The Shining (1980)

[Dexter1998]

Something that I kinda understand is people not liking how they adapt their books.

I think King has reacted a lot less strong than Cassandra Claire (and the book fans) with Shadowhunters. But, what's done is done. I think changing this WITH FUNDAMENTS it's okay, but just change the whole story, unless the writer greenlight them, can't be a good thing sometimes. I mean, Roger Rabbt is completely different, but the movie is really succesfull, as is Children of Men.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

When you are a writer and there's a movie being made from your book you expect it to be a faithful adaptation, or least as faithful as it can be. Kubrick on the other hand changed everything but the setting. And yet you still have a hard time understanding why King doesn't like Kubrick's take? Then I'm afraid you will never understand, because you obviously lack empathy.

You're right, I don't have empathy *for* people who continually ignore simple and obvious solutions available to them, and then continually gripe about the outcome. It's also foolish to think a book can easily transfer as faithfully as he wants to the screen, and vice versa. That's a rarity.

Notice the asterisks with the word for above? That's highlighting specificity. There's a big difference with someone lacking empathy *for* something or a specific situation and simply saying "you lack empathy." Not a nice thing to say P-Rock.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Yeah, I don’t know why King would call Kubrick’s Wendy one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film. Weird comment that doesn’t really make any sense. I understand his other criticisms but this one doesn’t seem to be backed up by anything.

I'm curious when exactly he said that. If it was recently then the answer is obvious. I'm well educated and I don't think I ever even heard of the word, "misogynistic," more than a few years ago.

[bo130]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

He's an awful screenwriter and should stick to writing books. But the discussion isn't about that, but about his criticism on Kubrick's adaptation. Some just don't seem to understand why he has a problem with it. It's like talking to a brick wall. It's a fact that the movie is not a faithful adaptation of his book. Everything that made the book important to King is left out. I love the movie, it's a masterpiece imo, but I do understand King's criticisms too.

I do get them to some extent, but I think some of them are without merit, or have very little to them. I think the biggest problem I've had is the way he's reacted to the Kubrick adaptation, which is way over the top. He's even gone as far as to mock Kubrick's voice in interviews.

The one thing that I always remember - even as a reader of books - and that is that it's a conceit to imagine or conceive that everything within the pages of a book is pure genius, and needs to be reflected in order to have merit. I happen to like some of what Kubrick did to the story.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by bo130

I do get them to some extent, but I think some of them are without merit, or have very little to them. I think the biggest problem I've had is the way he's reacted to the Kubrick adaptation, which is way over the top. He's even gone as far as to mock Kubrick's voice in interviews.

The one thing that I always remember - even as a reader of books - and that is that it's a conceit to imagine or conceive that everything within the pages of a book is pure genius, and needs to be reflected in order to have merit. I happen to like some of what Kubrick did to the story.

I can understand King's criticisms of Kubrick's movie, even if I don't agree with all of them. And I can certainly understand why his negativity is still so strong after all these years - Kubrick was incredibly condescending and borderline dismissive of much of King's novel, and for a writer that has to be very, very insulting. More insulting than King mocking Kubrick's voice. For example, in Michael Ciment's book "Kubrick," in the interview about The Shining, Kubrick says, "The novel is by no means a serious literary work." And in other interviews (collected in the Stanley Kubrick Archives book) he criticizes the novel, calling much of it cluttered, pseudo-psychological - again, very condescending and insulting. It's like he's saying the book is just an amateurish little potboiler, but maybe I can make something artistic out of it. King has every right to defend himself and his work. Kubrick insulted him, too.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by English Patient

I can understand King's criticisms of Kubrick's movie, even if I don't agree with all of them. And I can certainly understand why his negativity is still so strong after all these years - Kubrick was incredibly condescending and borderline dismissive of much of King's novel, and for a writer that has to be very, very insulting. More insulting than King mocking Kubrick's voice. For example, in Michael Ciment's book "Kubrick," in the interview about The Shining, Kubrick says, "The novel is by no means a serious literary work." And in other interviews (collected in the Stanley Kubrick Archives book) he criticizes the novel, calling much of it cluttered, pseudo-psychological - again, very condescending and insulting. It's like he's saying the book is just an amateurish little potboiler, but maybe I can make something artistic out of it. King has every right to defend himself and his work. Kubrick insulted him, too.

That is a great point. One thing I love about cinema, is it gives an outlet for mad geniuses, people like Kubrick, Marlon Brando, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and others to exorcize their demons. These are people that only saw the world as it fit them, not the other way around. I read a book called "Somebody" about Marlon. He confided in a close friend at the end of his life that he had spent his entire life "trying to be LESS crazy". King is obviously a genius in his own right, and when you combine the two, like Brando and Kubrick in the One Eyed Jacks, most of the time it's going to get ugly. Thank God Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick got along....

[theEXORCIST]

As much as I love Kubricks the Shining it doesn't hold a candle to Kings the Shining. The book is way more profound thought provoking and terrifying. The movies greatness owes a lot to Jack Nicholson too

[ldman15]

When is this getting a premium release? I was rewatching this on DVD the other day and thought to myself that I should upgrade to the Blu-ray so I went looking but the current Blu-ray offering is less than desirable. This really needs an Anniversary Edition with a new 4k Restoration or a Shout Factory Collector's Edition Release.

[sxerunner]

Originally Posted by ldman15

When is this getting a premium release? I was rewatching this on DVD the other day and thought to myself that I should upgrade to the Blu-ray so I went looking but the current Blu-ray offering is less than desirable. This really needs an Anniversary Edition with a new 4k Restoration or a Shout Factory Collector's Edition Release.

Safest bet is next year for its anniversary. Wouldn't surprise me if WB also gave it a 4K release based on what they are doing for 2001.

[ldman15]

Originally Posted by sxerunner

Safest bet is next year for its anniversary. Wouldn't surprise me if WB also gave it a 4K release based on what they are doing for 2001.

Actually it looks like May of 2020 will be the 40th Anniversary. So I might have to wait 2 years.

[crazybeats]

I have never read the book so my opinion means nothing but I always thought those that defended the book tended to be Stephen King fans that love Stephen King and also apparently it's very true to what happened in Stephen's own life so there is some truth in there with the Jack Torrance character. Stephen got to make the movie he wanted in 1997. It's there for anyone to see and that's what he wanted people to see in a movie based on his book.

Now I can take all the things I love about the movie and try and apply that to some of the arguments I've heard for the book and to be honest, the idea of a seemingly sane man going crazy in a hotel that we don't know if it's caused by his past and he's having delusions or if it's real does interest me but I think what puts me off is the constant talk of Jack Torrance being an alcoholic. Many defenders of the book bring this up and it comes across that this is a big emotional part of the book again I can never tell if they are genuinely moved by King's words or if they are a Stephen King super fan and this is what he went through therefore they make it seem like a much bigger thing than it really is.

I like the film the way it is. Jack Torrance doesn't need to be a sane man that slowly goes crazy. We don't need to know every detail of his past for this story to be told.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I have never read the book so my opinion means nothing but I always thought those that defended the book tended to be Stephen King fans that love Stephen King and also apparently it's very true to what happened in Stephen's own life so there is some truth in there with the Jack Torrance character. Stephen got to make the movie he wanted in 1997. It's there for anyone to see and that's what he wanted people to see in a movie based on his book.

Now I can take all the things I love about the movie and try and apply that to some of the arguments I've heard for the book and to be honest, the idea of a seemingly sane man going crazy in a hotel that we don't know if it's caused by his past and he's having delusions or if it's real does interest me but I think what puts me off is the constant talk of Jack Torrance being an alcoholic. Many defenders of the book bring this up and it comes across that this is a big emotional part of the book again I can never tell if they are genuinely moved by King's words or if they are a Stephen King super fan and this is what he went through therefore they make it seem like a much bigger thing than it really is.

I like the film the way it is. Jack Torrance doesn't need to be a sane man that slowly goes crazy. We don't need to know every detail of his past for this story to be told.

I like many of Stephen King's books, but I think I prefer the movie to the book on this one (the 1980 movie, not the closer to the book but terrible 1997 TV version). But yeah you're right I think a lot of the people that hate the 1980 movie are people that read the book and want it to be more like the book.

[infiniteCR]

This movie is about a working man. A man always looking forward to that time when he gets to go on vacation, take the family to a resort, and enjoy some sights. He lands a dream job where he gets to work remotely from the resort, but slowly realizes that his life and work still suck, so he decides to chop it all down and check out.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I have never read the book so my opinion means nothing but I always thought those that defended the book tended to be Stephen King fans that love Stephen King and also apparently it's very true to what happened in Stephen's own life so there is some truth in there with the Jack Torrance character. Stephen got to make the movie he wanted in 1997. It's there for anyone to see and that's what he wanted people to see in a movie based on his book.

Now I can take all the things I love about the movie and try and apply that to some of the arguments I've heard for the book and to be honest, the idea of a seemingly sane man going crazy in a hotel that we don't know if it's caused by his past and he's having delusions or if it's real does interest me but I think what puts me off is the constant talk of Jack Torrance being an alcoholic. Many defenders of the book bring this up and it comes across that this is a big emotional part of the book again I can never tell if they are genuinely moved by King's words or if they are a Stephen King super fan and this is what he went through therefore they make it seem like a much bigger thing than it really is.

I like the film the way it is. Jack Torrance doesn't need to be a sane man that slowly goes crazy. We don't need to know every detail of his past for this story to be told.

I believe in Kubrick's interview he pointed out that the psychological discussion (alcohol) early on served as an initial explanation for the "supernatural" and hence made it easier for the audience to accept the "supernatural" (as being conceived by Jack), but that once Grady opens the meat locker door, there is no other explanation than the supernatural is actually occurring. This is why I prefer U.S. Cut - it features far more discussion of Jack's psychological/alcohol issues early on.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I have never read the book so my opinion means nothing but I always thought those that defended the book tended to be Stephen King fans that love Stephen King and also apparently it's very true to what happened in Stephen's own life so there is some truth in there with the Jack Torrance character. Stephen got to make the movie he wanted in 1997. It's there for anyone to see and that's what he wanted people to see in a movie based on his book.

Now I can take all the things I love about the movie and try and apply that to some of the arguments I've heard for the book and to be honest, the idea of a seemingly sane man going crazy in a hotel that we don't know if it's caused by his past and he's having delusions or if it's real does interest me but I think what puts me off is the constant talk of Jack Torrance being an alcoholic. Many defenders of the book bring this up and it comes across that this is a big emotional part of the book again I can never tell if they are genuinely moved by King's words or if they are a Stephen King super fan and this is what he went through therefore they make it seem like a much bigger thing than it really is.

I like the film the way it is. Jack Torrance doesn't need to be a sane man that slowly goes crazy. We don't need to know every detail of his past for this story to be told.

Actually, while alcoholism is a big part of the book, just as big a part is Jack's abusive father. His memories of his father's abuse of his family are probably as horrifying and sad as anything King has written.

The alcoholism and abuse part of the story are very, very memorable (at least for me) and I think it's important to the construction of the story - the evil in the hotel finds out Jack's weak spots and exploits them. Those weak spots are his addiction to booze and his tendency toward violence (like father, like son). The movie (which I do love) merely mentions his alcoholism and his abuse of Danny, but the book presents that material in very harrowing detail. It might not be totally necessary to tell the story, but it is necessary if you want a Jack Torrance character that's well-rounded and often sympathetic. Kubrick didn't seem to care much about having that kind of emotional connection to the character. (Which I suppose is fine, it just results in a different kind of story.)

[crazybeats]

The pantry scene absolutely makes it clear that Jack isn't completely delusional in the movie. I think if I had to criticize the movie it's that it doesn't make it completely clear that all of this could be going on in Jack's head, a lot of it is shown as matter of fact and so even before you get to that door being unlocked, there's not a lot of reason to think that what you are seeing isn't actually happening.

I should probably read the book,I have seen and do own the DVD of the 1997 version. It doesn't have the same impact on me as Kubrick's version. I think it can work a few different ways, as someone who hasn't read the book but has been in enough discussions about the Kubrick movie, I get the impression Jack has hurt Danny physically, but loves him and loves his wife, he was a drinker, he got sober and thinks this job is going to let him be with his family, provide for them and allow them to keep being a family and when they get there the hotel and the ghosts of it's occupants interfere with his way of thinking and know which buttons to press to get him to kill his family. I didn't know about Jack's Father or his families past. I do think you have a point and I do think those things could have been amplified in the movie, I do think we should have seen more of the Torrance's home life before we got to the Overlook Hotel but again, how would you do that in the movie? In the book you can read it, in a movie the only way you could get that stuff across is either by flashback or having Jack talk about it and who is he going to talk to about it? Wendy? I don't know how it was written in the book but I don't know how that stuff could be done on screen to the extent where you understand the Jack Torrance character and what he is about.

I think that is a good story, I would like to read that story but I have read about it for so many years and the big thing that keeps getting brought up is the alcoholism and the descent into madness being too quick and unless you really like that kind of story or you have had those demons yourself or you're just a mega Stephen King fan, I don't think not having those things affects what Kubrick did because you can say Jack doesn't look sane at the beginning, that he's unhinged well, neither is Danny or Wendy. They don't exactly come across as a happy loving family and then in the car with Jack and at the hotel, you can see here and there, just through the dialogue and how they communicate and what they SAY to each other that they are playing along, they are trying to be a family but something is clearly not right and they know it, just look at their facial expressions and how they say their words. You know when Jack says something that makes Wendy feel uncomfortable, you know when Danny is uncomfortable, you know when Jack is getting irritated with them. It's all visual. None of them go on a journey, they don't start off one place and by the end of the film end up at another. They're already in a bad place and throughout the movie things get worse and worse and where the movie succeeds is the story is constantly developing. Every 5 minutes something else happens. Danny sees something. Wendy's doing something, Jack's doing something, we go to Halloran, back to Jack, now it's Wendy and Jack, now it's Danny alone, then it's Jack at the bar, all the time things are happening. I don't think a slow moving film would be any good. I think what Kubrick did worked the best way.


I think any time a movie is made and the story originally came from a novel, right away you will have plenty of people not liking the movie as much as the book and I think there is enough examples in the world of movies that are 100% faithful in being adapted from their original books and they just don't work out or they just don't grab people's attention. One of my favourite films of all time The Jungle Book is perfect the way it is yet I know it's very different from the book. You could say the same about The Wizard Of Oz. I do think the movie industry has made a lot of decisions when adapting from novels that are actually the right decision and it worked out for the best. Again I can't give my personal opinion because I haven't read the book The Shining but being that I love the movie so much, I think Kubrick probably did make the right choices. I don't know why Walt Disney changed Rudyard Kipling's story in the ways he did but when I see their version and the animation and the actors they got to do the voices?...I can't argue with what they did, everything was spot on and I still love that book.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I should probably read the book,I have seen and do own the DVD of the 1997 version. It doesn't have the same impact on me as Kubrick's version. I think it can work a few different ways, as someone who hasn't read the book but has been in enough discussions about the Kubrick movie, I get the impression Jack has hurt Danny physically, but loves him and loves his wife, he was a drinker, he got sober and thinks this job is going to let him be with his family, provide for them and allow them to keep being a family and when they get there the hotel and the ghosts of it's occupants interfere with his way of thinking and know which buttons to press to get him to kill his family. I didn't know about Jack's Father or his families past. I do think you have a point and I do think those things could have been amplified in the movie, I do think we should have seen more of the Torrance's home life before we got to the Overlook Hotel but again, how would you do that in the movie? In the book you can read it, in a movie the only way you could get that stuff across is either by flashback or having Jack talk about it and who is he going to talk to about it? Wendy? I don't know how it was written in the book but I don't know how that stuff could be done on screen to the extent where you understand the Jack Torrance character and what he is about.

Those are all great points - pretty much all the stuff in the novel I thought was unforgettable is all the stuff that would be clumsy and awkward to portray in a movie. Kubrick would have had to resort to melodramatic flashbacks, and I don't think it would work well at all. In a book, it can be easy and subtle to have a character think briefly about a painful time in his past, but in a movie it just slows down the main story.

The mini-series of The Shining was faithful to the book, and it tried hard to include lots of the backstory of Jack Torrance, but it's nowhere near as memorable as the novel. Some things just don't translate well at all. For example, there's a wonderful, chilling part in the book where Jack is thinking about the play he's writing, a play about a teacher's growing hatred for one of his students, and it becomes clear to the reader that the main characters of the teacher and student are stand-ins for Jack and Danny. Yet Jack himself doesn't realize it. It's a great piece of writing - but there's probably no way it could really be translated into a film.

Like you said, I think Kubrick had to show the unhappiness and tension of the Torrance family through other means, like the moments of discomfort and irritation, the troubled looks they give each other, etc. In Kubrick's original treatment of The Shining, there WERE some flashbacks to Jack's troubled past, but somewhere along the way Kubrick tossed them. Maybe he realized that what works in a novel probably doesn't work quite as well in a movie.

[KMR]

Film and literature are two very different art forms. In adapting a novel to film, the prime consideration should be to make it work as a film. Stephen King's works are notoriously difficult to transform into films. King's greatest strength is his talent for getting deep inside his characters, making the reader identify with them, getting across their internal states and their emotional journeys. That is something that is very, very hard to do in film, which is primarily a visual medium. So the films of King's stories tend to focus on the outward "horror" aspects and miss what makes the stories work. My guess is that with the Kubrick film, the goal was to take the essence of a story told in 165,000 words and use it to fashion something that would work as a story told as a two-hour picture.

[bobbyh64]

I thought the 1990 It miniseries was extremely well done for the most part. A lot of the book had to be cut out obviously but I feel that the overall themes and most important parts of the book were translated extremely well in the miniseries. And it’s basically a PG-rated movie which makes it all the more impressive.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by KMR

Film and literature are two very different art forms. In adapting a novel to film, the prime consideration should be to make it work as a film.

[Show spoiler]Stephen King's works are notoriously difficult to transform into films. King's greatest strength is his talent for getting deep inside his characters, making the reader identify with them, getting across their internal states and their emotional journeys. That is something that is very, very hard to do in film, which is primarily a visual medium. So the films of King's stories tend to focus on the outward "horror" aspects and miss what makes the stories work.

My guess is that with the Kubrick film, the goal was to take the essence of a story told in 165,000 words and use it to fashion something that would work as a story told as a two-hour picture.

I like a lot of what you said here, but I feel that pruning is not the main cause of the difference in approach between book and film. Kubrick had a fundamentally different idea of the movie he wanted to make in comparison to King's novel. It shows in the casting itself. For the spirit of King's novel, you needed an actor in the Sterling Hayden mode, a man that could portray an essentially decent and caring human being who was consumed by demons (of alcohol / paranoia). Jack Nicholson gave off an entirely different vibe from the start. Right from the scenes which are supposed to show their initial happiness at the Overlook (luxurious trappings and leisurely breakfasts), Jack's "family man" behavior seems very forced. To see a loving but troubled parent figure go into an uncaring crazy mode creates its own stomach-churning dread (see The Babadook as an example), and is a fulcrum of King's story but Kubrick ignores that completely in his vision for The Shining.