-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Stephen King is right to complain about Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining'
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Woody Invincible
Banned
Kubrick was not a genius. His movies are horribly boring. /opinion /rant
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.
bengraven
Member
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.
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.
The Horror the horror
Banned
To complete that sort of subtle transformation would take a significant amount of film time.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
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'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).
Freyjadour
Member
Can we stop bringing up the miniseries? Who gives a shit really? It's not proof positive of anything.
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.
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.
falling12121
Banned
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.
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.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
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.
CartridgeBlower
Member
How did Kubrick not honor the source material? If anything, he elevated it.
Doctor Decimate
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vivian Kubrick's Making the Shining is well worth a watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGO07rqRxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGO07rqRxA
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.
Wiktor
Member
Doubt it. King is bigger than Kubrick ever was.
Milo Forman?
Maybe in the US but not internationally
Wiktor
Member
I think internationally too. Everybody knows who Stephen King is.. Kubrick..not so much.
Oh well, Kubrick will just have to be satisfied with the recognition of being one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema.
Sucks to be him, I guess.
SenorArdilla
Member
Never read the book, so what are the differences between the two? Was the hotel actually supernatural or was it all in their heads?
Conciliator
Banned
I like kubrick's movie.
consequently, Stephen King is dumb.
consequently, Stephen King is dumb.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I disagree with this a lot.
There are a lot of movies that are better AND different from their source material.
CrichtonKicks
Member
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.
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.
equippedwithtowel
Member
Kano on the Phone
Member
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.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
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.
Deified Data
Banned
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.
boredofcanada
Member
It's been decades since I read it but I loved Night Shift when I was a kid. I wonder if it still holds up
VistraNorrez
Member
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.
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.
Mr. B Natural
Member
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.
Be thankful. The film industry has been very kind to you and miserable to far better authors that deserved better.
brotherbean
Member
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.
blade runner is one of my favorites but i would still take "real" do androids dream of electric sheep movie over it.
Kano on the Phone
Member
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.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Oh lord. Yep, fanboyism is certainly an issue, isn't it?
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.
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.
You think the book The Shining is "forgettable fluff"?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
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.
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.
- Status