Stephen King Said the Worst Book Adaptation Ever Made Is This 52-Year-Old Sci-Fi Thriller Everyone Forgot About

Here is a fact-based summary of the story contents: Here is a simplified version of the story contents: Here is a lighthearted take on the story contents: Explore a different perspective:

The master of literary horror, Stephen King, has not only written some of the greatest books within the last five decades, but he’s also been indirectly responsible for some of the best horror films within that same timeframe, with many of the film adaptations of his works becoming classics of the genre. While he’s made no secret in the past of his dislike of certain adaptations of his works, he’s also been unafraid to voice his support for the ones that he has a legitimate fondness for. He holds a certain set of standards for what he considers to be a successful attempt at translating his words to the screen. But those standards don’t just apply to the film and television adaptations of his own works, however. Being the insatiable reader and avid movie-viewer that King is, he’s been pleased by both mediums about as many times as he’s been disappointed by them, but the one adaptation that he deemed the worst wasn’t even based on one of his own stories.

Those who have not only seen the 1973 film The Day of the Dolphin but have also read the original novel that was the basis for it are more than likely aware of just how different the two are from one another in more ways than one. While it’s almost impossible for any film adaptation to be a one-hundred-percent translation of its source material without making any needed changes, the kind of drastic ones that films like The Day of the Dolphin make, ones that completely re-frame the nature and tone of the original story, are the kind that will no doubt leave a bad taste in the reader’s mouth.

Stephen King Has His Own Set of Standards for Film Adaptations of Books

He Doesn't Mind Changes, as Long as They Don't Completely Go Against the Intent of the Original Work

For Stephen King, the ingredients to make what he considers to be a good screen adaptation of a book, whether based on one of his own or even those of someone else, are simple. Essentially, he has no problem with filmmakers taking creative liberty to tell their own version, at least to a certain extent. Since not everything that works in a novel can work equally well on-screen, a film can change all the elements of a story that it needs to function as its own orgasm, but it’s only when it completely betrays the characters and the overall intent of the story that he takes a serious issue with it.

Most recently, King praised Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck for how accurately it captured all the right elements of his life-affirming short story, and even admired Oz Perkins’ The Monkey for how it comically embraced the «bat-sh*t insane» darkness of its premise despite the number of changes it made. The Shining, on the other hand, is a different story; those who read the book know that it’s not just a well-layered story with complex characters and themes, but it’s also an extremely personal one as well, inspired by King’s own battle with alcoholism.

Even though Flanagan’s film version of the sequel, Doctor Sleep, did its best to retcon certain preceding elements that readers took issue with, Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining lacked the depth of the book’s story and the complexity of the characters, much to King’s chagrin. It’s one thing to make changes in an adaptation, but to go against what it was that the book had to say, in favor of not trying to say much of anything, is something that King and many other readers find to be more of a hijacking of someone else’s story rather than an actual adaptation. King elaborated further on these thoughts in an article for Far Out Magazine, claiming that while a bad adaptation can be bothersome, for him, the book will always still stand as something that they «can’t destroy».

I love the movies. I love to go to good horror movies. As for my own books, well, you have to make a basic decision: do you want to sell to the movies or not? What it comes down to is, you have to take a ‘worst case’ attitude—if they screw this up, how am I going to feel?

It’s a fair conversation to have with yourself. The truth is, for any writer, being edited is always the worst part of the process. To then extrapolate that feeling into someone enacting your vision, casting your characters, and perhaps even inflicting their own motivations could be enough to put you off forever….I talked that over with myself, and what I came up with was: I don’t care if they destroy it, if they make a terrible movie out of this book, because they can’t destroy the book. The book stands.

The Film Adaptation of The Day of the Dolphin Goes Against the Book In All the Worst Ways

Ignoring the Satire and Themes Explored in the Novel, the Film Creates a Tonal Imbalance by Trying to Tell a More Serious Story

Even those who have never even heard of Robert Merle’s book, The Day of the Dolphin, or even the film adaptation starring George C. Scott, will no doubt be shocked at just how much of a drastic difference there is between the two in comparison to most other book-to-film translations. Published in 1967, Merle’s original story was one that revolved around the successful attempts of a dedicated scientist who trains a group of dolphins to communicate in English. He hopes they’ll be put to good use in the world of espionage, only for them to be kidnapped as part of a secret plot to assassinate the President, leading him to a race against the clock to save the lives of both the dolphins and the President.

Merle’s novel essentially served as a satire of the tensions and practices surrounding the Cold War at the time, and while it does indeed function well as a legitimately tense sci-fi thriller with plenty of action, it also had its own subtle way of acknowledging just how ridiculous the nature of its premise was. Mike Nichols’ 1973 film adaptation, on the other hand, had a completely different vision in mind, one that completely goes against the intention of the book’s story.

The film more or less tells the same story of the scientist’s communication with the dolphins and the sinister plot to use them as weapons of assassination, but the way in which it chooses to tell it couldn’t be more different. It makes the surprising decision to play the story off as completely serious, creating an undeniably major tonal imbalance between the first and second acts. The beginning of the film, in which George C. Scott’s character, Dr. Jake Terrell, is seen training and bonding with the dolphins, comes off as more of a thought-provoking drama, attempting to explore deeper themes surrounding the connection of intelligence between humans and dolphins; although it’s a far-cry from what the book was attempting to do, it’s handled surprisingly well and is something that could’ve worked just fine as its own story.

It’s within the second half, however, when the espionage aspect of the story kicks off with the kidnapping and rescue attempt of the dolphins that things really begin to go off the rails, giving the viewer the bizarre sensation of seeing two completely different films randomly spliced together. With all this in mind, it’s easy to understand why Stephen King has labeled it a «favorite example» of his as to how a «perfect book becomes a terrible movie.»

Sometimes a perfect book becomes a terrible movie. My favorite example of that is The Day of the Dolphin; I thought it was a lovely book, but Mike Nichols just didn’t do it right.

Stephen King's Dislike For The Day of the Dolphin is Completely Understandable

Most Viewers Have Regarded It as a "So Bad, It's Good" Kind of Movie

If the on-screen pairing of an Oscar-winning legend like George C. Scott and a duo of talking dolphins sounds to anyone like a recipe for unintentional hilarity, it’s because that is what it most certainly is. Despite the absurdity of its premise, The Day of the Dolphin book managed to keep a consistent tonal balance and was able to carve something fun out of it. The film, however, gives off the clear feeling that while it wants to be its own thing that stands out from its source material, it also has no idea exactly what kind of movie it really wants to be.

Over the entirety of its runtime, the story and dialogue from its cast are delivered in such a straight-faced and Stoic manner with a sincere tone of seriousness; and this unusual approach to the material makes the undeniably humorous concept of using dolphins as weapons of assassination come off is something that clashes disastrously with the kind of tone that the film was clearly trying to establish. At the same time, its attempt to handle the story in such a melodramatic fashion is oddly captivating, making it the kind of film that truly needs to be seen to be believed.

Even though it’s quite a jarring experience for those who read and enjoyed the original novel, with its bizarre tonal shifts, it’s also sure to come off as a surreal oddity for those who haven’t. The idea of what could possibly stand as the worst film adaptation ever made is always debatable, and even though The Day of the Dolphin could be considered a captivating film in a way that was obviously never intended, it’s not hard to understand by someone like Stephen King considers it to be the cinematic disaster and act of disrespect towards the source material that he sees it as.