Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Shining: Kubrick vs. King | NowThis Nerd
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2017
- ‘The Dark Tower’ looks like it’s going to be one of Stephen King’s less faithful movie adaptations. Mike Calabro takes a look at the two vastly different versions of ‘The Shining’ to explain why that might not always be a bad thing.
» Subscribe to NowThis Nerd: go.nowth.is/Ner...
1980 saw the release of one of the greatest horror movies ever made from a master of modern cinema: Stanley Kubrick. ‘The Shining’ shocked audiences everywhere with its psychological terror, subtle scares and masterful performances from stars like Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall. The film is an undisputed classic, and it’s definitely one of the best Stephen King film adaptations. but there’s one famous person who’s definitely not a fan: Stephen King. ‘The Shining’ was a deeply personal book for King, and he’s always hated Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Shining’ film. So much so that the man himself eventually decided to make his own. Let’s go in-depth on Kubrick vs. King.
‘The Shining’ mini series in 1997 was Stephen King’s baby from top to bottom. It’s as close to an adaptation of ‘The Shining’ book as you could possibly get, but it pales in comparison to the Kubrick ‘Shining.’ The Stephen King ‘Shining’ miniseries was made for TV and it definitely shows. The budget is tiny, the horror is toned down, and the quality just isn’t there compared to Kubrick’s ‘The Shining.’ 1997 Jack Torrance is played by sitcom star Steven Weber, who tries his best but can’t touch the legendary insanity of Jack Nicholson, and the rest of the cast isn’t much better.
The effects in ‘The Shining’ TV version are more ambitious than Kubrick’s film, but director Mick Garris just couldn’t pull them off. And a lot of the subplots and themes that gave such depth to ‘The Shining’ novel only bog down a way-too-long miniseries. There’s none of the brilliance or elegance or subtlety in Stephen King’s ‘The Shining’ 1997 series that made the Kubrick ‘Shining’ such a masterpiece. ‘The Shining’ series is more accurate to the book, but that doesn’t make it one of the good Stephen King movies. Film and literature are extremely different mediums, and what works in one form often doesn’t work in the other.
Get more from NowThis Nerd:
» Like Us: go.nowth.is/Now...
» Tweet Us: go.nowth.is/Now...
» Follow Us: go.nowth.is/Now...
Get more from NowThis News:
» Subscribe to NowThis: go.nowth.is/New...
» Like us on Facebook: go.nowth.is/New...
» Tweet us on Twitter: go.nowth.is/New...
» Follow us on Instagram: go.nowth.is/New...
» Find us on Snapchat Discover: go.nowth.is/New...
NowThis Nerd is your one stop shop for everything from movies and TV to games and comics. We’re committed to fueling the conversation about the nerd world and nerd culture. Join us every week as we geek out and explore topics such as sci-fi, aliens, monsters, superheroes and villains, comics, Marvel, DC, and so much more.
3:35 That was exactly Kubrick's reasoning behind his characterization of Wendy. He simply couldn't buy that a stronger woman would be willing to keep up a relationship with a dangerous guy like Jack, especially after he broke Danny's arm. (I wish I could find the interview where Kubrick specifically said that.) Also, Shelley Duvall's version makes Grady's dialogue about being "stronger than they (the Hotel) imagined" more convincing. When Duvall's Wendy actually starts to fight back, both Jack and the Overlook are taken by surprise.
I agree
Doesn't excuse how the actress was treated on set though
The only issue was that Jack wasn't abusive in the novel. He had a problem with alcohol and had been sober for more than a year.
And when Jack had broken Danny's arm she did lewve him. And only came back when he apologized and got sober.
The whole point of the story was that both Jack and Wendy were trying to make the marriage work. That's why Wendy stayed with Jack. Because he was actually trying to get better.
I don't get why everybody think's Shelly Duval's portrayal was misogynistic. She was very resourceful, saved Danny before herself, fought back multiple times, and it was her character's job to be terrified and hopeless so that we felt the same dread.
Croakinc36 In the book Wendy is very worrisome and emotionally weak. I feel like Shelly Duvall portrayed a fragile Wendy who was horrified at what her husband was becoming better.
Exactly
Yeah dude I totally agree. I've always liked Shelly Duval's portrayal. She played the character as someone who was scared out of her mind and yet when she was pushed she fought back against Jack. She knocked him down the stairs with the bat and slashed his hand with the knife in the bathroom. At the end she even got her and Danny out of the hotel in the snowcat. In the book Holleran was the one who got them out of there, so I think it's actually less misogynistic in this respect.
Croakinc36 but all she did was scream and cry’s and she did so many stupid things
nice
The Shining is a great example of an Amazing film and a terrible adaptation. Kubrick's responsibility is to make a great film, not transfer page to screen. He accomplished that superbly
Bullsh*t
I’d say Scott pilgrim is the perfect adaptation and great film (considering the intended audience would like it not necessarily be a citizen cane even though it got great critic ratings) and Batman v Superman sucks at both while the
@@ThePaulster22 true
Agreed. King makes great books, but shouldn't write movies himself.
All the movie has is sound cinematography and acting
Characters and development is bland as hell
King is a master of Horror books but I think he dosnt understand horror when it comes to film.
Stan Harding-Hill I agree. He doesn't even seem to understand what Kubrick was doing. Makes me wonder if he's tried to watch it more than once.
you maybe right king is not great at film but kubrick is not great at adaptations he changed the most important parts of the book and made the story a shell of its self. kubricks shinning had nothing to do with stephen kings shinning.
He doesn't understand ANYTHING about movies. I did like Maximum Overdrive, though. He nailed that. But, I think that was his limit.
I don’t care.
I enjoyed the miniseries more than the movie.
The movie is good, don’t get me wrong.
It’s just not as good as the miniseries in my opinion.
Jeremy Stone they why use the source material in first place then
I threw my back out cringing at that kiss blowing scene
Just imagine Kubrick reading that in King’s attempt at adapting his book into a screenplay.
😂😂😂
Why?
3:19 that is a completely unfair criticism. there is nothing wrong with Wendy Torrance being a weak person , there is nothing misogynistic about it .. she is just average human being that is not made for dealing with psychopath ..THAT makes her the perfect protagonist in a horror film.. she brings an element dis empowerment and vulnerability that makes the situation more scary not to mention , the more average and none special a character is the more the general viewers can relate to them
Not to mention that even with her portrayal, she finds some courage to fight back a man who put her under his thumb.
Exactly what I said.
She's a normal mom, just trying to facilitate her family's experience at the hotel. People calling her weak probably need to see a shrink.
She wasnt weak after all. She shouted and sweared at him for hurting Danny, batted his head at the staircase, dragged him to the pantry and lock him in there, she wounded his hand, and she brought Danny out of the hotel only by herself.
Am I the only one that doesn’t hate Wendy that much? Okay, she was kind of whiny and annoying (though to be honest I would be WAYYYY worse in her situation) but for real though, she pretty much got Danny to safety and got out herself. More than can be said for other horror movie ladies.
I think that her character fits perfectly in the story. It's just that she is different to the book that people hate her. But she just fits the family far better, scared wife with abusive husband in denial/fear of the worst that could happen to both her and her son.
Well she did need Danny to get out of the bathroom, and Danny got himself out of the maze, but aside from that good point
I agree on this. And I don’t hate Wendy she is a cool character in the shining 1980 film. Yea when Steven king said in Fred’s film that he hated the acting that Shelly is the most I think he meant terrible acting but she was amazing and I think that the 1997 Wendy isn’t that bad . But I kinda hate Steven kings 1997 mini series but love it because Steven king himself was in it. But for a vote for 1980 vs1997, I would say 1980.
I actually think it's the whinny annoying bit that people don't like. I mean even I wanted to kill her just to shut her whinny screams up lol. Does prove that the woman is a good actress though ✌️
The mini series is so weird because the book is not corny at all. It's a deep psychological thriller with character development that's top notch. The Kubrick film is not the story in the novel and you miss a huge amount of back story and nuance, but it's an incredible film with ambience and tension. A work of art. The novel and the Kubrick film are equals but in totally different genres and for different reasons. The mini series although closer to the actual book doesn't nearly do justice to it.
Fire hoses coming to life IS corny. A cliche explosion at the end IS corny. The book had good ideas in it, but is boring in parts because there is so much cheesy garbage. King wrote better books at the time, like Salem's Lot & The Stand.
The problem with film adaptations is that the majority of people are predisposed to be closed off to them. Instead of entering with a blank slate, most people carry with them a very set image of how the adaption should play out, and when that differs from the book, it angers them. But from a blank slate perspective, The Shining really is a great movie and obviously a classic
When it comes to the ghosts in both movies Stephen King clearly thought when writing the screen adaptation "ooh as long as they look scary, then they're scary" which clearly is a load of rubbish.
In Kubrick' The Shining, the ghosts are; two little girls, an old woman, a middle-aged bartender, an old butler. Non of these things are traditionally scary but it's how they speak, how they act and what they do that is terrifying and that is one of the reasons why Kubrick's movie is so much better than Kings
Ur TheDuke exactly I find minimalistic horror much more scary than all this ridiculousness with blood filled elevators and what not
Stan Harding-Hill Exactly
I just like minimalistic films full stop. You get so much more of each character and if they’re good actors then the film is much more enjoyable. This is why things like the shining, zombieland and reservoir dogs are my favourite films
Yeah I remember I was scared as all hell during the dog scene when I was seven and those little girls still creep me out
I just watched the whole miniseries over the past two days, and what I thought was even more ridiculous, is how ALL the ghosts had this pathetic white make up on!
Shelley Duvall’s performance is in no way misogynistic, quite frankly, it’s the complete opposite.
She is never sexualized, at all in the film.
She is given the caring nurturing type personality in the film.
She’s the “warmth” in the film.
