Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

http://www.4ourdegrees.net/shining.jpg

The first time I saw The Shining, it rocked. Then I read the book, and the movie didn't measure up. The TV version was truer to the book, but lame. Question: In your opinion, did Kubrick do a good job?

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I didn't read the book, so I can't answer the question in relation to that, but the movie is a masterpiece.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

What the hell was on Sci-Fi channel a few days ago? It said it was "Stephen King's The Shining" but it looked like it was from 2003 or something.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

They redid it in a made for TV movie a few years ago. It had the guy from wings in it and wasn't that good.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I haven't read the book but I've had this conversation a few times, so take this for what it's worth:

Kubrik was to the book The Shining as Ridley Scott was to Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. If you take the movie (In Scott's case, Bladerunner as a direct book-to-movie interpretation, then it's going to be awful. If you view the book as more of a framework for the movie, you'll enjoy both a lot more.

Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I read the book first,so I thought the movie totally sucked.I was amazed to hear that most people loved it.They completely destroyed the story and turned it into a visual shlockfest.Jack Nicholson rocked however.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The Godfather
2. There is no #2

(But to be fair, I don't read many books; I almost made "Red October" #2, but it paled in comparison with #1.)

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

#2 - The Exorcist...

IMO

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I saw 'The Shining' in its original theatre run, and had read the book. As the crowd left the theatre, it was split about 50/50. Those who hadn't read the book thought the movie was great, those who had were [censored] pissed (myself included). Over time, I've come to appreciate the movie for the masterwork it is, and I love it. I agree the miniseries was lame, in part because some elements of the book were in Kubrick's movie, and couldn't really be used again.

Movies as good as the book:

Silence of the Lambs
Field of Dreams (which actually was better than 'Shoeless Joe' the book IMO)
Hunt for Red October
Godfather I and II (as was said, book contained both flicks)

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I walked out of TTT very upset. All was redeemed with the extended box. Very, very well done. One of the few, if not only, DVD's where I actually listened to the commentary track(s).

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the novel, "Back to the Future II", and the movie was seriously just as good as the book. Zemeckis is a great director.

The saddest part about this post is I actually read the novel, "Back to the Future II." All 251 pages.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I walked out of TTT very upset. All was redeemed with the extended box. Very, very well done. One of the few, if not only, DVD's where I actually listened to the commentary track(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are morons, do you realize each LOTR movie would have to be like 6 hours long to do COMPLETE justice to the book. Who gives a [censored] if they forgot key elements from the book. I would not be surprised if 1 of every 2 (or higher) ppl that watched LOTR did not read the book, of course it has to be "made for hollywood" or w/e you fgts wanna say.

once again, very few book to movie transformations are going to please everyone. there are exceptions, but let's remember one thing, your imagination has no limits, unfortunately most movies have limits, and sadly, the film-makers cannot read and please the minds of you [censored] retards.

go jump off a 2-story building

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
go jump off a 2-story building

[/ QUOTE ]

Harsh..

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I walked out of TTT very upset. All was redeemed with the extended box. Very, very well done. One of the few, if not only, DVD's where I actually listened to the commentary track(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are morons, do you realize each LOTR movie would have to be like 6 hours long to do COMPLETE justice to the book. Who gives a [censored] if they forgot key elements from the book. I would not be surprised if 1 of every 2 (or higher) ppl that watched LOTR did not read the book, of course it has to be "made for hollywood" or w/e you fgts wanna say.

once again, very few book to movie transformations are going to please everyone. there are exceptions, but let's remember one thing, your imagination has no limits, unfortunately most movies have limits, and sadly, the film-makers cannot read and please the minds of you [censored] retards.

go jump off a 2-story building

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the [censored] posts? What is your problem? Run out of palm lube last night? Jeebus.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

oh wait, i was supposed to read the posts?

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

One criticism I've heard of The Shining movie is that Jack Nicholson seemed crazy the whole time (partially due to the fact that he was well-known for his role in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest). The whole point of the book is that he is driven to insanity- if he starts off crazy it loses the effect.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
oh wait, i was supposed to read the posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a bitch. You should take the gas pipe. Seriously.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
One criticism I've heard of The Shining movie is that Jack Nicholson seemed crazy the whole time (partially due to the fact that he was well-known for his role in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest). The whole point of the book is that he is driven to insanity- if he starts off crazy it loses the effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that is the one aspect of the movie I dislike. Jack doesn't do a good job of showing a transformation.

Still a great movie, however.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."



[/ QUOTE ]

anything by Tom Clancy.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."



[/ QUOTE ]

anything by Tom Clancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except 'Clear and Present Danger'.

Oh, and 'Sum of All Fears' since they pussied out and didn't make the terrorists Arabs like they were supposed to be.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.4ourdegrees.net/shining.jpg

The first time I saw The Shining, it rocked. Then I read the book, and the movie didn't measure up. The TV version was truer to the book, but lame. Question: In your opinion, did Kubrick do a good job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick messed up big time because although he essential changed it from a story about both madness and the supernatural to one about madness, he still cheated in the movie by letting the supernatural in, specifically in the unlocking of the freezer door and the picture at the end with Jack in it as the old caretaker(which of course makes no logical sense), and because he didn't believe in the supernatural or feel particularly inspired by the feeling of it. The supernatural was tossed in only in a few jarring cheats, actually lessening the coherence of the movie.

Nevertheless, he put out a very watchable movie with some classic moments, brilliant camera work, and some real chills and eerie moments. The casting was great, and good attention was sometimes paid to atmosphere, the foundation of horror.

The use of the axe instead of the croquet mallet was probably regretable over-all, but it's hard to miss the blunt, as it were, scariness of an axe, and Kubrick used its effect well, even in camera moves.

A terrible waste of time and huge cheat was the endless draggy progression of handyman Scatman Crothers back to the Overlook Hotel only to be immediately hacked to death without even a fight. This wasn't a subversion of audience expectation to throw them into a more disorienting, unknown world like Janet Leigh's death in the shower shortly into Psycho was; it was the same world expressed no more interestingly or precariously. It was simply a very padded waste of time and a cheat of audience expectations to no end, except to give Jack someone to kill besides the other main characters. It seemed to show his distaste for the material, the genre and its conventions, and the audience, at once.

It was ultimately a project he couldn't quite believe in even as he took it on. It winds up being in many ways watchable despite him rather than because of him. When he surrendered to the material and worked with the brooding, lonely atmosphere of the hotel to create creepy moods with the kid, and when he focuses on letting Nicholson's talent loose, the movie soars. It's material he needed to let find its own rhythm more, as his own interjections showed a great deal of his own indifference.

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember a hedge maze in the book. Just the topiary animals, as in the miniseries.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book but I've had this conversation a few times, so take this for what it's worth:

Kubrik was to the book The Shining as Ridley Scott was to Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. If you take the movie (In Scott's case, Bladerunner as a direct book-to-movie interpretation, then it's going to be awful. If you view the book as more of a framework for the movie, you'll enjoy both a lot more.

Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of fair. Kubrick didn't respect the book or make as good a movie as could be made out of it, but he added some great atmospherics of his own, and used Jack Nicholson, whose personality everyone thought would be an overbearing cliche in this movie, very well.

Ultimately, he screwed up a lot, but the movie still has many excellent scenes.

By the way, the book was very good, but the first 50 pages or so were deadly dull. It picks up suddenly, then gets really good.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I walked out of TTT very upset. All was redeemed with the extended box. Very, very well done. One of the few, if not only, DVD's where I actually listened to the commentary track(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are morons, do you realize each LOTR movie would have to be like 6 hours long to do COMPLETE justice to the book. Who gives a [censored] if they forgot key elements from the book. I would not be surprised if 1 of every 2 (or higher) ppl that watched LOTR did not read the book, of course it has to be "made for hollywood" or w/e you fgts wanna say.

once again, very few book to movie transformations are going to please everyone. there are exceptions, but let's remember one thing, your imagination has no limits, unfortunately most movies have limits, and sadly, the film-makers cannot read and please the minds of you [censored] retards.

go jump off a 2-story building

[/ QUOTE ]

Take your medication immediately or you will be reincarcerated.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
One criticism I've heard of The Shining movie is that Jack Nicholson seemed crazy the whole time (partially due to the fact that he was well-known for his role in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest). The whole point of the book is that he is driven to insanity- if he starts off crazy it loses the effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Jack got crazy-ER.

But you're right; Kubrick was seriously ham-handed because he didn't respect the material. Ironically enough, the material was substantially degraded because of his own lack of understanding of it and contempt for it. The one who brought it low was Kubrick himself. As Stephen King said, "He just didn't get it." It became kind of a Kubrick riff on stuff he didn't really like and wasn't in sympathy with.

Not that he's a guy who seemed to like or have sympathy with a lot of things.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I'd also vote for Mystic River.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.4ourdegrees.net/shining.jpg

The first time I saw The Shining, it rocked. Then I read the book, and the movie didn't measure up. The TV version was truer to the book, but lame. Question: In your opinion, did Kubrick do a good job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick messed up big time because although he essential changed it from a story about both madness and the supernatural to one about madness, he still cheated in the movie by letting the supernatural in, specifically in the unlocking of the freezer door and the picture at the end with Jack in it as the old caretaker(which of course makes no logical sense), and because he didn't believe in the supernatural or feel particularly inspired by the feeling of it. The supernatural was tossed in only in a few jarring cheats, actually lessening the coherence of the movie.

Nevertheless, he put out a very watchable movie with some classic moments, brilliant camera work, and some real chills and eerie moments. The casting was great, and good attention was sometimes paid to atmosphere, the foundation of horror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Kubrick did a good job of creating tension, but not releasing it, which eventually leads to dullness, IMO.

I also can't agree about the casting, I think it's terrible all around, especially Shelley Duvall. Nicholson is too over-the-top, from the very first scene (interview) he seems like a psycho.

[ QUOTE ]
The use of the axe instead of the croquet mallet was probably regretable over-all, but it's hard to miss the blunt, as it were, scariness of an axe, and Kubrick used its effect well, even in camera moves.

A terrible waste of time and huge cheat was the endless draggy progression of handyman Scatman Crothers back to the Overlook Hotel only to be immediately hacked to death without even a fight. This wasn't a subversion of audience expectation to throw them into a more disorienting, unknown world like Janet Leigh's death in the shower shortly into Psycho was; it was the same world expressed no more interestingly or precariously. It was simply a very padded waste of time and a cheat of audience expectations to no end. It seemed to show his distaste both for the material and its genre, and the audience, at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick really didn't seem to understand what a horror film was while he was making this. This scene is one of the worst, for the reasons you describe, and also because, well, it's ridiculous. Crothers is psychic, he knows what's going on in the damn hotel, that's why he rode hundreds of miles to get there. When he does get there, he walks practically naked down a dark hallway saying, "Hello? Is anyone here?" Friday The 13th has more realistic scenes in it.

[ QUOTE ]
It was ultimately a project he couldn't quite believe in even as he took it on. It winds up being in many ways watchable despite him rather than because of him. When he surrendered to the material and worked with the brooding, lonely atmosphere of the hotel to create creepy moods with the kid, and when he focuses on letting Nicholson's talent loose, the movie soars. It's material he needed to let find its own rhythm more, as his own interjections showed a great deal of his own indifference.

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree.

And those who haven't read this book, btw, are really missing out. King's become something of a hack in his old age, but this book is brilliant, really his first great book (Carrie's a bit short and simplistic, and Salem's Lot has some very clumsy passages and pacing). Kubrick's film may be a masterpiece to Kubrick fans (I don't count myself among those) but this book is a flat-out fantastic example of gothic fiction and a must read for anyone interested in the genre. I must admit, I only watched the film after reading the book, and was one of those that compared them incessantly.

The TV movie was pretty bad, but I liked the casting of Rebecca De Mornay as Mrs. Torrance - that is much closer to what the character is in the book than Duvall.

Oh, and the kid talking to his finger all day long - that was just silly.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

I always thought Kubrick's film was one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.

Then I read the book (which is great) last summer and found out Kubrick didn't stay true to King's book.

Now I think that Kubrick's film is one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also vote for Mystic River.

[/ QUOTE ]

No fricken way. Mystic River's an absolutely fantastic novel, and I honestly thought it was right up Eastwood's alley and that he would hit a home run with it, but the movie was sorely lacking. Don't get me wrong, it was good, and most of the performances were great, but it missed so much emotion and meaning from the book. It's just a straight-up retell of the relevant scenes to move the story along.

Anyone who did like the book at all, btw, should also pick up all of Dennis Lehane's other novels, all of which are fantastic.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember a hedge maze in the book. Just the topiary animals, as in the miniseries.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I meant. The hedge maze is in the movie, and didn't need any tough effects. The topiary animals were missing, though most people at the time kind of understood that they probably would be, as animating that well would have probably cost a ton and maybe not looked very good no matter how much money got spent. If it was done today, it could probably be really good.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it was done today, it could probably be really good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your dream cast... Go!

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

My dream cast for a Shining remake (answering my own question):

Norton or Spacey
Jodie Foster (can't really think of a female at the moment)
Any kid, but they'd probably change it to a girl and cast Dakota Fanning

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also can't agree about the casting, I think it's terrible all around, especially Shelley Duvall. Nicholson is too over-the-top, from the very first scene (interview) he seems like a psycho.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't like Shelley Duvall either at first, but I mostly meant the old caretaker/butler looking guy, and Nicholson, who despite being over the top from the start and way too predictable as a casting choice, still pulled off some excellent scenes anyway. It was like Kubrick was fighting the material, not using it, in many ways, and using the most glaringly obvious casting. Yet somehow Nicholson still didn't screw up entirely; it wasn't as good as The Shining that Stephen King wrote by a long shot, but Nicholson still did very well on his own terms. The beginning, where he does the interview already seeming a little crazy, is actually very good. His craziness isn't blithering and raving, but it creates a real sense of creepiness, and the managers seem extremely unethical in even considering taking Nicholson. It's one of those very tense, borderline social situations where something is drastically wrong but you can't quite come out and say it and would really like to just escape. It was a good scene. Very few of Nicholson's scenes weren't, despite the fact that so many were way over the top. Nicholson made Kubrick's bad choices work in terms of Kubrick's film -- which was not the film the Shining could have or should have been. It was its own special kind of mess.

[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick really didn't seem to understand what a horror film was while he was making this. This scene is one of the worst, for the reasons you describe, and also because, well, it's ridiculous. Crothers is psychic, he knows what's going on in the damn hotel, that's why he rode hundreds of miles to get there. When he does get there, he walks practically naked down a dark hallway saying, "Hello? Is anyone here?" Friday The 13th has more realistic scenes in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Dumbest psychic ever. What a sad waste of film time. I mean, this took up quite a bit of time and emphasis and just gave us nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the kid talking to his finger all day long - that was just silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And the famous "redrum" bit with the backwards R was stupid too. Can't remember if that was in the book or not; read the book more than 20 years ago.

I agree it was a really good book too, once it started going, which it took quite a while to do. Obviously King was on fire there, and it shows what happens when you really believe in your material. Too bad Kubrick didn't.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought Kubrick's film was one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.

Then I read the book (which is great) last summer and found out Kubrick didn't stay true to King's book.

Now I think that Kubrick's film is one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and so are you, but there's no way in hell this was the best horror film ever made. It uses the trappings of horror well sometimes and has some good moments, but it doesn't hold a candle to films like The Haunting, The Exorcist, Theater of Blood, Diary of a Madman, House of Dark Shadows, The Wolfman, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Nosferatu, etc. etc.

The Shining is chock full of flaws. I like it a lot and have probably seen it 20 times. A great horror movie? Nah. Plenty of incredibly redeeming moments and some good atmosphere? Heck yeah.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yup. Dumbest psychic ever. What a sad waste of film time. I mean, this took up quite a bit of time and emphasis and just gave us nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly he wasn't exactly pyschic. He and the boy held a special bond and it was actually the boy who was psychic and it was the boys powers that called him there.

I had read the book first and I thought it was really dumb that they had changed it so drastically. I thought the father/son- to new father was a strong aspect of the novel.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yup. Dumbest psychic ever. What a sad waste of film time. I mean, this took up quite a bit of time and emphasis and just gave us nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly he wasn't exactly pyschic. He and the boy held a special bond and it was actually the boy who was psychic and it was the boys powers that called him there.

I had read the book first and I thought it was really dumb that they had changed it so drastically. I thought the father/son- to new father was a strong aspect of the novel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the book 20 years ago and haven't seen the movie in many years, so I don't recall things exactly, but Scatman Crothers was the one who recognized the Shining in the boy, and was able to receive his psychic transmissions; that just seems psychic to me. Nobody else knew the boy had The Shining or was able to receive his mental call, because nobody else was psychic.

Maybe my understanding or memory of it is just clumsy. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, and I'm just noting what seems to make sense according to my memory. I don't seem to recall feeling that Crothers wasn't psychic, and it doesn't seem to make sense to me that he wasn't. I dunno.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

Nothing compares to the book, but Kubrick did a really solid job. Nicholson does a great job, maybe his best work. The wife also is scary because of her eyes. The book is a lot more terrifying though overall.

Re: Kubrick\'s The Shining
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it was done today, it could probably be really good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your dream cast... Go!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Spacey is a very good choice. He can be very calm, but always seems to have something hidden under the surface that is sometimes scary and volcanic.

For some reason Tim Robbins comes to mind. He has the patheticness and hints of weakness, and his ordinary nice-guyness would make it easy to identify with his every feeling and fear as he slowly goes nuts. You could definitely see him being a loving father who is terribly haunted by the guilt of his past outbursts against his child and scared that he might repeat them. He seems like a nice guy, a little weak and overwhelmed by life, who might be ready to starting to slip downhill after a few bad outcomes.

This one could use some real thinking. I bet there are a lot of ways to play the casting of the male lead.

I agree that any kid could do. It's been too many years since I read the book to remember much about the wife or have an idea how to cast her.