Member-only story
Midnight Mass : How Good Is It?
Mike Flanagan borrows heavily from Stephen King, only to make a mess
I love Stephen King. I love Mike Flanagan adapting Stephen King. However, I don't think I like Mike Flanagan repackaging King stories and claiming they're original content.
Look, I’m all about homage and paying tribute to the great works that came before. But there is a fine line between homage and being derivative to the point of detriment. In this case, it’s so blatant it borders on theft of intellectual property and if King wanted to press charges, he’d likely have a good case.
This is especially true when you consider that Mike Flanagan was in line to adapt King’s masterpiece Revival for the screen, but the deal fell through. So, Flanagan then just happens to abandon a project about a preacher researching the mystery of life after death, who cures various people along the way of their ailments, only to write and direct an “original” story about a preacher who cures people of ailments through certain miracles in the hope of saving his wife and daughter from death? Hmmm.
It's very apparent early on in this series that Flanagan isn't being very subtle in his borrowing of King ideas. This is basically Flanagan taking elements from Revival, The Mist, and most especially Salem's Lot, and cut/pasting…
