Kubrick vs. the mini-series

**dmeier1231** · December 21st, 2010

Kubrick's version of The Shining was fantastic. It was a work of art, but IMO, it was not SK's The Shining. It was more like an interpretation on it. SK's Shining was so much more in depth and so much better. Kubrick glossed over much that made the story great in the name of a shorter film. I love the mini-series because it really stays true to the original story. That said, Steven Weber was great, but he couldn't top Nicholson. I liked Rebecca DeMornay much better than Shelley Duvall. I felt Wendy was too weak and helpless in Kubrick's version, and Duvall just got on my nerves after awhile.

**vickita** · December 21st, 2010

Originally Posted by dmeier1231

Kubrick's version of The Shining was fantastic. It was a work of art, but IMO, it was not SK's The Shining. It was more like an interpretation on it. SK's Shining was so much more in depth and so much better. Kubrick glossed over much that made the story great in the name of a shorter film. I love the mini-series because it really stays true to the original story. That said, Steven Weber was great, but he couldn't top Nicholson. I liked Rebecca DeMornay much better than Shelley Duvall. I felt Wendy was too weak and helpless in Kubrick's version, and Duvall just got on my nerves after awhile.

You have officially articulated my feelings on this argument. Perhaps better than I could have myself.

**GNTLGNT** · December 21st, 2010

What she said...

**king family fan** · December 21st, 2010

Nobody can compete with King. I always like the orginals better.Some remakes are good but I always try to remember where they orginated from.Just my thought.

**Jojo87** · December 21st, 2010

King's version of Shining was much better than Kubricks version. But Kubrick's version was not so bad. I've seen it many times.

**doowopgirl** · December 22nd, 2010

I have to disagree with everyone that likes the mini series version of The Shining over Kubriks version. Please understand that I am a major SK fan. Have been since Carrie. But, I feel that the TV version was pallid and uninteresting. It felt decidedly flat IMO. Kubriks version was a work of art that kept the atmosphere just right.Again IMO. So go ahead and lynch me. I stand by my opinion.

**dmeier1231** · December 22nd, 2010

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.

**kingricefan** · January 3rd, 2013

Originally Posted by dmeier1231

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.

**JohnDalglish** · December 22nd, 2010

Hi,

It should be remembered that Kubrick was at loggerheads with the studio over the lack of budget for the hedge animals and actually threated to quit over the issue at one point, I believe.

So the Kubrick film that we see is certainly not the one Kubrick would gave made had not the parasitical bean-counters prevented it, or so I've been told.

Long days and pleasant nights