For nearly five decades, Stephen King has seen over fifty of his stories turned into feature films, yet when it comes to Stephen King writing his own movie adaptations, only a few have truly resonated. Despite being highly selective about writing film scripts, King’s attempts often reveal more about his literary strengths—and cinematic weaknesses—than many realize.
King’s Selective Approach to Scriptwriting
Since breaking into the film industry, Stephen King has written or co-written scripts for only seven of the more than fifty adaptations of his works. Rather than chasing every Hollywood offer, the acclaimed author has consistently chosen his projects carefully, resulting in just eleven film scripts credited to him across fifty-four feature releases. Among those rare forays are two standouts: his cult classic Creepshow and the polarizing Pet Sematary. Other attempts, unfortunately, have not achieved the same critical or commercial impact.
King’s talents extend beyond just adaptations of his books. Notably, he wrote the script for Michael Jackson’s unusual short film Ghosts, directed by special effects master Stan Winston. He’s also been behind the teleplays for the TV movies Desperation and The Stand, both based on his own works. In 1992, King contributed the screenplay for Sleepwalkers, an original story directed by Mick Garris, known for his multiple King collaborations. Yet, when measured by reception and legacy, only Creepshow and Pet Sematary have gained widespread acknowledgment among his self-adapted movies.
Creepshow and Pet Sematary: The Only Lasting Successes
Stephen King began his screenwriting career on a strong note in 1982, teaming up with horror legend George Romero for Creepshow. This anthology film, modeled after the stylized fright of EC Comics, weaves together five distinct tales, two of which are sourced directly from King’s own short stories. In The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill, King not only penned the segment but also starred, a casting choice that has sparked debate among fans and critics.
Bolstered by Romero’s vision, Creepshow performed solidly at the box office, taking in $21 million against its $8 million budget. Despite some initial skepticism, even critics such as Roger Ebert—typically critical of the genre—gave the movie favorable marks. Over the years, the film’s reputation has grown, with many now considering it a cult classic that successfully captures the essence of King’s style and the chilling legacy of EC’s horror comics. Its popularity spawned two sequels and inspired an ongoing TV series on Shudder.
Pet Sematary’s journey was far more turbulent. Released in 1989, it was adapted by King from his own notoriously dark novel, which he had once deemed too frightening to publish. Mainstream critics panned the film—Gene Siskel infamously called it “sickening”—but the horror community embraced it fiercely. The support from genre fans propelled Pet Sematary to a $57 million box office gross, establishing it as one of the author’s more faithful and terrifying big-screen entries. Though some continue to criticize its descent into slasher territory, the film remains a staple of the King canon.
Why King’s Self-Adaptations Rarely Succeed
The early success of Creepshow can be attributed to King working with a collaborator like Romero, whose deep horror roots helped ground the project. Later self-adaptations faltered, partly because King lacked a similarly strong partner to shape his narrative ideas. Cat’s Eye, another anthology movie written by King, debuted to mixed critical response. While admired by some, including Roger Ebert, it failed to retain the acclaim or cult following of Creepshow, suffering from a lack of unified vision.
Silver Bullet, which arrived the same year as Cat’s Eye, encountered its own challenges. This werewolf tale evolved under stressful circumstances after Dino De Laurentiis dismissed the original scriptwriter and director, Don Coscarelli, leaving King to quickly step in. The end result did not match what a skilled genre director might have crafted, and the movie failed to make a memorable impression on audiences.
The 2006 adaptation of Cell, cowritten with Adam Alleca, underscored the perils of lacking strong direction. With originally slated director Eli Roth exiting due to scheduling conflicts, the final product emerged as a sluggish viral outbreak film, earning a limited theatrical run before heading straight to home release. Similarly, A Good Marriage (2014), inspired by the chilling crimes of Dennis Rader, showcased a capable cast including Joan Allen and Anthony LaPaglia. Despite its provocative premise, the film’s lifeless direction and awkward dialogue—penned directly by King—left it unable to connect, both with critics and the broader audience.
Only a seasoned scriptwriter or collaborative team, fans have observed, seem able to harness King’s literary energy into a screenplay compact enough for the screen. Notably, when someone else adapts his stories—such as with Misery or The Shawshank Redemption—the results are tighter, with dialogue and character arcs tailored for screen performance rather than novelistic expansiveness.
Stephen King’s Approach to Storytelling vs. Scriptwriting
Over the years, King has candidly discussed his preference for organic storytelling, often forgoing outlines and letting the plot develop on its own. While this method yields sprawling, idea-rich novels that attract devoted readers, it poses significant challenges in the disciplined, condensed world of film. Movies require careful plotting and tightly written scenes, something King himself has admitted is not his primary strength.
“I went into it, and the thing is, at that time, I was doing a lot of cocaine and I was drinking a lot. You can tell! But, the thing is, man, I thought I knew how to make movies, and I realized if I did that again, I learned so much making Maximum Overdrive, it was like this intensive seminar.”
—Stephen King, Interview on Kingcast
This lack of structured plotting leads to screenplays that, when adapted faithfully by King himself, often lose the subtlety and pacing that specialists bring. As a result, film versions can feel disjointed or overlong, with dialogue that sometimes appears unnatural alongside the suspenseful tone.
In the hands of capable screenwriters who know how to distill sprawling narratives into a cohesive, three-act film structure, King’s dense stories are given new life while retaining their original essence. Adaptations such as The Green Mile and Stand by Me demonstrate how other writers and directors can tighten and polish King’s vision for cinematic audiences.
Box Office Results for King-Written Films
The commercial outcomes of King’s adaptations reinforce this point. While Creepshow ($21 million) and Pet Sematary ($57.5 million) enjoyed substantial box office success, other King-penned films did not fare as well. Cat’s Eye and Silver Bullet both took in just over $12 million, while Maximum Overdrive, his sole directorial effort, made only $7.4 million and lost money against its budget. Cell managed a meager $1 million through its limited theatrical launch, and A Good Marriage never saw wide release.
Maximum Overdrive: King as Writer and Director
King’s brief foray into directing, with Maximum Overdrive, stands as a cautionary tale about creative overreach. Based on his short story Trucks, the film pits a group of travelers against homicidal machines at a remote truck stop. The premise, while imaginative, resulted in a chaotic action-horror mix that critics derided for its lack of focus and execution.
Reviews were scathing, and audiences stayed away, leaving the movie unable to recoup its $9 million cost. In retrospectives, King has openly acknowledged the film’s production shortcomings, attributing some of the mayhem to his personal struggles at the time. The project’s wild energy and tonal inconsistencies have since made it a curiosity for genre fans, but not a film noted for its quality.
King’s family legacy may yet offer redemption for Maximum Overdrive. His son, author Joe Hill, has discussed updates for a possible remake that would modernize the threat for a world dominated by smart devices. Regardless of the outcome, the original remains a testament to both the risks and revelations of unfiltered artistic control.
The Lasting Impact of King’s Film Adaptations
Despite the varied outcomes, Stephen King’s cinematic influence continues to warp and evolve. The consistent demand for new adaptations and remakes signals an ongoing enthusiasm for his stories, even as the lessons of his personal involvement in scriptwriting are heeded by studios and filmmakers alike. Collaborations with seasoned directors and screenwriters have yielded many of the most beloved results, highlighting the strength of partnership over isolation.
When King focuses on the stories themselves and skilled collaborators take the reins for adaptation, his work resonates with both long-time fans and new audiences. As the appetite for his material remains high, Hollywood will likely continue to refine and reimagine his work for years to come, learning from both the highs of Creepshow and Pet Sematary and the pitfalls of more solitary efforts like Maximum Overdrive.