Fitting a personality type that would be more likely to stay with an abusive alcoholic isn’t misogynistic, that isn’t gender based.
She also fights through extreme terror, to knock out Jack with a bat & slice his hand open & win in the end, how is that misogynistic Stephen King, & sounds like the decisions she made were pretty smart in the end?
Mysoginistic doesn't mean sexualized
@@umagnovenju Now we’re getting into semantics. More accurately, you could say misogynistic doesn’t ALWAYS mean sexualized.
The most basic definition is “prejudice against women”.
Which can include, in film, portraying the women in an over sexualized way and more akin to an “object for men’s desires”.
The primary reason I brought that up was that King’s literary take on Wendy was much more “sexualized” & I would argue not in an empowering way.
Kubrick completely removed that and focused on Wendy as the “protector and nurturer” to both Danny & Jack.
This is most likely the trait that kept her in an abusive relationship with Jack, not her being “weak”.
Regardless, I see no “prejudice against women” in Kubrick’s portrayal of Wendy.
She proves herself to be incredibly capable, she’s not only taking care of Jack & Danny, but she’s also doing virtually all of Jack’s caretaking duties. She’s planning to get her and Danny out of the increasingly dodgy situation and when that falls through, she outsmarts Jack and the Hotel to get her and Danny out alive.
She’s the undisputed HERO of the story.
How can anyone call that misogynistic?
The issue is that the film version of Wendy strips the character of all agency and treats her as very naive, she’s entirely reactive with what’s happening vs her book counterpart whom realises what the hotel is doing before it even turns Jack, begins plotting a means of escape from Jack and hotel despite the seasonal conditions, makes the effort to work with Danny and his gift and seal the two of them away from Jack (even arming herself in anticipation that he’d turn), etc.
The Wendy of the film just lets things happen, makes no effort to safeguard herself and her son despite the very obvious decline in Jack - the claim of misogyny by King is that Kubrick took a three dimensional character with her own strengths, flaws and ambitions and reduced her to a housewife pulled behind a domineering husband who is either in denial of or completely ignorant to what is happening to her and her family
I enjoyed Wendy as a character in the film and the performance but agree with King in questioning the choices Kubrick made regards translating the character from page to screen.
I've never been a believer that a faithful adaptation can't be a great film (unless the source material is poorly written/complete dribble). Look at _The Haunting_ directed by Robert Wise. It was a faithful adaptation of Shirley Jackson's book, but it was a great horror movie none the less. _12 Angry Men_ is practically a stage performance, but it still made a great movie. The term "show, don't tell" still applies to literature, and exposition must be avoided, as much as possible, like the plague. With William Shakespeare, even on the stage, his plays still evoke a sense of imagery (hence why Kenneth Branagh did a great job with _Hamlet_ , and Sir Lawrence Olivier with _Richard III_ ). It's difficult, but not impossible.
_The Shining_ , as a movie in its own right, is fantastic (I've seen it, like, 50+ times before reading the actual book). And there are things the movie gets right when adapting King's work. With the mini series, while "faithful", it still doesn't capture the book's intent (despite King writing the screenplay himself). Honestly, I would blame the directors, screenwriters, producers, and actors before the actual material itself.
So, there have been undoubtedly dozens of bad (including some horrifically bad) stephen king adaptations. Yet, the one he chose to speak out against just so happens to be the one directed by the greatest director to direct any of his movies. Further, it's a critically acclaimed movie, and generally considered one of the best horror movies of all time.
Chris Gaffray Stephen King has stated Stanely Kubrick's The Shining was a great movie but he hated the movie as an adaption. I think the main reason that he hated the movie so much was:
1. Stanely Kubrick through the script Stephen King wrote without even looking at it.
2. The novel was about a loving family that was struggling to stay a family. In the movie, neither Jack or Wendy or Danny showed anything close to love or being a believable family.
3. Stephen King has also stated that, this was the novel was more like an autobiography of everything Stephen King was feeling at the time. Traveling to be a father and a husband and providing for his family and this was the novel that he discovered who is an alcoholic. All of which was left out of the movie.
I personally prefer Edgar Wright but Kubrick was incredible
The author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory also hated the original movie which is why he never allowed a sequel to be made.
@@brandoncard5586 In other words, he was personally attached to the material. Sheesh! I would have expected more from a pro like King. The television version was limp. The movie is terrifying. Kubrick took King's book, threw away all the silly stuff and made a masterpiece out of what was left. No wonder King hated it!
@@MalcolmBrenner , also speaking as a former alcoholic and drug addict I don't see cutting out those struggle the author was going through and put it into the novel and having in cut out of the movie as silly in anyway.
If armchair critics would simply accept the fact that Kubrick's film is only *loosely* based on King's novel, perhaps then they could sit back and actually enjoy it for the cinematic masterpiece that it is instead of nitpicking it to death.
