The Shining (1980)

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by jdw89

Greatest film of all time

For me its the greatest horror film of all time and always will be.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

For me its the greatest horror film of all time and always will be.

Same.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

For me its the greatest horror film of all time and always will be.

For me, I sometimes feel it is the only horror movie. I like plenty of other movies that are classified as horror, but none of them haunt me after I finish watching them. The Shining does.

[jdw89]

I wish there was an edition out there with lots of extras maybe even a bonus disc.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

For me, I sometimes feel it is the only horror movie. I like plenty of other movies that are classified as horror, but none of them haunt me after I finish watching them. The Shining does.

Plus no matter how many times I have seen it, it still scares me. Its just so damn good. Bring on the 4K!

[eiknarf]

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/r...or-1202860618/


Rebecca Ferguson joins Ewan McGregor in the sequel

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Its a sequel to Kings book not Kubrick's movie which is drastically different.

That's good and bad.
The book was not that great.
And a sequel to a perfect movie that doesn't require one is silly.

Hopefully the writing for this film is better than King's writing for the book.

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

That's good and bad.
The book was not that great.
And a sequel to a perfect movie that doesn't require one is silly.

Hopefully the writing for this film is better than King's writing for the book.

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

As Batman said to his ward Dick Grayson, truer words were never spoken.

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

You can say that again ...

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

That's good and bad.
The book was not that great.
And a sequel to a perfect movie that doesn't require one is silly.

Hopefully the writing for this film is better than King's writing for the book.

Kubrick's film made King look brilliant, when in reality he's just mediocre.

I disagree. The book is very, very good at delineating Jack's character, his insecurities, his abusive history, his sad relationship with his father. There's even a long passage where he's thinking about the play he's writing, and it's clear to the reader - but not to Jack - that the play is starting to reflect the growing anger and resentment he has towards Danny. The book is often subtle and more sophisticated than anyone gives it credit for. Any writer would be proud to have written the novel.

The novel and the movie attempt very different things. The novel is trying to be a conventional dramatic story with relatable, sympathetic characters and motivations. Just because a person prefers the movie doesn't mean the book is somehow inferior.

[Richard--W]

As prose, the book is definitely inferior writing on its own terms having nothing to do with the movies that came later.

[dallywhitty]

What's with all the King hate? The Shining wouldn't exist as a film were it not for the source material. Be gone, haters!

[Richard--W]

No hate. My statement was made objectively and coldly with the mind relaxed and observant, absolutely no emotion one way or the other.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

As prose, the book is definitely inferior writing on its own terms having nothing to do with the movies that came later.

"Inferior" is a subjective term. I think there are many extended passages in the book that are virtual mini-writer's clinics. Again, just because you prefer the movie doesn't make the book "definitely inferior." Lots of people thought Hemingway's style was crappy - lots of people don't. There's nothing "definite" about this.

[Rzzzz]

I started hating King after the Shining came out and he started trashing Kubrick. I'm one of those who believes Kubrick's genius far outshines King's. You are right about the source material though. I guess its because King comes off as a real pompous prick, but from what I have read, Kubrick could be too. In fact it seems most geniuses are.....

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by English Patient

"Inferior" is a subjective term. I think there are many extended passages in the book that are virtual mini-writer's clinics. Again, just because you prefer the movie doesn't make the book "definitely inferior." Lots of people thought Hemingway's style was crappy - lots of people don't. There's nothing "definite" about this.

Which passages are "virtual mini-writer's clinics"?

I own about 25 King films and mini-series on DVD and a couple on bluray, so I must enjoy them, I just don't have to pretend that he is something he's not.

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I started hating King after the Shining came out and he started trashing Kubrick. I'm one of those who believes Kubrick's genius far outshines King's. You are right about the source material though. I guess its because King comes off as a real pompous prick, but from what I have read, Kubrick could be too. In fact it seems most geniuses are.....

I'm in agreement up to the last sentence, where we part company.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I started hating King after the Shining came out and he started trashing Kubrick. I'm one of those who believes Kubrick's genius far outshines King's. You are right about the source material though. I guess its because King comes off as a real pompous prick, but from what I have read, Kubrick could be too. In fact it seems most geniuses are.....

Being right all the time rubs people the wrong way.

[Bobbyjoe766]

I enjoyed the book and film (both versions) but not the mini-series.

[amarster]

Everytime I see activity on this thread makes me want to watch the film again...it never gets old.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

I enjoyed the book and film (both versions) but not the mini-series.

I actually dug Weber's performance in the miniseries, but that was 20 years ago...

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I started hating King after the Shining came out and he started trashing Kubrick. I'm one of those who believes Kubrick's genius far outshines King's. You are right about the source material though. I guess its because King comes off as a real pompous prick, but from what I have read, Kubrick could be too. In fact it seems most geniuses are.....

In interviews about the movie, Kubrick actually trashed King, saying things like King's novel "is by no means a serious literary work" and saying much of the stuff in the novel was irrelevant. He also attacked King's writing by saying something to the effect that King didn't really work at his writing and refine it. This is incredibly disrespectful, condescending, belittling and pompous. So King has every right to defend himself and voice his own opinion.