In the 1997 3-part miniseries version, this is the one approved by King, I believe it starts with King talking directly to the viewers about his intent behind making it saying that this version is more accurate to his original work. And yeah it has CGI garden statues/topiaries. Another fun fact is this series was actually shot at the Stanley Hotel which inspired King's novel.
The cutting plants in the shapes of animals or objects is called topiary. I have a theory about the lack of character arc in the movie, which I admit I didn't come up with entirely on my own. I've heard a few explanations about what this movie means, but this is my interpretation of the one that I've found the most convincing. I also admit that I haven't read the book. Anyway, I believe Kubrick's intent was to make a movie about patriarchal violence. As such, Jack is the embodiment of the violent father figure, and Wendy is the embodiment of the meek, docile mother figure. Because they are essentially archetypes they don't really develop per se. Judging by your comments during your reaction, in the book Jack appearing in the photo at the end of the story shows that he has become a part of the hotel; however, in the movie Jack in the photo dated 1921 indicates that this cycle of violence has occurred before, and even though Wendy and Danny were able to extract themselves from violent circumstances this time, it is implied that these circumstance will manifest themselves again with uncertain results. I have heard Stephen King say in an interview that he was especially bothered by the weakness of the Wendy character, but Wendy being the embodiment of maternal frailty and docility would explain why she is generally meek. It would account for aspects of her character such as doing all of the work around the hotel, having her hands choked up so far on the bat when she swings it at Jack, and holding her hands up and lets them flop around as she runs around the hotel at the end of the movie. I gather that this is completely different from the themes in the book, but you would be able to comment on that better than I would.
Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying topiary. The movie is quite different from the book. As you said, it's highly likely Kubrick had a different intent. The characters are different in the book too, so one should really separate book from movie. That's easier said than done though, because I subconsciously compared them anyway as I was watching 😂 Thanks for sharing! 😊
One thing you will notice in this version of the story is that, even though Jack types “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” for hundreds of pages, it’s actually Wendy who does all the work.
That's true 😂. Wendy makes food for Jack. Wendy checks the boiler. Wendy checks the telephone to see if it's still working. Wendy accompanies Danny and plays with him. Jack seems to remain idle most of the time. "An idle mind is the devil's workshop". That's quite true in this movie, isn't it?
Some trivia: Jack Nicholson used a real ax on a solid door, because the fake doors they tried first fell down too fast. Nicholson had once worked as a firefighter, so he really knew how to swing that ax. When Halloran is first driving through the snow, he passes an accident involving a red VW. This is generally considered to be Kubrick's commentary on the original novel, as this is the car the Torrances are driving in the book. Kubrick just left the book in a heap as he went ahead and did what he wanted to do. Halloran was originally meant to be played by a completely different actor, Slim Pickens. You've seen him in Blazing Saddles (Hedley Lamar's henchman Taggert), and as Major Kong in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove. Peter Sellers was initially going to play Kong (along with his other roles in that movie), but found he couldn't deal with the claustrophobic airplane set. Strangelove propelled Pickens (in his own words) from "hey you!" on set to "Mr Pickens". Anyway, he was offered the role of Halloran but keeping in mind Kubrick's grueling shoots, he wanted a clause in his contract that would limit retakes to no more than 100. As a result, the script was passed on to Scatman Crothers, who had to be rescued from too many takes of the ax murder scene by Jack Nicholson.
This was the first use of the Steadicam, it was invented by one of the cameramen. You can see its use in a lot of the moving shots like following Danny in the halls on his trike and shots following them in the maze.
You would probably like the made-for-TV miniseries better. I've seen it a couple of times. It's actually very good; interesting, creepy, well-made, solid cast. Kubrick's The Shining is among my favorite movies of all time; but, I respect the miniseries. It delves more into characters' backgrounds and development, and the history of the hotel and some of its patrons and so on. Do a reaction to that. It's hard to get a hold of. I watched it on a platform called Daily Motion a couple years' back.
I've heard of this miniseries too. People do say it's more faithful to the book, but not as good. It's not surprising though, because there are things books can do that movies can't, and vice versa. Maybe I'll check it out in the future 😊 👍🏻
"Heeeeere's Johnny!" Fun Fact: Theatrical movie debut of Danny Lloyd. Not An American Fact: As he lived in England, Stanley Kubrick was not at all familiar with the "Heeeeere's Johnny" line (from The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (1962)) that Jack Nicholson improvised. He very nearly didn't use it. Hot Take Fact: There is a great deal of confusion regarding this film and the number of retakes of certain scenes. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the scene where Wendy is backing up the stairs swinging the baseball bat was shot 127 times, which is a record for the most takes of a single scene. However, both Steadicam operator Garrett Brown and assistant editor Gordon Stainforth say this is inaccurate. The scene was shot about thirty-five to forty-five times. Method Director Fact: Despite Stanley Kubrick's fierce demands on everyone, Jack Nicholson admitted to having a good working relationship with him. It was with Shelley Duvall that he was a completely different director. He allegedly picked on her more than anyone else. He would really lose his temper with her, even going so far as to say that she was wasting the time of everyone on the set. She later reflected that he was probably pushing her to her limits to get the best out of her and that she wouldn't trade the experience for anything, but it was not something she ever wished to repeat.
Also the author, Stephen King, has not been shy in expressing his dislike for the film. And I can't blame him. Kubrick clearly missed the heart of the story. Pretty much all his films are emotionally distant. Which is why I'm not a fan. I can admire the technical achievement but that's it.
A couple more fun facts. According to a Guinness World Records website, "the most retakes for one scene with dialogue" is 148. It was the 'shine' scene where Hallorann talked to Danny. It was later debunked (though this was not mentioned on the website). "Multiple accounts make the claim for Charlie Chaplin’s 'City Lights' to be the actual record-holder. Chaplin shot the three-minute scene where The Tramp meets the Flower Girl a mind-boggling 342 times." If this is real, that's a whole lot of takes for a silent film. Thank you for sharing 😊
Stephen King did not like this adaptation. Years later, he was able to make a television movie that had the animal hedges that the film left out. But, having seen both versions, I like Kubrick's version much better.
When Mike Flanagan directed the sequel, “Dr. Sleep,” he got King’s permission to combine elements from both the original novel and Kubrick’s film. It worked pretty well, I think.
If you plan to watch the sequel Doctor Sleep (2019), and I recommend it even though I was *very* sceptical before seeing it, it takes both from the book and the movie. I've not read the sequel book so I don't know how King did there, but I think it was to not confuse those who have only seen the Kubrick movie so the Doctor Sleep movie would match up better.
Since Doctor Sleep (movie) is supposed to be a sequel for The Shining (movie), it makes sense to match it with the movie. The Shining book is quite different from the movie after all. I've read Doctor Sleep. It can't compare with The Shining (book), but it's interesting for a sequel.
Stephen King also complained about the character development. In the film Jack starts out crazy. He also wrote Wendy stronger. I like the film but the book, for me anyway, is King's masterpiece.
Kubrick said a strong-willed woman made no sense because she would never have put up with Jack's abuse. Honestly, Wendy reminds me of real-life domestic abuse victims i know. It makes it more disturbing for me, personally. She's still incredibly strong here, though. She had defeated Jack, and he only got free with supernatural help. She protected her son. Strength comes in different forms.
Agreed, the book is amazing 👍 Since Kubrick made movie Jack abusive, he naturally had to change movie Wendy too. In the book, Jack was not abusive, which makes his slow descent into madness creepier. It makes the reader feel as if the hotel could really influence anyone, given enough time.
I have read the book and when I first saw the film knowing it was directed by an acclaimed director with a very singular style I left thinking it was only interesting and not particularly scary. Over the years though I have a big appreciation for it which mostly has to do with all the subtleties beneath the surface of the film like cinematic Easter eggs. Stephen King didn't care for it either. Reading the book and watching the film are totally different experiences, but Kubrick just used King's story as a model for his particular angle on descents into madness which the majority of his films are about. I have the movie on Bluray and I think it's the U.S. version although I'll have to check on that because I'd much prefer Kubrick's preferred version.
If you've read the book before watching the movie, then the movie won't scare you as much. Yup, Kubrick used King's story more as a foundation for the movie. Kubrick preferred the international version (shorter one). The one without skeletons scene, or so I've heard. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
1. Joe Turkel/Lloyd plays Tyrell in "Bladerunner" 2. "Here's Johnny" was adlib by Nickelson. 3. It took over 65 takes for Jack to chop through the doors. He used his voluntary firefighting skills to get through all the takes. They had to keep building doors. 4. The reason King didn't like this adaptation of the movie is because he didn't like the changes Kubrick made. This thing was remade just for King and although the remake was more in line with the book IMVHO it wasn't as good at this one. 5. Two of the changes he didn't like were Jack's decent into madness was too rapid, and Wendy wasn't such a patsy in the book. 6. Shelley Duval 😇said making this film was the worst thing she ever experienced in her life. She said she would never do it again. 7. Jack Nicholson and Scatman worked together in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest". 8. The real villain here is the hotel itself. 9. Watch Dr. Sleep. Danny is an adult and many of the loose ends will be cleared up.
3. "They had to keep building doors". I wonder how many doors were sacrificed for this movie 😂 5. I agree with the rapid madness. I understand they couldn't delay it for too long, because of the limited movie length. 8. I know what you mean, because I've read the book too 😊 Thanks for sharing 👍
Not sure if it's a valid theory, but I think watching this long after reading the book is probably better. I think I saw it right after reading it and was hung up on the differences. But with age and realisation that books and movies are two different media that *need* different language, I think this is a good one even if I'd call it "deeply inspired by" more than "an adaptation of" the book. Details like no hedge animals was probably a practical decision. Sure, Kubrick could have dumped a lot of resources into making it look OK for the time. But it would take you out of the horror of this movie. The later TV-adaptation King made had them and it wasn't very good. The maze was a good replacement in this movie. The main characters are "smaller" and have less to do with the events in the movie in my opinion. Jack is not as complex and there is almost no struggle, Wendy is a weak pushover compared to in the book and Danny is way more passive and powerless here. And of course Hallorrann doesn't die in the book. Even though I'm a fan of the book, and was a huge King fan when I read it, the images of the movie that doesn't appear in the book are so strong that a lot of changes are improvements to me. Danny seeing the girls, Jack using an axe and the chase through the maze are so iconic that after watching the movie many think they read that in the book too. Then there are smaller changes that doesn't matter, like the room number being something else than 237 in the book. I heard the hotel they filmed in insisted on changing it to a higher number because they had a room with the same number and feared guests wouldn't want to stay there. They probably regretted that soon as a lot of people goes nut for that sort of thing. They could probably charge extra for that room if the numbers matched too.
That's what happened with me. I read the book years ago. But no matter how long ago it was, you can't help but compare it with what you remember from the book 😂. Though I admit I don't remember all the details. The hedge animals really stuck with me though. It's one of the memorable parts of the book. Hallorann being axed was completely unexpected to me. Now that I think about it, taking out the hedge animal scene and the true ending (how Jack really died) was a good move. Trying to make those scenes happen would've inflated their budget much more, whether they chose to use CGI or not. "There is no bad publicity" 😂. Well, the hotel took the less risky approach. They couldn't have known how the public would react. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
23:08 "Uuuh ... how do you react when you see that?" - Hmm, that's odd. Usually the blood gets off at the second floor. For those who don't get it: ua-cam.com/video/dxcRheRi4pA/v-deo.html
As both a Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick fan, I gotta say the movie is superior. The Shining is not one of King's best books, and for sure not a great work of literature overall. It's actually kind of goofy, written during a period of self-doubt and uncertainty in King's life. Some of the stuff in it is so dumb, he had to have been high as a kite. The movie, however, is groundbreaking on many levels: Sound, cinematography, pacing, script, acting, and so on.
Even though I read the book many years ago, I still prefer the book. Of course, I'm remembering it through nostalgia, so I might be biased 😂. Certain parts of the book are hair raising and creepy, I definitely remember that feeling. The movie does have it's good points though, such as it's music and sound (the things a book don't have). Jack and Shelley's performance is another plus point for the movie 👍
Kubrick did not want to remake the book. He liked the family trapped with a madman drunk dynamic and wrote his own story. King was the drunk cokehead so he did not like being the villain of his own story
Understandable. King has a habit of working through his own familial dysfunctions through the use of broken, unreliable and deeply flawed protagonists that sometimes verge on self-insert. And to be entirely fair, Kubrick's movie, singular accomplishment that it is, really did the character of Jack dirty compared to the original King story where Jack pulls himself together just long enough to throw off the Overlook's malign influence so Danny could escape.
In the 1997 3-part miniseries version, this is the one approved by King, I believe it starts with King talking directly to the viewers about his intent behind making it saying that this version is more accurate to his original work. And yeah it has CGI garden statues/topiaries. Another fun fact is this series was actually shot at the Stanley Hotel which inspired King's novel.
I watched this movie when it came out and it gave me nightmares. Now I’m much older and can appreciate what a true classic it is.
The cutting plants in the shapes of animals or objects is called topiary.
I have a theory about the lack of character arc in the movie, which I admit I didn't come up with entirely on my own. I've heard a few explanations about what this movie means, but this is my interpretation of the one that I've found the most convincing. I also admit that I haven't read the book. Anyway, I believe Kubrick's intent was to make a movie about patriarchal violence. As such, Jack is the embodiment of the violent father figure, and Wendy is the embodiment of the meek, docile mother figure. Because they are essentially archetypes they don't really develop per se. Judging by your comments during your reaction, in the book Jack appearing in the photo at the end of the story shows that he has become a part of the hotel; however, in the movie Jack in the photo dated 1921 indicates that this cycle of violence has occurred before, and even though Wendy and Danny were able to extract themselves from violent circumstances this time, it is implied that these circumstance will manifest themselves again with uncertain results. I have heard Stephen King say in an interview that he was especially bothered by the weakness of the Wendy character, but Wendy being the embodiment of maternal frailty and docility would explain why she is generally meek. It would account for aspects of her character such as doing all of the work around the hotel, having her hands choked up so far on the bat when she swings it at Jack, and holding her hands up and lets them flop around as she runs around the hotel at the end of the movie.
I gather that this is completely different from the themes in the book, but you would be able to comment on that better than I would.
Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying topiary.
The movie is quite different from the book. As you said, it's highly likely Kubrick had a different intent. The characters are different in the book too, so one should really separate book from movie. That's easier said than done though, because I subconsciously compared them anyway as I was watching 😂
Thanks for sharing! 😊
One thing you will notice in this version of the story is that, even though Jack types “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” for hundreds of pages, it’s actually Wendy who does all the work.
That's true 😂. Wendy makes food for Jack. Wendy checks the boiler. Wendy checks the telephone to see if it's still working. Wendy accompanies Danny and plays with him. Jack seems to remain idle most of the time.
"An idle mind is the devil's workshop". That's quite true in this movie, isn't it?
Some trivia: Jack Nicholson used a real ax on a solid door, because the fake doors they tried first fell down too fast. Nicholson had once worked as a firefighter, so he really knew how to swing that ax.
When Halloran is first driving through the snow, he passes an accident involving a red VW. This is generally considered to be Kubrick's commentary on the original novel, as this is the car the Torrances are driving in the book. Kubrick just left the book in a heap as he went ahead and did what he wanted to do.
Halloran was originally meant to be played by a completely different actor, Slim Pickens. You've seen him in Blazing Saddles (Hedley Lamar's henchman Taggert), and as Major Kong in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove. Peter Sellers was initially going to play Kong (along with his other roles in that movie), but found he couldn't deal with the claustrophobic airplane set. Strangelove propelled Pickens (in his own words) from "hey you!" on set to "Mr Pickens". Anyway, he was offered the role of Halloran but keeping in mind Kubrick's grueling shoots, he wanted a clause in his contract that would limit retakes to no more than 100.
As a result, the script was passed on to Scatman Crothers, who had to be rescued from too many takes of the ax murder scene by Jack Nicholson.
Oh dang, so Nicholson's axe swing in the movie is the proper way to swing an axe? Good to know!
Thanks for the fun facts! 😊
oooh great movie! hope you're feeling better! also i'm jealous of the child's sweater collection hahaha
This was the first use of the Steadicam, it was invented by one of the cameramen. You can see its use in a lot of the moving shots like following Danny in the halls on his trike and shots following them in the maze.
Yea, the shots are smooth 👍🏻
You would probably like the made-for-TV miniseries better. I've seen it a couple of times. It's actually very good; interesting, creepy, well-made, solid cast. Kubrick's The Shining is among my favorite movies of all time; but, I respect the miniseries. It delves more into characters' backgrounds and development, and the history of the hotel and some of its patrons and so on. Do a reaction to that. It's hard to get a hold of. I watched it on a platform called Daily Motion a couple years' back.
Only the hardest of King dick-riders could sit through that garbage. A perfect example of "a good author does not a good director make."
I've heard of this miniseries too. People do say it's more faithful to the book, but not as good. It's not surprising though, because there are things books can do that movies can't, and vice versa. Maybe I'll check it out in the future 😊 👍🏻
@@henryellow It really is an interesting adaptation.
"Heeeeere's Johnny!"
Fun Fact: Theatrical movie debut of Danny Lloyd.
Not An American Fact: As he lived in England, Stanley Kubrick was not at all familiar with the "Heeeeere's Johnny" line (from The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (1962)) that Jack Nicholson improvised. He very nearly didn't use it.
Hot Take Fact: There is a great deal of confusion regarding this film and the number of retakes of certain scenes. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the scene where Wendy is backing up the stairs swinging the baseball bat was shot 127 times, which is a record for the most takes of a single scene. However, both Steadicam operator Garrett Brown and assistant editor Gordon Stainforth say this is inaccurate. The scene was shot about thirty-five to forty-five times.
Method Director Fact: Despite Stanley Kubrick's fierce demands on everyone, Jack Nicholson admitted to having a good working relationship with him. It was with Shelley Duvall that he was a completely different director. He allegedly picked on her more than anyone else. He would really lose his temper with her, even going so far as to say that she was wasting the time of everyone on the set. She later reflected that he was probably pushing her to her limits to get the best out of her and that she wouldn't trade the experience for anything, but it was not something she ever wished to repeat.
Also the author, Stephen King, has not been shy in expressing his dislike for the film.
And I can't blame him. Kubrick clearly missed the heart of the story. Pretty much all his films are emotionally distant. Which is why I'm not a fan. I can admire the technical achievement but that's it.
A couple more fun facts.
According to a Guinness World Records website, "the most retakes for one scene with dialogue" is 148. It was the 'shine' scene where Hallorann talked to Danny. It was later debunked (though this was not mentioned on the website).
"Multiple accounts make the claim for Charlie Chaplin’s 'City Lights' to be the actual record-holder. Chaplin shot the three-minute scene where The Tramp meets the Flower Girl a mind-boggling 342 times." If this is real, that's a whole lot of takes for a silent film.
Thank you for sharing 😊
Stephen King did not like this adaptation. Years later, he was able to make a television movie that had the animal hedges that the film left out. But, having seen both versions, I like Kubrick's version much better.
When Mike Flanagan directed the sequel, “Dr. Sleep,” he got King’s permission to combine elements from both the original novel and Kubrick’s film. It worked pretty well, I think.
If you plan to watch the sequel Doctor Sleep (2019), and I recommend it even though I was *very* sceptical before seeing it, it takes both from the book and the movie. I've not read the sequel book so I don't know how King did there, but I think it was to not confuse those who have only seen the Kubrick movie so the Doctor Sleep movie would match up better.
Since Doctor Sleep (movie) is supposed to be a sequel for The Shining (movie), it makes sense to match it with the movie. The Shining book is quite different from the movie after all. I've read Doctor Sleep. It can't compare with The Shining (book), but it's interesting for a sequel.
Stephen King also complained about the character development. In the film Jack starts out crazy. He also wrote Wendy stronger. I like the film but the book, for me anyway, is King's masterpiece.
Kubrick said a strong-willed woman made no sense because she would never have put up with Jack's abuse. Honestly, Wendy reminds me of real-life domestic abuse victims i know. It makes it more disturbing for me, personally.
She's still incredibly strong here, though. She had defeated Jack, and he only got free with supernatural help. She protected her son. Strength comes in different forms.
Agreed, the book is amazing 👍
Since Kubrick made movie Jack abusive, he naturally had to change movie Wendy too. In the book, Jack was not abusive, which makes his slow descent into madness creepier. It makes the reader feel as if the hotel could really influence anyone, given enough time.
Hi henryellow, hope youre doing well.
Thanks, I'm doing better now! 😊
I have read the book and when I first saw the film knowing it was directed by an acclaimed director with a very singular style I left thinking it was only interesting and not particularly scary. Over the years though I have a big appreciation for it which mostly has to do with all the subtleties beneath the surface of the film like cinematic Easter eggs. Stephen King didn't care for it either. Reading the book and watching the film are totally different experiences, but Kubrick just used King's story as a model for his particular angle on descents into madness which the majority of his films are about. I have the movie on Bluray and I think it's the U.S. version although I'll have to check on that because I'd much prefer Kubrick's preferred version.
If you've read the book before watching the movie, then the movie won't scare you as much. Yup, Kubrick used King's story more as a foundation for the movie.
Kubrick preferred the international version (shorter one). The one without skeletons scene, or so I've heard.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
1. Joe Turkel/Lloyd plays Tyrell in "Bladerunner"
2. "Here's Johnny" was adlib by Nickelson.
3. It took over 65 takes for Jack to chop through the doors. He used his voluntary firefighting skills to get through all the takes. They had to keep building doors.
4. The reason King didn't like this adaptation of the movie is because he didn't like the changes Kubrick made. This thing was remade just for King and although the remake was more in line with the book IMVHO it wasn't as good at this one.
5. Two of the changes he didn't like were Jack's decent into madness was too rapid, and Wendy wasn't such a patsy in the book.
6. Shelley Duval 😇said making this film was the worst thing she ever experienced in her life. She said she would never do it again.
7. Jack Nicholson and Scatman worked together in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".
8. The real villain here is the hotel itself.
9. Watch Dr. Sleep. Danny is an adult and many of the loose ends will be cleared up.
3. "They had to keep building doors". I wonder how many doors were sacrificed for this movie 😂
5. I agree with the rapid madness. I understand they couldn't delay it for too long, because of the limited movie length.
8. I know what you mean, because I've read the book too 😊
Thanks for sharing 👍
Not sure if it's a valid theory, but I think watching this long after reading the book is probably better. I think I saw it right after reading it and was hung up on the differences. But with age and realisation that books and movies are two different media that *need* different language, I think this is a good one even if I'd call it "deeply inspired by" more than "an adaptation of" the book.
Details like no hedge animals was probably a practical decision. Sure, Kubrick could have dumped a lot of resources into making it look OK for the time. But it would take you out of the horror of this movie. The later TV-adaptation King made had them and it wasn't very good. The maze was a good replacement in this movie.
The main characters are "smaller" and have less to do with the events in the movie in my opinion. Jack is not as complex and there is almost no struggle, Wendy is a weak pushover compared to in the book and Danny is way more passive and powerless here. And of course Hallorrann doesn't die in the book.
Even though I'm a fan of the book, and was a huge King fan when I read it, the images of the movie that doesn't appear in the book are so strong that a lot of changes are improvements to me. Danny seeing the girls, Jack using an axe and the chase through the maze are so iconic that after watching the movie many think they read that in the book too.
Then there are smaller changes that doesn't matter, like the room number being something else than 237 in the book. I heard the hotel they filmed in insisted on changing it to a higher number because they had a room with the same number and feared guests wouldn't want to stay there. They probably regretted that soon as a lot of people goes nut for that sort of thing. They could probably charge extra for that room if the numbers matched too.
That's what happened with me. I read the book years ago. But no matter how long ago it was, you can't help but compare it with what you remember from the book 😂. Though I admit I don't remember all the details. The hedge animals really stuck with me though. It's one of the memorable parts of the book.
Hallorann being axed was completely unexpected to me.
Now that I think about it, taking out the hedge animal scene and the true ending (how Jack really died) was a good move. Trying to make those scenes happen would've inflated their budget much more, whether they chose to use CGI or not.
"There is no bad publicity" 😂. Well, the hotel took the less risky approach. They couldn't have known how the public would react.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
23:08 "Uuuh ... how do you react when you see that?"
- Hmm, that's odd. Usually the blood gets off at the second floor.
For those who don't get it: ua-cam.com/video/dxcRheRi4pA/v-deo.html
😂👍🏻
In the book you have a lot of time to tell the story...in movies no...I love the movie...
That's true too.
As both a Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick fan, I gotta say the movie is superior. The Shining is not one of King's best books, and for sure not a great work of literature overall. It's actually kind of goofy, written during a period of self-doubt and uncertainty in King's life. Some of the stuff in it is so dumb, he had to have been high as a kite. The movie, however, is groundbreaking on many levels: Sound, cinematography, pacing, script, acting, and so on.
Even though I read the book many years ago, I still prefer the book. Of course, I'm remembering it through nostalgia, so I might be biased 😂. Certain parts of the book are hair raising and creepy, I definitely remember that feeling. The movie does have it's good points though, such as it's music and sound (the things a book don't have). Jack and Shelley's performance is another plus point for the movie 👍
@@henryellow You'll like Doctor Sleep. It was made specifically to bring consensus to fans of the book and fans of the movie, and totally succeeds.
Ooo, good to know 😉👍🏻
Kubrick did not want to remake the book. He liked the family trapped with a madman drunk dynamic and wrote his own story. King was the drunk cokehead so he did not like being the villain of his own story
Understandable. King has a habit of working through his own familial dysfunctions through the use of broken, unreliable and deeply flawed protagonists that sometimes verge on self-insert. And to be entirely fair, Kubrick's movie, singular accomplishment that it is, really did the character of Jack dirty compared to the original King story where Jack pulls himself together just long enough to throw off the Overlook's malign influence so Danny could escape.
Yeah, the shorter version is better. The longer cut explains too much too.
Good thing I watched the shorter version then 😁
I prefer the movie, but I won’t say it is better, because that is not how subjectivity in art works. Saying one is better as an absolute is ignorant.
The book is better!