I personally think ‘The Shining’ wouldn’t be iconic without Shelley Duvall’s performance as well
I though Shelley duvall was amazing as Wendy
Hallow33n well no one said he acting was bad
She is amazing is just Stephen king personal opinion
Mr. Meme Bucket shut up! Calling an actor good doesn’t mean they simp!
She was terrible AS Wendy
@@brianfosterkinsale4403 what??!!!
I can understand why King hated Kubriks Shinning as it didn't have the same fear or emotional journey like the original did. It's haunting and disturbing whereas the remake lacked authentic motivation for the lead character as he was just normal. But let's be clear King's movies are actually hard to copy or remake because King has such a vast imagination that his work is conveyed in detail in the movies. His books in my opinion because they are more detailed and informative like of course The Dark Tower. Which in the recent movie is exactly how not to change or mix up great books. What should of happened is follow a single book like Gunslinger Born - a fantastic story - and go from there as it is a catalyst for the other stories. However, congesting five stories into one, especially with the first movie, leaves the sypnosis messy as we all saw. But back to the Shinning, this is what I mean. The remake was messy and tried to change to much, which like Dark Tower didn't work. Another example of King's movies not working as a reboot is Carrie. Although the remake was better it still was not as good as the original.
Great video :)
You go on about Kubrick being subtle and deride Garis as a hack. Hedge animals aside, that doesn't fit the most important difference: the yawning gap between the portrayals of Jack. Nicholson is simplistic and predictable, and there's no story arc, no emotional investment in the breakdown of the family. It's not tragedy; it's just horror. The key to the superiority of the TV version is the scene where Jack is hugging Danny during a lucid moment, but then in the middle of the hug the madness takes over Jack and a horrible evil smile stretches over his face. Danny goes from feeling loving comfort in his father's arms to freezing in terror in his grasp, sensing the change without even seeing his face. It's an emotionally gripping, powerful, even traumatic scene, magnificently acted and directed. Both actors and the director deserve more credit than they get. Here's that moment ua-cam.com/video/_tjmkm5tBxQ/v-deo.html
Novels and Movies are fundamentally story telling, but are two totally different mediums.
Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick are story tellers, and The Shining is a rare moment where two of the all time greats tell the same story, but tell it differently. Both pieces must be experienced.
The Mini series fits more in line with the book and helps people who go into reading Dr. Sleep, The Shinings sequel.
But I do like The orginal Shining movie.
I personally prefer the book to the film (haven’t seen the miniseries). I liked how the book got into the characters head, which helps immerse you in the story (granted I’m definitely biased towards books in general).
King Jack: A love caring father who is then going insane when staying in a hotel.
Kubrick Jack: A pure evil character even before he is driven to insanity.
Dam I couldn't stand that dam kid as Danny in the king mini series version. I love what Kubrick did with the shining.
Please do more videos on the work of director Stanley Kubrick he is a hero to me
Not really.
He made Duvall's life miserable.
NO NAME he’s no a hero to them because he mistreated someone? Okay then
It all comes to two things either you want horror or redemption I recently finished the book I loved it I still love the Kubrick film but I completely understand kings hatred to it
I respect some of King’s perspective. Kubrick’s Jack does rapidly descend into madness and although the film is one of my all-time favorites, sometimes I feel Nicholson’s performance is more just himself and less the character that King developed.
nothing can beat Kurbick masterpiece
The Stand was pretty good.
Holy fuck, that miniseries ending. What a mess.
I was not a fan of the mini-series, I loved the book and I loved the movie.
The book's pretty flawed to start with. You need to be fairly credulous to appreciate it fully.
bingola45 but it is a amazing book neverless
bingola45 Yeah, I'm a huge King fan, but it's definitely not one of his best.
@ it's definitely not one of his best it's his best okay
Stanley Kubrick is a complete and utter genius.
I remember my dad telling me that Stanley Kubrick wouldn’t allow a certain item to be out of place. For instance, a cigarette placed too close to a pack of camels would annoy Kubrick. Example A, the cigarette is too close to the pack of camels, move it 2 inches to the right, and 7 centimeters up.
Kubrick was a specific man when it came to film. When my dad and I where watching the Shining maybe 10 years ago, my dad told me, “Stanley Kubrick is a genius, he was amazing at every subject but he chose to go into film. That’s what he has decided. He’s a pure genius.” Anyway, I just wanted to share what my dad said. It doesn’t matter what King thinks. He is the father of horror and gore, but, Stanley Kubrick is the father of film, let’s just leave it to Kubrick.
Shelly Duvall did a sterling performance in the shining. Her fear and breaking down looks real. It’s often said that’s due Kubrick hounding her. But I think that’s doing her a discredit. She genuinely acted that well. Compare how many other believable performances of someone at their wits end. There’s not many actors that carry it off for the length she had to. It was half the film for her effectively carrying this off. The fact her performance is criticised by King says it all. He has a terrible track record of identifying decent performances. Look at his film adaptations where he’s had a hand.
Man you knocked this one right out of the park. Your parallels were perfect, exactly what I thought comparing the two. Kubrick rules!
