James Herbert v Stephen King

I was an avid reader of both when I was growing up and usually preferred Herbert to King.
I know King has a much bigger audience as an author but was wondering why less Herbert books had been made into films.
With the amount of crap horror films being made you think they’d look for some decent stories to adapt into movies.

Hmmmm Herbet went a bit off-track for me with things like the Magic Cottage and got a little bit lost in his own world with the later books. Steven King stayed mostly true to form throughout, apart from his weird ones with some space cowboy thing going on that i’ve forgotten.

However, over them 2 i’d take Richard Laymon any day of the week along with the earlier Shaun Hutson.

Was never a big fan of Herbert. I found them a bit bleak. Except for Fluke, which i quite enjoyed.

Gig fan of King and also Dean Koontz

Graham Masterton

i thought this was an interesting story

john carpenter was at stonehenge back in the mid 70’s and saw the early morning mist. it triggered the idea for the fog film he did.

james herberts book of the same name started off on salisbury plain where the leathel fog escapes.

as to the question i agree it is strange why not many herbert booke have been made into films. a film version of the fog (james herbert version) would be great if done by a decent director.

I think people have shied away from filming James Herbert because although the books work quite well, they would look distinctly B-movie-ish if put on screen.

They lack the subtlety and IMO the character interest of much of Stephen King’s work.

Haven’t read any of his more recent stuff though – just The Rats/Fog/Dark etc etc. Seems to mainly be set piece after set piece of folk ripping people apart/being ripped apart.

I love the Rats trilogy, Domain being one of my favourite books of that genre.

Must dig them out for a re-read.

I think it’s because Stephen King’s books were just better stories. I mean nothing Herbert wrote comes close the The Shining or Dead Zone. Or Carrie for that matter. Christine…
King’s Americanness might’ve helped too.

King was a brilliant writer, up until his addictions got the better of him. Pet Cemetery is a superb depiction of grief, for example.

Always liked James Herbert’s ideas, especially as a young kid, but I don’t think he was a particularly fantastic writer and his characters were always a bit thinly drawn.

And I just cannot read Clive Barker or Dean Koontz, or Val McDermid for that matter. Turgid stuff.

Fan of both although I would that they are quite different. There are a couple of JH’s books that could make decent films. “Moon”, “The Jonah” and “Once…” spring to mind. Agree that “The Rats” trilogy and “The Fog” could just be splatterfests.

#edit “And I just cannot read Clive Barker…”

Really? some of his stuff can be a little difficult to get into but well, well worth the effort.It took me a few goes to get into “Imajica” but I’m really enjoying it now.

Weirdly i loved Barkers movies… being the Hellraiser series, but his books, Mmmm not as much. I read the Damnation Game which was a long read and not bad though… May be worth revisiting him again.

They lack the subtlety and IMO the character interest of much of Stephen King’s work.

I tend to agree – SKs work was so much more expansive and explored all sorts of emotions (like Pet Cemetery mentioned above) through to the claustrophobic Misery and of course the non-horror stuff too.

Regarding Clive Barker – I prefer his fantasy stuff and have read Weaveworld several times. I do wish they would make it into a film.

over them 2 i’d take Richard Laymon any day of the week

I read a bunch of Laymon when I was younger. Good stories and all, but ever notice he has a bit of a breast obsession? A female character will get into a swimming pool and he’ll describe how the water comes up under her breasts, or someone will be running with a penknife in their shirt pocket and he’ll wax lyrical about the blade poking into her nipple. I’m far from a prude but it all seemed a bit gratuitous and unnecessary.

And I just cannot read Clive Barker or Dean Koontz

I’m a fan of Koontz, but he can be hit or miss I find. He’s done some great books, and some absolute stinkers.

^^^ It was kinda expected to have a bit of sauce in that sort of book – I, for one, certainly read more of them just for the titillation. Shaun Hutson was the worst/best for it.

or someone will be running with a penknife in their shirt pocket and he’ll wax lyrical about the blade poking into her nipple. I’m far from a prude but it all seemed a bit gratuitous and unnecessar

Quake :) Remember it well ;)

I read both as a kid. Herbert seemed to be just pulp scary stories, whereas most SK books are character studies.

I’m a fan of Koontz, but he can be hit or miss I find.

He’s written about 12 versions of the same book about a man and a lady and some kids / dogs running away from mysterious shadowy pursuers.

Twilight eyes was a belter though.

SKs work was so much more expansive and explored all sorts of emotions (like Pet Cemetery mentioned above)

Having said that, Pet Cemetery stands out for me as one of the worst film adaptations I can remember paying money to see. It’s such a fabulous book.

^ True – the film adaptations of his stuff have been very hit and miss and Pet Cemetery was probably the worst I have seen (I haven’t seen the new It film as the whole ‘scary clown’ creation put me off – the TV mini series nailed Pennywise even if the rest of the adaptation was a bit crappy).

I haven’t seen the new It film

Don’t bother.