The Shining (1980) - Page 152 - Blu-ray Forum

bo130 · 05-25-2018, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by English Patient

2010 didn't hurt 2001

I think that's very arguable. Whenever I think of 2010, I think of a movie attempting to explain everything about 2001 away. To me, that cuts hard into a big part of what makes 2001 a great movie and a great experience. It's rare for me to experience what I can only describe as frustration when watching a movie, but 2010 is a good example. Plus, it just wasn't a very good film.

Cremildo · 05-25-2018, 02:56 AM

I don't get this trend of saying that a sequel/prequel/spin-off/whatever will "ruin" a previously released movie. It only does if you let it. 2010 is one of the worst sequels I've ever seen, but I rarely remember it exists and it certainly doesn't come to mind when I re-watch Kubrick's classic.

Richard--W · 05-25-2018, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bo130

I think that's very arguable. Whenever I think of 2010, I think of a movie attempting to explain everything about 2001 away. To me, that cuts hard into a big part of what makes 2001 a great movie and a great experience. It's rare for me to experience what I can only describe as frustration when watching a movie, but 2010 is a good example. Plus, it just wasn't a very good film.

True, but at least it was in focus and well-lit. That's something. It didn't look smeared and hazy like movies do today.

Gacivory · 05-25-2018, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

True, but at least it was in focus and well-lit. That's something. It didn't look smeared and hazy like movies do today.

Yeah, we need to go back to cinematography like the Long Goodbye and Murder on The Orient Express!

mjarina · 05-25-2018, 03:12 AM

I totally disagree with the criticism of the TV movie, it’s much closer to the book. To be fair, it’s more tame since it was on TV. Kubrick did a better job making it creepy, but butchered the source material. From what I recall, King always made a cameo in his movies after the Kubrick debacle to insure nobody screwed up his work again.

That being said, I loved Dr Sleep! I really enjoyed how King brought the Shining powers front and center with semi-immortal vampires. Can’t wait til this hits theaters in 2020.

Bronson13 · 05-25-2018, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjarina

I totally disagree with the criticism of the TV movie, it’s much closer to the book. To be fair, it’s more tame since it was on TV. Kubrick did a better job making it creepy, but butchered the source material. From what I recall, King always made a cameo in his movies after the Kubrick debacle to insure nobody screwed up his work again.

That being said, I loved Dr Sleep! I really enjoyed how King brought the Shining powers front and center with semi-immortal vampires. Can’t wait til this hits theaters in 2020.

Being closer to the book doesn't make it a better movie.

It urkes me when people use that in their argument .

bo130 · 05-25-2018, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cremildo

I don't get this trend of saying that a sequel/prequel/spin-off/whatever will "ruin" a previously released movie. It only does if you let it. 2010 is one of the worst sequels I've ever seen, but I rarely remember it exists and it certainly doesn't come to mind when I re-watch Kubrick's classic.

Oh I agree Cremildo that sequels rarely can outright "ruin" a movie. 2010 just happens to be one of those rare (yet perfect) examples of when it can. I had basically forgotten about the movie until I read about it in this thread.

frogmort · 05-25-2018, 03:21 AM

I consider The Shining one of my favorite films of all time, but also really love the book, and most of Stephen King's books. I thought Dr. Sleep was a huge departure from the original, what with the vampires, but I really enjoyed reading about Danny's deranged adventures.

bo130 · 05-25-2018, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjarina

I totally disagree with the criticism of the TV movie, it’s much closer to the book. To be fair, it’s more tame since it was on TV. Kubrick did a better job making it creepy, but butchered the source material. From what I recall, King always made a cameo in his movies after the Kubrick debacle to insure nobody screwed up his work again.

That raises a great argument. What's of higher importance when making a movie; A) Making an effective film, or B) Making it adhere slavishly to the source material?

Another question to ask is - Can anything in the book be improved upon? Can anything in the book be removed?

Bronson13 · 05-25-2018, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bo130

That raises a great argument. What's of higher importance when making a movie; A) Making an effective film, or B) Making it adhere slavishly to the source material?

Another question to ask is - Can anything in the book be improved upon? Can anything in the book be removed?

Not to Stephen King fans. Everything he does is gold. There are true defenders of the TV Series just because it's faithful to the source material (almost scary faithful) and make that their argument.

bo130 · 05-25-2018, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

True, but at least it was in focus and well-lit. That's something. It didn't look smeared and hazy like movies do today.

Well, in virtually every movie you can find something about it that was done well

bo130 · 05-25-2018, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Not to Stephen King fans. Everything he does is gold. There are true defenders of the TV Series just because it's faithful to the source material (almost scary faithful) and make that their argument.

That's true. For me, I want the movie to actually affect me as a cinematic experience. If it reminds me of the book from beginning to end, all the better, but it doesn't have to.

frogmort · 05-25-2018, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bo130

That raises a great argument. What's of higher importance when making a movie; A) Making an effective film, or B) Making it adhere slavishly to the source material?

Another question to ask is - Can anything in the book be improved upon? Can anything in the book be removed?

