Stanley Kubrick at his most anal already, what's not to like. I say this all with a smile on my face.. I understand there may be younger people who just don't get it, read as "don't get off on it" if that's less crotchety. Citizen Kane is boring to me I'll admit and its from a previous generation- but I wouldn't say I don't like it, just that its not something I'd make time in my schedule to watch.
 
Last edited:
Since when is Stephen King a literary expert? when was the last time he wrote a good book? He even said Lynch and Waters were bad directors because their films had too odd of characters. They didn't relate to "the common man", as though everyone is just cardboard cut-outs without any deep thoughts, raw emotion, or troubling circumstances. He talks about connecting with characters, but his are dry and boring, not like real people. Thank god Kubrick directed the Shining, he salvaged that story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top