heard Kubrick's version of the movie wasn't same as the book...

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
60
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
and that the TV version follows the book more, but isn't as well liked. Is this true? I will be reading the book soon.

I happen to be one that loves the book and Kubrick's movie even though they are very different. I did not like the mini series even though it was pretty faithful to the book. Read the book, though. The book is vastly superior to anything on film.
 

carrie's younger brother

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2012
5,428
25,651
NJ
The Kubrick movie, had there never been a book, would be a good movie. But since there is a book and it is impossible for me to separate the two, I find the movie to be a slap in the face to the author and SK fans.

I've only seen the TV movie once and while it was more faithful to the book, it was boring. The Kubrick movie is much more atmospheric and visually interesting. The TV movie is just that; a TV movie.
 

Walter Oobleck

keeps coming back...or going, and going, and going
Mar 6, 2013
11,749
34,805
Kubrick's movie was my first exposure to anything Stephen King. I enjoyed the movie and from all indications from those who attended the same showing, everyone enjoyed the movie. There's a sense of King Lear in both movie and story, I am a man more sinned against than sinning! Blow winds! Spout fire! Spit rain! Have never seen the TV version of the story. I saw the movie years and years before I read the story. Why read the story when you've seen the movie, right? Or at least, that was my thinking. I've read things here and there about this that the other, that one concept is not in the movie...although I thought it was. Go figure. We see through the glass darkly or some such thing. I think it is silly to attend a movie expecting everything contained in a written story to be portrayed on the screen. Apples and oranges, they're not the same thing, why does anyone expect them to be so?
 

Soapstone

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2015
46
188
39
lol, Shelley Duvall was pretty big back then, she did Fairy Tale Theater back in the 80's if i remember right. If there was to be a new version to come out soon, would you want it to follow the book better than Kubrick's but still retain the atmosphere?
 

carrie's younger brother

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2012
5,428
25,651
NJ
lol, Shelley Duvall was pretty big back then, she did Fairy Tale Theater back in the 80's if i remember right. If there was to be a new version to come out soon, would you want it to follow the book better than Kubrick's but still retain the atmosphere?
Shelley Duvall is the type of actress one either loves or hates. I'm in the former camp. She's one of my favorite parts of the Kubrick movie. Now Nicholson... not a fan at all.
 

Debbie913

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2011
6,563
18,409
Colorado
The Shining is an awesome book. While the Kubrick movie is an okay movie for what it is, he changed the story atmosphere a bit too much, in my opinion. I am one of the rare people, I suppose, who really likes the mini-series better than that movie. I think the actors did a better job portraying the characters as SK wrote them, if that makes sense. The mini-series is much more faithful to the book. :)
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
59
Cambridge, Ohio
The Shining is an awesome book. While the Kubrick movie is an okay movie for what it is, he changed the story atmosphere a bit too much, in my opinion. I am one of the rare people, I suppose, who really likes the mini-series better than that movie. I think the actors did a better job portraying the characters as SK wrote them, if that makes sense. The mini-series is much more faithful to the book. :)
....yep, this pretty much sums up how I feel and much more politely...
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
I read the book back in the early 80's before seeing the movie and was terribly excited to see it on the big screen. Went into the theater with a group of friends who hadn't read the book. Came out of the theater very disappointed. One of the friends asked me why. I told them that the movie was nothing like the book (shades of Annie Wilkes here!). I did not see the Kubrick version for at least another 20 years. After seeing it again I actually think it is one of the most stylishly filmed horror movies ever made and is visually stunning. I like the film now but I have to keep in mind that the book and film are two seperate entities. In the book it's the hotel's madness that takes over Jack and leads him down the road to madness. In the movie Jack is crazy-as-a-loon from the get-go. You don't think so? Watch it again and watch Jack's face as he's driving his family up to the Overlook for the first time. He's bat-sh*t nutso! He despises his family, he hates them. I'm surprised he didn't just reach over Wendi, open the door on her side and push her out. In the book, it's Jack's love of his family that saves them. Nicholson chews up almost every scene he's in while Shelley Duvall disappears into the background. I wince when I watch the scene where Jack is following her up the staircase and she has the baseball bat in her hands and she is telling him to 'Stay away from me!' Takes her travelling all the way up the stairs before she actually uses it. If that was me his head would've been bashed in before we got up to the fourth step. You mess with me or my baby, you is gonna PAY! She's weak in the film. Not so much in the book. Kubrick's version has its merits, but it isn't King vision and it doesn't have King's heart like the book does.
The only thing I really liked about the TV movie is the fact that the hedge animals make an appearance and that they cast Rebecca DeMornay as Wendy- she kicked *ss!
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,737
4,434
The Kubrick movie is iconic and really put King on the map. The movie is great. The book is great. The TV movie is typical TV. Elliott Gould stands out though for his brief but horrible overacting. His scene in front of the hotel might the worst in the history of TV. I wondered if he had a brain injury before filming that or some grievance with his agent for getting him that role. I did like Rebecca De Mornay. She was pretty good.
 

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
60
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
I really liked all three -- except for the Duvall woman. She was painful to watch.

Shelly doesn't bother me but I can't stand Danny. How horrible is that to hate a child actor's performance? ;-D I love the movie but Danny really gets on my nerves. I think what contributes to my dislike (which is not the fault of the kid) is the way that Tony appears. I do not like that talking to the finger stuff.
 

Dana Jean

Dirty Pirate Hooker, The Return
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,634
236,697
The High Seas
Shelly doesn't bother me but I can't stand Danny. How horrible is that to hate a child actor's performance? ;-D I love the movie but Danny really gets on my nerves. I think what contributes to my dislike (which is not the fault of the kid) is the way that Tony appears. I do not like that talking to the finger stuff.
Not a big fan of Danny either. But, I felt the finger gave a better performance than Shelley.
 

Pucker

We all have it coming, kid
May 9, 2010
2,906
6,242
59
Well . . . I think as separate entities the Kubrick film and the novel are both wonderful, but they don't tell the same story and if that's going to bother you, then I would say read the book and forget Jack Nicholson.

I must have seen at least some of the mini-series because I remember that the guy from Wings -- who was killed with a shoe by Jennifer Jason Leigh in Single White Female -- was in it.

. . . so how good could it be?


And it just occurred to me that I made this very same joke about David Soul and 'Salem's Lot in another thread.

I've got to get some new material.

; )