• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why Stephen King is right to complain about Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining'

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomOfTheKnight said:
I just got done watching the Nostalgia Critic's review of the mini-series adaptation, what timing.
Click to expand...

Crazy timing, but i just watched Room 237, a documentary about crazy conspiracy theorists surrounding Kubrick's The Shining. A lot of it is outlandish, but some of it makes for bizarre coincidences. Everything from the Native American Genocide, to The Shining being used as a subliminal message that the moon landing was fake, haha...

http://www.room237movie.com
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling right now?
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...

The ending was bullshit
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...
Milos Forman directed One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and I thought it was fairly faithful to the book - certainly far more than The Shining.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
It's not seen as evidence that King is a control freak. Nobody would accuse Stephen King of being a "control freak" considering how open he was/is with letting people adapt his stuff. A control freak wouldn't have optioned everything he's optioned.

As Nappucino said - that point is a solid point. But that point can't really stand up too well in the face of the text's transformation by Kubrick into something much more powerful than the book, even if the themes shifted in the adaptation.
Click to expand...

I don't think the movie is more powerful than the book, I think both are about equivalent in quality, but I do see them sort of as different works based on the same premise.
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...

. . . what?
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...

And don't get me started on Kubrick's Sharknado.
 
Pet Sematary is probably the pound-for-pound SCARIEST thing King ever wrote. That thing is fucking horrifying. The movie is sorta goofy, but every now and again it finds the tone King had in the novel, and that movie jolts to ugly, horrible life in those moments.

Pet Sematary is probably his scariest. I don't know about his best-written though. He's always best as a short-story guy, really. That's where his pop-genius has consistently come through.
 
King's not the worst writer in the world, certainly a cut above the Dan Browns and Stephanie Meyers of the world, but he is, realistically speaking, more hack than artist. doesn't mean some of his work isn't enjoyable, but the man's no Steinbeck.

I'd put good money on Kubrick's movie being remembered/studied for much longer than any King book.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
Pet Sematary is probably his scariest.
Click to expand...
Pet Sementary scared me a lot, but not as much as Misery. I read it only once and it haunts me to this day.
I still reccomend it to anyone, though. It's his best book, in my opinion.

Shining never scared me, though, but i much more like the book version of Jack. Nicholson just behaved off right from the start and it changed the whole story.
 
jtb said:
They're 2 different works. I understand where King is coming from but I think it's completely ridiculous to expect any adaptation to be faithful to the source material. I'd much rather an adaptation be good rather than faithful, and, as film is a different medium from the novel, sometimes that can be mutually exclusive (or pretty close to it, anyways)
Click to expand...

BertramCooper said:
Luckily, King got the opportunity to make a faithful adaptation of his novel.

And guess what? It sucked.
Click to expand...

Basically all of this.
 
Cisce said:
To be fair, Stanley Kubrick ruined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest far more than he ruined The Shining. I actually love the movie version of The Shining, but I can't stand the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, completely misses the point of the book.
Click to expand...

Kubrick had anything to do with that movie?
 
I'm assuming Cisce meant A Clockwork Orange, not One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.
I've always kinda associated those 2 movies together too, Both have titles that are interesting, both were powerful classic movies from the 70s, both are from books that were written in 1962. I probably also link them together because I remember both books being on our houses bookshelves when I was little
 
WyndhamPrice said:
The Gunslinger and Wizard and Glass (both part of his Dark Tower series) are two of my favorite novels ever.

The Gunslinger is a surreal, self-contained horror western, while Wizard and Glass, despite being book IV of that series, is more or less a stand-alone prequel story.
Click to expand...

You know what, I loved the first three books, but because the fourth is so detached from the main story and I found it to be a boring love tale (which was seriously disappointing considering how unique the world is) that was just put there for the sake of it, I am now stuck with the series. Are the books after that more like the first three, so should I pick it up again?

Also, I fear that like The Stand (spoilers for both series:)
King will use his "Flagg" character from the Stand to kind of ruin the story, I mean he is an omnipotent evil dude with no motivation nor personality that literally teleports between Kings stories, because he can. I was beyond pissed to see him in book 3 of the Dark Tower series.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
King's not the worst writer in the world, certainly a cut above the Dan Browns and Stephanie Meyers of the world, but he is, realistically speaking, more hack than artist. doesn't mean some of his work isn't enjoyable, but the man's no Steinbeck.

I'd put good money on Kubrick's movie being remembered/studied for much longer than any King book.
Click to expand...

When did it become cool to hate on Stephen King?

The guy is a top tier writer. Although his newer stuff isn't quite so good.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is much better than the book, so the poster is mistaken, either way. The point Kubrick had to make was superior to the one Burgess had to make.
Click to expand...

I guess I also meant that I could understand mixing up the directors for those respective films. Both directors made classic 70s movies based on books written in 1962. So he could have been talking about Cuckoos Nest but just got him mixed up and thought Kubrick directed it instead of Forman.

That's my theory anyway
 
Vagabundo said:
When did it become cool to hate on Stephen King?

The guy is a top tier writer. Although his newer stuff isn't quite so good.
Click to expand...

If you have a passage demonstrating this "top tier" writing, I'd love to read it. I've read a few examples of the man's work yet never been enduringly impressed by any of it.

I'd love to have my mind changed, though! Perhaps there are some true literary gems I've missed. If you've any passages to share, feel free to PM me.

Edit: CaptainGyro - wasn't saying anything to you. Just saying that if he WAS mixing those books up, that still doesn't make his post much better.
 
If Stephen King has a problem with one-point perspective being a symbol of inescapable evil then I don't want him to be right.
 
The last interview I read with King about Kubrick's version was that he disliked the way the female lead into a scream box and nothing else. No mention of the lack of alcoholism.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
If you have a passage demonstrating this "top tier" writing, I'd love to read it. I've read enough of the man's work yet never been enduringly impressed by any of it.

Edit: CaptainGyro - wasn't saying anything to you. Just saying that if he WAS mixing those books up, that still doesn't make his post much better.
Click to expand...

So what is it that you don't like? His prose? Characterisation? Genre?

You don't like his books that's fine, there are lots of great writers I cannot stand reading (Jane Austin I'm looking at you).

The man knows how to constructed and write a good story. He is not a literary writer.
 
Vagabundo said:
So what is it that you don't like? His prose? Characterisation? Genre?

You don't like his books that's fine, there are lots of great writers I cannot stand reading (Jane Austin I'm looking at you).

The man knows how to constructed and write a good story. He is not a literary writer.
Click to expand...

I mean... all of the above, kinda. His prose is not that colorful nor technically accomplished, his characters tend toward stock archetypes instead of being richly fleshed out, he's unafraid to trot out genre cliches, he's got his OWN set of personal cliches (see: the Nostalgia Critic's "Stephen King Drinking Game"), his sense of psychology is rather... odd, to say the least (see: the kids fucking the girl in IT), and I can't really think of anything I've ever been left with after reading one of his books.

Now, one might simply enjoy his books, and that's fine. I can't speak to such things. But I also think that, flash forward a few decades, or a century, and he's kind of a replaceable talent, in terms of what he has to offer the public. Whereas Twain, for example, is as readable today as he ever was, and more substantive.
 
I think it's because this is one of King's most personal novels. Jack is essentially King himself and through the book he was trying to work out his own alcoholism and the effect it had on his family years before he was even able to admit to himself he had drinking problem.

Kubrick gutted out most of the character development and theme out of the book. So no wonder King had problem with it. It still ended up as wondeful movie, because in horror movie what counts is the atmosphere or more specifically - if it's scary or not. Movie Shining was terrifying and visually sublime. So the movie succeeds, even if the whole story was flatten.
 
Azula said:
I like the book more tbh. But I also love the movie. I like that they are both different things. Now..the other Shining the TV series that King approved of, was awful.
Click to expand...

Sympathetic villains don't always bury their axe into me like they do to most people. And that is just one of the elements I prefer in Kubrick's version of the Shining. Movie Jack is short tempered and untrustworthy from the get-go, he is much more vulnerable to a volatile situation, and having that version of the character isolated in the supernatural clutches of the Overlook is much more interesting to me. I find the film more chaotic, more pessimistic, and more surreal. All themes that I tend to gravitate towards. Overall, the book is fine. It just doesn't captivate me like Kubrick's take does.

The Cycle of the Werewolf adaptation is an example of a King story being wasted. That could have been a great movie. It even wasted Gary Busey!
 
If King could write an ending to save his life maybe people wouldn't always have to change his writing to be watchable.

He ends nearly every book by blowing everything up.
 
CaptainGyro said:
Do people actually consider Stephen King a control freak because he didn't like Kubrick's version? Being upset with changes to a novel seems perfectly understandable to me, I wouldn't consider that being a control freak
Click to expand...

He did force the studio to take his name off The Lawnmower Man.

The source material involved a naked guy following behind a magic lawnmower eating the grass clippings and a gopher.

In the case of The Shining, King's vision kinda sucked ass if you go by the mini series.
 
I think both are fantastic. Killing Dick was fucked up, though.

Freshmaker said:
He did force the studio to take his name off The Lawnmower Man.

The source material involved a naked guy following behind a magic lawnmower eating the grass clippings and a gopher.

In the case of The Shining, King's vision kinda sucked ass if you go by the mini series.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I read the short story.
 
Yaboosh said:
If King could write an ending to save his life maybe people wouldn't always have to change his writing to be watchable.

He ends nearly every book by blowing everything up.
Click to expand...

That's the curse of discovery writers and he's an extreme one.

That said, the ending of Green Mile was wonderful.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I mean... all of the above, kinda. His prose is not that colorful nor technically accomplished, his characters tend toward stock archetypes instead of being richly fleshed out, he's unafraid to trot out genre cliches, he's got his OWN set of personal cliches (see: the Nostalgia Critic's "Stephen King Drinking Game"), his sense of psychology is rather... odd, to say the least (see: the kids fucking the girl in IT), and I can't really think of anything I've ever been left with after reading one of his books.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with any of that. He definitely tends to the populist rather then push literary bounds - there are certainly people who have and do both. Most people who read him I think find his stories absorbing.

I also misread your original post; I thought you said he was comparable to Browne and Meyers.

Now, one might simply enjoy his books, and that's fine. I can't speak to such things. But I also think that, flash forward a few decades, or a century, and he's kind of a replaceable talent, in terms of what he has to offer the public. Whereas Twain, for example, is as readable today as he ever was, and more substantive.
Click to expand...

That's a maybe, but Lovecraft is well read today and has spawned it's own genre, but his stories have huge faults, and tend to their own cliches.
 
Bluemercury said:
its worse than that. Horrible...
Click to expand...

The child actor in the miniseries was so fucking awful.

Anyway, I think I remember King saying that movie/TV adaptations are their own thing so they can do whatever they want with, since his books will always the same. I gues The Shining just hits too close to home or something.
And yeah, the Wendy character was changed too much. In the book you're rooting for her but in the movie you just want her stop. that. fucking. screaming!
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Now, one might simply enjoy his books, and that's fine. I can't speak to such things. But I also think that, flash forward a few decades, or a century, and he's kind of a replaceable talent, in terms of what he has to offer the public. Whereas Twain, for example, is as readable today as he ever was, and more substantive.
Click to expand...

Indeed, history is full of authors that were huge in their day but now all but forgotten.

Who remembers E. Phillips Oppenheim? He was extremely famous, even appearing on the cover of Time magazine.

Almost 50 of his books/stories were made into movies...yet almost all before 1940.

I don't think King will be that forgotten 80 years after he is dead, but it wouldn't surprise me if he is mostly remembered for writing the book The Shining is based on. None of the other adaptions even come close to being as good a movie.
 
That argument is only valid if all you want from a film adaptation is for it to be as faithful as possible to the source's content. Kubrick's film took liberties, yes, but he also made a fucking masterpiece, so in my book, any criticism against it for not being faithful enough is just childish rambling.
 
CaptainGyro said:
Do people actually consider Stephen King a control freak because he didn't like Kubrick's version? Being upset with changes to a novel seems perfectly understandable to me, I wouldn't consider that being a control freak
Click to expand...

Well, if he authorised the go ahead for a big fat pay cheque then his 'criticisms' dont really mean much. It's obvious concessions had to be made if Kubrick thought a complete copy of the book wasn't possible in movie format.
 
Duh. it wasn't about King's "the shining"

IMG_0075.jpg


What kind of work?

All you say?

NAY.

A11.

A11 work makes Jack a very dull boy

Danny-from-The-Shining-2.jpg
 
Oh, and to top it off, Kubrick already made another film adaptation of his book in the form of a television mini-series, which he produced and closely supervised, if I recall. And you know what ? It is borderline a soap opera. It's terrible.

He should seriously get over it.
 
I read The Shining when I was younger, before my dad would let me watch the movie (more on that later). That tainted my viewing of the movie, which I did not enjoy very much, personally.

Now that I think about it, it's funny that I was able to read about these mature themes before I could watch them. My dad did the same thing with Jurassic Park. He let me read the book before the movie came out, which I saw soon thereafter. I couldn't have been more than 10 when the movie came out, so I'm a bit shocked he didn't have problems with me reading about dinosaurs eviscerating people when I was that young! Liked the book more than the movie in that case, as well, but I still quite liked that movie. The Shining movie, not so much.
 
Its been a Iong time since I read the book but, like both version for their own points except for the ending. For me, the Movie ending was so much better. I did not need all the "evil of the house" manifest itself into a demonic giant bat and fly away. It is more powerful to leave why Jack lost descended into madness nebulous.The cheesiness of the monster soured me on what had been a really good book up to that point.
 
Zoramon089 said:
I think my issue with some Kubrick adaptations of novels is that he basically takes the story, intentionally leaves out details and then people chalk it to "leaving open for interpretation". However, these details aren't simply small things nonessential to the overall plot (since no movie can be 100% faithful to a novel. It just wouldn't be practical), these are crucial details to understanding the characters, their motivations or what's going on
Click to expand...

The characters in the book are not the same characters in the movie. That's the first thing people have to get over when they go see an adaptation. It's an adaptation, not a translation. It's sort of like the "inspired by a true story" gimmick. Adaptations should be seen the same way.

I love King and Kubrick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

a question about Stephen King I don't know where to ask
30
1K
SamuraiEdge replied
Woke era Stephen King absolutely stinks
2 3
129
3K
Poppinfresh replied
Stephen Colbert is co-writing "The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past"
2 3 4
169
1K
TintoConCasera replied
Stephen Colbert to be replaced by Byron Allen
27
769
Trilobit replied
King of the Hill season 15 premieres July 20
6
102
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom