Was remade as Stephen King's 'Needful Things'
Does anyone else think that this already remade (at the 90% story level) when Stephen King did the movie "Needful Things"?
shareAint that the truth. Needful Things was rip-off.
shareI never saw "Something Wicked This Way Comes", but know this: Needfull Things was a book. An old book. I think it's more the other way around, if any.
shareAn uninformed statement like that just makes you sound foolish.
"Something Wicked This Way Comes" was published in 1962.
Stephen King's "Needful Things" (a clear ripoff) was published in 1991.
I TOLD you I was uninformed, so I don't think it makes me sound foolish. I however can not possibly accept that King would ripoff anything. So, maybe the plots are not that similar and you are just overreacting, or two people have had similar ideas (which happens, you know).
shareYou said you'd never seen SOMETHING WICKED. There's a difference.
Then you went on to suggest it's more likely that Ray Bradbury stole from Stephen King than vice versa. That *does* make you sound foolish when King's book was written 30 years later.
Over the years, certain Stephen King books have clearly taken inspiration from the works of other authors. I wouldn't go so far as to call that "ripping them off". However, NEEDFUL THINGS and SOMETHING WICKED are *so* similar that you'd have to be in denial to believe there isn't a good chance King just took the concept of the Bradbury book and simply supplied new characters and dialogue.
Even more remarkable is how good King is at doing this. NEEDFUL THINGS was a really entertaining read (but a horrible film).
"a really entertaining read"
Most of his books are. And it's only midly entertaining compared to his other books, most of them are better. I only read one I don't like. And Firestarter I like the most.
As for taking inspiration from other books, yes, but that's common in the movieworld, and in the world of literature.
...by far is The Eyes of the Dragon.
I strongly disagree. I assume that you are a horror purist and hate fantasy then? It was great epic fantasy. I love books like that. Eg Weiss & Hickman, or Robert E Feist.
shareI liked that book, too. And The Long Walk. But I must admit that I think it is in his short stories where he shines brightest. I think of him as one of the best, if not the best, short story writer of all time. And I am including Bradbury and Poe in this, too, both of whom I have infinite respect for.
shareMy God.. I gotta show my dismay at this insult to the world of literature... King is just a word-spitter, the Britney Spears of the world of books, the genetically engineered embryo of the marketing machine that ate the publishing business.
I won't insult you, because if you like him, that's your business, but I HAVE TO say that Bradbury's WORST is WAY BETTER than King's "Best".
... and Poe... to lower him to such level... oh, my, God...
You are as hard on King as GotaFeeling is easy on him. He is not as bad as you say, and some of his short stories and passages from his novels are very fine indeed. His level as a writer of short stories is lower than Bradbury and Poe, but is talented and accomplished. He has a secure place in American letters, and he also obviously has his detractors, as do his more distinguished colleagues.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I wouldn't be so hard on him if it wasn't for the obvious manipulation that the literary "business" has made of bad writers like him.
I know it cannot be changed, but it pisses me off that the arts are money-driven factories nowadays. Supply and demand has infected the world of art, giving to the people the lowest form of art possible because that's the most easily digestable, and people obviously will demand this kind of art, not the one that makes you think.
A silly comparison, although quite correct, would be the food industry: People rather consume whatever tastes good and neglect themselves of "yucki" foods that are far better for their well-being; so following that logic, McDonald's would be much better than a home made, organic soup. McDonald's has secured a place in culinary history, but that doesn't make it any good.
And the worst part is that there are so many better writers out there that either don't write that much because their book sales are not good enough to provide them and they have to keep their "day-jobs", or they betray they're style for a more commercial and easily digestible one like King's.
It's a sad world - and I'm just venting.
So Stephen King is the MacDonald's of the literary world? I wonder which of them should feel insulted by the comparison. But really, it seems to me you're more complaining about *what* King writes than about *how* he writes. From a technical standpoint, he is simply as good a writer--as writer--as anyone active today, and better than many. That in itself puts him one up on MacDondald's! If he's chosen the easy way to satisfy his need to write, which real writers have and he obviously has, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get your point on the *what* and the *how* he writes. He sure is a fine writer, and surely better than a lot of other writers just like McDonald's (forgive me for sticking to my silly comparison) serves a fine hamburger, even better than some, and I would add that it even has salads in its menu! (comparable to "The Shinning" or "Pet Sematary").
The problem lies when people give such credit to a "fine writer" as to undermine real efforts at literature that other excellent writers could accomplish, but won't because simply put: "there is no *market* for it".
And why is there no *market* for better literature? Because we have been plagued with easy readings our whole life! I remember people commending Harry Potter when it first came out because "it will make kids read!". A lot of people complained for the lack of any literary value in that book, but they insisted: "at least they're reading something!".
Now, those kids are reading the same kind of easy literature and would run away from anything scarcely less "fun" or more "complicated" than the adventures of a boy magician, or the escapades of a cowboy through inter-dimensional doors looking for a tower.
I may have a problem with *what* King writes, because of the *how* he writes: he writes simplistic page-turners, full of simplistic cartoonish characters that act exactly the same way his other characters from other books act. He may have a good prose here and there, but for what he offers, I find it hard and sad to believe that in the future, literature of the beginning of the 21st century will be remembered by such a low quality act, specially when it could have been much better if money wasn't the main factor that allowed a book to be published or not.
[deleted]
<So Stephen King is the MacDonald's of the literary world? I wonder which of them should feel insulted by the comparison...>
"I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries" - Steven King
Stephen King a word spitter? Hardly... If you were talking about Dean Koontz or James Patterson, I could maybe agree with you, but King is on another level by far.
K
~no bounce no play~
i am just now reading this, but you need to check alot of your facts before posting. i have only read page 1 of this, so i don't know if anyone has corrected you on your second mistake: the author is RAYMOND E. FEIST, not Robert. and he is a master of fantasy and you can't get his name right?!
"Monsters are such interesting people, my stars, the places you must go, the people you must meet!"
You're right. Hey, everyone can make a mistake, don't take it so personally. You don't know the state I am when I'm posting sometimes. Also, check the date.
shareRaymond E. Feist.
shareYes, I made a mistake. His first name isn't Robert, it's Raymond. thank you for that. It totally changes the whole meaning of that post. I'm glad that people would rather be correcting an insignificant mistake over three years after it was made, than comment on the actual content of the post. Yay for superficiality.
share"Over the years, certain Stephen King books have clearly taken inspiration from the works of other authors"
To be honest, is the very theme really an original one from EITHER author? I thought the idea of the devil (Old Scratch himself) coming and granting wishes in exchange for one's soul had been around for way longer in the form of old folklore and such. It would seem to me that both authors drew from this much older concept rather than King stealing from Bradbury. The stories are similar because of the subject matter, but neither one was the origin of said subject.
* * * *
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
You can't possibly accept that King ripped any ideas off? The Stand is a ripoff of I Am Legend (the old book from the 1950s which is a ripoff of Earth Abides, the old book from 1949).
Watch Bedbug on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QI_1YSXt8Y
Rip-off isn't the correct term here. "Influenced by" might suit your post better. As another poster said:
The whole idea of "ripping off" stories as being a bad thing, or being avoidable is silly. There are only so many basic plots...or rather, only so many that ever get used, or can be used without people claiming its too weird or doesnt make sense.
Stephen King is like a literary blender. He was hugely influenced by many other writers...Ray Bradbury and Lovecraft in particular.
He has admited that Salem's Lot was a homage to Bram Stoker's Dracule (thats not the same as a "rip off" or plagarism. I seem to remember he even said basically the same thing about Needful Things and Something Wicked This way Comes.
However, only the basic concept is all that similiar...a supernatural agency that grants you your wishes, but at a price and/or in an undesired way. Thats an old old OLD concept, but SWTWC and Needful Things both do it in different ways.
Likewise, Cujo isnt really much like Jaws accept both feature an animal as the source of danger. Its all about genres and sub genres and frameworks...but just cause the framework is the same, doesnt make the story the same.
Besides, I don't agree. The Stand is more like Tolkien than like I Am Legend. Good vs Evil, etc. Don't get caught on superficial plotlines, like that everyone dies. That's just the set-up.
Also, Carnivale is pretty The Stand-like, with the whole religious-supernatural angle, but do we call that a rip-off? No we don't.
share
From which 'The Omega Man.'
share"I however can not possibly accept that King would ripoff anything."
This from the guy who wrote two books about haunted cars?!
[deleted]
you can't accept that king would rip anything off? what about salem's lot lifting the plot from dracula? even stuff like cujo is just jaws in disguise
What a stupid thing to say. I guess Star Wars and 2001 A Space Odyssey are both the same because both films have outer space in them. If you wish to generalize the idea of ripping off things to such an extreme, then I guess NOTHING is original.
* * * *
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Stephen King wrote a screen play back in the early 80's for Something Wicked this way Comes, but it was rejected by the Walt Disney Studios, He took his adaptation and turned it into Needful Things.
So ya, he essentially ripped of the story line because he had it written down already. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's done all the time.. even by the likes of King. Who has done it many times.. look it up.
