The Shining: Book vs Movie?

[Gabriella]

I much prefer the book! The Shining was a brilliantly written masterpiece, and I feel the film didn't quite live up to that. I wasn't too fond of casting, either: given the choice, I'd employ Simon Baker as Jack and Naomi Watts as Wendy. What is your opinion?

[tojoro]

In my opinion, King's books always smoke the movies. In a few rare instances, a film has come close to the intensity of the book, (The Green Mile, for example), and never has one of the films ever topped the book it was based on.
The Shining, the novel, was far more frightening than the film, (either film), could have ever hoped to be.
I am well overdue for a revisit to The Outlook...perhaps once I'm through riding around in Christine...

[Rand]

Are you talking about the 1980 Kubrick movie or the 1997 mini series later released as a movie?

Either way the book is better, but the mini series was much better than the Kubrick offering. The guy was a brilliant director, but I often felt that, if he was so insistent on rewriting so much of the books he turned into films, he should have just started writing his own original screenplays. Which, come to think of it, he essentially did with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[davemelnick]

The novel is A LOT better. The re-make of the 1980 movie version is nearly spot-on like the book though. However, Jack Nicholson is definitely The Best Jack Torrence. The role was made for 'em. :grinning:

[strange]

the novel is defintely the better one, though the film has its charms. Rarely does a film ever outshine (bad pun) the book

[Jojo87]

I prefer the book before the movie. I had watch shining few times before I read the book and though I'm not gonna like the book because I don't really like the movie either. But after I read Shining I completely change my mind. The book was awesome.

[GNTLGNT]

Alas, the big screen version sucketh most mightily. Kubrick's folly I call it. The TV flick is better, but the book still redrums em all...:biggrin2:

[catnoel]

Book over movie with the exception of the original Shining, Green Mile, Cujo, Misery, and the Mist. In these cases, the movie was pretty good as a stand alone and did not compare it too much with the books.

[Weave30]

I saw the film first about eight years ago, but had almost completely forgotten about it by the time I came to pick up the book. I completely fell in love with the novel, I'd never previously been unsettled by a book, yet this one managed it. When I finally bought the Kubrick version of the book, although I thought that was very good too, it almost annoyed me with the amount of detail either altered or missed out completely.

Simple things like Jack's use of a mallet instead of an axe just make the novel scarier, without even having to dig into the ins and outs of tension build up...an axe may only take one blow to pop you off, a mallet could time some time...

[aahlyia72]

The book, definately. Being in Jack's mind and looking out was so much better than just seeing a movie. There is so much more going on than the movie can relay.

[michal]

The book, but it's actually a tough one for me. Even reading the book what I see is Jack Nicholson's crazed eyes going: Hereeeees Johny!

[aahlyia72]

The book, but it's actually a tough one for me. Even reading the book what I see is Jack Nicholson's crazed eyes going: Hereeeees Johny!
Kinda like your avatar? :smile2:

[dsurrett]

As good as Nicholson was in the first movie, the book is better. I'm currently reading it for the second time and am amazed at how much info you get from the book as opposed to the movie. That's true with most books, but is especially true in this one. Definitely one of King's best books.

[stevohump]

The book was far better, but in no way did Kubrick's film suck. I love that movie and a lot of people agree its one of the scariest movies ever. We all know SK didnt care for the casting and how some of the movie played out, but him writing the basis for one of (if not the) scariest movies of all time, now that has to be an honor. His ideas have dominated horror in multiple mediums.

[nate_watkins]

Definitely the book. The movie wasn't too bad for what it was, but it could've been better. I think you get a much better feel for the story in the book than the movie.

[Maoster]

The Book without doubt - just finished re-reading after nearly 30 Years and its still awesomely goosebump raising. Having said that I think the Kubrick version is the best adaptation of a SK book.

[noahl]

Definitely the book.

In fact, going to and coming back from France the last two weeks and got The Shining audiobook on my iPod, which I listened to while driving.

Amazing. This book is just amazingly good.

I watched the movie just yesterday.
It was a mistake to watch it too close to reading the book.
I still think it's a great movie but a little to... showing, I guess, compared to the book's finesse.

I guess it's the problem with adaptations of books to the cinema.

