The Shining (1980)

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by jdc115

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.

I did see King's version when it ran on television, over two nights I believe. What can recall from it was, it was a lot more faithful to the book. But by then people were already in love with the Kubrick version, myself included.

[Melodious Thunk]

Originally Posted by jdc115

Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. [...] I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!

According to IMDB, it was shown in 1.66:1 in Europe. This whole debate is getting incredibly confusing. Personally, I think that since we're now able to more closely replicate the theatrical experience at home, Kubrick's wishes are now outdated. And if he found letterboxing distracting, he sure as hell wouldn't like needless pillarboxing!

I'm in the UK, so we get the shorter cut. But thanks to the magic of importing, I now own the "original" cut on blu-ray and I have to say I find it more effective. Anyone who wants to see the shorter cut could import the blu-ray from the UK though - the disc is region free and the PQ is no different.

[JediFonger]

i luv how Kubrick "converted" to British halfway through his life to become a recluse to the public =)

[#Darren]

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html

Originally Posted by 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.

[bboisvert]

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!!

I think Peter Benchley botched Jaws. Spielberg just fixed it for him. (Seriously, one of the few instances where I think the movie is vastly superior to the book.)

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by PGW

I clearly remember reading that he wanted the film to be seen in 4 x 3. Lopping off the top and bottom of it to make it widescreen just so some people can fill their widescreen TVs is not acceptable to me.

He wanted the film to be seen theatrically at the 1.85:1 ratio that he used to compose it. If you have any doubts about that, check out the Kubrick Archives book. Pg. 452:



Comments about Kubrick wanting his films shown open matte on home video were made over 20 years ago... in the days of standard def, VHS, and 25-inch TVs. He didn't live to see modern day home theaters that are specifically designed to replicate the theatrical experience.

While we have no specific comments from the director on this, I don't find it too much of a stretch to believe that he'd prefer to have The Shining theatrically matted when shown on a high-def, 16x9 display. That's what he composed it for -- the 1.33:1 is just a compromise based on the (then) current-state of home video/TV.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I think Peter Benchley botched Jaws. Spielberg just fixed it for him. (Seriously, one of the few instances where I think the movie is vastly superior to the book.)

+1

I agree, especially about it being vastly superior. That book can't hold a candle to the movie.

[DNinja]

Originally Posted by iDarren

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html

I think I feel dumber for having read that article...

[Vertigo2010]

Originally Posted by DNinja

I think I feel dumber for having read that article...

My brain just melted...but thanks for the link DNinja

[JediFonger]

reminds me of the cake is a lie.

[Ite]

Incredible Blu, anyone agree?

[Mahatma]

Know this is wildly off-topic,but had an idea:How about converting The shining into 3D?Think it's the only Kubrick movie which lends itself to it,and would be kind of cool to see it in 3D.I know:silly

Maybe I should put on my fireproof vest now.....

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Know this is wildly off-topic,but had an idea:How about converting The shining into 3D?Think it's the only Kubrick movie which lends itself to it,and would be kind of cool to see it in 3D.I know:silly

Maybe I should put on my fireproof vest now.....

more like bulletproof vest, and swat gear

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Know this is wildly off-topic,but had an idea:How about converting The shining into 3D?Think it's the only Kubrick movie which lends itself to it,and would be kind of cool to see it in 3D.I know:silly

Maybe I should put on my fireproof vest now.....

Hey! Why not, 3D is the future we need to get with the times, we need to accept 3D, it's here and everything must be 3D, I mean come on now 2D is so 20th century

[Tompa]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Hey! Why not, 3D is the future we need to get with the times, we need to accept 3D, it's here and everything must be 3D, I mean come on now 2D is so 20th century

Well actually, 3D has been around longer then 2D if you think about it.

[mayorofsmpleton]

The TV movie aired over 3 nights. It's available on DVD now and it's a fun adaptation -- true to the book.

If you compare it to the Kubrick movie it's inferior but as an adaptation of the source material it's okay. Well acted and has some interesting visuals and a great score -- doesn't hold a candle to Kubrick's gothic masterpiece, however.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by Ite

Incredible Blu, anyone agree?

Absolutely! One of my favorite blus! Ya know the treatment of these Warner Kubrick films was overall very impressive.

With Paths of Glory being Criterion I'm not worried about that transfer at all, but if Universal would've just given Spartacus a lil extra effort I would say the Kubrick's impress all the way across the board.

[Strannix136]

Originally Posted by Ite

Incredible Blu, anyone agree?

Yeah!

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I think Peter Benchley botched Jaws. Spielberg just fixed it for him. (Seriously, one of the few instances where I think the movie is vastly superior to the book.)

Alfred Hitchcock did the same thing for Robert Bloch's novel of Psycho. The book is fine, it certainly wouldn't be remembered now. Hitch made it a classic.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I think Peter Benchley botched Jaws. Spielberg just fixed it for him. (Seriously, one of the few instances where I think the movie is vastly superior to the book.)

Have you read the book Dr Strangelove is based on?The movie is infinitely better.