He is not as original as you think.. but when he is.. it's genius.
Oh please, like the idea of the bargain with the devil is a new one... No one rips this idea off, they just use it as a base for their own stories. Using an archetypal story as a base to write your own is not ripping something off.
share[deleted]
SWTWC is older than any Stephen King book.
shareFrom the IMDB trivia: "Stephen King wrote a rejected adaptation"
Clearly Bradbury was stealing from Stephen King when King was doing a screenplay for Bradbury's movie...
Didn't you read my post? *rolling eyes*
I guess you didn't. Don't reply then.
I read all your posts. You made a stupid statement and even though you retracted it, you still act like there is no way King would have ripped it off. I was just giving evidence that would help that argument.
share-> IMDB's trivia is hardly evidence, lots of mistakes in there (and, no, I'm not saying what you posted about the screenplay was a mistake, read only the words that I write, not what you think I write)
-> I said from the beginning I was misinformed.
-> I didn't say there's no way King would have ripped it off. I said there's no way I'll ever believe King ripped it off. Or ripped anything off ever, for that matter. Because I respect King as an artist. An exception would be if he himself came to me and admitted it. Or a letter from him personally would do too.
-> Look at the date of the original post.
-> Please leave me alone I have got no time for this. (Exams/tentams, whatever it's called in English.)
Fine, that is what you believe. I happen to disagree. A writer has written an obscene about of books like King are bound to (intentionally or not) ripoff another writer at some point.
If you want to be left alone because you have exams, maybe you shouldn't be responding to people on IMDB. *rolls eyes*
When you press the reply button next to my message I get an email that someone has replied. Of course then I'm curious what that person said. And if I feel like I have to correct or comment on something in that post I will reply, no matter what. It's my curse...
Now: " are bound to (intentionally or not) ripoff another writer at some point. "
I think that's where the problem lies: with the meaning of the word "rip off". In my opinion "to rip off" implies that you do it intentionally. It's a form of stealing. When two people have the same idea without knowing it from each other, it's not ripping off. It's only ripping off when you're thinking "Whoa that guy who wrote that had a nice idea, I'll write my own version of it". It's not ripping off when you wrote a book and afterwards find out someone else wrote something with the same underlying idea as basis. I mean, everybody can see the two books we're talking about are similar. And it's a fact that King's one is of a later date. Still I don't think he did it intentionally. Then it's not ripping off in my eyes. This is the same case with that Southpark episode about someone that is faking being mentally handicapped to win the special olympics. Apparently some people wrote a moviescript about the same thing. Now these script people are suing Southpark for "stealing" their idea. While it may very well be that two people have had the same idea, it's not that uncommon.
From the IMDB trivia: "Stephen King wrote a rejected adaptation"
Clearly Bradbury was stealing from Stephen King when King was doing a screenplay for Bradbury's movie...
Ummm? Do you realize what you said. You said Bradbury stole from Stephen King? Bradbury wrote the book. Stephen King just wrote the screenplay which was bad enough to be rejected, and so then Bradbury wrote his own screenplay for the movie adaptation of HIS OWN book...... share
[deleted]
I have read books by both Bradbury and King. Not only was Bradbury more original and creative, but he also wrote better than King, period. I better get this movie and yes, maybe the rip off also. Kings appearant lack of imagination and skill was demonstrated best when no one read his books released under a pen name until they knew who it really was. Then the books sold on his name alone. Both are entertaining movies even if I put Needfull Things in the comedy category.
share King is the best horror writer ever. FACE IT!
Some of his ideas were bad...
1) Dark towers 4,6,7 ( all the others rocked)
2) Sometimes they comeback...for more
3) The movie adaption of "Dreamcatcher" aside from that he is the best...dont make me get king fans here
"dont make me get king fans here"
Too late. I don't understand how people can say that Stephen King rips off other people. There are over 3 billion people on the planet right now. Who nows how many since the beginning of time. And to say that you rif off another person's idea because you have an idea that's almost like another person's is incredibly ignorant. Has it ever occured to you that maybe Stephen King never even read Ray Bradbury? And even if he did, he may have gotten an idea from it, but face it, Needful things is his idea. There are major differences between needful things and something wicked this way comes. Not to mention that Stephen King is an incredible story teller who nows how to build fear in the reader. And not some cheap fear either, I'm talking fear as in sometimes staying up at night thinking about it.
As for his best book, the one that I liked the best was Salem's lot. The movies (the first one was alright, but the second one by TNT was crap) didn't get anywhere near the genius that was the book.