[sprinco12]

The novel is much better than the movie, although the movie is still okay.

[Delbert_Grady]

There are very very few instances, in my opinion, where the film adaptation is as good as (let alone better than) the book upon which it is based.
But for me it is hard to fairly compare a book and a film as they are such different modes of storytelling. I prefer to consider the merits as regards the art form that they represent - for example, I definitely think that Kubrick's Shining is as good a film as King's is a novel. To say that the film or the book is better than the other simply does not make sense to me; apples and oranges. I feel the same about Stand By Me, Dolores Claiborne, & Shawshank - although in the cases of these three it is their faithfulness to the books that so endear them to me.

The same cannot be said of Kubrick's Shining - it is not faithful to the book in so many ways, yet I feel that, as a film, it is every bit as enjoyable to watch as King's book is to read.

Kubrick never let me down (well, he kind of did with Eyes Wide Shut but I don't want to talk about that here), and even after probably a dozen viewings of each of his films I still find myself completely captivated by them. The Shining is no exception.

Now, if you want to compare Kubrick's film with the later film made with King, I would argue that the more modern (and more faithful to the book) version was almost unwatchable. WAY TOO long (and people say Kubrick's was too long!) and the performances are pathetic when compared to those of Nicholson and Duvall. This is one instance where faithfulness to the source material was probably the only merit that the film could boast.

As always, this is my humble opinion.

[wally wonder]

There are very very few instances, in my opinion, where the film adaptation is as good as (let alone better than) the book upon which it is based.
But for me it is hard to fairly compare a book and a film as they are such different modes of storytelling. I prefer to consider the merits as regards the art form that they represent - for example, I definitely think that Kubrick's Shining is as good a film as King's is a novel. To say that the film or the book is better than the other simply does not make sense to me; apples and oranges. I feel the same about Stand By Me, Dolores Claiborne, & Shawshank - although in the cases of these three it is their faithfulness to the books that so endear them to me.

The same cannot be said of Kubrick's Shining - it is not faithful to the book in so many ways, yet I feel that, as a film, it is every bit as enjoyable to watch as King's book is to read.

Kubrick never let me down (well, he kind of did with Eyes Wide Shut but I don't want to talk about that here), and even after probably a dozen viewings of each of his films I still find myself completely captivated by them. The Shining is no exception.

Now, if you want to compare Kubrick's film with the later film made with King, I would argue that the more modern (and more faithful to the book) version was almost unwatchable. WAY TOO long (and people say Kubrick's was too long!) and the performances are pathetic when compared to those of Nicholson and Duvall. This is one instance where faithfulness to the source material was probably the only merit that the film could boast.

As always, this is my humble opinion.

kubrick's movie was my 1st exposure to sk. been reading jailbird, by vonnegut. there's a line in the story, "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy."
i'd read this one from vonnegut before...this is the one where the character claps his hands three times...yeah, i want to be a professor....HA HA HA HA!
i've since read the shining a number of times, but i don't recall jack typing those words, repeatedly, as he did in the movie.

[phaga]

In all honesty I like both the book and the movie equally. I think there are unique scenes in both the movie and the book that really stand out. From the movie: The elevator scene with the two girls is insanely creepy, and the "all work and no play..." scene is a classic. From the Book: The hedge animals and the playground scene as well as how it delves deeper into Jack's alcoholism and self loathing. Unfortunately I saw the movie before reading the book so as I was reading I couldn't help but picture the actors that played the characters in the movie. I have to say, Jack Nicholson is the only Jack Torrance for me, but then that may just be because he was the first representation of that character for me...

[Samantha_]

The book.

[LindainLondon]

Always, the book. The Shining was uncomfortable, bizarre, scarrrry, and sad. Cujo? Sure, the movie was paced well, but the plot was different, wasn't it? The books are so much more character driven, and I love a good character. I'd much rather imagine machines coming to life than to see it, less ridiculous, more back brain reaction in reading and imagination. The world I walked through, thanks to Stephen King's words in the Dark Tower books was pretty cool.

[Silhouette86]

I personally can't say that I like the book better than the movie or the movie better than the book. Isa the movie(the original) and couldn't help but laugh whenever Jack Nicholson swore. I don't know what it was, maybe his tone.
Is it odd that I haven't read the book? In a way, I kinda think it is.

[Robert 'Bob' Gray]

I think it is very rare for a film to match the book it is based on, especially if you have just read the book, in which case you will be looking out for all sorts of small details which may be left out in the movie. However, I particularly enjoyed the Shining mini-series, but the movie was okay. The book is definitely the best though :grinning:

[Delita]

Man, I watched the miniseries since I feel that I was obligated too. So far it is pretty bad (Courtland Mead is despicably awful compared to Danny Lloyd), Rebecca De Mornay "looks" the part in the book but she is horrible at acting. Plus, they went out of their way to make sure it seemed more like a cliche ghost story (OMG THE DOOR CLOSED BY ITSELF/THE CHAIR IS ROCKING WITH NO ONE IN IT)

The only good things are Steven Weber and Melvin Van Peebles. Steven Weber may not be as good as Jack Nicholson, but he is a pretty decent actor and seems fine in the role (right now at least... the "foreshadowing" has revealed that he changes his voice to sound stupid towards the end) and Melvin Van Peebles is okay.

But the miniseries I will give a 3 (compared to the movies 10)

I am sick and tired of hearing that Jack Nicholson was crazy from the start. He seemed pretty normal to me at the interview and just a bit irritated for the beginning.


The book honestly had a lot of things that I didn't like. What in the world possessed Stephen King to give away the end of the book in the first few pages? You had Watson saying "Make sure to check the boiler everyday or it will explode" (theres a hint) and of course, Danny always seeing the bloody mallet or hearing COME OUT AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE over and over. Jack going crazy should have been a surprise, it shouldn't have been something which we knew would happen in the beginning of the story.

Plus, Kubrick got rid of the stupid scenes like the fire hose scene and the dumb topiary garden. Kubrick knew what he was doing, thats for sure.

So yeah, the movie combined the best parts of the book with Kubricks genius and artistic film making which makes the movie far superior to the book in my opinion.

[ArthurKidd]

I agree with a lot of what Delita has said about the miniseries. I thought it was ok, but no comparison to Kubrick's movie. The Shining (Kubrick's) is actually one of my all time favourite movies - I don't like his other films though.

I too thought that Courtland Mead was very annoying in the miniseries. In fact, I thought all of the acting in the minseries was very annoying.

[ArthurKidd]

I forgot to mention in my last post - I really enjoyed the book, but I prefer Kubrick's masterpiece.

[MistahJ]

I assume you are talking about the Stanley Kubrick version. The book had things that, in the movie, just wasn't important. It bothers me that in the movie he just goes crazy and never really fights the losing battle he has with alchohol...It's only mentioned briefly in the film but it doesn't have anything to do with Jack's downfall

[Stillreading]

1) Although I have come to respect the movie for what it offers in it's own right* I'm not so convinced Kubrick was a genius -- but that's a matter of opinion.

2) If we're talking about depth, complexity, imagery, imagination, etc. in a direct comparison then, for me, it's no contest, the book is far superior.


*I must admit I have a really hard time taking Jack Nicholson seriously in this role -- I always want to laugh at precisely the moments I'm suppose to be scared. Not so good for a horror film.

[Rondio]

I'd have to say that with "The Shining," an exception has to be made for the "movie pales in comparison to the book" rule.

Yes, the book is one of King's best and creepiest stories. The movie, while based off King's ideas, definitely goes down a different path and paints a different story. It is very difficult for a hard-core Stephen King fan (which I am and have been for a couple decades) to separate the two works of art...

If you can do that, though: They are both exceptional works. The book is one of the purest, most terrifying and sobering "haunted house" stories ever written. Sobering, because it embeds the "booginess" with real human drama. But the movie, while not true to the book, is a masterpiece. I mean, if you were to collect the top 100 most famous and indelible scenes from the history of cinema, how many horror movies would even show up on the list? The movie, while potentially an affront to the integrity of the book, is damn near the best horror movie ever made. "Redrum," "Here's Johnny," and "Come play with us Danny, come play with us forever, and ever and ever"....

I love the book. I also love the movie. If I had written the book, I wouldn't love the movie. But as I had little to do with either works of art (aside from being an eager and grateful recipient)...I love them both.

[first edition]

Sorry all, I have to disagree with nearly everyone. I LOVE the book, The Shining. L O V E. THe movie cannot be judged by the book. It is too dissimilar. The book that SK wrote works on the page perfectly, but on film? The bushes coming alive on film, could you have imagined that in 1980? And don't even get me started on the Steven Weber TV version. I understand why Uncle Stevie didn't like certain aspects and the casting of Jack as , well...Jack. I know it is supposed to be more terrifying when someone who is a normal guy undergoes the changes Jack Torrence is supposed to, but for the film Stanley set out to make, Jack was the ONLY choice. There is a reason the film is called Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, and not Stephen King's. In this case, it is not fair to compare.

[guido tkp]

read the book, back in the day (when it was released) loved it...

saw the movie, opening day: loved it

separate animals...no movie can EVER do a book, with all its richness, true justice...but it can capture the 'feel', and kubrick did that in spades.

never understood, and still don't, kings aversion. probably is as much that de palma, with 'carrie', had just done a very straight retelling of his tale and king had expectations (?really !?) of that with 'the shining', too.
...could just be a latent 'just-don't-like-nicholson' thing.

just re-read the book, recently: kubrick captures the essence of the whole story far better than the tv version, imho.

movie: scary/creepy...

tv...? notsomuch

[papercut99]

Hello, I'm 14 and new to this site. I read 'The Shining' quite awhile back...its not really fresh in my mind but I remember that I COMPLETELY fell in love with it. Who am I kidding, I ADORED IT! Of course, I love all of King's books. They never fail to amaze me. 'The Shining' (book) was much, much, better than the movie. But I gotta say, the movie was pretty darn good. If you think about it, King wrote the book in I think, and correct if I'm wrong, from 3 different perspectives. The son, Jack, and Wendy. You got to see what they were all going through at the times when they were going through it. He skipped around and I never once got confused by it. For example, he may say Wendy was doing something at 1pm, then a few pages later he would say what Jack was doing at 1pm. I like that about his books.
Now, in the movie, they do the same thing. But in movies they always do that. You get to see what everyone is doing while they're doing it. Now for someone to put that on a page and not get the reader confused on what is going on? Thats talent. So I can't really say what my opinion is on whether the book or movie is the best....
Stephan King did an excellent job on this book. I love his work and plan to keep reading it. I just finished 'Carrie' tonight! I plan to be going to the book store VERY soon and picking up one of his books!!!!:smile2:

[AndyDufresne]

I'm both a huge fan of Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick, so the aversion between the fans of both people is something I'm definitely not a part of.
Is Kubrick's version completely faithful to King's novel? No. Does it try to be? Also no. Kubrick takes the general plot of the book and transforms it to something completely different. Better? I don't know. If you see the miniseries, Kubrick's version is clearly superior IMHO. That also doesn't mean the material wouldn't have worked on the big screen (or the small screen, for that matter) if the source material was followed more closely. If the miniseries was done by a superior director, then maybe that would have turned out better. A The Shining directed by Frank Darabont? Yes please.
In the end both versions are different enough for me to be able to enjoy both the movie and the novel.
And Kubrick's version also was the movie that introduced me to the written works of Stephen King, because I wanted to read the novel after I saw the movie and was basically scared sh*tless by it.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

I love both of them, but yes the novel is leaps and bounds above the Kubrick movie. Kubrick's vision was pretty awesome but he took a lot of great stuff out of the novel, the T.V. version was definitely closer to the book but the acting was terrible. I wanted to punch that kid that played Danny in the T.V. version right in the face, he was so annoying.

[Glanderence]

The Shining movie edition happens to be my favorite movie of all time. Yet I'm currently reading the Novel, so I'm pretty much caught between both. But I have to say, the Novel expresses details the movie couldn't provide. But what do I know about the Novel? I'm only on the 300th or so page! Until I finnish it, I'm biased upon the movie..

[TheHMC]

I've read The Shining 3 times(at different times in my life) and have to say that it's one of my favorite Stephen King books of all time. That's not saying much though, because I say that about pretty much every SK book that I read. He's definitely in the top 2 when it comes to my favorite authors, and I've been reading his books since I was about 11 years old(I've been a book hound my whole life and happened upon Mr. King early on, all thanks to my horror-loving uncles.)

I saw the movie first, when I was younger. I've always liked it. It's a good flick whether you've read the book or not. Jack Nicholson...need I say more? After reading the book, I noticed many differences, some of which I wasn't entirely hot on, but overall I've still found the original movie to be well done, and a classic. The book though...that movie doesn't compare in regards to letting yourself fall into the story completely. The way that King can write from Danny's perspective absolutely chilled me to the bone.(Similarly, he wrote from the dog's perspective in Cujo and did a FABULOUS job at it-I could go on for days about what a fan I am of that book because of how he took hold of what the dog was thinking/feeling. I haven't read it in years and I was all of 12 when I read Cujo the first time, but that's something that always stuck out to me...him taking on the rabid dog's perspective. It's like a mocha frappucino with all the flavor and goodness, but none of the fat and calories). He has a knack for that kind of writing and I LOVE that about him. Makes him a bit different.

There is just no comparison, like others have mentioned. The original movie and the book are two different animals and you need to understand that before watching/reading either. The book has all these little gold nuggets in it. I don't know how many of you have watched Friends over the years, but there was an episode once where Joey was reading The Shining and he has a tendency to stick the book in the freezer whenever it gets too scary for him. That cracked me up because this book has quite a bit of the creep factor going on. One of my favorite parts is when the Overlook is coming into view and they get out to look at it from an overlook and Danny zones out as he begins to realize that this place is the bad place his 'shining' has been warning him about. The sentences: "It's here. It's here. Whatever redrum is, it's here." (Hope I worded it properly) always gives me the chills. I've even forced my husband to read the whole paragraph because I get all goose-bumpy when I read it. To think of the fear that child would actually feel had this been a realistic situation, King touched on it perfectly and wrote from that boy's perspective like it was no one's business.

As for the mini-series, I have to agree with others. It was great to finally see a better adaptation of what happened in the book, but the movie just fell flat. and that kid they got for it...GAH! He was awful...I was happy to see him drop off the TV screen the past several years. I never liked him in anything I saw him in. Not that I'm all that, but that kid...nah. That Weber dude is usually awesome in most things he does, but this movie...it just wasn't as great as I was hoping it would be. I loved that they stuck closer to the book than they did in the 1st movie, but, again...the movie just fell flat with some of the acting.

[hustle111]

differences between the book and movie were more more than I anticipated... these are just a few

-book doesn't have "all work and no play make jack a dull boy"

-of course the hedge animals

-halloran lives! i was shocked when I read the book and he didn't die... and then floored when he even considered murder when he was briefly in the shed

-the hotel doesn't blow up in the kubrick

-roque mallet book, axe movie

-no encounter with the twins in the hallway for danny as was in the kubrick

-no river of blood as there was for wendy

-roger the dog did not provide fellatio to derwent

-no elevator craziness with party confetti and snake fire extinguisher in the movie

-no george hatfield in the movie

-no "here's johnny"

-and perhaps the biggest, the way Jack dies is drastically different

-no maze in the book

-no bathroom window escape in the book. Danny instead is forced to face his father (or what has become of him)

[Jema]

The book 100% hands down.I think everybody agrees with the saying "The book's always better then the movie" - movies don't let me see and feel the things that the book does.

[Goodlovin]

I'm not sure even an awesome movie like Kubrick's the Shining can compare to an Awesome book like Kings The Shining.

Book wins every time but damn that movie was good.

[91rewoT]

Book wins, hands down...

[samhain]

I don't even compare the two anymore.
In my mind, there's STEPHEN KING'S The Shining and then there's STANLEY KUBRICK'S The Shining.
Even though Kubrick borrowed chunks of the plot from SK's novel, it's almost an entirely different animal in style and structure.

[Laia_]

I have the film and I prefer the book because the spanish film isn't dubt good. The voice of Jack's wife is terrible and the voice of Jack is the same and it's a grief because I like the film :(

[King fan from trinidad]

Finally saw the movie! The book was way better but the twins were cool! The wife was really ugly though!

[not_nadine]

Finally saw the movie! The book was way better but the twins were cool! The wife was really ugly though!


Check out the miniseries....

[91rewoT]

Alas, the big screen version sucketh most mightily. Kubrick's folly I call it. The TV flick is better, but the book still redrums em all...:biggrin2:

You took the words right outa my mouth GNT!!!!!

[Debbie913]

The Shining has always been one of my favorite books. Way better than the movie named after it. Kubrick's The Shining is somewhat entertaining for what it is, but I never really cared for it. I liked the mini-series much better than Kubrick's version, but the book is just soooo much better!

[Vision Maker]

No director can truly capture Stephens ability to convey a message directly to the readers imiganintion. Many different readers get many different messages, a director only takes their understanding and puts it to the public. It is not the directors fault, they just can't transcribe Stephens story to a movie, it is like impossible, is there a movie of Kings that was as good as the book? I am not saying here wasn't I would like to know if ther was or is?

[ghost19]

Can't wait for the sequel "Dr. Sleep" to come out..looking VERY forward to seeing what Daniel Torrance has been up to these years.....

[d.r]

The book is melodramatic,tedious tripe.It started off interesting and somewhat scary early on,but goes downhill quick.King is horrible at writing good horror stories,he sets up nice premises,but he explains too much,and cops out.The characters in the book also,feel contrived(in particular wendy and danny).The film is dark and uncompromising,how ALL great horror stories are.Kubrick's cinematography,art direction and use of sound and music,is far more effective on working on you're imagination than anything king created.Also the key problem with the book,is you don't fear for wendy or danny.Wendy you feel can take jack out at anytime,and danny is too normal.Not what i would expect from a kid with psychic abilities,an abusive father,and stuck in an isolated place.Danny Lloyd portrayed him perfectly realistic(or as realistic i can think,considering the story).Wendy is portrayed as naive and submissive in the film,the kind of woman who would get stuck with torrance.So in closing,i think the real reason king says he hates kubrick's version,is because deep down,it's better than his own creation.All of kubrick's creations(the twins,the maze,the manuscript,elevator of blood)are iconic in pop culture.King's book?A bit of an afterthought.And anyone saying the mini-series is better?You just lost all credibility judging films.Yes the mini-series is more character study,but that's why it fails.Weber is embarrassing to watch,anytime he even raises his voice.Demornay looks like the average woman on a lifetime movie.The kid who played danny,is one of the most unsightly and unconvincing child actors i've ever seen.Pebbles speaks his lines as forced as possible,and there is nary a scary moment in this unwatchable soap opera.King and his fans need to give it up.Kubrick turned crap into greatness,just deal with it.

[Moderator]

DFTT

[Shoe]

DFTT

But can we burn them? I hear they make for a surprisingly delicious bbq.

[Moderator]

Tempting, but no. :biggrin2:

[Banjo Kazooie]

I definitely prefer the book. The movie's great too, because of Jack Nicholson, but I really didn't like the actress they chose to play Wendy. And, if I remember correctly, they cut the scene where Danny's in the playground with the hedge animals moving, which would have added a lot of fear.

[The Nameless]

Ha ha, it's always the guests. Although, I do agree that I liked the movie alot better than the book. As I've said in previous posts around the board, I thought the book was too slow, and I only really liked it towards the end.

Also, is DFTT an experienced board member thing, or an American thing? Let me in on the gag.

[SharkGunslinger1999]

Are you talking about the 1980 Kubrick movie or the 1997 mini series later released as a movie?

Either way the book is better, but the mini series was much better than the Kubrick offering. The guy was a brilliant director, but I often felt that, if he was so insistent on rewriting so much of the books he turned into films, he should have just started writing his own original screenplays. Which, come to think of it, he essentially did with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Actually 2001 was kind of based of a short story by this guy who's name is....something...can't remember. But I heard somewhere (might've been here) that Hal 9000 inspired Blaine the Mono (Na NA! Na na! na Na! Na Na! na na na na na neh neh nana going off the rails on a crazy traaa--aaaiiin...)

[x1i1]

Oh my. I just don't know. Both the King novel and the Kubrick movie are great, going together very well and complimenting each other. It's fun to read King's novel and picture Jack Nicholson and the Kubrick movie while reading it. The worst Shining version is the mini series... the mini series is the one that's not really needed and perhaps shouldn't have been made.

[losthighway]

1) Although I have come to respect the movie for what it offers in it's own right* I'm not so convinced Kubrick was a genius -- but that's a matter of opinion.

2) If we're talking about depth, complexity, imagery, imagination, etc. in a direct comparison then, for me, it's no contest, the book is far superior.


*I must admit I have a really hard time taking Jack Nicholson seriously in this role -- I always want to laugh at precisely the moments I'm suppose to be scared. Not so good for a horror film.

I always thought Nicholson was one of the best aspects of that movie--the guy's got "lunatic" written all over him. The movie definitely has its moments--the tidal wave of blood, the revelation of the stuff Jack's been writing--but the book has much, much greater depth. Plus, I know Uncle Stevie didn't like the fire being replaced with ice,

[Evil Queen]

The book is so much better, as is the case for most of his books. Kubrick's The Shining is good, I really like it, but it does not follow the book much, Kubrick decided to retell the story somewhat. I have not seen the tv series but heard that it follows the book closely. But nothing can beat the book, it's great!

[Tim D.]

I have spent this entire last weekend immersed in The Shining. I'm re-reading the book, and I watched both movies. The book, of course, is better. As for the movies I prefer the mini-series. As for Kubrick's version? Well, I never cared that much for it and after this re-visitation I have downgraded it to crap. It's full of pretty sweeping shots of long hallways and that's about it. It has absolutely no character development. The idea that it is a study in psychological terror is crap. The family checks into the hotel, and suddenly Nicholson's crazy and ready to hack up his family. No build up, no development. What little is learned of the characters is told mostly through exposition, people just sitting around talking for seemingly interminable lengths of time. Nicholson playing crazy is no stretch, it's what he does best. But the character of Jack Torrance needed some subtlety. Yep, after re-watching Kubrick's version I now thoroughly despise it. But really, I never liked much of anything Kubrick did after Spartacus.

[Robert Gray]

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred the book is always going to be better than the film (or television show). There are exceptions. The Showtime series "Dexter" took the interesting idea presented in a series of books and ran with it. It suffices to say that I don't even suggest reading the books. Then there are the awful Twilight books. I can't say the movies are any good (truth be told I didn't get past the first book or movie), but the film is certainly better than the painfully bad book. :) These are the recent exceptions that leap to mind. I like to mention an exception to prove the rule.

The book is almost always better. The book is almost always infinitely better. In the case of The Shining, I actually saw the movie before I read the book. It wasn't my choice. I found the film entertaining enough in that I didn't leave the building demanding my money back. It was certainly better than many of the horror movies out as contemporaries as well as many today. I read the book not long after, dreading the fact that seeing the damn thing first was going to taint and damage my enjoyment. To my relief that was not the case. The movie and book were so different (and the book so much better) that the film was overwritten in my head. It took about halfway through the book for the actors to fade as mental images to be replaced by the people my own mind conjured from the descriptions. Character development in films is always going to be hobbled because there is no way to give us access to that interior monologue. The few ways film have attempted this have always come off silly (think of the horrible film adaptation of Dune). I suspect this is why the written word (whether on a page or a screen) will always triumph over the glamours of television and the movies.

[SaiPandora]

As a fan, it's no surprise that I like the book far better than either movie adaptation. The book is the source; it is THE story, and in usual SK style, it's told brilliantly. It's in my top 5 faves by King, so I have a special place in my heart for The Shining, and so I've read it several (6 or 7) times.

As for the 2 movie adaptations, I think I like the TV miniseries version better. It just got more of the story itself (details!) out there on the screen, and while I love Jack Nicholson, I think Weber got the "normal guy trying to love his family and beat his demons" thing down a bit better. I never liked that Nicholson was creepy and sinister from the get-go in Kubrick's version, and I never liked that SO MUCH was left out. Even the titular murder weapon was changed from mallet to axe. I also thought DeMornay did a better job of portraying Wendy...Wendy from the book was strong, and resourceful (the hotel even ruminates at one point that maybe it should have been dealing with her all along [book]...) while Duvall was a ninny. That being said...

While Kubrick's version was my least favorite adaptation, there are three things I felt he got better than the miniseries. #1 Danny: The original movie Danny was BRILLIANT. The kid in the miniseries, not so much. In the miniseries, it seemed like they went for cute and adorable and saccharine sweet, whereas Kubrick got a kid that seemed sharp, precocious, and terrified. #2 The Overlook itself. I'm led to believe that the miniseries Overlook was actually closer in scope to the hotel that partially inspired the story; however Kubrick's huge, rambling hotel was just sinister and exuded an atmosphere of isolation. #3 Crazy Jack. Weber did a better job overall; but there's something to be said for all-out-murderous-rage Nicholson; you can'tt deny it was a powerful performance. If only Nicholson could have portrayed himself as a decent dude in the beginning...

Hands down, book wins of course. I don't know if anyone could do a visual/movie version of The Shining and do it true justice. It's truly the stuff of nightmares.

[weave9]

Hello, my fellow Weave,


When I finally bought the Kubrick version of the book, although I thought that was very good too, it almost annoyed me with the amount of detail either altered or missed out completely.

There is a Kubrick version of the book? I had no idea. That would be a strange read.

[Misesfan]

I loved the book. I had read it multiple time from 78 or 79 until the movie came out in 1980. At first I though as all here did: the movie did the book serious injustice. However, as I have had more time to ponder the movie and actually watch what Kubrick did with the source material... I have to say, Kubricks genius is on a completely different level then King, at least regarding The Shining.

[Box Office Poison]

I first read the book when I was about 12, & didn't see the movie until much later. I have since reread the book a few more times & seen the movie several times as well. I haven't seen the mini series at all so cannot comment on that. I actually see both the book & the Kubrick movie as great works of art in their own right. I guess, as a book nerd I always tend to prefer the experience of reading the book to seeing the movie based on it. With the book, you get to go on a quite intimate journey with the writer's vision, imagining how the characters look, & how they enact the scenarios of the story. With movies I often get annoyed by the way so much of the book's subtle details are lost, & how instead of using your own imagination, you are spoon fed someone else's vision of the events. Books are the original interactive medium!
With The Shining, I guess I ultimately prefer the book as there is so much more detail & suspense. There's also a lot more focus on the malign "personality" of the Overlook itself, with Jack Torrance's obsessive delving into it's history. What else -the scene with the wasp nest, the hedge animals, Danny's horrible encounter in the playground, Dick Halloran's terrifying drive up to the Overlook, etc...also how the lady I'm the bath is old & ugly in the book instead of young & hot in the movie! :-)
However, I do really like the movie. It's one of my favourites...it is full of iconic imagery & is certainly extremely scary & menacing, even if the story is presented in a very different way. I am a horror fan, but I tend to find a lot of horror movies (as opposed to books) cliched & obvious. The Shining is definitely a very high quality horror movie!
One of the things that does kind of bug me about the movie (as a fan of the book) is how the hotel manager loudly announces that the Overlook is built on an Indian burial ground! Whereas in the book, the manager is very secretive about the hotel's dark history.

[carrie's younger brother]

Hello, my fellow Weave,



There is a Kubrick version of the book? I had no idea. That would be a strange read.

Really? I don't think there is a Kubrick version of the novel. Someone correct me if there is.

[carrie's younger brother]

I have spent this entire last weekend immersed in The Shining. I'm re-reading the book, and I watched both movies. The book, of course, is better. As for the movies I prefer the mini-series. As for Kubrick's version? Well, I never cared that much for it and after this re-visitation I have downgraded it to crap. It's full of pretty sweeping shots of long hallways and that's about it. It has absolutely no character development. The idea that it is a study in psychological terror is crap. The family checks into the hotel, and suddenly Nicholson's crazy and ready to hack up his family. No build up, no development. What little is learned of the characters is told mostly through exposition, people just sitting around talking for seemingly interminable lengths of time. Nicholson playing crazy is no stretch, it's what he does best. But the character of Jack Torrance needed some subtlety. Yep, after re-watching Kubrick's version I now thoroughly despise it. But really, I never liked much of anything Kubrick did after Spartacus.

Well, now you have to watch this!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/