The Shining (1980)

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I think that The Shining, along with Jaws are the best examples of movies that completely botched the adaptation of the book, but remain 2 of the best films ever made!!

Botched as it is a bad adaptation but still a great movie? Of just that the adaptation is completely different then the book.

I only ever read a couple of Steven King books in the 80's but really didn't like The Shining so to me the movie never botched it but greatly improved it.

I can not speak to Jaws.. never read it but it is a great movie

[AKORIS]

both movies changed tons of things from the book so there was some controversy about the movies when they came out--

JAWS the movie is considered by most to be far superior to the book

The Shining is overall a much better book-- excellent really, yet the movie is outstanding as well, just different from the book...

[jdc115]

Also interesting on the Aspect Ratios, aslo from http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#n1s1 FAQ

11/ Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?

It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.

RM

[madmojo]

Ya know what I never got? Why people always seem to think Stephen King hated The Shining. All I've ever heard him say was that he didn't feel that it was a great adaptation of his work. In fact, in his book Danse Macabre, he says, "At this writing, three of my novels have been released as films: Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, and The Shining, and in all three cases I feel like I have been fairly treated."

I think there's a difference between hating something and feeling like it didn't capture the main theme of your work. (Alcoholism and the destruction of the family unit.) Sure, he made the mini-series which was pretty much a word for word adaptation of the book, but that was just to satisfy his idea of what the adaptation should be like. In my opinion, the mini-series was just okay. No suspense, no terror, but a faithful adaptation, which is all some people want. Not me though. I want a good movie. As I learned in film school, the purpose of entertainment is to cause the right emotional response. Kubrick's Shining did that. It's unnerving. The mini-series? It's... well, kind of boring really.

[PGW]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

both movies changed tons of things from the book so there was some controversy about the movies when they came out--

JAWS the movie is considered by most to be far superior to the book

The Shining is overall a much better book-- excellent really, yet the movie is outstanding as well, just different from the book...

I'd agree with the first part of that, at least.

I've watched "The Shining" many times over the years. And I want to love the thing... I really do, but each time I watch it it simply irritates me.

A. Why did they hire a kid who can't act? The kid's just truly awful.
B. Why did they hire Jack Nicholson? No, really. Seriously. Isn't the point of the movie supposed to be the change in [the character] Jack as the hotel possesses him? Nicholson plays the character as crazy from the very first scene... probably because that's the way he plays every character. Granted, it's fun to see Jack run around and chew scenery and hit things with an ax... oh, but wait.. isn't this supposed to be a horror film?
C. Why did they change Halloran's fate from the book? Why waste all of that footage on him in Florda and racing back to the hotel... only to immediately kill him. Was one "shock" shot worth all that build-up?

I think Kubrick set out to prove he could make a "new" kind of horror film... one without all of the clichés of haunted houses... dark corners, distant voices, whatever... and simply succeeded in replacing those tried-and-true elements with... well, bleeding elevators.

I did like the twin girl ghosts, though.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by PGW

A. Why did they hire a kid who can't act? The kid's just truly awful.

He acted like a kid it's not like he had any lengthy diatribes to get through......

B. Why did they hire Jack Nicholson? No, really. Seriously. Isn't the point of the movie supposed to be the change in [the character] Jack as the hotel possesses him? Nicholson plays the character as crazy from the very first scene... probably because that's the way he plays every character. Granted, it's fun to see Jack run around and chew scenery and hit things with an ax... oh, but wait.. isn't this supposed to be a horror film?

He was a "gritty" married guy at the beginning. How exactly was he crazy from the onset? A little animated is one thing..... crazy, I don't think so really.

C. Why did they change Halloran's fate from the book? Why waste all of that footage on him in Florda and racing back to the hotel... only to immediately kill him. Was one "shock" shot worth all that build-up?

If it wasn't for the winter, would you still appreciate a warm summer day? All of that footage helps pull you into the idea that D-Halloran is gonna have some cathartic meaning, or do 'something' that either directly, or indirectly leads to a resolution....... Then an Axe straight from left-field..... never saw it coming..... Brilliant.

To each his own though, of course.

[#Darren]

He did seem a little bit strange from the beginning, but that may just be Nicholson's limited acting range showing...

Originally Posted by Beta Man

He was a "gritty" married guy at the beginning. How exactly was he crazy from the onset? A little animated is one thing..... crazy, I don't think so really.

[Frere Fitch]

Originally Posted by PGW

Isn't the point of the movie supposed to be the change in [the character] Jack as the hotel possesses him? Nicholson plays the character as crazy from the very first scene...

To quote Kubrick himself:

Jack comes to the hotel psychologically prepared to do its murderous bidding. He doesn't have very much further to go for his anger and frustration to become completely uncontrollable. He is bitter about his failure as a writer. He is married to a woman for whom he has only contempt. He hates his son. In the hotel, at the mercy of its powerful evil, he is quickly ready to fulfill his dark role.

Visual Memory/Interview

[#Darren]

That Kubrick quote does fit the way he portrayed the character - to a T.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by PGW

I'd agree with the first part of that, at least.

I've watched "The Shining" many times over the years. And I want to love the thing... I really do, but each time I watch it it simply irritates me.



I did like the twin girl ghosts, though.

<-------------- Me too lol

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by jdc115

Also interesting on the Aspect Ratios, aslo from http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#n1s1 FAQ

11/ Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?

