A thing that annoys me is...

Have you ever considered that you don't find the mini series scary because you're (presumably) much older than you were when you watched the original?

Yes, a movie should be able to stand on it's own regardless if it is inspired or worked from already existing source material, but to be unfaithful to that source material makes it something else. It wasn't just that they made minor changes (which obviously will have to be done for time constraints to fit everything in), but they made sweeping changes and left out major plot points.

"You're going to need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody

That isnt really a fair comparison. I think most people would choose to watch an hour and 45 minute film over an 6 hour film any day.

Jack Shephard "You disrespect his memory by wearing his face but you're nothing like him."

Conversation over. he is wrong? BRILLIANT RETORT !Guess that means you are right ?

And why does everyone think the Kubrick version was better ?

I'm sorry, I have went through practically every post on both Shining boards and Isabelle is the opposite of a respectful opinion and even admitted to hating the movie because she thinks its "overrated" I understand that people have different opinions, but you shouldn't expect to constantly bad mouth a movie and not anger anyone. It is very annoying.


I slew your king, I slew your country. Do these deeds not demand vengeance?
-Judge Gabranth

[deleted]

I know I'm a year and a half late in replying to this, but here goes...

First of all, a movie can never be true to a book. It's just not possible. It's two different mediums. You have to make adjustments, and a good filmmaker will cut and change what does not work on the screen.

Second, I don't think Kubrick had any intention to stay true to the book. He never made movies for anybody else but him self. He was quite uncompromising about the way he wanted things done, and he was certainly never known to add bits just to appeal to the audience. He saw something in Stephen's novel that I don't think Stephen saw him self, and that is what he made his movie about.

If you think "Here's Johnny" is a shtick, you really don't get the movie, or Kubrick, at all. I suggest you watch it again, and pay attention to the way Jack's communication with his surroundings progress during the movie. It's that kind of nuance and depth that is completely lacking from the mini-series.

So of course, if you want to watch something that gives you the same (or as close to as possible) story and feeling as the book, the mini-series is probably a better way to go. But why would you want a movie or series to do that? You still have the book to read whenever you like. Isn't it better that an adaptation makes you look at the story from a different angel, or maybe makes you see the story within the story that you didn't realize was there at all?

the reason that people complain when a movie based on a book is not true to the book, is because WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE TRUE TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.

If you are going to base a movie on the book at least try to make the movie accurate to the book as much as possible.

ROFL! King never thought that Kubrick's version was better, and from all accounts, he still doesn't think so! King signed a contract when he made his version to never openly criticise the Kubrick version again (he had to since Kubrick still owned the movie rights). I suggest you read up on it.

The mini-series was far more eerie, the acting and characters of both Wendy and Danny was WAY better than the film version, and the scares were a lot more subtle and less in-your-face (like the lifts full of blood, stupid not scary). The ending of the movie was ludicrous with Nicolson's frozen face, had me laughing the first time I saw it. The only truly scary part about the movie for me was the tricycle and the twins' ghosts. And yes, Nicolson's madness performance was first rate, but it never showed his gradual slide into madness, he looked mad from the start.

Kubrick was a terrible adapter of novels. All his movies, except two, were adaptations of excellent novels. And every single author of the novels hated his adaptations! Arthur C Clarke walked out of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" screening, actually crying because Kubrick mutilated his book! The author of "A Clockwork Orange" never spoke to Kubrick again after the mangled adaptation. King publicly proclaimed his disappointment with the movie. And so forth.

If Kubrick wanted to make his "own visions" in movies, he should have written his own stories and left other people's stories alone. His movies are in general good as movies, but they are terrible adaptations and that goes for "The Shining" too.

Sorry boys and girls, but Kubrick was not the film-god some people try to make him. IMO of course.

I've seen some people say that Kubricks version was superior because the story was about a man slowly descending into madness.

I am sorry, but, can you please explain the part where he descends into madness? Nicholson's Torrence took very little pushing to send him over the edge because he was practically already there. He acted like a nut the entire film. There was definitely no descension into madness, which I believe is a pretty important plot to the story: the effects the hotel had on .

Weber's performance clearly shows a loving father descend into madness and many times realize that he had done something wrong and shows that he feels guilty or ashamed. We got none of that from the insane Nicholson character.

On top of that, for some people who seem to dislike Courtland Mead over an issue of large front eeth (something man kids have) is pathetic as well. Kubrick's Danny had "Tony" living in his "mouth" and when Tony talked, he moved his little index finger like an idiot and used an obnoxious voice. I am hoping that hey didn't have much of budget because this use of Danny's Tony was just flat out stupid.

As far as characters go:

Weber's Jack Torrence was someone who you could feel bad for because it was clear he actually loved his son, which was proven by his love for Danny allowing him to temporarily overcome his hypnosis, both with the axe, and at the boiler. Nicholson's Torrence was..well...kind of a dick throughout the entire movie.

Obviously, everyone agrees De MorNay's perfomrance was beter that Duval's, so I don't need to get into that.

Mead's Danny was also a much better child actor than Danny Lloyd. That kid irritated me to no end. He communicated nothing and sat in a corner with his head just convulsing as if he was trying to create the world's biggest bowel movement.

The other side characters, like Dick, were also beter. Dick Hallorann acted like a complete and weird idiot in Kubrick's shining. He talked down to Danny like he was a 5 year old boy, yet we are supposed to believe that he respects Danny and his abilities?

No, the reason the mni-series is better has nothing to do with its closer assocition to the story. It is better because the metephors were more obviously addressed, the acting was better, large parts of the story that added quite a bit of of psychology necessary to undersand the story/book were missing from Kubrick's version.

The moion picure version was about a crazy man attempting to kill his family. The mini-series was about a decent man trying to do what was best for his family and himself having the bad luck to end up at the Overlook where the hotel could take probably manipulae anyone who happened ot be in a weakened psychological and emoional sate.

Basically, one had good story telling and substance (mini-series). The other had a few iconic images that, at the time, were special, but really are nohing these days. If that version iof the Shining came out today it would not get that great of reviews at all. Why movies are graded on a curve based upon when they were made is beyond me. Either a movie is great entertainment or not. Just because it one happened to be the best around, does not mean it stands up to today's cinema and should not be given high ratings or credit based on how good the movie is compared to movies 50 yers ago when it was made.

Without two little girls in a hallway, blood flowing from an elevator and Nicholson sticking his head into a hole in the wall, this movie would have nothing special to remember anyway.

The only thing I liked about the Kubrick version was Nicholson. He always plays a great "crazy" person and it's just flat out amusing watching him act crazy. It actually is NOT suspenseful and actually felt extremely drawn out. What most people who haven't read the book don't realize is that the reason why myself and others prefer the mini-series over the 1980 film is because of what lies *underneath* the "scary" and "horrific" part of the story. When most people hear the name Stephen King they automatically think of haunted cars, a haunted hotel, a telekinetic girl, etc. What those SAME people fail to realize is that the knack that King has is going BENEATH all that surface stuff to show the TRUE horror of his stories, which is the evil that can lie at the core of most people (his novella The Mist and even his latest novel Under the Dome are perfect examples of how evil people can get when confronted by fear and the unknown). In the case of The Shining, the underlying theme(s) is alcoholism and domestic abuse. The hotel simply ACTS as the physical "face" of those themes. Kubrick's version of The Shining did NOT pull that off whatsoever (not too mention completely butchering the story by adding a hedge maze (which is NOT in the book and was pure Hollywood much like the changed outcome of Halloran) and having an axe instead of a croquet mallet as Jack's weapon of choice when he finally goes off the deep end) and simply went for the all out "scary" factor that gets associated with most horror movies. The only thing I would have put in the miniseries that wasn't there were the two little girls who were the daughters of Grady that Danny sees because they ARE in the book.

It's because Kubrick did not pull any of that off, however, that I felt no fear or concern whatsoever for Wendy (Shelley Duvall was just God awful and annoying to begin with anyway with her constant whining) and Danny when Jack starts going after them (or even for Jack himself because there was no internal struggle you could see him undergoing trying to maintain his sanity as the hotels manipulates and toys with him). In fact, with Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance, a VERY strong argument could be made that he's just flat out disinterested in his family completely. Steven Weber's performance I felt was a very fresh and nice change. Having read the book a couple of times Jack Torrance WAS this loving husband and father who was extremely remorseful about how he would get when he was drinking and actually REDEEMS himself in the end! Weber completely nailed that compared to Nicholson who, as I mentioned a moment ago, just gave this performance of a man who cared less about his family for the entire movie.

What people who rave about Kubrick's version need to understand is that while it WAS a "scary" movie, that's all it was. Those of us who have read the book loved the miniseries because most if not all of us could see the struggles the Torrance family goes through, which was NOT present in the 1980 film making character development a HUGE flaw in that particular version and is necessary for an audience to have an investment in the characters, which I did NOT with the 1980 film.

Exactly.