• 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.
Ace Harding said:
Sort of off-topic, but what are King's best books? I read 11/22/63 recently and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. I know its much different and probably not as highly regarded as his earlier work, but I never actually read another book of his.
Click to expand...
11/22/63 is definitely one of my favorite books ever. Unfortunately I haven't read enough of his other stuff to give you a good answer.
 
I've just started reading the book with plans to watch the film afterwards (over the years I've had all the spoilers ruined).

In the new intro to the book by Stephen King he kind of addresses this and it sounds pretty sound: basically that in his story the problem was both alchoholism and supernatural forces manipulating that alchoholism, while in the film it's all in Torrance's head. He's just crazy and drunk.
 
I think King is right, although I do love the movie for what it is-- showing somebody crack. But I think it would have been much, much more powerful if Jack was a normal guy at the beginning.

I've said this before-- if you could marry the first half of the novel to the second half of the movie, you'd have the perfect Shining. The book really falls apart as it goes (a trend in King's novels that I have read).
 
I wish Stephen King would shut up about this already. I mean, he fucking cast Steven Weber in his stupid remake TV bullshit Shining.

Even "The Shinning" is a superior adaptation of the book than the King produced TV abortion.

Fucking Steven Weber.
 
Can we stop bringing up the miniseries? Who gives a shit really? It's not proof positive of anything.

JonnyBrad said:
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.
Click to expand...

He dislikes the handling of both Jack and Wendy. Granted, Book Wendy wasn't exactly the strongest or smartest person, but you at least get some sense of why she would stay with an abusive alcoholic / madman.
 
As someone who watched the film after reading the book, I was a littel annoyed that they decided to use the 'built on an Indian burial ground' cliche.
I understand that with any translation to film, certain cuts needed to be made, however I felt that using this, really undervalues the film as a whole.
 
The film is so much better than the book it's frightening.

Note: this is common with Stephen King works.
 
mattiewheels said:
Kubrick always saw novels as rough drafts to further his own agenda, I guess. He never cared too much about being faithful to them.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that if you can't honour the source material then you shouldn't make it into a film.
 
Nappuccino said:
I think one of the only reasons King actually cared is that the alcoholism of the novel was so personal to him. If he was writing about something that was more removed from himself (like damn near everything else he's gone on about, I'd imagine) he'd have been more cool with Kubrick's changes.
Click to expand...

This was my thought, too. This is really the only movie where you see him being unhappy with changes; he's gone out of his way to say changes to his work in an adaptation doesn't bother him generally.
 
cyberheater said:
I think it's fair to say that if you can't honour the source material then you shouldn't make it into a film.
Click to expand...

Kubrick honoured it by making one of the greatest horror films of all time.

Stephen King has demonstrated poor judgement with regards to adaptations of his books.

It takes a director with talent and vision to translate the source material onto the screen. All the worst adaptations of King's works have been the ones that take his writing far too literally.

Compare the changes Kubrick made in The Shining to the ones they didn't make in the TV movie adaptation. One is the result of a meticulous master of his craft who has the courage to make the source material his own, the other is a rote, characterless non-entity by a load of talentless hacks.

bengraven said:
In the new intro to the book by Stephen King he kind of addresses this and it sounds pretty sound: basically that in his story the problem was both alchoholism and supernatural forces manipulating that alchoholism, while in the film it's all in Torrance's head. He's just crazy and drunk.
Click to expand...

If that's the case it makes me wonder if he's actually seen the film at all. It very much isn't all in Torrance's head.
 
I love both the book and the movie. Loathed the TV thing. What works in literature doesn't always translate to film well, which is why Stanley Kubrick didn't make a translation of The Shining, he made his own interpretation. Some of the most surreal and creepy parts of The Shining take ordinary, non-threatening objects and turn them into monsters; there's the fire hose, the clock, the hedge animals, the hornet's nest (Okay, that's already pretty threatening, but still)... Those things just don't translate to film very well.

moggio said:
If that's the case it makes me wonder if he's actually seen the film at all. It very much isn't all in Torrance's head.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it's ambiguous if the hotel's horrors are all in Torrence's head (And Danny's experiencing it because it's in his head and Danny has The Shining) up until Grady opens the door. Then the charade falls and the supernatural becomes obvious.
 
