Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_bootstrap.php(561) : eval()'d code on line 1
Kubrick vs. the mini-series - Page 2

This message board is only an archive. Click here to go to the current message board.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    4,351

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    Quote Originally Posted by dmeier1231 View Post
    Doowopgirl,

    Everyone is entitled to their own likes and opinions. There will be no lynching today. I understand and agree with what you mean by the atmosphere of Kubrick's version, as it just feels creepy a great deal of the time. My major issue is the story itself. Kubrick glossed over or cut out major parts of the story that were crucial in understanding the hotel and what was happening to Jack, Wendy, and Danny. Jack's spiral into madness is so much more subtle and slow in the book, whereas Kubrick makes it happen so quickly and then draws out the ending to show us the result. The mini-series was long, and in some ways, pallid, but I felt it was a better overall telling of the great story that King wrote. It wasn't looking for the quick scare like Kubrick, but rather was looking for the long psychological effect that the book had, and it really tried to put you into Jack's place better than the Kubrick version did. Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, and this has been debated by SK fans for years. I still say Kubrick's version is a masterpiece, but when compared to the original material, I don't think it was as good.
    In Kubrick's version, it seems that Jack is already crazy in the beginning on the second drive up to the hotel (maybe the hotel's evilness has already started to worm it's way into him?) and I also felt that Jack despised his family by the way he communicates with Wendy and Danny on the drive up- he seems really irritated that they are even there with him. Snaps at them and glares at them.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    241

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I personally have never cared much for anything Kubrick did. His technical skill is not in question but his movies, to me, have always lacked an emotional core. His films are cold and distant. As for The Shining, Stephen King doesn't care much for Kubrick's version and that's good enough for me. In Kubrick's version Jack Nicholson is pretty much ready to hack his family to bits the minute they arrive at the hotel. And as annoying as Shelley Duvall is who would blame him. And to me Nicholson's performance is just standard, crazy Jack Nicholson. While the mini-series suffers from the usual budgetary constraints of network television, it is a more faithful telling of SK's novel. Steven Weber was better suited to play the normal, everyday kind of fella that the Jack Torrance in the novel was, and we see his slow descent into madness. Everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes, but I'll take SK's movie version of his story over Kubrick's any day.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Gettysburg, PA
    Posts
    385

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    The movie is iconic. It's reputation seems to be growing over time. I never really understood the comments about it being different from the book. There is no way to capture every storyline in a two-hour movie, but it basically contains the major plot elements. The mini-series was a terrific bore long since forgotten. I think King's unfortunate criticism of the movie has led to something of a false controversy among fans. It was more an ego clash between a director and writer than anything concerning the movie.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    120 miles S of the Waffle/Pancake line in pancake territory
    Posts
    2,805

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardX View Post
    The movie is iconic. It's reputation seems to be growing over time. I never really understood the comments about it being different from the book. There is no way to capture every storyline in a two-hour movie, but it basically contains the major plot elements. The mini-series was a terrific bore long since forgotten. I think King's unfortunate criticism of the movie has led to something of a false controversy among fans. It was more an ego clash between a director and writer than anything concerning the movie.
    I found the mini-series kind of slow too. I think it was a case of being "too faithful" to the novel. Movies need to move at a faster pace than novels. I did like that they were able to get the moving topiary in the mini-series.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I thought the movie was great and loved Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance. I didn't care much for Shelley Duvall as Wendy. I've never seen the other version, so I can't really compare it or comment.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Vermont/ Maine
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I Like the original movie but even though I love Jack N. I think he over acted it. What I love about the mini series was it was more deeper I thought Steven Weber was great it was good to see him in this role and love Rebecca But the TV version you got more of the sense of alcoholism & a better sense of the characters themselves . I notice alcohol thing in a lot of Stephen Kings movies. I think it's more true to the book. But the original movie is much more creepier/ disturbing LOL!!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    841

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    The novel is a great novel; the movie is a great movie. The miniseries is mediocre television.

    So for me, the movie wins that battle, and it isn't even close.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I love the book.
    I love the movie.
    I love Jack Nicholson.

    That is all.


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I have to say, after an eightish hour movie fest watching both, I preferred the TV series over the Kubrick version. Sure, Kubrick had a way of making things creepy, but this story wasn't supposed to be just "creepy", it was meant to get under your skin and make you think that you could fit into either Jack or Wendy's situation. Kubrick's version made Jack seem a little unhinged from the start, but SK's original version, Jack seems like a very normal person from the start. How many of us haven't battled with the thought "Could I lose control and become an alcoholic?" or something of the like. What would we (personally) be like as a recovering alcoholic? What would it take for us to realize we have a problem and go into recovery?

    As this started out as a University project (where I'll have to write a paper on the differences later), I've found myself elbow deep in this controversy. On one hand I can see how Stephen King is justified in his outrage over Kubrick's version. On the other, I can see how Kubrick's version could have appealed to the typical 1980's demography that might not have been familiar with King's works. However, one thing I would like to point out is how Kubrick's version mentions "Indian Motifs" "Indian Attacks" and "Indian Burial Ground". Why was that such a fascination then? Why did so many movies from the 80's feature those ideas (Poltergeist)? As soon as it started bringing that up I thought "Oh not this crap again".

    Another thing is, the title infers how important "the shine" is to the plot. Kubrick understates the idea of the Shine WAY TOO MUCH. SK's version, the reason things in the hotel can move is thanks to the house controlling the boy's powers. Kubrick's version just acts as if the place is haunted (which is an overused concept today sure, but I guess not so much back then). Also, I really, really hate Kubrick's divergence of making Tony an imaginary friend and nothing more. I like how Tony is the kid's older self guiding him on in secret. It makes you wonder if he didn't use his powers in the future to guide his past self.

    In a way, I'd like to state that SK's version has a lot more plot and subplot as well as open interpretation. SK's version leaves much more for you to contemplate than the Kubrick version, which seems to have been made for cheap thrills rather than a great story. That's why SK's version ends on a much happier note. SK's characters are more three dimensional whereas Kubrick's characters are on par with the second dimension only.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    710

    Default Re: Kubrick vs. the mini-series

    I liked both versions, but the kid who played Danny in the TV series seemed to cuddly and baby-ish for the part. Every time he talked he was just annoying. That was my only real hang up with the mini-series. Stephen Weber is always solid in any part he plays and Rebecca Demornay is still one of most beautiful women ever to grace the silver screen. I could watch her sell insurance and be mesmerized...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •