Stephen King has had over 50 of his novels, short stories, or novellas adapted on screen, making him one of the most popular authors. The author's smooth and straightforward prose attracts filmmakers because it's filled with relatable characters, and rooted in a strong sense of place (often rural Maine). Once he settles you in the story's rhythms, King will smack you in the face with some of the most stomach-churning gore or existential dread. King's books often explore the insidious evil beneath small-town America, the emotional fragility of childhood, and unfold as Lovecraftian epics with a vast mythology. But not every Stephen King film adaptation is successful or worth watching. For every "The Shawshank Redemption," there's "Cell"; for every "Misery," there's "Trucks." The failure of such movies to capture the essence of the source material would bother a lot of authors. In an interview with Vulture, Stephen King references "Rosemary's Baby" author Ira Levin, who was "very anxious that [director Roman Polanski] follow the book very closely, right down to the kind of shirts that the John Cassavetes character wore." King does not take this same approach, which may be why we've ended up with such an uneven mix in the quality of adaptations. Most authors treat their books as sacred creations — like their own babies — because they've spent years writing them, and pouring all their creativity and heart into them. But Stephen King has never been overly precious about his work, letting filmmakers run wild with their own interpretations. He told Rolling Stone in 2014, "The movies have never been a big deal to me. The movies are the movies. They just make them. If they're good, that's terrific. If they're not, they're not." This makes us wonder: what allows King to be so hands-off with his stories?