Giant Robot said:
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
Click to expand...

rPiQbI6.png

My favorite part from the documentary. That, and moon landing stuff.
 
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...

Agreed 100%. The movie was an abomination compared to the book, focused far too much on Nicholson, and didn't remain even the slightest bit true to the author's vision.

Was probably a good movie independent from the book, but I was too pissed to notice.
 
Lucario said:
Agreed 100%. The movie was an abomination compared to the book, focused far too much on Nicholson, and didn't remain even the slightest bit true to the author's vision.

Was probably a good movie independent from the book, but I was too pissed to notice.
Click to expand...

Miloš Forman?
 
AuthenticM said:
He should seriously get over it.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed something, this came up now because an interviewer asked a question and King provided (a reasonably low key) answer. He didn't make a big deal of it right now and the essay in the OP is an opinion piece by a website author, not King himself. Given the comments King made in the forward to a recent edition of "The Shing", King seems to have, in fact, gotten over it.

falling12121 said:
As someone who watched the film after reading the book, I was a littel annoyed that they decided to use the 'built on an Indian burial ground' cliche.
I understand that with any translation to film, certain cuts needed to be made, however I felt that using this, really undervalues the film as a whole.
Click to expand...

I recall an interview with Stephen King years ago where he discussed being approached to write the screenplay for Poltergeist. He was disappointed with the direction Spielberg ultimately took it because he felt they could have done something more interesting than have the source of the evil be an old Indian Burial Ground.
 
People are in love with loving Kubrick, so his stuff gets viewed through many sets of rose-colored glasses. The Shining is a turd that misses the point of the book entirely and is worse for it.
 
I thought the Kubrick movie was awful.

How it managed to completely miss the point of the book is beyond me.

Book Jack Torrance is supposed to be a good man with a weakness for alcohol. (Which the hotel then prays on)
Movie Torrance is completely unlikable in every way.
 
Kano On The Phone said:
People are in love with loving Kubrick, so his stuff gets viewed through many sets of rose-colored glasses. The Shining is a turd that misses the point of the book entirely and is worse for it.
Click to expand...

I love Kubrick because of how immanently great most of his movies are. The Shining might not make a top 5, but it's still better than the vast majority of horror films. It's certainly better than anything King I've ever come across.
 
Of course King is right to complain about the adaptation - anyone who argues otherwise obviously hasn't read the book. It's okay to prefer one over the other, but let's not pretend that Kubrick ever attempted to adapt the novel faithfully. And that's alright, that's artistic license. But King has every right to disagree with how another artist interpreted his work.
 
I really really liked The Running Man when I read it way back when and had no idea Richard Bachman was Stephen King.

I think it's probably still my favourite of King's books.
 
The movie isn't the book and vice versa. Why is this such a hard concept for people to accept?

They are separate retellings of the same story. They don't have to have the same point. Naturally people will have their preferences of what they like more. That's fine.
 
It takes a lot of changes to turn forgettable fluff into a memorable film, Steve.
Be thankful. The film industry has been very kind to you and miserable to far better authors that deserved better.
 
PhantomOfTheKnight said:
I just got done watching the Nostalgia Critic's review of the mini-series adaptation, what timing.
Click to expand...

I hadn't watched that movie since it originally aired, and at the time my 17 year old brain thought it was really well done. For years I've lived comfortably with the belief that it was the better adaptation but after watching this review pick it apart and basically agreeing with virtually everything he says, I realize how wrong I was.

It's like Stephen King wanted to use an entire miniseries to highlight one thing that was absent in the Kubrick adaptation, that Jack Torrence was a tragic figure and should be pitied.
 
Mr. B Natural said:
It takes a lot of changes to turn forgettable fluff into a memorable film, Steve.
Be thankful. The film industry has been very kind to you and miserable to far better authors that deserved better.
Click to expand...

Stephen King doesn't post here.

Just so your post doesn't go wasted, I'll respond by reminding you that Stephen King has had far more of an impact on modern fiction, both written and film, then Kubrick could have hoped for. That's apples to oranges in some ways, since one is a writer and one is a director, but purely as artists, King's influence can't even be stated, while Kubrick made some movies that inspired posters that look fantastic in dorm rooms (not to mention that King's works have inspired movies better than anything Kubrick did).

Kubrick is an all right director who was unique enough to attract fandom beyond his talent.
 
Kano On The Phone said:
Stephen King doesn't post here.

Just so your post doesn't go wasted, I'll respond by reminding you that Stephen King has had far more of an impact on modern fiction, both written and film, then Kubrick could have hoped for. That's apples to oranges in some ways, since one is a writer and one is a director, but purely as artists, King's influence can't even be stated, while Kubrick made some movies that inspired posters that look fantastic in dorm rooms (not to mention that King's works have inspired movies better than anything Kubrick did).

Kubrick is an all right director who was unique enough to attract fandom beyond his talent.
Click to expand...

Oh lord. Yep, fanboyism is certainly an issue, isn't it?
 
Kano On The Phone said:
King's influence can't even be stated, while Kubrick made some movies that inspired posters that look fantastic in dorm rooms (not to mention that King's works have inspired movies better than anything Kubrick did).
Click to expand...

I'll bite and say that without 2001 we wouldn't have Close Encounters, ET, or Star Wars. The entire genre of sci-fi film would be totally different, and that's just one of Kubrick's movies.
 
Ace Harding said:
Sort of off-topic, but what are King's best books? I read 11/22/63 recently and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. I know its much different and probably not as highly regarded as his earlier work, but I never actually read another book of his.
Click to expand...



The Dark Tower - all of it - the people who don't like the last few novels are bad people.
The Stand
IT
The Shining
Salem's Lot


Reading Doctor Sleep now and I love it. The Shining is one of my favorite movies but mostly for the imagery and atmosphere and specific scenes... the story is a joke compared to the book. Jack's character is barely fleshed out and it's missing a certain sense of looming/depressing horror that makes the book special.

Mr. B Natural said:
It takes a lot of changes to turn forgettable fluff into a memorable film, Steve.
Be thankful. The film industry has been very kind to you and miserable to far better authors that deserved better.
Click to expand...

You think the book The Shining is "forgettable fluff"?
 
Kano On The Phone said:
Stephen King doesn't post here.

Just so your post doesn't go wasted, I'll respond by reminding you that Stephen King has had far more of an impact on modern fiction, both written and film, then Kubrick could have hoped for. That's apples to oranges in some ways, since one is a writer and one is a director, but purely as artists, King's influence can't even be stated, while Kubrick made some movies that inspired posters that look fantastic in dorm rooms (not to mention that King's works have inspired movies better than anything Kubrick did).

Kubrick is an all right director who was unique enough to attract fandom beyond his talent.
Click to expand...

Kubrick was one of the premier artists of the 20th century, in any medium, and will be remembered for far longer as a POSITIVE influence on the arts than King.

And no, King's work has not been the basis for anything better than 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, or Eyes Wide Shut.
 
Kano On The Phone said:
Stephen King doesn't post here.

Just so your post doesn't go wasted, I'll respond by reminding you that Stephen King has had far more of an impact on modern fiction, both written and film, then Kubrick could have hoped for. That's apples to oranges in some ways, since one is a writer and one is a director, but purely as artists, King's influence can't even be stated, while Kubrick made some movies that inspired posters that look fantastic in dorm rooms (not to mention that King's works have inspired movies better than anything Kubrick did).

Kubrick is an all right director who was unique enough to attract fandom beyond his talent.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, someone hit a nerve.

Tbh I don't think you quite understand the impact Kubrick had on modern cinema or the esteem with which he is held.
 
Everyone in this thread should watch the horrible conspiracy-theory documentary about the Shining called Room 237. It's pretty hilariously bad.
 
King has always seemed salty that Kubrick changed stuff and people loved it.

He and Dave Mustaine should get together and wonder why they ended up as shells of themselves when they went sober.
 
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
4K
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
776
Trilobit replied
King of the Hill season 15 premieres July 20
6
107
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom