MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1980) Discussion > Stephen King is an idiot

Stephen King is an idiot

posted 8 years ago by lazarillo
104 replies | jump to latest

He was apparently initially really excited for Kubrick to adapt his book, but he then later complained that the movie had "no heart". Even in 1980 you had to know that Kubrick films are not exactly known for their touchy-feely, warm-hearted human interest. It's like expecting Terence Malick to do a film that is really fast-paced with hyper-kinetic editing. It's like having Picasso do your portrait and expecting it to be photographic realism.

What always annoyed me is the tales he told out of school of the set he was undoubtedly barred from. For instance, the claim that Kubrick and Jack Nicholson were bullying and making fun of Shelley Duvall. If there is any truth to this at all, it could have simply been a method acting thing. But that is something for Shelley Duvall to complain about and I don't think she ever has.

It has also doesn't help that he and Mick Garris did that vastly inferior version in 1997. What works in a novel doesn't always work in cinema. And King isn't even nearly as good of WRITER as Kubric is a filmmaker. If he were a filmmaker, King would be somewhere between James Cameron and Michael Bay, whereas if he were a writer, Kubric would be up there with James Joyce, Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] Rocky15 (508) 3 years ago

What a pretentious post, pull your tongue out of his arse.

The book is much better than the film.

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 3 years ago

He'll never admit it,, but deep down I bet King knows full well that Kubrick's film was far scarier and disturbing than the novel. That's why he hates it. Kubrick took King's work and improved it to a degree that was most embarrassing for the original author.

[–] Rocky15 (508) 3 years ago

No he didn’t, book Jack is a flawed but ultimately good man who’s gradual descent into madness and his attempts at redemption make for a thrilling read, film Jack seems like he hates his family from pretty much the get go, fancy imagery and reading into every single little thing as if it had some hidden meaning doesn’t change the fact the book is better and it doesn’t make all Kubrick worshippers sound intelligent.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Uh, no. You're wrong. Kubrick and Diane Johnson took the basic premise of King's novel then threw out everything that was extraneous and unnecessary and forged art out of pulp fiction.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Kubrick's film is far scarier than the novel.

But that doesn't mean that Kubrick improved it, or that there's any substance to OP's rants.

Kubrick basically took a few things from the book and ran away with his own story and ideas, not unlike The Bourne Identity. I'm sure King's frustrations are more related to that.

[–] sslssg (34211) 3 years ago

I agree with you. I am actually not a fan of King's but I do prefer the book. I also do like the movie and I appreciate what Kubrick did, but the book scared me. The movie did not.

[–] Luffy (1236) a year ago

I'm someone who has watched a lot of movies in his 20s and 30s and who now, in his late 40s, is reading a lot of books. I have liked only a FEW of Kubrick's movies. And I have READ and liked only a few of King's books. E.g. I gave 10 stars to Barry Lyndon on IMDB. I gave 5 stars to Stephen King's book Pet Sematary on Goodreads. I gave 7 stars to The Shining on IMDB. And I gave 3 stars to The Shining on Goodreads.

The Shining as a movie is different from the book. I have not been impressed by either work of art. The movie is tame by the standards of modern gore in pop culture. It is understandable that there would be a sort of glorification of everything Kubrick on this site and on this board. There would be a staunch defence of King on any of his group on Goodreads or reddit.

Speaking as someone who has no real attachment to tribalism in art, I will say that I will never read a book by King again, nor will I watch a movie by Kubrick again. There are different writers to whose work I am drawn. Same goes for movies, especially movies that I am eager to watch, such as Bergman's, Hitchcock's, and Ford's.

King has a valid point in Kubrick's adaptation of Jack Torrance in the screenplay. Torrance is one of the most vivid, realistic, charming, and tragic characters created by King in his entire career. If the rest of the book was as good as the introduction of Torrance in the beginning of the book, it would have ranked as one of the best 15 or so books I'd have read in my life.

What Kubrick has done was wasteful. I'm not convinced that he improved on Torrance's character in his movie. He took the book, hollowed out the best part of it, and filled the void with his customary silence and weirdness. That to me is both dumb and wasteful.

But King is to be blamed partly for selling the rights of his book to someone as eclectic as Kubrick. King has matured a lot. His interviews are absolutely better than his shitty books these days.

[–] Nanook (1937) a year ago

Fascinating. I was a voracious reader up until about thirty, and have since finished a handful in two decades, a tiny percentage of those purchased, so the hope is still alive.

Seem to have most always been a horror fan so quite enjoyed most of King’s books up until the second or third Gunslinger entry and he just took too long to write the next one and I moved on… :D

At first I was quite disappointed how drastically Kubrick veered from the book, and how obvious a casting choice Nicholson was, but I have since come to appreciate the film as its own work, and though it’s not my favorite Kubrick film, he hasn’t made a film I haven’t at least liked a lot, and has earned two 10/10 ratings from me, with which I am quite stingy.

See https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/64a17a6b60ea8a29153b6a21/Director-you-have-given-the-most-1010s?reply=64a2236c09c55f52edd378b2 for details.

Other than that, agree with your points, except there are few artists I’d seek out interviews with. Don’t meet your heroes and all that…

[–] Luffy (1236) a year ago

Thanks. And thanks for the link. I have never read a trashy tabloid or stuff like that, but King on YouTube is just someone self deprecating and witty. I'm uncomfortable with putting even the writers or directors whose work I worship, on a pedestal. I don't want to look up to them.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

King is an idiot but Kube's Shining is super overrated. It has a few very good scenes.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

He was apparently initially really excited for Kubrick to adapt his book, but he then later complained that the movie had "no heart". Even in 1980 you had to know that Kubrick films are not exactly known for their touchy-feely, warm-hearted human interest.

When King heard he was going to adapt his book, I'm sure he didn't expect that Kubrick was going to eliminate key parts of the narrative and some of the key themes of the book.

The Shining book was about a man coping with alcoholism and rage.

The Shining film was just about a deranged, haunted man.

[–] Darren (1342) a year ago

Well, we got to see what King thought was superior as an adaptation of his novel with that 1997 TV miniseries. Is there anyone (besides King) who would call that superior to Kubrick's movie?

I've never been a big fan of King's books. I know he writes with a sort of "stream of consciousness"method -- he doesn't plot his books in advance at all; he simply starts with a premise and writes on, letting the story develop as he goes. And I think that it is for precisely this reason that I have always felt he so frequently tells an engaging story that is let down by a disappointing ending.

And I'd argue that King has never fully appreciated that film is such a very different medium that what works with a novel doesn't always work in a movie. What seems great when you imagine it in your head (after reading it on the printed page) often falls flat when you try to depict it visually -- I think the topiary animals are a good example; they put them in the miniseries, and they weren't remotely frightening. The hedge maze in Kubrick's film was far more subtle, but an artist like Kubrick managed to make it feel far more menacing. Also, there is a lot more time to explore certain themes in a 688 page novel than there is in a movie in which, if it runs much over two hours, people are going to get bored and start tuning out. It's no wonder some of the ideas King explored in his novel got cut from the movie; if Kubrick had tried to put all that in, it wouldn't have worked nearly as well as a movie.

I understand King's criticisms but, Kubrick was right to go in the direction he did, and the movie's status as a bona fide classic is testament to the correctness of his approach; because at the end of the day (as others have noted), Kubrick was the superior artist -- a better and more revered genius in his medium than King is in his.

[–] JohnGrant (94) a month ago

Agree. I have read the book and watched the mini series and I have to say that I love Kubrick's version of The Shining over the others.