Bite me, old man.
Bite me, old man.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
Agreed. Kurbick was looking beyond a strict interpretation of the book and made something part his own and part King out of it. The miniseries just visualized King's work [which is not bad but not as interesting in this case]. Some of his stories demand more by-the-book screen versions, some seem to provide basis for improvisation. Shining works better as the latter I think.
I agree. I love the Kubrick version. That movie still freaks me out, even though I've seen it a million times.
I thought Kubrick's movie was scarier than the book itself. But there was one part of the book that really did get my heart beating...the part were Danny was playing outside and his parents were asleep inside...where he was almost snagged in the playground. Freaked me right the fuck out. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go straight to Freakville.
oh both the parts where jack and later danny were "chased" by the animal cut outs freaked me the fricky frick out!
Lalalalaaaa, lalalalaaa
Lalalalaaaa, lalalalaaa
sugarpop <3
The music in The movie is riveting
Buddy, you think you look strong? You’re wearing a cape.
I saw the Kubrick film before I read the book--in fact, that's why I did read the book at all. My first encounter with Stephen King was Thinner, and I didn't understand or appreciate it (book OR movie), so that kind of turned me off to the King for awhile, sorry to say (part of it may have been that I was too young at the time, not old enough to have the patience for a whole horror novel, especially one with an adult perspective).
Anyway, so unfortunately I was thinking of the actors in the film when I read the book and noted some of the differences right away.
But I did find some genuine scare factors in the book--like with the hose and the topiary animals. Those really brought me back to my own childhood with its concurrent fears. I used to visualize giant ferocious black dogs coming from either side of the hallway in my room when I had to go down it, which scared me....
Anyway, that's why I dislike the fact that they became over-the-top, corny CGI effects in the miniseries, when I saw that. The closest thing to a genuine scare factor that I saw in the miniseries (and this was only a shocker, which has been done to death) was when Danny leaves room 217 and thinks he's safe--and then the lady in the bathtub grabs him.
I think true horror, horror that stays with you, that is lasting, doesn't come from shocks like that. It comes from something more disquieting about the atmosphere and characters, or something psychological, within the characters--like Jack's slow descent into madness. I often wonder how things like that even happen, much less be portrayed in fiction, and I've tried to make some use of that kind of thing myself (don't know to what degree I succeed).
But that's why, for my money, Stanley Kubrick's film is a better adaptation, even if it's less faithful to the novel (and even though it lacks the aforementioned scenes). Heck, there are some things unique to the miniseries, that still aren't in the novel, which makes it harder to accept it as a legitimate "faithful adaptation," the title "Stephen King's The Shining" notwithstanding.
That doesn't mean I like the Kubrick film better than the original Stephen King novel, mind. I don't like to make those kinds of comparisons. The book and the movie are two separate media, and each has its own merits. In the book I liked the fact that you get more of the history of everything--Jack Torrance's history, and the history of the Overlook Hotel--which helps explain things better, especially in terms of motivation. But I kind of liked Kubrick's ending better, even if it didn't explain much (and what's wrong with making audiences THINK, I would like to know???)--it was a stroke of genius, I think, to kill off Dick Halloran rather than have him save Wendy and Danny as in the book (who WASN'T expecting him to do that, even if they HADN'T read the book? I mean, REALLY?), and plus the whole deal with "remembering what was forgotten" didn't quite sit right with me either.
I forgive Stephen King, though--it was only his third novel, and anyway, he said himself he was raising the bar with it, vis-a-vis his first two, so that's certainly a good thing. And at any rate, I forget if he said it himself, but I read that Jack Torrance was based on himself at that time. So there's something very personal there, which of course is not in the Kubrick adaptation. In fact, Kubrick doesn't show much of what's written in the book at all--like Jack's nightmare, or what Danny encounters in the Room, etc.