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes thanks for writing this. i was always
hearing abt somethin wicked this way comes but i never saw it, then
i came here and i was like hmm it souds familiar and realized its from
this TV movie needful things. :/
http://pinoystyle.net/flash/002/014.html
dnt let it happen.
"Has it ever occured to you that maybe Stephen King never even read Ray Bradbury?"
Puh..leaaase!!!
That is by far the silliest statement I've read in the whole of 2005. I don't think that even the rip off maestro S.King himself would try & deny that Ray Bradbury has at least been an inspiration.
My god, I too feel the fear when reading a S.King story....the fear that he will undoubtedly publish yet more of the same rubbishy, stale fare that he's been churning out by the yard for years now.
When will it end!? Soon I hope.
if you have read stephen king's danse macabre you're gonna
come across a lot of ray bradbury :) (he likes ray's stories and has
high regard for him)
http://pinoystyle.net/flash/002/014.html
dnt let it happen.
I have never read or seen "Needful Things" but based on what I've heard it's not a rip-off.
"Needful Things" is a store, where people find what they think they need and learn the difference between wanting and needing.
"Something Wicked..." is about a circus where people's dreams come true, but with consequences. The teacher became young and beautiful, but blind. The old football player and cigar seller bacame young again (can't remember what bad happened to them.)
Pretty different if you ask me.
Stephen King is a good author, and you have to be an ignorant fool to say that someone with the kind of success that he does not write good books. Regardless of your opinions, the man is one of the most successful writers out there. He must have some talent, or else no one would read his books.
And man, there are hundreds of books influenced by Something Wicked. It's a literary masterpiece! Of course it's going to inspire things. That's the wonderful world of storytelling; you can get a great idea from a book, then make it your own, unique story.
I'd also like to point out that Needful Things is probably my least favorite Stephen King book, and I can admit that the man has made some missteps (all that comes to mind right now is Needful Things for books, but he sells off movies rights that always end up turning into crap), so don't go accusing me of fanboyism.
People like Britney Spears and Eminem too, still think that because lots of people like something it's because of talent?
As much as I may dislike Britney Spears, there is no denying that she has some talent for music in the genre that her fans like. Eninem is a rap genius; that is clear and undeniable. If you've ever heard him battle members of the Wu Tang Clan, you'd know that he has real talent, once again in the genre of music his fans enjoy.
There is no denying that often talent-less people come to some success, but for a person to succeed in a field with such longevity as Stephen King, it is very clear that he possesses talent, (one more time) in the area that his fans enjoy.
People who cannot comprehend that talent is relative to genre are doomed to misunderstand or overlook it forever.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
"Has it ever occured to you that maybe Stephen King never even read Ray Bradbury?"
I'm taking this as a general statement but if you're a King fan you'd know that he quotes Fahrenheit 451 in the beginning of Firestarter ("It was a pleasure to burn...")
I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.
"dreams come true, but with consequences"
It could be said that Bradbury ripped off the 1902 short story "The Monkey's Paw" by WW Jacobs.
"Has it ever occured to you that maybe Stephen King never even read Ray Bradbury?"
In my copy of Something Wicked This Way Comes, a reprint from 2006 by Orion Books if I am not mistaken, Stephen King is quoted on the cover praising the book as being "a darkly poetic tale" and "probably Bradbury's best".
He has read it.
I personally prefer Heinlein. Have to realize that some of Bradbury is crap, or merely undeveloped. Same with King. Many of his don't work on the screen, some do. Same with Asimov, lotsa crap some cheese.
shareIf you think King is the best horror writer ever you obviously have read little more than popular modern horror. Go read some Lovecraft and get educated.
shareIf you think King is the best horror writer ever you obviously have read little more than popular modern horror. Go read some Lovecraft and get educated.
I did and it bored the hell out of me. On top of that, he's always writing about the same kind of things.
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school" share
You mean kind of like Stephen King?
Lovecraft was one of King's great influences. (I love them both personally)
Even if King's writing gets kind of repetitive (no wonder with this amount of books written), you can hardly deny that he showed a lot of diversity in the topics he touched. Are "Rita Hayworth And The Shawshank Redemption", "Misery", "IT", "Carrie", "The Body", "The Last Rung On The Ladder", "All That You Love Will Be Carried Away" and "The Mist" about the same topic in any kind of way? I don't think so.
And I won't argue that Lovecraft had a HUGE influence not only on King but on all modern Horror. Still, personally, his stories don't do much for me.
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"
Personal taste aside, Bradbury is known more for his science fiction than outright horror and it's almost impossible to compare writers of different genres.
If the Bradury legacy had decided "Needful things" was a direct ripp-off of SWTWC, they would have sued King, since they obviously had copyright to do so.
I prefer King over Bradbury, and in point of fact I believe I have read that King does list Bradbury as a major influence, and perhaps "needful things" was his personal hommage to Bradbury.
I can tell that you haven't read the book, because in no way is "Needful things" THAT bad.
And you've stated one glaring error: the Bachman books sold equally as well as the King books, and after awhile, King decided it was pointless to write under a pseudonym. The major reason he did so was because his publisher, like Prince's former record publisher, was afraid that the market for Kings books would be diluted if he published too much material at one time.
Now, if you're going to hold other people's feet to the fire about errors, then you'd best fix your own.
Bradbury is good, probably the best in his particular genre, and always will be, but he's no Stephen King. He doesn't have the versatility. He's a good enough storyteller, but his novels lack the depth and symbolism of King's. Reading a King book is like peeling an onion; every time you thing you're done, you hit another layer. Bradbury never wrote anything even remotely as intricate as The Stand, which will easily stand beside Tolkien's Ring series in the Mythic Quest genre.
We won't live to see it, but King will definitely go down as one of the great 20th century authors. His works are already being taught as courses in american literature.
I'm sorry, but though I loved The Stand, I think The Martian Chronicles compares in storytelling and being intricate. And yes, I know it's a collection of short stories. And let's be real, the end of the Stand was boring. 50 or so pages after the climax, I have to read how they celebrate Christmas and New Year's as they head back home. King is well known for 'padding' as I call it. Added crap that just wastes your reading time. Pet Semetary being a prime example: the kid dies and then it takes over a hundred pages before he puts him in the cemetary, like we didn't know it was going to happen anyways.
And don't hand me suspense and character's pysche slowly degrading, that's just way too long to get to the inevitable.
King has disappointed me after the Stand. Firestarter: Um, the agents catch up and she burns them. Wow! what a surprise!
Dolores Claiborne: Nuff said
It: Great story, very long-winded though.
And don't get me started on Koontz,(She's a fiery, beautiful, tough, independent woman. He's a down to earth, good-looking guy who can hold his own.) Sheesh, does he read Harlequin books?
Personal taste aside, Bradbury is known more for his science fiction than outright horror and it's almost impossible to compare writers of different genres
Ray Bradbury has repeatedly stated that he is NOT a science fiction writer, despite being repeatedly billed as one. He considers his only sci-fi book to be Farenheitt 451. Most of his best-known works are fantasy or horror...or truthfully unable to be fit into genre.
As far as comparison, I think your overstating the importance of genre, however..
Bradbury is good, probably the best in his particular genre, and always will be, but he's no Stephen King. He doesn't have the versatility. He's a good enough storyteller, but his novels lack the depth and symbolism of King's. Reading a King book is like peeling an onion; every time you thing you're done, you hit another layer
Now your comparing apples and oranges, first off all. Stephen King may very well be better at plot, or what your calling depth but is mostly complexity of plot, but thats not all there is to storytelling. Bradbury's versatility as a writer is at least as great as King's, and nobody can match his poetic style of prose.
Also, genre aside they writer in very different forms. Bradbury writes mostly short stories and very short novels (nearly novellas really). Stephen King primarily writes 500+ page novels. Different forms have different criteria.
However, in the end its all a matter of preference, which is why trying to call one writer better than another is largely pointless..but for the record, I love both authors, tho Bradbury is probably a bigger influence on me
>>
He's a good enough storyteller, but his novels lack the depth and symbolism of King's. Reading a King book is like peeling an onion; every time you thing you're done, you hit another layer. Bradbury never wrote anything even remotely as intricate as The Stand, which will easily stand beside Tolkien's Ring series in the Mythic Quest genre.
WHOA!
You're confusing plot twists and length for depth - you're sooo far off base its unreal.
King NEVER wrote anything with the depth of understanding of the human condition of Bradbury's work, nor with the symbolism or layers. Do you even have an idea of the sheer amount of symbolism employed in SWTWC?
Try reading Something Wicked This Way Comes (rather than watching the movie), Death is a Lonely Business, Fahrenheit 451 or Dandelion Wine for that matter. (Admittedly A Graveyard for Lunatics is a little disappointing)
And will people PLEASE stop categorising Bradbury as solely a sci-fi writer, he's written in almost every genre at some point and is hugely versatile - just not pulp popular. And like King the movie/TV adaptations have for the most part not done his work justice.
Wicked steve don’t know where you get your info but I must correct you on one thing there were a lot of people reading Richard Bachman books even be for they new it was Stephen King's. Both Bradbury and King are good. I haven’t seen Something Wicked This Way Comes in a lot of years going to buy it soon.
share