• 87 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Pr1mus (3875 posts) -

I don't know which is better but it's fairly common knowledge that the film is a poor adaptation of the novel. That's why King went and made his own adaptation of it later.

#52 Posted by MildMolasses (3219 posts) -

@boozak said:

I think most of King's novels would be better adapted into mini-series rather than movies (like Rose Red) because a lot of them are slow burners.

Saying that though you cant go wrong with a psychopathic Jack Nicholson, faithfull adaption or otherwise.

Clearly you did not see The Shining miniseries

#53 Posted by Laiv162560asse (487 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:

@liquidprince The book is just OK. The movie takes the few really intriguing nuggets of the book and makes them the core of a really terrifying, mindbending experience that's so meticulously crafted and dense that a feature-length documentary dissecting the movie was just released, to very positive reviews. Honestly, I would tell people to skip the book completely and just watch the movie, because I worry that people's viewing experience would be plagued by the wrongheaded impulse to compare what they see on the screen to what they remember from the page while watching, distracting them from what's actually in the film. Unfortunately, our culture is such that people have been subtly conditioned to think that reading books is an inherently more intellectual exercise than watching a movie and therefore film adaptations of novels are only ever as good as they are faithful to the source material. Adopting this mentality supposedly makes one a Thoughtful and Serious Person who truly understands and appreciates Finer Artforms. You've definitely fallen prey to this fallacy (sorry, real talk) and I don't see how complaining about how the movie doesn't faithfully represent the content or the themes of the novel could ever be worth anything more than a "C" at best, because it misses the point by a pretty good margin.

You made the post I wanted to make, so have some imaginary rep+. Particularly over the past decade or so, many of the most popular TV and movie franchises around have been adapted from novels, which has made their discussion excruciating to wade through because so many people simply equate 'quality' with 'faithfulness of adaptation'.

#54 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3075 posts) -

I think omitting the backstories of the characters actually helped it, in some respects. The lack of explanation for some things let me, as a kid, fill in the blanks myself. I was never confused as to why Jack was so violent and temperamental, and to be honest it reminded me a lot of my own father, which made that movie way the hell more terrifying.

#55 Edited by Everyones_A_Critic (6296 posts) -

The Shining is a great movie but a shitty adaptation. Reminds me of this little gem from youtube...

#56 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3229 posts) -

The Shining is an excellent movie. The plot being inferior to the book's is completely besides the point. The camerawork alone is enough to make it a classic imo.

#57 Posted by Aurelito (721 posts) -

But the other adaption, produced by King himself, is vastly inferior.

#58 Posted by stryker1121 (1406 posts) -

All the Kubrick's movies I've seen have that cold, detached feel. I'm not a huge fan of The Shining myself because of this (although it's been ages since I've seen the flick) and King's own adaptation is certainly worse. Whoever said King doesn't do psychological horror is out of their tree, however. At his best he's a master at world-building, storytelling and characterization, all of which help build tension and terror of the more visceral, "literal" bits.

#59 Posted by TobbRobb (4606 posts) -

I don't really like the Shining. Some elements are really cool, but I didn't enjoy actually watching it. So meh.

#60 Edited by LiquidPrince (15918 posts) -

@oldirtybearon said:

@liquidprince said:

@joshthebear said:

Books are, 90% of the time, better than the movies.

But like in this case it's A LOT better. Like the ending in the movie is so dumb compared to the book. "I'ma freeze to death yo!"

Because shrubbery coming to life and the Overlook hotel exploding is such a thrilling climax?

The Shining (film) and The Shining (novel) are two separate beasts that tell different stories with the same plot, if that makes any sense. Like for instance the novel reads like some kind of personal confession from King as to how much of a shitty guy he was during his alcoholic years back in the 70's and early to mid 80's. It's like reading a raw, exposed nerve, and while that's interesting to read on its own, I found the clinical examination of madness in the film to be far more enjoyable, and that the film stayed with me long after I finished it. I also liked how the film didn't ever really say one way or the other if it was ghosts fucking with Jack or if it was his own instability or "inner demons" as you called it.

Also the bear blowing the bell hop was pretty weird.

No, the climax manifested itself in Hallorann's journey from Florida to Colorado and all the shit he had to face before he was even able to get to the demon shrubs. The tension comes from this character wanting to save this child despite knowing that he will most likely be killed in the process. Hallorann in the movie is essentially a non character.

@kidavenger said:

All this coming from someone that loves the Transformer movies and thinks Megan Fox is a good actress is a real laugh.

If you consider The Shining to be a bad movie, you should probably just stop watching movies because you are in for a lifetime of disappointment otherwise.

I never said it was necessarily bad, but that it was a bad adaption. I also don't really understand how it's considered a classic on its own, but then again I would need to do more research on when the movie came out, and what was considered technically sound.

#61 Edited by fox01313 (5069 posts) -

Agreed that the book & the tv miniseries turned out better in parts (esp. with the hedge maze animals) than the Kubrick movie but between Jack Nicholson & the hotel setting, it has it's own level of charm for me. Granted I really really hate Shelly Duvall as she just doesn't seem like a great pick for the role or an interesting actress but regardless of this, it's worth the time to watch it once & the start of the fall for the Stephen King films after this as the movies based off his later books were rather silly & not too scary for this horror film fan.

#62 Edited by StrainedEyes (1324 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

@oraknabo said:

@bocam said:

Have you seen the TV miniseries version of The Shining?

I was just about to recommend he watch this if he can get his hands on it. King felt like it was far more faithful to his original vision and I completely agree with you on its quality.

http://members.tripod.com/~Stephen_King_Temple/index-14.html

I've heard that it is pretty bad.

It's actually not bad at all. You have to keep in mind that it was made for TV in the 90s, so it's obviously not as dark as the book and the cgi is awful, but it's a fairly spot on adaption of the book. The final section when Jack starts going on his rampage is well done. I'd recommend it.

I watched Kubrick's Shining, then read the book, then saw the mini-series and I think all three have their merits.

#63 Posted by Mocca_Bear (62 posts) -

It's funny how many people forget that Kubrick movies tend to receive poor critical acclaim when they were first released. Not necessarily poor but nowhere near as good in the months and years that have followed.

I can relate with the thread owner, the first time I saw a Kubrick movie was in a high school art class, Clockwork Orange. The first time I sat through it during multiple classes I remember being slightly bored, think of it being a bad first impression. Luckily though this didn't stick and I absolutely adore Kubrick as a director. His uncompromising way of creating movies translates well to the screen. I don't feel that his movies have aged at all, especially when placing them next to There Will be Blood or The Master.

At the end the fact that the book has a personal preference for some does not take away that the movie is a marvelous accomplishment. Further evidence that Kings story doesn't translate to the screen is the miniseries produced by King himself...

#64 Edited by Milkman (16685 posts) -

This right here is the problem with film adaptations of books. People who have read the novel go in with certain expectations and when the movie is different from those expectations, they said "what the fuck, the movie didn't have this, this and this, that sucked!" It's a completely different beast. When a director like Kubrick adapts the novel, you can be pretty confident that he's going to insert his own vision into it. He wasn't exactly the kind of filmmaker interested in making a straight adaptation.

Online
#65 Posted by Fattony12000 (7312 posts) -

You know it's a film, right? And that the book is a book...right? You can't film a book, but you can film a screenplay.

#66 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@oldirtybearon:

Kubrick plays with the idea of the ghosts merely being illusions. But, Kubrick enforces that they are really ghosts with Wendy seeing the butler at the end of the movie.

Not to mention the butler helping Jack escape the storeroom.

#67 Edited by tourgen (4478 posts) -

I thought Kubrick did a nice job of taking the few good ideas out of the book and turning them into a pretty decent movie. I don't like King's writing though. It's always twice as long and wordy as it needs to be. It's also not ever that scary. His characters just come off as sniveling sheltered crybabies. I'm always rooting for the creature by then end. "HELL YEAH! GET EM! make my line at Starbucks a little shorter."

#68 Posted by MikkaQ (10284 posts) -

@uniform said:

I love it. My third favorite Kubrick film behind 2001 and Barry Lyndon.

Hell yeah Barry Lyndon! That's such an incredible, yet overlooked, movie. If Paths of Glory is your #4, we might just be soulmates.

More people need to see Paths of Glory, but it's never included in any of the Kubrick box sets so people tend to forget it exists. Same with The Killing which is even more forgotten.

#69 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3050 posts) -

I tend to agree. It's probably my least favorite Kubrick film. However, it is well shot, especially the opening helicopter shots.

#70 Posted by mikethekilla (328 posts) -

The Shining is fucking hilarious

#71 Posted by oraknabo (1457 posts) -

I think you can only call it a bad movie for these reasons if your strict definition of a good movie is about how closely it matches its source material. That would make even the best comics movies, like Dark Knight and Spider Man, also kind of bad because they don't do exactly a storyline from the comics. The same criteria would say the Doom movie would have been the best movie ever if they had had demons in the plot instead of bio-mutant-whatever enemies. That also gives you no context for evaluating original films.

When it comes to book adaptations, the important thing is not to ignore the important themes. I don't really care about details or characters getting removed or fused together, but if a movie shits all over the original book's themes it pisses me off. The problem with complaining about a movie made from a Stephen King book is that he really doesn't deal in well considered themes, just average horror entertainment, so it's easy to get wrapped up in the details. The important thing about the Shining is that Kubrick added a lot of depth to a pretty shallow novel and he had to make a lot of changes to minor details to accomplish that.

#72 Posted by Mocca_Bear (62 posts) -

@Mikkaq

Apparently Kubrick hated the Killing along with most of his early work.

#73 Edited by MikkaQ (10284 posts) -

@mocca_bear said:

@Mikkaq

Apparently Kubrick hated the Killing along with most of his early work.

I would too if I eventually moved on to make even a quarter of his later output. But The Killing was a ridiculous showing of promise from a young director that most professionals working today could only hope to match in their older years. He was like 28 when he made that, when I see the output of me and my fellow 20-something film peers, it's pretty pathetic by comparison. I mean Orson Welles was 25 when he made Citizen Kane, these guys really depress you with your own incompetence if you're in the middle of film school.

#74 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

I don't know, that's kind of like saying There Will Be Blood is "kind of a bad movie" because it only took the first 150 or so pages of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" and changed the focus to the father, who became a composite of a number of characters in the book. A movie has a lot more going on than it's faithfulness to its source material, by disregarding the cinematography and the acting, I'd say you've missed the point by a wide, wide margin.

#75 Posted by jakob187 (21665 posts) -

I remember watching this movie a total of two times (last time was about eight years ago). I was so thoroughly unimpressed with it on both viewings that I still cannot believe it has Kubrick's name attached to it. People always expound upon this "level of genius" within the film, and I just think people are high and digging for reasons to stop Kubrick from having a colossal turd on his record. None of that opinion even has to do with the fact that it's a bad adaptation overall. If I took that into account, I would say it's easily in my bottom five "worst movies ever".

#76 Posted by Jeust (10559 posts) -

@hollitz said:

Very few movies that are considered classics actually hold up. Not unlike with games, people are in love with the idea of loving something old.

This. I think the movie was great when it originally released. I saw it when I was younger, in the eighties, and got all scared... ahah I've seen it recently with a friend and had trouble connecting the experience I had when I first saw it and loved it, and now that I kinda disliked it.

#77 Posted by cexantus (131 posts) -

Woah. This thread made me stop my weeks of lurking just to post:

I think The Shining is a fantastic horror film, proof that you don't have to tell the viewers everything in order to scare the crap out of them.

