The Shining (1980)

[Killer Meteor]

I could never really get into the novel, I think it's one of King's more meandering works - definetly prefer the film there.

[Bobbyjoe766]

I haven't read many King novels but my first is still my favourite - Carrie.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

I haven't read many King novels but my first is still my favourite - Carrie.

For me, it's Carrie, Salem't Lot and Misery. Many of his novels are too long, but his short fiction is consistently excellent.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

For me, it's Carrie, Salem't Lot and Misery. Many of his novels are too long, but his short fiction is consistently excellent.

It's so interesting how people can have entirely different takes on things. For example: I find King's novels to be far superior to his short stories. I suppose that's because my favorite aspect of his writing is his ability to get deep inside the characters, and the short stories generally don't have the time to do that. The stories sometimes seem to get by on pure plot, and that's a less interesting aspect. I feel that's why so many movies based on King's works fail (for me), because the emphasis is on the externals, not the characters' internal lives.

A writer who affects me the opposite way is D.H. Lawrence. I read one of his novels in college, and just could not get into it--page after page after page of characters virtually thinking at each other. But his short stories are superb.

As they say, different strokes...

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by KMR

It's so interesting how people can have entirely different takes on things. For example: I find King's novels to be far superior to his short stories. I suppose that's because my favorite aspect of his writing is his ability to get deep inside the characters, and the short stories generally don't have the time to do that. The stories sometimes seem to get by on pure plot, and that's a less interesting aspect. I feel that's why so many movies based on King's works fail (for me), because the emphasis is on the externals, not the characters' internal lives.

A writer who affects me the opposite way is D.H. Lawrence. I read one of his novels in college, and just could not get into it--page after page after page of characters virtually thinking at each other. But his short stories are superb.

As they say, different strokes...

Very good points. All the things I think King is good at are usually the things that just don't translate that well into a movie. Movies are good at translating the plot, but most of the nuances of characters get lost. Even the 'faithful' TV mini-series of The Shining didn't convey all the character-development stuff from the novel (like the memories of Jack's childhood, his memories of drinking binges, etc.). I know a lot of people don't think this stuff is necessary to the overall story and think it makes the book meander too much, but in the case of The Shining, I liked it more than the actual horror parts of the book.

[crazybeats]

I'm definitely a fan of storyline. There are some stories out there where I love the idea so much I could care less about the characters. It's like alien abduction movies or there's a storm and everyone has to survive, I don't care about the lives of the characters, the premise is enough for me to enjoy it. I go for entertainment every time and yes that means I love larger than life characters but you don't need to know every little detail about a character's life to fully enjoy the story. For every Stephen King book that has such attentive detail made to the lives of the characters I can give you a dozen films and TV shows where we are told very little about the characters but just enough for it to make sense in the story.

In the case of The Shining I can see why that would be a good thing, same with The Stand, the big one people seem to gravitate to is IT and that's good too. I could do that too. I'm sure I could come up with a million things people do in a small town, I could dream up some violent things, broken homes, many kinds of sexual situations, I could make every character come from a broken home and have a ton of things going on inside that home but if it doesn't make sense then why have it? I think Carrie is a good example of what you read happening to this character and what she ultimately does makes sense, just enough happens for it to get to that point where she extracts revenge. A million other things aren't piled on in the story,

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I'm definitely a fan of storyline. There are some stories out there where I love the idea so much I could care less about the characters. It's like alien abduction movies or there's a storm and everyone has to survive, I don't care about the lives of the characters, the premise is enough for me to enjoy it. I go for entertainment every time and yes that means I love larger than life characters but you don't need to know every little detail about a character's life to fully enjoy the story. For every Stephen King book that has such attentive detail made to the lives of the characters I can give you a dozen films and TV shows where we are told very little about the characters but just enough for it to make sense in the story.

In the case of The Shining I can see why that would be a good thing, same with The Stand, the big one people seem to gravitate to is IT and that's good too. I could do that too. I'm sure I could come up with a million things people do in a small town, I could dream up some violent things, broken homes, many kinds of sexual situations, I could make every character come from a broken home and have a ton of things going on inside that home but if it doesn't make sense then why have it? I think Carrie is a good example of what you read happening to this character and what she ultimately does makes sense, just enough happens for it to get to that point where she extracts revenge. A million other things aren't piled on in the story,

You're right. There are plenty of movies/stories where it can get tiresome having so much backstory that doesn't really impact the main story. Like with Sorcerer - nearly an hour is devoted to how the 4 characters got to that South American town, but it isn't all that important.

So, in an action-oriented movie or story, where the emphasis is on people doing things, lots of flashbacks or interior monologues can slow things down. In The Shining, I guess I loved the backstory portions because I thought they were well-written and because it really isn't an action story - it's a story about a good man being possessed, and I think the best way to show the possession is to show how his mental state deteriorates - his growing resentment, his constant dwelling on his abusive past, etc.

[crazybeats]

I haven't read The Shining but I think it might work well because there isn't a lot of characters, I think you need a lot of backstory to carry it because you need to get into all their heads and why they think and act the way they do. I don't think a basic story of a man going crazy with cabin fever and trying to kill his family would work WITHOUT the backstory. I think Kubrick did enough and showed enough to get away with it for the film and really that's when you see what a spectacle the film is. You look at the hotel, the setting, the quality of acting on screen, the music, the atmosphere, that's when all that stuff really fills in the blanks. With a novel you don't have that. I haven't read every Stephen King book written so I can't really say with confidence but if this is something he does in every book where he gives a lot of detail on every characters' background then maybe the books don't always need it.

A book I haven't read but have seen the film and I think might be in this vein is Cujo. I've been told that in the book he gets you into the mind of Cujo and what he is thinking but when I think of that setting, right away I can think of characters and situations that could happen and for me you could make a decent film on that premise. The book takes it to another level apparently but I think it's an original enough idea and the setting is ideal that you could do a million things with that and put it on screen.

I think of Invasion Of the Body Snatchers, House On Haunted Hill, the Romero zombie movies. You have ideas that may seem so simple but if you are a creative person you could come up with a million things that can happen and it would be exciting, I'm not saying those characters don't matter but you don't need to know everything about them to make them exciting but that's just me. Probably a lot of people are the same way with comedies, they just have certain actors they like, they find them funny and it doesn't matter what the storyline is, they'll watch it and laugh regardless. You get a lot of action films in the same way, some innocent guy is locked up, he finds a way out to get retribution,a lot of times you don't need a big name in that role as long as everything else is done well and most people will be rooting for them. I do think it can swing the other way where you can get away with a lot of things on screen that you just couldn't do in a book or if you could it wouldn't be a bestseller. Sometimes you need to really get into the heads of those characters and how they are the way they are, film can be very forgiving.

I just think with The Shining the gripe for many people is Kubrick did his own thing for the most part and it came across as disrespect for Stephen King and if it was a one off then the argument could definitely be made that Kubrick was in the wrong and Stephen's screenplay should have been accepted but when you look at the amount of TV shows and films that have been made based on Stephen King's work and how many of them are well liked....there really isn't that many so is it a case of Kubrick being in the wrong and everyone else done a great faithful job or is it a case of Kubrick along with others just couldn't take everything that was written and fit it into 2 hours? And then Stephen did his own version which I'm sure was absolutely 100% faithful to his own book and that's not exactly getting a lot of praise. Maybe the Kubrick version of The Shining was really the first of many that took a King story and didn't follow the book 100%. I think some people either forget that or don't know that, there's a lot of King adaptions out there and they don't have the kind of detail that the books have, many times characters that play a huge part in the books are nowhere to be found in the movies/ TV shows. But of course none of them have the kind of attention on them that The Shining does and if King really has an issue with people not doing his books justice then he needs to look at some of the stuff he himself has signed off on in recent years. Not all of them are exactly faithful to his books. Didn't he say with the recent Mist TV series that he gave his blessing for them to do something different? I think it's just part of The Shining's history now.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

I think of Invasion Of the Body Snatchers, House On Haunted Hill, the Romero zombie movies. You have ideas that may seem so simple but if you are a creative person you could come up with a million things that can happen and it would be exciting, I'm not saying those characters don't matter but you don't need to know everything about them to make them exciting but that's just me.

Yeah, I totally agree. Like with the movie Aliens - we don't need any real backstory about the marines. We have a little backstory about Ripley, but it's a sci-fi action story, not a character drama, so going into the characters' heads, their motivations, their pasts, etc, would be pointless and not really drive the main story forward.

With The Shining, I think Kubrick was in a tough spot - how could he show in a brief scene or a couple of shots all the stuff that Stephen King spent page after page, chapter after chapter, writing about? It's pretty much impossible, unless you use a lot of flashbacks that slow down the story. (The original story treatment that Kubrick wrote actually had several flashbacks to Jack's past.)

[bobbyh64]

Here’s a documentary showing some Stanley and Vivian Kubrick interviews. Kubrick explains the ending of 2001 at 49:50 and the ending of The Shining at 52:18.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVlX...ature=youtu.be

[eagleskins]

King’s best novel is by far The Stand. Would say It and Salem’s Lot are the next best.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by eagleskins

King’s best novel is by far The Stand. Would say It and Salem’s Lot are the next best.

You not read any Dark Tower books then?! The first and last not so much. The ones in between? Amongst his best.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by KMR

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...)

I read Pet Sematary for the first time a couple months ago and while I agree it's extremely dark, depressing and sad I also thought it was terrifying, nightmare inducing and thrilling to the max. I think it's an incredible novel but it was very emotionally draining. I read it in 2 1/2 days and kept feeling like I needed to take a break from it due to how relentlessly dark and depressing it is but I couldn't put it down. The exhumation scene was beyond intense.

[WeeBey]

I'm almost done reading The Shining for the first time and I've been enjoying it so far. I'm planning on picking up the DVD for the miniseries when I'm done. It will be interesting to compare it to the book and Kubrick's film. I'm also very interested in the Stephen King commentary on that DVD.

Kubrick's movie is, perhaps, in my top five. It's one of those movies I'm able to watch on repeat again and again without ever getting bored. I absolutely love it.

I hope a 4K release is forthcoming and that it fixes the colour issues on the HD master, includes the original mono track, is presented in the intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and includes both cuts of the film. Don't let me down, Warner!

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Here’s a documentary showing some Stanley and Vivian Kubrick interviews. Kubrick explains the ending of 2001 at 49:50 and the ending of The Shining at 52:18.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVlX...ature=youtu.be

I enjoyed this documentary, thanks for posting it.
Stanley's explanations are about what I thought he'd say from other things I've read, but the whole backstage visit to Elstree was interesting and revealing.
I was more interested in young Vivian Kubrick.
Her mind was so busy, and she was so vulnerable at 20.
She didn't become the director she said she wanted to be.
I wonder how things worked out for Vivian.

[agenda]

Originally Posted by WeeBey

I hope a 4K release is forthcoming and that it fixes the colour issues on the HD master, includes the original mono track, is presented in the intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio

What colour issues? And the reason(s) you want to see that aspect ratio more than 1.78:1 is?

[Killer Meteor]

Apprently, Kate Bush's "Get Out of My House" is based on The Shining. Not sure how the lion became a donkey though...

Get Out Of My House - YouTube

[alexpeden2000]

Originally Posted by agenda

What colour issues? And the reason(s) you want to see that aspect ratio more than 1.78:1 is?

Give this a watch:

https://archive.org/details/ShiningPhilology

[Takeshi666]

I'm actually tempted to pick this film up on Laserdisc, just because. I already have the special edition on both DVD and blu-ray, US version for the former and European for the latter, and it'd be nice to have the full matte version as well for posterity. The US release is nice and all, but despite it's burnt-in Japanese subtitles, I really like the Japanese covers. I think similar theme was used on some of Warner's VHS releases back in the day.

[MattDean]

Originally Posted by Takeshi666

I'm actually tempted to pick this film up on Laserdisc, just because. I already have the special edition on both DVD and blu-ray, US version for the former and European for the latter, and it'd be nice to have the full matte version as well for posterity. The US release is nice and all, but despite it's burnt-in Japanese subtitles, I really like the Japanese covers. I think similar theme was used on some of Warner's VHS releases back in the day.

There was an early US dvd release which was open matte. I have it in my collection.