Yes, it's kind of obvious in the film that Jack Nicholson is going to go crazy, but if you're familiar with Kubrick's other films (and he really made it a Kubrick film rather than a King adaptation as such), it makes sense. You start out with characters that appear more or less civilized, but this belies a brutal savagery that is slowly revealed as the layers are peeled away during the course of the film. But clues exist right from the start, so that it's consistent, and makes sense. That's Kubrick's point with his films. So I can forgive him for "overlooking" that more personal element to Jack Torrance that Stephen King wrote for him--Kubrick's films aren't really about character, or even plot as such, they're more about theme.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, but basically that's my assessment on The Shining--great book, great movie, poor miniseries. Feel free to disagree.
I think the one thing about Jack Torrence in miniseries vs. Kubrick's version is that in Kubrick's version, you have no sympathy for the character. Kubrick/Jack Nicholson makes him evil essentially from the beginning. In the miniseries, you have sympathy for Jack, which is true to the book... I did like that better.
Buddy, you think you look strong? You’re wearing a cape.
I didn't like either of them. I suppose Kubrick's film is better, but its not exactly hard to beat out "Kissin', kissin' that's what I've been missing." The mini was just too Disneyfied for me.
I really disliked Kubrick's film though, particularly with how they bastardized the characters of Jack and Wendy. Halloran was decent, and I don't remember much of Danny besides the annoying "Tony" voice.
They should have Frank Darabont redirect The Shining. He'd probably do it justice.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Just for giggles:
sorry for being obtuse, but we bears are entitled to
can someone please explain it to me:
[Dr.Edmonds] "...And of course you two must understand why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch."
"Yes," Wendy said.
"Have you ever pointed it out to him?"
"No," Jack said. "Should we?"
"Why bother? Let him realize it in his own time, by his own logic".
well, I still have no idea why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch...
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
and that's it?!
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, only the doctor didn't realize the significance: that it was the shine in Danny manifesting through another aspect or personality of himself.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
It's definitely worth watching. I think Steven Webber did a better job than Nicholson at portraying King's character. Nicholson was batshit crazy from the get-go, which was not the case with Jack Torrance in the book. We see the progression more in Webber's interpretation.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
I'm reading The Shining for the first time...about 180 pages into and I'm loving it so far. I can feel that Jack is starting to slowly unravel right now and I'm interested to see the progression. (I've seen the movie before, but have heard that the book is 100 times better, so I'm trying to forget all that I knew before.)
I'm also really enjoying getting all the little details behind Danny's 'shining' ability and all.
love this book. really love it. and it absolutely terrified me in a way that few books ever have. the entire descent into madness that jack takes is so compellingly real. even though you see, through his encounters with others while he is drinking, that he has the potential for madness in him you still wonder if he can escape. if he can defeat the demon of his own mind. because it is his own mind playing on him, not just the hotel.
those topiary animals were over the top for me. i had real, horrible nightmares about them. still do sometimes. they get all tangled up in my own stuff and it's not pretty.
and those twins in the movie. oh man - come play with us danny. wow.
Well, Jack has sabotaged their chances of using the snowmobile to get off the mountain.
I just read the part a minute ago where the 'animal hedges' were moving toward Danny when he was playing outside. It takes a lot to really creep me out with a book, but I have to say: this one is getting to me. (Which I find really surprising since I've seen the movie )
So far, I think the scariest thing is the slow unraveling of Jack's mind. Seeing the progression is so bizarre and real. It's crazy how you almost sympathize with him at first...In the sense that he's just trying to keep this job for his family. But then, when he knows that something is in room 217 and flat out lies about it! It's like: "Oh shit." Here it comes. Oh, and the part with him dreaming about beaing the guy with the mallet, and then waking up standing over Danny. **shudders
I find that the book is more sympathetic of Jack's situation than the Kubrick version was.
One thing I really liked about the book was the history of the Hotel was explained in a fair amount of detail... kind of unravelled like a mystery.
Buddy, you think you look strong? You’re wearing a cape.
when I recently re-read it I was surprized at what a stupid bitch Jack's wife was. No wonder he drank.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn, Jean!
Anyhow, for more history of The Overlook find a short story called Before The Play. It was published in TV guide when the miniseries remake was released and was previously released in a somewhat longer version in Whispers Magazine. There also was once an ending section titled After The Play, but it vanished somewhere.