I think this discussion has been discussed before, more than once. In Danse Macabre Stephen clearly explains the then clashing of artistic viewpoints he had with Stanley Kubrick. Imagine the difficulties he had watching Stanley make so many changes he did not understand, and Kubrick did not want to go into long artistic explanations with a budget and 'time is money' business executives on his back. Remember, Stephen was still fairly new in the business and he was inexperienced with the artistic relatives that are born from your 'baby' artwork. In Danse Macabre Stephen includes Shining the film on his fav list, and with an asterisk. There is no conflict anymore and I find the repeating of a decades old issue that is not an issue anymore boring, in a way. No disrespect, just my opinion.
i would agree, except king himself kinda raised the spectre of conflict when doing the tv remake: he cast some doubt upon the kubrick version as a adaption of his story...
and he was not fully in love with it, if i remember, when he talked about it in DM...
anybody just now getting around to reading or watching either version might not be aware that there was/is some minor controversy over any of it
it's always possible that, through the mists of time, some new bits of the story might've come out...and, by comparing notes, we can more fully illuminate ourselves as to if there really is a serious note of contention about the two versions
The Shining film is a stone cold classic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't stick that strictly to the source. The TV version was dire.
Same goes for The Running Man - great film. Nothing like the book but does that matter? It's a different experience, a different medium - what works in a book doesn't always work on screen.
A friend of mine is trying to read the Game of Thrones books - he says he's struggling because the TV series is so similar to the books that he feels like he's not getting much new out of the books.
Prolific Member
Re: Stanley VS. Stephen
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks