Stephen King’s writings have long been one of the biggest sources for adaptations in Hollywood, and 2025 has been no different. The Long Walk‘s release this past weekend marked the third release for him this year, with a fourth, The Running Man, still to come.

Hollywood has treated King as an IP in recent years, hoping that his works would be the basis for mᴀssive hits. But 2025 has been a tough one for him. The Monkey performed modestly ($68 million worldwide vs. $10 million budget), but The Life of Chuck ($16.9 million worldwide, no known budget) was a misfire.

There was some optimism that The Long Walk would be a big performer still. Lionsgate had a great marketing campaign and leaned into the film’s Hunger Games connections. That’s why it was somewhat surprising to see The Long Walk‘s box office fall right in line with projections and earn $11.7 million in its opening weekend domestically.

The movie has been lauded by critics, holding one of the highest Rotten Tomatoes scores for a King adaptation at 89%. So why are The Long Walk and other movies based on his works failing to connect? A deep dive into Hollywood’s history with King movies reveals the startling truth.

Stephen King’s Box Office History Isn’t That Strong

Hollywood’s modern obsession with Stephen King movies can be traced back to 2017. Warner Bros. hit the jackpot with It, which adapted the first part of the iconic horror novel, as it grossed over $700 million worldwide. That’s a record high for a King adaptation, and its opening weekend and domestic totals are still records for King when adjusted for inflation.

Studios have been chasing this type of hit in the eight years since, with It: Chapter Two in 2019 the only one coming relatively close; the sequel was still seen as something of a disappointment, grossing $473 million worldwide, a 32% drop from its predecessor. But, this was still the last time a King movie made over $100 million worldwide or had an opening weekend over $20 million.

Based on how often Hollywood takes a crack at bringing a Stephen King novel to life, there is a perception that his movies must do well, generally speaking, at the box office. That would be the logical explanation for the influx of adaptations that has carried on into 2025’s quartet of films.

That is just not the case, and Hollywood has nearly 50 years worth of data to back this up. The average King movie only makes $63 million at the worldwide box office, not adjusted for inflation. That’s not an amazing figure. Adjusting for inflation, the average domestic total for his movies jumps up to $75 million. That’s more respectable, but still well shy of being in the top tier of yearly hits.

Going back to 1976, when Carrie became the first movie based on a Stephen King novel, the results are actually quite grim. Only ten movies based on his works made over $100 million domestically, adjusted for inflation. That’s out of 48 qualified movies. And other than the two It films, it hasn’t happened since 2007’s 1408 ($118M adjusted vs $71M unadjusted).

Not only do King’s movies tend not to make huge sums at the domestic or worldwide box office by the end, but they also frequently fail to have sizable debuts. Only four have opened to more than $20 million not adjusted for inflation, and two of them are the It films.

If we take inflation into account, that number jumps up to 15, but the expectations should also increase. The group is cut down to seven if the bar is $30 million. Only three have over $40 million: The Green Mile and both It movies.

This is why the performance of The Monkey, The Life of Chuck, and now The Long Walk shouldn’t really be that surprising. Hollywood has had trouble translating the beloved writings of an icon into reliable box office results for almost 50 years.

These movies can be saved by reasonable budgets, as is once again the case with The Long Walk, reportedly costing only $20 million. So while it can open to under $20 million and possibly finish its box office run under $100 million worldwide and be profitable, it will more likely go down as a film that, on paper, should’ve done a lot better.

Hollywood Values Stephen King Movies Too Much

With this box office data in mind, it is clear that Hollywood is overcommitted to adapting Stephen King’s works based on the returns and general audience interest. There is not a steady demand that justifies so many adaptations of his works coming out every single year.

That’s not to insinuate that book-to-movie adaptations of his writings can’t produce hits. But, they are fewer and farther between than the industry acts. If you take the two It movies out of the equation, there hasn’t been a King movie that made over $200 million worldwide, not adjusted for inflation, since 1999’s The Green Mile.

Adjusting figures for inflation helps classics like Carrie, Stand By Me, Misery, and The Shining all pᴀss the $100 million mark domestically alone. Those movies are all over three decades old, though, suggesting that King’s adaptations are not connecting with audiences at the box office as well as they used to.

It appears that the strength of King’s written work and his name recognition is driving Hollywood’s interest in these adaptations. But, they are not all suited for big-screen reimaginings, nor are audiences showing a demand to see them all in this format.

Hollywood may be better off slowing down on its output of King adaptations, then. This is easier said than done, as The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, The Stand, Danny Coughlin’s Bad Dream, The Regulators, and remakes of Christine and Cujo among the тιтles in various stages of development.

By taking a less-is-more approach, Hollywood can ensure that each Stephen King movie adaptation fulfills the promise of the original works and can be events that demand seeing on the big screen. The more they oversaturate the market with King movies, the less impactful they become.

It’s interesting to me that King’s biggest movie ever, It, came amid one of the largest gaps in Hollywood pushing him for modern audiences. After 2013’s Carrie did solid numbers, Hollywood waited four years for the next film adaptation of his works.

That gap and tackling one of his most iconic works proved to be a recipe for success, but that logic hasn’t been applied going forward. Every studio is instead mining his works to try and get their own huge hit, and that may be letting them all down in the process.

Movies as great as The Long Walk have everything a studio would want to make a hit. They just can’t rely on King’s name to sell the movie. Shifting strategies to eventize these releases, while retaining their usually lower costs, could help the author’s movie adaptations become a more consistent source of success.