Kubrick vs. the mini-series

[kingricefan]

Doowopgirl,

Everyone is entitled to their own likes and opinions. There will be no lynching today. I understand and agree with what you mean by the atmosphere of Kubrick's version, as it just feels creepy a great deal of the time. My major issue is the story itself. Kubrick glossed over or cut out major parts of the story that were crucial in understanding the hotel and what was happening to Jack, Wendy, and Danny. Jack's spiral into madness is so much more subtle and slow in the book, whereas Kubrick makes it happen so quickly and then draws out the ending to show us the result. The mini-series was long, and in some ways, pallid, but I felt it was a better overall telling of the great story that King wrote. It wasn't looking for the quick scare like Kubrick, but rather was looking for the long psychological effect that the book had, and it really tried to put you into Jack's place better than the Kubrick version did. Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, and this has been debated by SK fans for years. I still say Kubrick's version is a masterpiece, but when compared to the original material, I don't think it was as good.

In Kubrick's version, it seems that Jack is already crazy in the beginning on the second drive up to the hotel (maybe the hotel's evilness has already started to worm it's way into him?) and I also felt that Jack despised his family by the way he communicates with Wendy and Danny on the drive up- he seems really irritated that they are even there with him. Snaps at them and glares at them.

[Tim D.]

I personally have never cared much for anything Kubrick did. His technical skill is not in question but his movies, to me, have always lacked an emotional core. His films are cold and distant. As for The Shining, Stephen King doesn't care much for Kubrick's version and that's good enough for me. In Kubrick's version Jack Nicholson is pretty much ready to hack his family to bits the minute they arrive at the hotel. And as annoying as Shelley Duvall is who would blame him. And to me Nicholson's performance is just standard, crazy Jack Nicholson. While the mini-series suffers from the usual budgetary constraints of network television, it is a more faithful telling of SK's novel. Steven Weber was better suited to play the normal, everyday kind of fella that the Jack Torrance in the novel was, and we see his slow descent into madness. Everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes, but I'll take SK's movie version of his story over Kubrick's any day.

[RichardX]

The movie is iconic. It's reputation seems to be growing over time. I never really understood the comments about it being different from the book. There is no way to capture every storyline in a two-hour movie, but it basically contains the major plot elements. The mini-series was a terrific bore long since forgotten. I think King's unfortunate criticism of the movie has led to something of a false controversy among fans. It was more an ego clash between a director and writer than anything concerning the movie.

[fljoe0]

The movie is iconic. It's reputation seems to be growing over time. I never really understood the comments about it being different from the book. There is no way to capture every storyline in a two-hour movie, but it basically contains the major plot elements. The mini-series was a terrific bore long since forgotten. I think King's unfortunate criticism of the movie has led to something of a false controversy among fans. It was more an ego clash between a director and writer than anything concerning the movie.

I found the mini-series kind of slow too. I think it was a case of being "too faithful" to the novel. Movies need to move at a faster pace than novels. I did like that they were able to get the moving topiary in the mini-series.