I much preferred the tv movie version. It was long, but it was more arty and less slasher style. And of course much more accurate to the book.
I also hated what Kubrick did to Shelley Duval. He traumatised her for authenticity in her terror on screen, and she never recovered.
For me, there were a few things I Ioved about Kubrick's version, but I liked the miniseries better because it's closer to the book and more overtly supernatural. I appreciate Jack's personality in the TV version more.
I agree the CGI sucked. I liked that Halloran lived. ( TBH I wish Scattman Cruthers had still been alive to play him in the miniseries.)
I sorta see Kubrick's version as a different story. His is psychological horror and King's is Supernatural
If the TV version had had the budget and look of Kubrick's, it would have been pretty damn good.
I agree with you, King’s miniseries showed everything deeper (in a good way) and every character got closer to me than in Kubrick’s movie. 😊 I don’t care about CGI, that’s not important in this time.
I’ve just finished the book again... and I’ve just found this video! What a clever analysis!!!!
Congrats!
Timberline Lodge is where most of Kubrick's was shot. Kings was at Stanley Hotel in Estes Park Colorado.
Jezz I love the shining, the book and the movie and I don't get some of Kings complaints about the adaptation. Like for me Jack was the whole time just this far from becoming completely mad, I mean he beats a student and it's indicated that the guy was mortal injured, that doesn't look like a normal family father for me.
I watched the shining because of SHELLEY DUVALL !! She was great I loved her in the film she seemed very sad and disturbed. Which is great, she made the character very isolated, I don’t get the hate.
If I were King I would’ve embraced Kubrick’s masterpiece. It’s his ego that never let him see the greatness before him. Sometimes people take your work and elevate it to another level. It’s what Hendrix did with All Along the Watchtower and it’s what Kubrick did with The Shining.
Had Kubrick made the movie King wanted (the miniseries) no one would be talking about it today. Not that it would’ve happened since Kubrick is the type that would walk away before making something he doesn’t believe in.
I just bought the 4K DV restoration today and it looks spectacular. Like owning an original print. People focus on the visuals but the score is terrifying as well. Amazing film.
Bravo, I couldn’t have said it better
I don't think King denied that the film was good, it just didn't honor his own writing: Kubrick took a lot of liberties with the novel and hired his own screenwriter rather than using King's own screenplay.
Honestly i think Kubrick and kings king's screen play would've been great as although you could say that it would've been bad i think that Kubrick directing wouldve actually emphasized the horror of the things that looked funny or out of place in the mini series basically im saying kings screen play and Kubrick directing prowess would've given us the ultimate hybrid adaptation of the shining
There could have been a nice middle ground. Kubrick ultimately took the bare story line and made something else. The book and movie feel completely different.
Everything King said about The Shining was really accurate. There's nothing to like about that movie except Nicholson's performance
Hahah right
A Labyrinth and a Maze are two *VERY* Different Things -
A Maze is a snare used to trap The Gullible, a Labyrinth is equal parts a Prison, cattle corral and The Lion House at The Zoo.
There is only ever one, unforced path leading to The Centre of a Labyrinth, which contains a hungry monster waiting to eat you - The Monster could easily leave whenever he wants to, but is happy and content to leave in the centre of The Labyrinth, so long as The citizens continue to send in a regular supply of food.
In contrast, there is NOTHING in the middle of a Maze - except you, when you solve the puzzle of how to get there.... and when you get there you are stuck until you found the way out again
Because with a Maze, *YOU* are The Monster in The Middle, lured in and trapped by your own curiosity.
In the movie Wendy was an innocent, weak woman who maybe wasn’t as weak as you had thought. She achieves something at the end of the movie, she manages to save herself and her son from her crazy husband, while in the miniseries she’s a completely normal woman who at the end accomplishes nothing.
I personally like BOTH versions of The Shining but for different reasons. I know some of Stephens own adaptations can be a bit corny at times...but they still have this cool feel to it that i’ve always enjoyed. I liked The Stand and Desperation...Bag Of Bones I have to watch again cuz I havent seen it in a long while. But I understand some of the things explained in the video. I dont agree with a bunch but I understand. I think the best movie with Stephen Kings name on it is Storm Of The Century...so underrated.
I just watched the shining like two days ago this is perfect
I still think book adaptations should be faithful to the books first, and THEN add in classic scary movie production values, camera angles, etc. If a director is more concerned with simply telling a scary story than making sure that story reflects the source material, then don't give it the same title as the source material, and call it something else.
Still, it sounds like King was too close to the material to see that it needed more work to make it movie (and miniseries)-appropriate. The script didn't seem done, yet, before they already started filming.
King is a great horror writer. Kubrick is a genius.
Well, without Stephen King, the Shining movie wouldn’t have been made in the first place.
The Shining is originally made by Stephen King.
One of the best writers in history, so.....
@@jennikifm2 Correction, one of the best-selling writers in history. Please don't confuse that with good writing. I'm not sure anyone who writes books for a living can be really good for very long. It's hard not to repeat yourself.
dude the bathroom scene is all I remember from the shining that I watch as a kid
Ah the kiss blow, Almost made me cry
My theory is that jack is the reincarnation of grady. Because at the beggining, ullman says charles grady killed his family, but in the end, the grady that talks, say his name is delbert. So is it possible that jack was grady?
Cubix Rube but Grady died just a few years before Jack arrived. I think his persona was absorbed by the hotel after he was taken over by whatever evil resides there. Like Grady was. Rember how in the restroom he was told "you've always been the caretaker"? I think that was addressing and appealing to the thing inside him. Just my two cents.
I’ve always read the ending picture as evidence that Jack has always been part of the hotel and found his way back in a later incarnation.
I like the classic 1980’s Shinning film partly due to Jack Nicholson’s performance but I find the overall movie to be bit dull and slow. My favorite adaptation has to be the 1997 made for tv mini series staring Steven Weber. I think his transformation into a cold, insane calculated killer to be much more believable and more dramatic. It’s a shame it doesn’t get as much love as the original. I highly recommend it for people who are fans of the Book and the original.
I personally prefer the Shining book to the movie, but both are AMAZING!
Being a Steven King fan this makes me want to watch the other one just to see how he wanted the film adaption to go.
Yeah, me too...and then I saw it. I was sick at home and needed something to pass the time, so when I saw that the whole thing was on tv I decided to watch. I thought it was 3 hours total. Nope. Nine. You're going to have to dedicate serious time for this awful, awful movie. Steven Weber was thoroughly unthreatening and unbelievable when he *finally* goes psycho. I was rooting for anyone to die so this interminable movie could end. My father was a lot like Jack Torrance in Kubrik's 'The Shining', so I knew that was what authentic menace looks like. Weber couldn't scare anyone if his life depended on it. I couldn't believe I was watching him flail a croquet mallet a door. King seems to know how to create suspense on the page, but doesn't have a clue how to create it in film. King is just bitter b/c the Jack Torrance character in the novel is based on himself and he wanted the audience to find the character sympathetic, which Nicholson ostensibly is not. However, I actually do feel bad for the Nicholson/Jack Torrance character. He is haunted by past abuse patterns repeating, just as the hotel is haunted by the past, and unlike Danny, is unable to use his 'Shining' gift to find his way out of the maze of abuse. The miniseries is easily in my top 10 list of worst movies I've ever seen. It is embarrassing that King did not see that this was a story that should not have taken 9 hours to tell and that Weber was unable to summon the menace necessary to make us believe it in the first place. Watch at your own risk.
@@gracieb.3054 I commented on this 3 years ago and still never watched it because I was told what you just told me lol. I’m glad I didn’t watch it but your comment has made my mf day!!
I thought the stand was pretty good, and I did enjoy the shining mini series. I liked how Kubricks hotel was so mysterious but did not overall enjoy the flick
Wait... the animals were CGI? I always thought it was Stop-Motion
Dive deeper!!! You barley skimmed the surface. You left the book out. You just compared 2 movies.
Adam Arroyo that’s what this video is about, comparing 2 movies..
Adam Arroyo This video is about comparing the 2 movies, genius. *facepalm*
You compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Calm down man
@@harmie1743 8 co j is ugi 5xr6zd
I couldn't disagree more with this. Not only is Kubrick's film bad storytelling, it also throws away everything that's good in the book, reducing it to a series of bleak and unsatisfying set-pieces. I honestly think that many people who rave about the film only claim to like it because they've swallowed the received wisdom that Kubrick was a genius who could do no wrong. Can anybody honestly say they care at all about the characters in Kubrick's Shining? The mini-series is a long way from perfect but it has lots of effective and MOVING moments because King and Garris make you feel empathy for its characters.
What’s bad about the storytelling in Kubrick’s film?
Fans love the characters in The Kubrick Film because it was an accurate tale of a alcoholic and abusive Husband hurting his family. Almost every scene with Jack and Wendy have high tension and it’s usually about the well-being of Danny and the effects of the Hotel. We care about the Torrances because we’re intrigued to know their outcomes and fates in The overlook hotel.
The character of Jack Torrance works better as an unsympathetic character because it gives him a more conventual horror villain feel. Jack becomes increasingly unstable and unpredictable, making it harder for viewers to root for him. His descent into madness and violence is both disturbing and compelling, creating a sense of tension and dread that keeps viewers engaged in the story.
@@PrinceAliTheGreatest King's story is about a basically decent man struggling with addiction. He is gradually overcome by the dark forces in the hotel and goes mad. In Kubrick's film, it's clear that Jack Nicholson's version is insane and (as you say) dangerous from his first appearance, so there's no story to tell. In the novel Wendy, Danny and Hallorann are all important characters fighting for their own lives and to save Jack. Kubrick reduces them all to bystanders who are powerless. In my book that's bad storytelling. I wouldn't mind the film so much if it said it was simply inspired by King's novel, but feel it lacks everything that made the novel great and shouldn't be seen as King's work .
