The Shining (1980)

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by English Patient

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.

Kubrick called from England, woke King up at something like two in the morning. Kubrick asks King, "Do you believe in God?" King pauses, then says, "Yeah, I guess I do." Kubrick says, "I don't believe you." Hangs up.

The two were not friends.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

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

You're never going to agree so it almost doesn't matter to point them out. But for me personally, in chapter 32, when Jack is dwelling on his play and the characters (a teacher and a young student), it's a wonderful example of Jack not realizing how the Overlook is poisoning him against his son. Early in the novel, the student in the play is supposed to be the hero and the headmaster the villain, but now Jack has reversed those roles, feeling sympathy for the headmaster who's "unable to see through the cynical wiles of this monster masquerading as a boy." King isn't heavyhanded or obvious about it, but the reader senses that the student in the play has become a proxy for Danny.

There are a lot of such passages in the novel. It's a mistake to dismiss the book as some piece of inferior hackwork.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by amarster

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

Yeah, me too.

[Pondosinatra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byFLZAwqY3Y

[Richard--W]

The mentality of that program is too pathetic to be funny.

Originally Posted by English Patient

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. ...

Kubrick was being no more than fair.

I've watched a lot of B movies and read a lot of pulp fiction in my life, and enjoyed it, but King's have always been a step below B and a step below pulp. Perhaps I enjoy them for that reason. But I don't need to pretend he's something more than he is to enjoy his stuff. The Shining is his worst.

My favorite remains Salem's Lot.

[BladeRunner2007]

I love King's novels. Especially The Stand, It & Salem's Lot. But I agree, The Shining is bad. Nothing really works for me. The horror aspects especially. The entire first 80% of the novel feels like an overlong introduction. Kubrick took the basic premise of the story and only the bits that work in the novel and made an incredible movie out of it.

[P-Rock]

The only way this thread is being kept alive is by bringing up the King-Kubrick feud over and over and over again. Yawn.



King is a master storyteller and one of the best in the horror/fantasy genre and for that reason alone he can't be a bad writer. People who say he is don't have a freaking clue. All his awards, nominations, prizes and recognition by fans and critics alike tell otherwise. Even the mighty Kubrick chose to make a movie based on one of his stories, while he could've done literally anything. So yeah, when he badmouthed King he was being an a$$hole.

[MJD64]

I caught Salem's Lot in my early teens on its original broadcast back in 1979, loved it, and only had one question: Who was this Stephen King guy? I picked up Salem's Lot, liked the book even better, and became a voracious King reader and fan for the remainder of my adolescence. I read his earlier work and eagerly awaited the new stuff (had to wait for the paperbacks, being a thrifty teen and all ). The Shining (for the record, the novel and film have huge differences and I love 'em both) and The Dead Zone remain my favorites. King has a wonderful gift for character; no matter the supernatural outrageousness of the situation, his characters are so relatable I'd follow their stories anywhere King cares to take them. I think that's his greatest strength. If I were to reread those early King works, I may well find more fault with them, but my memory of them remains vivid and satisfying.

I'm genuinely excited for some of the King projects currently in the works. The remake of Pet Sematary (for my money, still the darkest and most disturbing King novel) and Doctor Sleep in particular. I just read that director Fatih Akin, who helmed the terrific 2004 drama Head-On and the recent In the Fade (featuring an utterly dynamic performance by Diane Kruger) will take on Firestarter as his next project; can't wait.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Kubrick was being no more than fair.

I've watched a lot of B movies and read a lot of pulp fiction in my life, and enjoyed it, but King's have always been a step below B and a step below pulp. Perhaps I enjoy them for that reason. But I don't need to pretend he's something more than he is to enjoy his stuff. The Shining is his worst.

"I don't need to pretend he's something more than he is to enjoy his stuff." Sadly, you seem to be pretending that he's something LESS than he is. In the novel of The Shining, I could point out hundreds of instances of what I believe to be good writing, good technique, effective storytelling, powerfully vivid imagery, well-rendered characterizations and attendant psychological motivations, and I'm pretty sure you'd just roll your eyes and ignore them. You've got your mind made up - Kubrick is brilliant and could do no wrong, King is a hack. It's not exactly a thoughtful or analytical approach.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

The only way this thread is kept alive is by bringing up the King-Kubrick feud over and over and over again. Yawn.

It's clearly the current dead horse but it's far from the only one. Just a matter of time before someone circles back to US vs UK cuts, casting choices, technical aspects, interpretations, poster art, or any number of other peevish flare-ups. The Shining inspires and encourages insanity.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

It's clearly the current dead horse but it's far from the only one. Just a matter of time before someone circles back to US vs UK cuts, casting choices, technical aspects, interpretations, poster art, or any number of other peevish flare-ups. The Shining inspires and encourages insanity.

What would you prefer that we discuss? If they're all dead horses and peevish flare-ups, what would be a more substantive topic?

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

It's clearly the current dead horse but it's far from the only one. Just a matter of time before someone circles back to US vs UK cuts, casting choices, technical aspects, interpretations, poster art, or any number of other peevish flare-ups. The Shining inspires and encourages insanity.

Or aspect ratios! People really love an argument over this even though it seems so simple.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by English Patient

What would you prefer that we discuss? If they're all dead horses and peevish flare-ups, what would be a more substantive topic?

We should talk about how The Abyss and True Lies will never come out on Blu-ray

[TXMoviebuff77]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

We should talk about how The Abyss and True Lies will never come out on Blu-ray

How about What Lies Beneath & Panic Room as well?

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by English Patient

What would you prefer that we discuss? If they're all dead horses and peevish flare-ups, what would be a more substantive topic?

I don’t care at all - was simply pointing out there has been and will be more of the same.

[ElectricPeterTork]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

How about What Lies Beneath & Panic Room as well?

Sorry, I'm more of a "Dammit Paramount, where's Roman Holiday, Ordinary People, and Pretty in Pink" type.

[TXMoviebuff77]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

Sorry, I'm more of a "Dammit Paramount, where's Roman Holiday, Ordinary People, and Pretty in Pink" type.

I’m with you on Pretty in Pink, have a soft spot for the film.

[Axl Rose]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

The only way this thread is being kept alive is by bringing up the King-Kubrick feud over and over and over again. Yawn.

So about that aspect ratio....

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

Sorry, I'm more of a "Dammit Paramount, where's Roman Holiday, Ordinary People, and Pretty in Pink" type.

Paramount...such an odd studio. Great work over the years, still -- can't seem to figure them out when it comes to their catalog titles. They're all over the place.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by MJD64

I'm genuinely excited for some of the King projects currently in the works. The remake of Pet Sematary (for my money, still the darkest and most disturbing King novel) and Doctor Sleep in particular.

Pet Sematary was the only King novel that disappointed me. What I love about King's novels is the deep insight into the human condition and the main characters--the human spirit--emerging triumphant in some way. Even if the ending is prima facie quite sad. For example, I was crying at at the end of The Dead Zone but thought it was such a wonderful, human ending to the story.

But Pet Sematary had none of that for me. Or rather, it focused on the dark side of human nature, or the dark side of our dreams and desires. It was so dark, and I found nothing positive, unlike every other King novel I had read. (I guess it didn't help that my first nephew was about the same age as Gage was in the story...)