Came Across This
- Thread starter Haunted
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
This is one to send to people who "don't get it" and never read him.
...who the hell is Stephen King?....
Good article. But i always say that if you doesn't at least mention IT it is not complete. I know, i know, i'm just grumpling for myself but otherwise it was a good article.
The Nameless
M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
Sadly (for them), their minds are usually set in stone, he's just too popular for some people and they will always dismiss him as a low brow, cheap scares writer. Meh, their loss.
...on the whole, I found it well enough written-and the summations are decent, however I steadfastly maintain that the King "starting line" is to subjective to quantify....oh yeah, and I LOVED this bit of prose
re: The Shining)
but the book deviates in small but interesting ways from the famous Jack Nicholson vehicle.
...that's like saying the Titanic smacked into an ice cube.....
re: The Shining)but the book deviates in small but interesting ways from the famous Jack Nicholson vehicle.
...that's like saying the Titanic smacked into an ice cube.....
More like the book provides depth of characters missing from the infamous Jack Nicholson/Stanley Kubrick vehicle....on the whole, I found it well enough written-and the summations are decent, however I steadfastly maintain that the King "starting line" is to subjective to quantify....oh yeah, and I LOVED this bit of prose
but the book deviates in small but interesting ways from the famous Jack Nicholson vehicle.
...that's like saying the Titanic smacked into an ice cube.....
More like the book provides depth of characters missing from the infamous Jack Nicholson/Stanley Kubrick vehicle.
More like the book provides depth of characters missing from the infamous Jack Nicholson/Stanley Kubrick vehicle.
This is ever the problem with "adaptations." Even the best of them -- and some are very good (you know which ones) -- cannot capture all the character nuances that make the reads so engrossing.
It's the nature of the form. You've got roughly 90 minutes before most of your audience checks out and that constrains even a guy like Stanley Kubrick.
This kind of thing actually bothers me more when they take the time to tell the story with a series of movies and still turn it into a barely recognizable morass.
I've made the same argument as others for years that they should be considered completely separate entities. The book is more character driven but Kubrick's is a cinematic piece in which he is trying to capture mood more than substance. If you didn't know they were the same source material, I wonder how many people would think the story was even about the same characters because of how they were portrayed. Each on its own has merits but for different reasons. I'd disagree, though, that in 90 minutes Kubrick's version did not have the time to create both mood and depth of character or that he could not have found actors to do that.
I couldn't agree more.
Art tries to elicit emotion through the use of imagery, and film is simply more immediate than prose. Depth -- which is the word I believe you used before -- is more the province of prose. While Kubrick's Shining -- to my mind -- doesn't really tell the same story, that does not mean it isn't a good movie.
The sad thing is that there are probably people who don't read the books because the movies don't (can't) represent them well enough.
Art tries to elicit emotion through the use of imagery, and film is simply more immediate than prose. Depth -- which is the word I believe you used before -- is more the province of prose. While Kubrick's Shining -- to my mind -- doesn't really tell the same story, that does not mean it isn't a good movie.
The sad thing is that there are probably people who don't read the books because the movies don't (can't) represent them well enough.