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.

carrie's younger brother

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2012
I tend to agree with this, although I think there are some casting choices that have hit the nail so squarely on the head it's . . . well . . . scary.

Keith Gordon as Arnie Cunningham is one of these guys for me; and Laura San Giaccomo (sp?) as Nadine Cross.

Very chilly.
Funny thing is, Sissy Spacek as Carrie White was very far from the description in the book, but being the great actress she is, Spacek took the role and pretty much made it her own. And kudos to her for being able to go on and do many other amazing roles and not be typecast as a "horror movie queen."

S.R. Wittmann

Active Member
Feb 22, 2017
Florida, USA
One quiet weekend a month or so ago, I was browsing DVDs and The Shining caught my eye. "Hmm, it's been a while since I've seen that one," I thought. I popped the disc into the player and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was larger than life on the big screen TV. When it was over, I was curious. I know SK never liked Kubrick's adaptation, so I thought I'd investigate further. I went to my library and found The Shining, its pages still rumpled and dog-eared from the years. Soon, I was once again immersed in the tale.

A couple weeks later, I finished the book and viewed it with new understanding. The movie Jack came across as a raving lunatic while SK's Jack was exploited by the hotel. Yeah, SK's Jack might have been one cheeseburger short of a Happy Meal toward the end, but he became that way by the relentless haunting of the hotel's permanent residents. I don't think SK's Jack would have gone off the deep end if it weren't for the hotel pushing him along, exploiting his weaknesses, and his addictions. Kubrick's Jack made me think he was a sociopath serial killer looking for an opportunity and would have pleasured his vice with or without the hotel's haunting. I'm going to have to side with SK on this one - I thought the book was much better than the movie.


Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2006
Lodi, CA
I love what Kubrick did for his adaptation.

A director like him is always going to have his own vision, and he did take a lot from the book, often in creative ways.
I think Kubrick's film is about the inherently violent nature in man, and that it is often passed down generation to generation (from man to boy).

Lots of interesting symbolism seems to explore what lies underneath our civilized society, from centuries of colonization to outright survival (note the Donner Party reference). You could look at the blood from the elevator as a symbol of the cost of progress, there is mention of the Overlook being built on an Indian graveyard, but one could say our entire country (and others) are built on the graveyards of other people.

Generation after generation of violent behavior and atrocities - I think Jack is fighting the battle in my head/heart of civility versus violence. I'm too tired and lazy to go into a bunch of other symbolism, but I think this link has a bunch of wonderful theories regarding the Kubrick film;

"Dad, Do You Feel Bad? The Secret History of The Shining"