A) you used the term 'effective' B) you used the term 'slavishly'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Not to Stephen King fans. Everything he does is gold. There are true defenders of the TV Series just because it's faithful to the source material (almost scary faithful) and make that their argument.

I am a huge Stephen King fan and everything he does is not gold, and I watched the first few minutes of The Shining tv show and had to turn it off.

Kyle15 · 05-25-2018, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Being closer to the book doesn't make it a better movie.

It urkes me when people use that in their argument .

Sometimes an adaptation being more faithful to the source is a good thing. With the Shining this is not the case. I mean, it COULD be but when you pull everything off amazingly the first time it's difficult to try again because that's quite a shadow to sit in.

Richard--W · 05-25-2018, 04:48 AM

I could easily sit through three hours of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Easily and with no effort. The U.S. theatrical cut (144 / 146 minutes) on bluray is the only cut to watch, but the film is so remarkable and such an entertainment I wish it were 45 minutes longer. If Kubrick had made a 180 minute version (he didn't, but IF) I'd be fine with it.

Bates_Motel · 05-25-2018, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bo130

That raises a great argument. What's of higher importance when making a movie; A) Making an effective film, or B) Making it adhere slavishly to the source material?

It's not really an argument. The source material means zilch when transferring it to a different storytelling medium. Films aren't books, don't have the same story beats or internalization as books, and each medium should tell the best story in the best way possible.

rip63 · 05-25-2018, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bo130

I think that's very arguable. Whenever I think of 2010, I think of a movie attempting to explain everything about 2001 away. To me, that cuts hard into a big part of what makes 2001 a great movie and a great experience. It's rare for me to experience what I can only describe as frustration when watching a movie, but 2010 is a good example. Plus, it just wasn't a very good film.

Agreed. 2010 was unnecessary and did tarnish the mystery of the original a little.

Rzzzz · 05-25-2018, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rip63

Agreed. 2010 was unnecessary and did tarnish the mystery of the original a little.

I saw 2010 in the theater when everyone had high expectations for it. It ended almost being the equivalent of Exorcist 2: The Heretic. I just pretend certain sequels don't exist.....

Cherokee Jack · 05-25-2018, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I saw 2010 in the theater when everyone had high expectations for it. It ended almost being the equivalent of Exorcist 2: The Heretic.....

Whoa, is it that much of a train wreck? Might have to give it a look...

Rzzzz · 05-25-2018, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I could easily sit through three hours of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Easily and with no effort. The U.S. theatrical cut (144 / 146 minutes) on bluray is the only cut to watch, but the film is so remarkable and such an entertainment I wish it were 45 minutes longer. If Kubrick had made a 180 minute version (he didn't, but IF) I'd be fine with it.

If they found an 8 hour version, I would watch it. In one sitting.....

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Shining three different running times on Blu-ray	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Q?	203	02-24-2017 11:44 AM
The Shining on Blu for only £9.99	Region B Deals	Disco_And	0	01-13-2009 10:14 PM
The release of Shining on Blu Ray it is expected ???	Blu-ray Movies - North America	7eVEn	3	05-06-2007 08:58 PM

05-25-2018, 02:56 AM	#3022
Cremildo Blu-ray Archduke Member since:Jul 2011 Location:Brazil 4K collection:165 Blu-ray collection:1050 Trading Score:51	I don't get this trend of saying that a sequel/prequel/spin-off/whatever will "ruin" a previously released movie. It only does if you let it. 2010 is one of the worst sequels I've ever seen, but I rarely remember it exists and it certainly doesn't come to mind when I re-watch Kubrick's classic.

05-25-2018, 03:12 AM	#3025
mjarina Member Member since:Jun 2012 4K collection:23 Blu-ray collection:56	I totally disagree with the criticism of the TV movie, it’s much closer to the book. To be fair, it’s more tame since it was on TV. Kubrick did a better job making it creepy, but butchered the source material. From what I recall, King always made a cameo in his movies after the Kubrick debacle to insure nobody screwed up his work again. That being said, I loved Dr Sleep! I really enjoyed how King brought the Shining powers front and center with semi-immortal vampires. Can’t wait til this hits theaters in 2020.

05-25-2018, 03:21 AM	#3028
frogmort Blu-ray Champion Top contributor Member since:Mar 2010 Location:Frogmorton Blu-ray collection:- Blu-ray reviews:27	I consider The Shining one of my favorite films of all time, but also really love the book, and most of Stephen King's books. I thought Dr. Sleep was a huge departure from the original, what with the vampires, but I really enjoyed reading about Danny's deranged adventures.

05-25-2018, 04:48 AM	#3035
Richard--W Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Nov 2012 4K collection:105 Blu-ray collection:3001 DVD collection:1767 Digital collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:1	I could easily sit through three hours of Stanley Kubrick's *The Shining*. Easily and with no effort. The U.S. theatrical cut (144 / 146 minutes) on bluray is the only cut to watch, but the film is so remarkable and such an entertainment I wish it were 45 minutes longer. If Kubrick had made a 180 minute version (he didn't, but IF) I'd be fine with it.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals