The Shining: Book vs Movie?

[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.

[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!