Disappointed but not surprised that they're using the Kubrick film as a point of reference. As for King giving the go-ahead, he seems to be giving carte blanch approval to nearly everything nowadays and then say how he really feels afterwards (for example he low-key dissed Under the Dome today on Twitter after defending all the changes when it was out). Although in this case he seems to genuinely like Flanagan as a director based on his past work so we'll see...
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
I take everything King says with a tremendously oversized grain of salt. His dislike for Kubrick's version of The Shining is still mind-boggling. No adaptation is like the book, and that was one of the best films ever made, period. It's great that this pays homage to that. Interesting to know if WB is still going ahead with that Shining prequel as well?
I don't agree with everything King says but Kubrick's The Shining ruined Jack and Wendy and outright disrespected Halloran. Given how autobiographical Jack was to King I can understand why he'd be pissed at seeing a tragic figure succumbing to his demons turn into a cartoon character who's batshit when the credits start.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
HARD PASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. This looks like total B movie crap. My buddy who seen it... called it.
HELP ME FIND
Insomnia #459
ANY S/L #459
I don't feel he's crazy from the credits. That's just us from multiple viewings putting that in there plus Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson. I don't think you'd have that reaction if you saw The Shining opening weekend in 1980. And King himself tried to do better than Kubrick and wrote a pretty unwatchable miniseries in my opinion. That was nothing like the book either.
I liked this trailer...and I wish I better remembered the book (which I really liked) so I could see what changed.
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
Many King adaptations strayed significantly from the source material; if there’s anything mind-boggling about this, it’s that he was never this upset again. Perhaps this is because it was early in King’s career (I believe this was only the second adaptation, after Carrie, per Randall Flag/Jerome – and the error is mine if I misunderstood him) and also because the character of Jack might have been pretty autobiographical for King, as CyberGhostface said.Originally Posted by mae
It is undeniable, however that Kubrick:
…and therefore logical that King might…
There’s no trace of warmth from the character of Jack in Kubrick’s Shining; that man's best-case scenario was to successfully tolerate being a husband and father.
Do you really think it was nothing like the book? I lack the time and inclination to go over it scene by scene, but King’s TV miniseries was pretty faithful; I immensely enjoyed seeing the novel pretty much brought to life on screen: Jack was loving (making his downfall tragic – who felt bad when Nicholson’s Jack died? No one; Kubrick had made him into a cheap movie monster for the audience to root against), Wendy was a whole human being, protecting her child with a mother’s will, Hallorann was more than an asterisk, and the hotel and ghosts were creepy without being over the top.
One of the reasons King’s horror works so well is that, despite the horrible nature of it, it is so human - but Kubrick doesn’t do human, he does monoliths (he was a hell of a film maker, but utterly wrong for this). Well, his Shining was a beautiful and noteworthy monolith, but it ultimately had only the most surface of connections to the source, while the miniseries managed to make Jack alternately sympathetic and terrifying, then sympathetic again - and I’ll take that over “we have only one chance to get this shot of 5,000 gallons of blood coming out of the elevator, and by the way I am a genius” any day.
...but that's just me.
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
I did not feel any dread or was scared in any way by the miniseries. The book and Kubrick's movie were scary.
I agree the miniseries was pretty weak, King made a mistake in insisting on writing the screenplay and then having Mick Garris direct it. Flanagan would have been perfect for it if they tried it again today.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Hey, if DOCTOR SLEEP makes a ton of money at the Box Office, they can always go back to that well again with the team that made this one...
Founder and publisher of Lividian Publications. My other website is BrianJamesFreeman.com. Please always feel free to email me or send me a PM if you have any questions about either!
If you think about it they really had no other choice than to reference the Kubrick film, given the wide spread popularity/viewing of that film vs the book/TV film with the viewing public. However, that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. It will depend on how much and what scenes are utilized as the flash back material. From the trailer it seems like they are on the right track. The film will be the final evidence on whether they got it right or not. All of which is to say that I agree with you. We'll seeeeeeeeeeee.................lol lol
Mae, I respect you and generally agree with most of your cinematic observations but, with all due respect, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MOTHERFUCKING MIND? "The Shining" is "one of the best films ever made, period"? That is an insane statement. The Kubrick film totally ripped the heart out of the story the book told. There are no reasons for some of the "adaption" changes he made. He totally screwed the pooch on that film as far as the book and its readers go.
I apologize in advance to you, Mae but I have to totally disagree with you on this one, my friend!!!!
Kris, how was your buddy able to see it? I'd be surprised if they had a final cut of the movie four months before release, unless it's all done and the release was delayed.
Interesting that the movie is clearly a sequel to the Kubrick movie (Room 237, not 217) as well.
HBJ
“If you don't know what you want," the doorman said, "you end up with a lot you don't.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
Looking for SubPress Lettered::
Angel's Game and Prisoner of Heaven (Zafon)
Ilium (Simmons)
He works with the studio. He is a super good guy and he called me the minute he got out. And he totally hated it. Said it was (in his words... “a total stinker”.Kris, how was your buddy able to see it? I'd be surprised if they had a final cut of the movie four months before release, unless it's all done and the release was delayed.
Interesting that the movie is clearly a sequel to the Kubrick movie (Room 237, not 217) as well.
HBJ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HELP ME FIND
Insomnia #459
ANY S/L #459
Oh, cool. I wonder if he saw a workprint or the final version. Was it a test screening? Did he give feedback?
“If you don't know what you want," the doorman said, "you end up with a lot you don't.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
Looking for SubPress Lettered::
Angel's Game and Prisoner of Heaven (Zafon)
Ilium (Simmons)
It does look good. Surprised but also not surprised it takes place in the same universe as The Shining film. I'd thought they'd want to distinguish itself from it. But also, EVERYBODY knows The Shining movie so from a business standpoint, they'd be stupid not to.
This was exactly my thought as well.
This. Especially book recommendations.
A NEW GAME BEGINS
I think the mini-series is nothing like the book. It is boring. Not scary. Cheesy (oh, that Tony). Sets an uninspired, flat tone (trademarked by Mick Garris). The kid is annoying. Crazy Jack is unconvincing and laughable. All things I don't associate with the novel. It is only like the book in the shallowest of ways: by copying the story beat for beat, something that often doesn't translate well to film.
Nothing insane about that statement at all, The Shining is widely regarded to be a cinematic masterpiece by film critics, filmfans and filmmakers.
From 1956 on Every Kubrick film is "one of the best films ever made"I think the mini-series is nothing like the book. It is boring. Not scary. Cheesy (oh, that Tony). Sets an uninspired, flat tone (trademarked by Mick Garris). The kid is annoying. Crazy Jack is unconvincing and laughable. All things I don't associate with the novel. It is only like the book in the shallowest of ways: by copying the story beat for beat, something that often doesn't translate well to film.
Nothing insane about that statement at all, The Shining is widely regarded to be a cinematic masterpiece by film critics, filmfans and filmmakers.
seeking: anything DT related #246
Night Shift Anniversary Ed. (blue skull cover)
ANYTHING DT Related #246
Dead Zone First Edition F/F or NF/NF
When even the trailer looks contrived and Hollywood-cheesy, you know a movie is in big trouble. Imagine the scathing reviews when then this is inevitably compared to the Kubrick film by implication. Regarding the original film. It is a horror classic. All of King's naysaying of that film ring hollow with his endorsement or silence on so many terrible movies based on his books. Including The Dark Tower. I think his criticism of The Shining is based more on an ego clash with Kubrick. It is maybe the one King film that is more often associated with the director than King himself.
I just asked. Says it was the finished product. Whether there is changes or not... he did not indicate it to me. HE LOVED IT....
HELP ME FIND
Insomnia #459
ANY S/L #459
Criticism of the Shining miniseries seems to boil down to "found it boring/not scary" etc. That's a good reason not to personally enjoy something, but it doesn't make it a bad adaptation (I found it creepy and good).
Kubrick's film is a detour, a distraction, and the fact that this detour/distraction is a good film doesn't negate the fact that he ignored King's story by changing a sympathetic and therefore tragic protagonist into a monster that the movie viewer must watch to see if he kills, or is killed by, his weaker prey (logistically making the last half or third of Kubrick's Shining a hell of a lot more like a Freddy or Jason movie - man with axe chases woman and child!! will they make it?? - even if it looks nothing like one). It's okay to enjoy the film (as I do) while seeing that it is a poor adaptation (as it is) and understanding why King's feelings would be determined by this.
King has described the experience of first watching Kubrick's Shining (thinking something like "I've seen this guy before" when seeing Nicholson's Jack); I imagine there's quite a bit on screen in a Kubrick film that you wouldn't have seen in the script (I don't know if King did but I wonder; perhaps his expectations were dashed only when he watched it - I'm sure others here know more).
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
Great discussion of the trailer by The Losers Club: https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/...sleep-trailer/
Now I’m really curious what this awesome Dark Tower reference will be.
People keep on trying to ascribe ulterior motives to King's dislike of 'The Shining' and I don't know why it can't just be for the reasons King has stated.
If it was about ego, he wouldn't have said the film version Carrie was better than what he wrote or that Darabont improved his ending to The Mist. Not to mention other films he's praised like Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me that have dwarfed the source material to such a point that many people don't even know King wrote the original which has never been the case with The Shining.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
His espoused reasons for disliking The Shining don't hold true because they are not applied to other situations. He seems to have a problem specific to The Shining. The only thing unique about that film is that it is considered a classic and as much or more a Kubrick film than a King film. And I don't think Kubrick paid homage to King to his satisfaction as some other directors have done. In the end his reasons are largely meaningless as everyone can assess the merits for themselves.People keep on trying to ascribe ulterior motives to King's dislike of 'The Shining' and I don't know why it can't just be for the reasons King has stated.
If it was about ego, he wouldn't have said the film version Carrie was better than what he wrote or that Darabont improved his ending to The Mist. Not to mention other films he's praised like Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me that have dwarfed the source material to such a point that many people don't even know King wrote the original which has never been the case with The Shining.
What other situations? What other book that was as deeply autobiographical to King as The Shining was adapted in a similarly irreverent fashion?
And again... if that was at all a significant issue why is he praising other classic films that have actually dwarfed not only the source material but knowledge of King's involvement? 'The Shining' is still widely recognized as being a Stephen King story. 'Stand By Me' is not.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Nothing insane about that statement at all, The Shining is widely regarded to be a cinematic masterpiece by film critics, filmfans and filmmakers.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but that doesn't make them right!!! lol Anyway, I'm really basing my opinion on, Kubrick's adaption of the book to film, which I think most here are primarily concerned with, not the film itself if you know what I mean. The TV MS may not have been as dynamic as the film version, but it was far more accurate an adaption of the book. This is just my opinion. I'm not trying to start a debate or anything. Personally, I thought, Kubrick really screwed the pooch on this one regardless how the film community may feel about it and his other films since 1956 or whatever. lol
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
