The Shining: Book vs Movie?

[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?

[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.