It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.

RM

I personally prefer them in the widescreen ratio. The full frame transfers always felt like they had too much head room. This was the definitive proof for me that Kubrick preferred the widescreen versions:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/...8968a4c8e6.jpg

These are his composition notes and it clearly states that the photographer should "obviously compose for (widescreen) but protect the full 1-1.33 area". Stanley just hated seeing his movies cut up for television viewings, particular 2001 which suffered greatly.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Originally Posted by italiano17771

i just rented this from BB and the PQ and AQ are amazing considering how old the film is. i wouldnt say its as crisp as TDK, but its very good.

lmao

i know im quoting a old post, but come on!

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

To quote Kubrick himself:



Visual Memory/Interview

Interesting as that seems to be one of Steven King's main issues with the film:

6/ How does Stephen King feel about Kubrick's adaptation of his book?
Initially King was flattered that Kubrick was going to do something of his. Later he expressed disappointment in the film. "There's a lot to like about it. But it's a great big beautiful Cadillac with no motor inside, you can sit in it and you can enjoy the smell of the leather upholstery - the only thing you can't do is drive it anywhere. So I would do every thing different. The real problem is that Kubrick set out to make a horror picture with no apparent understanding of the genre. Everything about it screams that from beginning to end, from plot decision to the final scene - which has been used before on the Twilight Zone"

King had the chance to "do everything different" with the I997 TV movie adaptation of The Shining which he wrote and produced. However the TV Shining was poorly received and generally considered to be vastly inferior to the Kubrick's version. Friction between Kubrick and King was probably further exasperated because Kubrick refused King the rights to release his version of The Shining on video.

Recently it has emerged that King used to be an alcoholic, and that parts of The Shining are, if not autobiographical, then very personal for the author. King was annoyed because Kubrick's adaptation, in his eyes, marginalised the book's most important theme, that of an good father can be turned into a monster through alcohol abuse.

I'm not sure of King's exact feelings though I know you can find a few videos on Youtube where he relates a few stories about working with Kubrick.

I did watch King's version but I do not really remember it so well other then I think it has that guy from Wings in it.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

<-------------- Me too lol

Well played! LOL!!

[Frere Fitch]

Originally Posted by jdc115

Recently it has emerged that King used to be an alcoholic, and that parts of The Shining are, if not autobiographical, then very personal for the author. King was annoyed because Kubrick's adaptation, in his eyes, marginalised the book's most important theme, that of an good father can be turned into a monster through alcohol abuse. [/I]

Luckily, Kubrick wasn't interested in adapting the novel with slavish accuracy for the benefit of its writer and fans.

Kubrick's use of the alcoholism back-story is to further mislead the audience into believing the ghosts are exclusively manifestations of Jack's damaged psychology. The director even cut the alcoholism back-story from all non-US prints of the film.

Seemingly, Kubrick depicts Jack as a man whose life frustrations initiate his destructive behavior; alcoholism, whilst symptomatic of this frustration, is not the cause (why absolve evil Jack of the responsibility?).

With such an autobiographical investment in the novel, it's not surprising that King initially disliked (hated?) Kubrick's adaptation.

[#Darren]

Most writers don't like having their stories significantly altered, autobiographical or not.

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

With such an autobiographical investment in the novel, it's not surprising that King initially disliked (hated?) Kubrick's adaptation.

[madmojo]

Actually, later on down the road, King himself said he didn't have problems when a director would go in his own direction with his work. Dreamcatcher was quite different from the novel, and King liked it. I think after seeing the failure of his own version of The Shining and his directoral failure with Maximum Overdrive (which I like in a so bad it's good way), King just gave up on it. But yeah, he says that wherever the director wants to go in story direction is fine with him, I believe, in the extra features on the Dreamcatcher DVD.

[MrEggMan]

As with Clive Cussler, I think that authors need to be prepared that when they sell the film rights to their work, there are going to be changes.

I'm of the firm belief that Kubrick made the changes he made to the story not just to tell the story the way he wanted to tell it, but to adapt a novel that is mostly inner-thought and flashbacks into a workable film.

You can't just take a book and put it on film. It's a totally different medium. And things need to be changed in order to serve the audience. (See The Shining 1997 for further reading).

Now he's apparently getting his revenge by ripping off popular films and passing them off as his own work. Rose Red was a total remake of The Haunting and The Legend of Hell House. Why Jackson and/or Matheson didn't sue him six ways from Sunday I'll never know.

[liquidice]

I recently read an online article about how The Shining was Kubrick's vessel into admitting to filming the fake moon landing. Very very interesting clues throughout the movie that really makes you wonder if it's coincidence or not. I would believe coincidence for any other director other than Kubrick because of his known detail to every frame of a movie.

Search it out.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by jdc115

King had the chance to "do everything different" with the I997 TV movie adaptation of The Shining which he wrote and produced. However the TV Shining was poorly received and generally considered to be vastly inferior to the Kubrick's version. Friction between Kubrick and King was probably further exasperated because Kubrick refused King the rights to release his version of The Shining on video.

I did watch King's version but I do not really remember it so well other then I think it has that guy from Wings in it.

I don't think there is much doubt as to which version is better. Whether or not Kubrick's Shining is faithful to the book, it is far superior to the 1997 TV movie!