#78 Posted by Winternet (8014 posts) -
@hollitz said:

Very few movies that are considered classics actually hold up. Not unlike with games, people are in love with the idea of loving something old.

For something to become a classic doesn't it need to survive the test of time? You're contradicting yourself. If the movie doesn't hold up, if it doesn't survive the test of time, then it isn't a classic.

#79 Posted by RonGalaxy (3130 posts) -

@MikkaQ

Criterion recently released great transfers on blu ray for both of those movies. They should not be missed by Kubrick fans (everyone)

#80 Edited by Kevin_Cogneto (1038 posts) -
@mikkaq said:

@chrissedoff said:

@uniform said:

I love it. My third favorite Kubrick film behind 2001 and Barry Lyndon.

Hell yeah Barry Lyndon! That's such an incredible, yet overlooked, movie. If Paths of Glory is your #4, we might just be soulmates.

More people need to see Paths of Glory, but it's never included in any of the Kubrick box sets so people tend to forget it exists. Same with The Killing which is even more forgotten.

Lolita is the true forgotten Kubrick movie.

#81 Posted by Soapy86 (2620 posts) -

I don't give a fuck about the novel. The movie is excellent.

#82 Posted by i_got_an_F (25 posts) -

Books transferred into film format that go for loyalty to the source material...yeah, I've never understood this concept or why anyone would even want to bother. We're dealing with two entirely different mediums and if someone wanted to remake a book into a film script, why the heck would they get past pre-production without ever thinking, "Why can't people just read the damn book."? I mean come on, it's fine to prefer the book over the film but to expect one creative mind to mimic another is stifling if not equally insulting. Kubrick's set design as well as his tracking shots are mesmerizing as well as claustrophobic. I can understand being bored by the film, but there's more than just writing in a movie and if you're judging it for one of several qualities that go into filmmaking then you aren't understanding the art form.

#83 Posted by gla55jAw (2688 posts) -

Books are always better than the film version. Especially if you read the novel first. Hell, I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, then watched Blade Runner, and thought it sucked.

#84 Posted by Itwastuesday (959 posts) -

The film is better because I don't have to read it!

#85 Posted by Mocca_Bear (62 posts) -

@MikkaQ

Oh I wholeheartedly agree! It has more to do with the perfectionist nature that arose when it came to his work.

#86 Posted by HerbieBug (4212 posts) -

It is a poor adaptation of the novel, absolutely. The first time I saw the movie I was incensed by how Kubrick ran roughshod over King's narrative.

However, as a standalone movie, taken on its own and completely disconnected from the book, it's pretty good. I still maintain that Kubrick fucked with it way more than needed and made the movie weaker than it could have been had he not made quite so many inexplicable changes.

#87 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Bro, are you badmouthing Kubrick? We can't have that shit, APOLOGIZE!

#88 Edited by JazzyJeff (400 posts) -

The film isn't intended to be a true adaptation of the novel. Simple as that, really.

@chrissedoff: Thanks for attempting to bring some sense to this thread.

#89 Edited by LiquidPrince (15918 posts) -

Books transferred into film format that go for loyalty to the source material...yeah, I've never understood this concept or why anyone would even want to bother. We're dealing with two entirely different mediums and if someone wanted to remake a book into a film script, why the heck would they get past pre-production without ever thinking, "Why can't people just read the damn book."? I mean come on, it's fine to prefer the book over the film but to expect one creative mind to mimic another is stifling if not equally insulting. Kubrick's set design as well as his tracking shots are mesmerizing as well as claustrophobic. I can understand being bored by the film, but there's more than just writing in a movie and if you're judging it for one of several qualities that go into filmmaking then you aren't understanding the art form.

Harry Potter did pretty well and staying close to the source material, although perhaps in some ways, that is an easier movie to make then the Shining.

Bro, are you badmouthing Kubrick? We can't have that shit, APOLOGIZE!

I haven't seen enough Kubrick movies to judge him as a director. I'm more badmouthing his adaption of the Shining.