Also, in a Labyrinth, The Walls often move around by themselves (just like Kubrick’s Overlook) - but only the INSIDE Walls.... Outside, it remains exactly the same shape.
And the interior layout of the passageways of a Labyrinth ONY change to block off you where you have already been, to give you no option but to advance towards The Centre and certain doom, by denying you the option to retreat and double-back.
Whereas, in order to successfully navigate and negotiate your way either in or out through a Maze, you HAVE to retreat and double-back when you come to a Dead-end and make a wrong turn (as Danny does, and Jack doesn’t.)
So Kubrick’s Overlook is a Labyrinth on the INSIDE (because the walls move around by themselves), but a Maze on the OUTSIDE - because the way you escape the trap (and The Monster chasing you) is to walk backwards (which is a tradition hallmark of Magick and Witchcraft), whilst covering your tracks.
You know your rich when you BUILD YOUR OWN HOTEL TO SHOOT YOUR MOVIE IN.
Steven Webber don't get me wrong is a good actor, but doesn't measure up to Nicholson's intensity, and Kubrick made the motel become a character itself, something didn't quite do.
LeastLikedCritic75 I'll sum it up: to say that Weber (who I normally like) was TERRIBLY miscast in that role would be an understatement.
Kubricks version scared the hell out of me, more so than any run of the mill horror movie ever could.
Kubrick took King's book, threw away all the silly parts and made a masterpiece out of what remained. No wonder King was angry!
The book is better than what Kubrick ultimately came up with. The part of the book where Danny is out in the snow for example and the leaves....just nervewracking to read.
Apparently he threw out a lot of good stuff too
0:49 i literally fond Stanley Kubrick's the shining at the bottom of the DVD bin at Wal-Mart
It's very simple: You cannot compare a film with a book... Writing and Cinema are different arts...
I saw The Shining for the first time years ago, and I hated it as well. But only because it was a very unfaithful adaptation of one of my fav novels.
When I watched it again, year ago or so, I approached it this way - sit back and relax, you're a bit smarter than ten years ago; think of it as of movie 'based on', not letter to letter adaptation. And it worked. Today, The Shining is one of my fav King's adaptation. Kubrick did MARVELOUS job with the core of the novel, and crafted great neogothic horror movie. It has everything it need - family, isolation, love, obsession, death and giant abandoned haunted mansion. Try making more neogothic horror than The Shining, I dare Ya.
AND also, it aged very well.
I read The Shining five times or so, I love it, it's one of my top 10 King's novels. It has a lot of family warmth, it works brilliantly on paper. But Stanley Kubrick's movie is dense and bleak horror movie, as horror movie should be.
Man, now I want to watch it again...
Thoughts? :)
I have watched and read Misery and thought it was a faithful and good adaptation but with The shining I just thinks its a book not suited for the screen so I think the movie is good, but its sad that it hurted Kings own idea of the character
so I think the movies is best seen as just something separate from the book with a related storyline
I couldn't even watch the miniseries. Maybe an hour or so, that was enough.
Stephen King: I don't like the cold.
Me: then why did you write a book about a Colorado hotel during winter...?
For what Kubrick put Duvall through its amazing her portrayal isnt more just screams than what she is. Ive read the shining multiple times and have seen the movie literally hundreds of times. Yes the movie was great for a horror story but it didn't capture everything in kings novel. Still a top list movie by far don't get me wrong. But could have been more faithful to the novel. One of the few novel to screen movies I'm interested in seeing redone.
If the director transferred page to screen, Steven King Movies would suck. They would be ten hours long with 9 hours being the history of Castle Rock or some other crap. Read The Stand or IT and tell me it would be a good idea to stay true to a Steven King book.
EDIT: Most Steven King movies would be ten hours long. The Stand and It would each be 30+ hours long with 29 hours being the history of Castle Rock and other crap.
I watched Carrie(2013) today and realised, this would be alot longer if it was page-to-film. His books have so much descriptions, to help the reader settle and understand the setting and history. In a cinema I would've walked out already
Good point, lol.
Originally, Kubrick wanted to film in the Stanley but there was already a convention booked at the Stanley during the time frame they had to film in - designing his own Overlook probably worked to his advantage. To be far though, there is something creepy about the Stanley.
Am I the only person who didn't hate the miniseries? I actually agree with King about the differences in the films, but I don't hate either of them. They're just different.
Kubrick=Great director.
King=Great Author/Novelist.
King is the King of Horror, but Kubrick is the God of Cinema. That ends it.
King is more about quantity over quality though.
Stephen King cried for decades because Stanley Kubrick took his secluded hotel, but reframed the theme entirely into a meditation about Hell. Whether your chilling in a room, terrorized by abusive parental figures, or being the caretaker, you're doing it for ever, and ever, and ever. Stanley is right. In general, we're more afraid of damnation than we are of ghosts.
"You can't look away when hes on screen."
heck no I can't
also this made me howl
Why does everyone hate Wendy? She always put Danny’s safety first. People keep saying, “sHe wAs aNnOyInG”. The woman was trapped in the middle of nowhere, with 0 communication with the outside world, while her husband and father of her child was trying to brutally massacre them both. As a mother, your child is your only priority. She was just trying to survive and keep her child alive, while the man that she loved suddenly became crazy, and completely lost him because of this.
The miniseries is summed up by Dr. Bill Edmonds in the book. “Accurately, but inelegantly put.”
The Dark Tower was a horror movie!? I didn't know that when I watched it!
I like Kings version better
King is just jealous that Stanley took his nickle and shined (pun intended) it into a dime. Shelley Duvall’s Wendy is not stupid. I resent the Implication that EVERY female character in a movie has to be a superhero or it’s misogynistic. Kubrick’s film is about a broken family, nobody is there to look good or make a statement. She’s a hopelessly codependent victim of an abusive marriage and that’s how Duvall played her. So no, she’s not a tough sassy chick. Her circumstances are tragic but that’s the point....it’s what the story dictated. You feel bad for her character. It may not be flashy or glamorous but at least it’s honest.
If I was a writer I would be embarrassed by the amount of trash adaptations that King has allowed to be released
I don't know I always thought that the makeup that the dad is wearing in the Many series Was pretty damn Creepy. I also thought the woman in the tub was a lot scarier too. Just my opinion
This is the first video I've seen since the 'restoration' and I've got to say it's good. I like the background, the writing, and the analysis. Maybe you'll eventually be able to work in some inter-host chemistry. Keep it up!
If you ever watch The Shining again notice when they first come to the hotel that all the furniture is this beige brown. But when in the ballroom scene, restroom and even the one where Wendy takes Jack breakfast on a cart all of the furniture is red and the bathroom is red. I believe when Wendy walkthrough with a cart shows all those photographs in the wall but you do not see any tapestries but at the end of the movie when they show the iconic close up of the 1921 picture that whole area next to the either side of the pictures there's tapestries. Also the wooden branch on the table where Jack was writing his book, at the start of the movie it's there. But when things go awry suddenly the wooden branch is missing. Jack was a weirdo asshole before but when he goes off the deep end he's always wearing a maroon jacket. So I think there's more of an underline story obviously that has people analyzing And discussing 28 years later.
whoever made this CLEARLY does not understand why stephen king hated Kubrick's film, hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with moving topiaries, fire hoses, or scorpion monsters.
Saying king doesn't understand subtlety means you clearly haven't read the book lmao, ALL of the scary and sinister moments are subtle
I Like both of them. they are like apples and oranges, both sweet but very different.
I have the entire Torrance family as Funkos, I’ve never been happier.
5:29 scared the hell out of me when I saw it even though I have seen it already
Never watch a movie adaptation right after reading the book. I watched The Shining right after reading it and absolutely hated the movie. It fails to capture the essence of the book and what the real horror was (that a normal guy like Jack could have his weakness [alcoholism and anger issues] exploited by the evil of the place). I probably would have enjoyed the movie for its aesthetic qualities if I had seen it before reading the book, but now all I can see when watching it is a butchered storyline.
I feel the exact opposite. While the film was very different than the book, to me it definitely caught the fear, or essence of the story.
Suzanne Wdowik
Kubric didn't want it to be at all like the book. Kubric made it himself.
exactly. i did the same thing today, actually. finished reading the book and one hour later was watching the movie. couldn't stand it.
cutting out the fantastic elements from the book made the movie much more realistically terrifying.
The little kid in the miniseries looks like Mac from It’s Always Sunny
I thought the miniseries of The Stand was pretty good, actually. Can’t say much about the others you mentioned but The Stand wasn’t as terrible as you made it out to be.
Hate to break it to you. But Kubrick’s adaptation wasn’t scary at all. Yes I agree, the scenes were beautiful. But the story has so many holes it was confusing to watch. Character development was non-existent. Important nuances from the characters just thrown out the window. I was so disappointed with the 1980 film. Even though the cgi’s in the mini series were weird. The storyline and characters and their development were fantastic, a massive upgrade. But yeah Kubrick’s scenes were beautiful.
You didn't want to fix your hair real quick before shooting this video?
I enjoy Dreamcatcher. If fact I've recently rewatched it and it still holds up.
If you want to know why Danny’s tricycle ride doesn’t make sense, at 5:08 there’s a cut to a different take, it’s a splice. He’s riding down the service corridor then it splices to him riding upstairs, that’s the join.
Well, now I’m watching The Shining
boy glad I didn`t see The Shinning remake
The Simpsons
It wasn’t a remake.
i really dont agree with the idea that Wendy was just put there to scream and be stupid. She might look lame but she actually does smart choices , and she survives
awesome video! hope he view counts and subs continue to go up. glad you're taking all the fan critics and applying them
5:08 the flem in this guys voice sounds like he's drowning
His voice does this periodically and it is the nastiest thing I've ever heard
Lmaooooo I didn’t even notice that hahaha