The Shining novel Vs The Shining movie.

[pathoftheturtle]

*bump*

I'd like to hear what cyber might have to say on this topic.

[Jack Torrance]

I didn't like the movie at all; especially not Jack Nicholson in it. If it was an original screenplay, I might have liked it to at least an extent, but not after I read the book. In the book Jack Torrance is a real live man who tries to fight both his inner demons and the ones who come get him from the outside, and succumbs to both, - and it's that story that was so dear to me in the book. Nicholson is brilliant, he definitely steals the show, he shows off, he is irresistible, he is a total genius in this, basically, one-man performance, he is funny and scary and positively hypnotizing - and given all that, he is anything but a real man you could sympathize with. For me he is as far from the Jack-in-the-book as possible. (And the rest of the movie is just plainly pathetic.)

If you can separate it from the book mentally it's an enjoyable and entertaining movie I think. I think the problem is we know what it could have/should have been. If Mr. Nicholson could have supressed that over the top shit until the end and acted more sublimely and progressed to that point I think it would have been brilliant. I still have fond memories of the film though.

This thread should be moved to The gem Theatre I think if someone doesn't mind sending it along to us.

Your wish is my command. 1 day redirect.

Thank you, sir!

I agree brice you have to separate what you are reading from what you watch, and I enjoyed both.

[Brice]

Some things I can not though. A DT movie will devastate me.

[Girlystevedave]

I've seen the movie a lot over the years, before I even read the book. The movie always creeped me out and still does. I finally read the book last year and really didn't expect much considering I "knew" the story. Well, it was the first time I really enjoyed a book even after seeing the movie. I was amazed at how different it was and how much was changed for the movie. I was also surprised at how much it scared me, that's not easy for a book to do. So, overall, I'd have to pick the book in this one.

[frik]

A DT movie will devastate me.

That's what I thought when Peter Jackson made the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Was I proven wrong!
So, although I'm definitely not waiting for a DT movie and deep down hope it'll never get made - you just never know.
All depends on who'll be in charge, I guess.

sk

[demorgan]

The movie(kubrick....the miniseries was kind of boring) is my all time favorite.

[ladysai]

If I could separate the two in my mind, I could enjoy both; but, would still like the book better.
Jack Nicholson is a great actor, and he did the 'crazy Jack' perfectly.
Unfortunately, Jack wasnt crazy through the whole story in the book. (which I read before I saw the movie). Also, Danny's role in the movie was almost an afterthought...and he was so important in the book.
Scatman Crothers was actually my favorite part of the movie. He was a great casting call.

[Jack Torrance]

If I could separate the two in my mind, I could enjoy both; but, would still like the book better.
Jack Nicholson is a great actor, and he did the 'crazy Jack' perfectly.
Unfortunately, Jack wasnt crazy through the whole story in the book. (which I read before I saw the movie). Also, Danny's role in the movie was almost an afterthought...and he was so important in the book.
Scatman Crothers was actually my favorite part of the movie. He was a great casting call.

I agree the story lines went separate ways when the movie was made. I like both. I think that watching the movie first then reading the novel was a good move for my taste. It made the book that much more creepy when I read it. I think that it was because my mind was set on what the movie was. I all around like the novel better but it is a close call.

[Girlystevedave]

Also, Danny's role in the movie was almost an afterthought...and he was so important in the book.

Yeah, I didn't get why that was changed about the movie.

[Melike]

I love the story, but I will say that I am partial to film. It's one of my all-time favorites.

Me too. I love the movie more.

[SynysterSaint]

Novel
I absolutely love the novel. It's my favorite way to experience The Shining.

Kubrick's The Shining
I hate the changes that Kubrick made. To me, the movie lost the feeling of the novel and turned it from a psychological horror experience to a straight-up horror experience, and when the novel is so steeped in character back-story and mentalities the movie is going to suffer by removing most of it. Not to mention a roque mallet is much scarier than an axe, in my opinion.

USA's The Shining
My favorite of the two film adaptations because the characters seemed more believable, and, as such, the original feel of the novel remained fairly intact.

[Seymour_Glass]

I love the novel for the human qualities King is so good at expressing in his characters, but I was completely dazzled by Kubrick's film version. I regard them as entirely different beasts.

[Merlin1958]

The Novel!!!! Kubrick totally butchered the book, IMHO

[Jean]

yes, he did; viewed separately, however, it seems quite good

[Seymour_Glass]

Exactly.

[Mattrick]

Movie is much better than the book. It's not that it's a much better told story but it is better told. In the book there is little for interpretation, the hotel was evil and it drove him and his family insane. In Kubrick's tale it's much more open ended. Was the hotel evil? Possibly. Or did the isolation and craziness of it drive people insane? Did their own personal demons and fears and regrets drive them to the places they went or were they really maligned by a sinister force? A little from column a or b perhaps but that's why I love the movie and I keep going back. When I was yonger I was sure the place was evil and haunted and now that I'm older and see the movie differently I'm not so sure. Genius.

[ICry4Oy]

The novel was pure terror and the movie (Kubrick's) was almost pure camp. The novel was hands-down superior.

[Mattrick]

The movie is simply Kubrick's representation of what the book said to him. While the book had more creepiness to it, it really lost me in the last 100 pages when the hotel started talking to him. In the book

Spoiler:

Jack Torence redeems himself by sacrificing himself to destroy the hotel and it's evil. While in the movie he is unable to redeem himself.

Kubrick took what was a well written and creepy ghost story and made into something psychologically provoking and makes us wonder if anyone of us couldn't become like Jack Torrence if in that situation.

[pixiedark76]

I liked the novel WAY better than the movie. I hated what Stanley Kubrick did in the movie. What happened to the cook Dick Hallorann in the movie was obscene!

Spoiler:

To have Dick Hallorann go through all that trouble to get from Florida to Colorado and to have to drive through snowstorms just to be killed only seconds after entering the hotel was absurd.

I felt that Stanley Kubrick was thumbing his nose at the Stephen King novel version! Stanley Kubrick just made up his own twisted plot because he was a twisted person!

[Mattrick]

I don't see how that is absurd. It was a great way to pull the rug out from underneath the audience.

Spoiler:

To make it seem like Hollaran was coming to save the day and rescue Wendy and Danny and just like that he's removed from the equation.

Thumbing his nose at it? He took out most of the unnecessary stuff such as the history and backstory and merely left it more open to interpretation. I enjoyed the novel, it was well done. But the movie to me is something special and it was daring for a horror movie. Too many horror movies these days devolve into redudant explaination which ruins the mystery of the evil or threat that exists in the movie. I felt King was a little too explainatory in his conclusion to The Shining but it's still an excellent book. Both are excellent. The hole in the cement and the hedge animals were the creepiest parts of the book.

[pathoftheturtle]

I liked the novel WAY better than the movie. I hated what Stanley Kubrick did in the movie. What happened to the cook Dick Hallorann in the movie was obscene!

Spoiler:

To have Dick Hallorann go through all that trouble to get from Florida to Colorado and to have to drive through snowstorms just to be killed only seconds after entering the hotel was absurd.

I don't see how that is absurd. It was a great way to pull the rug out from underneath the audience.

Spoiler:

To make it seem like Hollaran was coming to save the day and rescue Wendy and Danny and just like that he's removed from the equation.

I kind of like that part of Kubrick's version. It does pull the rug out and it IS absurd, in the way that reality is absurd. A dramatic build up that creates a certain expectation, and yet nothing comes of it... such a thing is usually forbidden in Hollywood, but it happens all of the time in the world around us.

[Merlin1958]

yes, he did; viewed separately, however, it seems quite good

Well, I'm sorry I just can't seem to "divorce myself" in that way. The book was such an iconic horror story and it deserved much better treatment than Kubrick afforded it. IMHO. Nicholson was the guy too, and I'm not sure what some of you mean by "Over the top". Jack Torrance is an over the top character by the book's end. That's the story, his inability to battle his demons and the Hotel's.

Many of the kubrick changes seemed un-thought out and gratuitous. I thought Nicholson gave a great performance and the script, the director and his co-stars gravely let him down IMHO

[Brainslinger]

The thing about Jack Nicholson's portrayal is that he always seems a bit dodgy, even at the start. The novel version seemed like an ordinary decent man to start with (albeit one with a dark side, when he had been at the drink). In short, the novel's version seems to go through more of a journey.

That's not to say that Jack Nicholson's version doesn't work in it's own way. We sense that there's a maniac not far from the service and so we fear for his wife and child who are caught up with him. As a straight horror story, the film works very well, but as a character story about an individual's degradation over time, the novel trumps it.

I like them both.

[Merlin1958]

The thing about Jack Nicholson's portrayal is that he always seems a bit dodgy, even at the start. The novel version seemed like an ordinary decent man to start with (albeit one with a dark side, when he had been at the drink). In short, the novel's version seems to go through more of a journey.

That's not to say that Jack Nicholson's version doesn't work in it's own way. We sense that there's a maniac not far from the service and so we fear for his wife and child who are caught up with him. As a straight horror story, the film works very well, but as a character story about an individual's degradation over time, the novel trumps it.

I like them both.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the Kubrick film. FWIW, one of the things that sticks in my mind is that when I read it for the first time in PB, I was picturing Jack as Nicholson the whole time. Then when it was announced he was cast, I was like Wow! Ultimately, when I saw the movie I loved his performance, but could just not rationalize the unnecessary changes. Plus Ms. Duval as Wendy didn't help. Also, that kid was freaky and that didn't jibe with the book either.

Of course, all of this is JMHO.

I did however enjoy the TV version, though it lacked certain production values I thought it was cast much better and naturally followed the book very closely. Bought the DVD, in fact. Though Mr. Nicolson and Mr. Crothers were painfully absent.