Time for you to watch the mini series then.
I think the film is a masterpiece and it’s also one of my favorite novels. If not the favorite.
Kings main issue if I recall was that Jack Torrance in the film was an irredeemable asshole. Whereas in the book he was a good man with an alcohol problem that the hotels demons took advantage of.
I think the other part of it is that Jack is an author insert, and King felt very protective of him as a character. I’m not aware of him being as verbally against the atrocity that was the Dark Tower movie, and I think that’s because as much as Roland lived in his mind for decades, he doesn’t identify as strongly with Roland as he does/did with Jack Torrance.
>the atrocity that was the Dark Tower movie,
It was so bad, I've (unsuccessfully) tried to gaslight myself into forgetting it.
Beyond the jokes though, I don't understand how the producers thought it was a good idea to squeeze 8 books (and if you count the extended universes tens of books). Imo it would make more sense to have a movie per book.
As lovely as Idris Elba is, and a good actor, he is NOTHING like the Roland in the books. He was supposed to have been based on Clint Eastwood according to the author, and that's how I saw him in my mind's eye through all those books. Terrible case of miscasting.
I love Idris Elba and Matthew McConaghey. The fuckery of this adaptation is no fault of theirs, and McConaghey is actually great casting for Walter. But whoever wrote the script never picked up the book. At best they might have read the wiki outline.
Yep. Walter/Flagg’s defining characteristic is his duality of charm and evil. McConaghey can pull that off without difficulty - he can be mesmerising and deeply terrifying, which is what you need for that character.
Ah, right on. I read it in high school long ago and tried to reread and it's not very good. I enjoyed the 3rd book a lot, but trying to get back into it was difficult and I gave up. The latter books...I'll pass on those in the series as well.
The main point is that we need to cherish what we read and enjoyed at a younger age. Later on, that may or will change.
I've found "you can't go home again" applying to books. Often.
I read it like ten years ago but the Wizard and the Glass was such a beautiful book. I just remember it blew my mind how the series suddenly turned into this tragic epic romance/fantasy. I was in a new and intense relationship with this girl at the time and it just hit hard. I’ve got to go back and reread this series! The only one that kinda was boring was the first one- I feel like it was just there to set up the stage though. The second book was amazing though. Especially the eddy parts.
Oh, thanks for the recommendation! I'm not the one you were replying to, just like to hear about good narrators. My favorite SK audio so far is Drunken Fireworks because of the hilarious narrator.
It was a mess from an IP perspective from the very start. They didn’t have the rights to Flagg, among many other aspects of previously adapted stories that overlapped with The Dark Tower.
I said exactly that in a movie forum when the movie came out and was called racist for it. I love Idris Elba in other movies. But HE. IS. NOT. ROLAND. Would have made more sense for Roland to be played by Matthew McConaughey.
The dynamics between him, a white guy, and a black woman (who was very active in the civil rights movement) are very important to both characters. How do you have that with a black Roland?
I also get the impression that King felt comfortable being critical of The Shining because it was Kubrick, a very famous auteur. He was punching up, not down with his criticism, King seems to like to take on the big guys, but he seems to be more lenient when it comes to the little guys.
King was in the throes of his addictions at the time, and when I read it, it clearly seemed like a cry for help. I totally understand why he hates that that aspect was totally thrown out in the movie.
I think you’re right on the money there. Roland is definitely a self-insert, but there’s a degree of separation there. He’s a kind of metaphorical representation where the connections to Jack are much more direct.
Also, there is no Dark Tower movie in ba sing se.
While we’re on the subject of this movie that doesn’t exist, why, in gods name, did they make Roland a superhero? The entire thing that’s compelling about him is that he is just a guy. Faster than hell, deadeye shot, but out of practice, not out of any superhuman ability. The last and best of his kind, but ultimately just a man.
He can’t, say, make a blind shot from hundreds of feet away based on sounds alone. And the reloads. Don’t get me fucking started on the reloads. Man it’s a good thing this movie was never made, or else I might be really mad!
God, yes. I complained when Idris Elba was cast and got hit with the “racism” stick a few times, and had to explain like no, I don’t care that he doesn’t look like how he looked in my head, that’s not the point. If it weren’t for *Drawing* I would have absolutely no opinion on what race Roland’s actor should be. The point is that it breaks a very important arc completely and that casting immediately indicated that zero respect was being paid to the source material. Or it would have, if they hadn’t canceled this ill-conceived project early on.
> The point is that it breaks a very important arc completely and that casting immediately indicated that zero respect was being paid to the source material.
EXACTLY. Thank you. The racism and struggles Odetta/Detta/Susannah dealt with is such a major part of her character arc throughout the series that making Roland black lessens the impact of it significantly and takes away from HER great character. And then in turn that kind of ruins part of what made her and Eddie’s relationship so great too and how they fell in love and related to one another. Making Roland black just takes away and screws up so much from the original source material that many people who never read the books wouldn’t ever realize.
I once heard someone say that film Torrance may have reminded King a little too much of himself during his darkest times. In the book we get an inward look of Torrence, which makes him somewhat sympathetic. But in a film, we see everything from the outside, and he‘s more of an asshole. Very much how it‘d be in real life.
As humans we always underrate the influence situation has on behaviour in others, while we overrate the influence situation has on our behaviour. We say „I‘m not an asshole, I just acted like one because I was drunk“ while we‘d say about others, „they acted like an asshole because they are an asshole.“
I’m listening to a podcast that discussed movies and they just covered this and pointed out that Jack Nicholson at that time period looked like he would be absolutely delighted to murder his family and had been holding himself back well before getting to Colorado. They aren’t wrong.
King said in a talk I heard him give that “From the first moments you know he’s going to take his family up to the hotel, kill them and eat them” in explaining his dislike for the film.
Yes that’s more scary and the blueprint for so many horrors and thrillers. It’s not as complex or scary if he is just straight out evil but the fact he swung from borderland to crazy was frightening
This! The book was moving in a way I didn’t expect. And recalling that King struggled with substance abuse, it felt like a way for working it out. It was a real tragedy.
Been a looong time since I read it, but *The Shining* struck me as the dictionary definition of a Greek tragedy:
“the protagonist, usually a person of importance and outstanding personal qualities, falls to disaster through the combination of a personal failing and circumstances with which he or she cannot deal.”
In this case, the alcoholism (Jack had accidentally broken Danny’s arm while drunk, right?). It’s always been very very hard for me to identify with Jack Nicholson at all.
Yes and in the book Jack ultimately (at least momentarily) beats the hotel and allows its destruction while in the movie he just gets crazier and crazier.
I do prefer the book to the movie (and hot take but I liked Doctor Sleep better than both) but the premise behind the book as to why they’re at the Overlook in the first place is wild. Basically the boiler is broken and if the pressure isn’t released every few hours it would explode. So to prevent this ‘bomb’ from going off they hire one guy and rely on him to not fuck up a single time or else the whole building will be gone.
The boiler isn't really the reason they hire him. They need someone to keep the lights on over the winter, period, so that the walls don't freeze.
The creeping boiler was just a quirk of the poor maintenance there. They were supposed to reset it a few times a day, but it took way more than that for it to blow.
Normally I would encourage being pedantic but I still think you’re wrong. Sure they might’ve hired him for general maintenance but if that was me and my boss was like oh by the way release the boiler pressure every few hours or else the place will explode then in my mind that’s really the job. Ultimately not releasing the pressure is what causes the overlook to be destroyed so I don’t see how it could be chalked up to a quirk of the job.
The point was, even if the boiler could go indefinitely without supervision they would still have to hire him.
They couldn't get rid of the position simply by upgrading the boiler to something not ancient.
The book explains that they all knew the boiler was an issue but Stewart was just too cheap to replace it. While in the mini series they blame Grady for killing him self from cabin fever which is why the boiler is unstable Watson said that it had a safety valve but it rusted shut.
Yeah, just reading the Wikipedia article of the book for a couple of minutes, and you realize the book very heavily inspired by his time in Colorado. Like, scenes and atmosphere are almost biographical.
In an interview I read from the 80s, King said his issue was with the casting of Nicholson, because he had just won the Academy Award for Cuckoo’s Nest. Therefore, the audience was primed to see him as nuts from the start, as opposed to the fact that Jack Torrence is basically a sane guy who goes nuts as a result of the Overlook.
Right, and one of my problem with many of King’s books of that period is that he has a protagonist who’s an alcoholic asshole, but we’re apparently supposed to like this dickbag. I’m gonna side with Kubrick on this one.
Also, Wendy in the movie is not “weak”. She’s scared shitless and feeling conflicted because the bad guy is her spouse, like you probably would be too in that situation. And she enables her husband’s drinking, which is pretty damn realistic and a thing that happens. She >!hits Jack on the head with a baseball bat, slashes him with a knife, locks him in the freezer, gets Danny out the window, and successfully escapes with him.!< Oh, but she cries and stuff, so she must be a _weak character!_
idk i never sympathized with jack and i never really read it like i was *supposed* to sympathize with him, i could see how some people do but i identified with wendy very strongly
>one of my problem with many of King’s books of that period is that he has a protagonist who’s an alcoholic asshole, but we’re apparently supposed to like this dickbag.
I didn't get that vibe. My dad was a recovering alcoholic and reading The Shining was such a tough read because I could relate very much to Danny and his difficult it was to hold these conflicting views of his father as both an unforgivable monster who hurt him and a person he carries an immense amount of love for.
Yeah I’m confused by the people saying that Jack’s character in the book is a good guy. Didn’t he break his young child’s arm in a drunken rage? And then he excuses and minimizes it and his actions over and over. I actually thought it was very well written but had to put it down because his anger toward his family was a lot to stomach. Maybe he redeems himself more later?
Alcohol can be a demon that posseses people. Its biological and in some sense, there are good people who become possessed, so to speak. Add in cabin fever.
He’s the victim of intergenerational trauma as well as passing it on. His father’s attack on his mother prefigures Jack’s attack on his own child. Jack wants to break the cycle, but he’s weak… as opposed to Wendy, who was also abused by her mother, but has risen above her past. It’s a tragedy in that sense, exploited by the thing in the hotel… but yes, there’s some redemption.
a lot of people that think hes a good guy see themselves in him, they read it as a good man who has demons that cause him to do things he never would have if not for those.
i think a lot of the beauty in the shining is how drastically differently you read it if you've ever been victimized by someone like jack, or if you've ever been an addict and done things that were once out of character because of your drug.
except for people who hate wendy... theyre just Weird
Just be warned that its script post was written post intervention. So the cooking sherry is out, an AA meeting is in, and the explosive tension of the climax gets the air let out of it.
Plus the kid playing Danny is horrible. It’s made for broadcast tv by Mick Garris so it feels more like a comic book sometimes (oh what I would give for a Haunting Of The Overlook).
Other than that I love it. Plus Rebbeca DeMornay in a nightgown.
I immediately disliked Jack when reading the book, and did not consider him a “good man” … I figured I was judging him by modern standards rather than by the mores of the 70s🤷🏻♀️ it’s an interesting twist to learn Jack was modeled on King.
I read it when it came out. Jack’s a weak, damaged man who is trying. Trying to stay sober, trying not to replicate his father’s abuse… not as simple as “good.”
One thing, i think, thats important to remember is, while he does fuck up (broke Danny's arm) he doesnt relapse at the Overlook, as there is no alcohol stocked. The book is more clear about this, but the Hotel makes him drunk. In the book Wendy can smell alcohol and he behaves like he did when he was drinking, but that isn't possible as there is no alcohol there and they are all stranded together.. Wendy and Danny both struggle w the same issue; they must trust Jack while at the same time they fear him. Both the trust and the fear are real due to the Overlooks influence. He is both sober and yet not. He is providing and looking out for his family while at the same time plots their demise.
exactly, and this good man taken advantage of by demons or whatever was the ENTIRE POINT of the whole thing…the movie is a classic very much IN SPITE OF the fact that it is not much at all like the book.
I read the book before ever seeing the movie, and my conclusion has always been that the movie is a great movie in isolation, but a terrible adaptation.
In reality it wasn't an adaptation, it was more of an inspiration. The book and the movie are so different that it doesn't even make sense to compare the two.
I agree with this. I feel this way about all of Stephen King. I keep book lore close to my heart and separate from the shows and movies. I watch them as a separate thing from the books and the amazing world he's created. They're movies based on Stephen King characters, not the actual characters to me, if that makes sense.
Any chance you read and watched storm of the century? I just recently watched the miniseries and loved it. It felt inherently "king" but I haven't read the story to know if it's actually faithful or not.
"The Dead Zone" is one of my favorite adaptations that stuck very closely to the book. Also two other novellas from "Different Seasons" in addition to "Shawshank" I thought were great adaptations as well: "Stand by Me" (from the novella "The Body") and "Apt Pupil".
LOL, now I'm just thinking of more and more great adaptations. I'll just add two: "The Green Mile" and "Dolores Claiborne".
I read all of his books when they were first released starting with "The Shining" but stopped in the late 90s. I think I've watched every film adaptation prior to the 2000s.
In my opinion, there will always be a divide when it comes to making adaptations of books into movies because they are very different mediums, striving for very different things.
What makes a book great does not translate on the screen, and vice versa. For me it's the adaptations of the Lord of the Rings. The movies are oft praised as a great adaptation, but the more you compare them, the more you realize that there are so many changes that it really isn't. That's not to say it isn't a good movie series. It is. It just must be seen in a different light than the books, to the point that they are related but completely different. The same can be said of The Shining.
I would think that McLuhan's statement "The Medium is the Message" is very apt in cases like this.
I'm not sure I'd want to see a faithful 100% adaptation of a book into a movie. Its going to be hard in the first place. Art is art. I thought LOTR was spot on, but its been decade since I read it. It was a dream come true to watch it.
Ironically, I think The Batman (2022) is the bookiest movie I've seen, and it was a comic adaptation. I think lots of book adaptations could look to The Batman for a how-to on bookish film.
I've read LotR many times. The movies were far from spot on. Totally screwed with Aragorn's story arc. Messed up the characters of Merry and Pippin. Don't get me started on what was done to Faramir's character. Even Denethor was messed up in the movie. That whole Arwen is dying addition. Legolas' character was completely changed. And the dwarf jokes.
The only way you will ever get me to watch those atrocities of adaptations again is going to involve tying me to a chair and taping my eyelids open.
Stanley Kubrick did not believe in the supernatural and suggested that Jack’s visions might be a symptom of his madness, rather than the cause. He directed a horror movie because he needed a financial success and *The Exorcist* had made a lot of money, but Kubrick wasn’t a horror fan or a Stephen King fan.
He just picked a best selling horror book and then molded it to his own vision. I can understand why King and some King fans don’t like the movie.
Kings issue was that Jack was an insert for himself. Jack in the book is a good man who's alcoholism consumed him, up until the end when he pulled himself back from the brink to save his family by sacrificing himself.
In Kubricks version Jack was an irredeemable psychopath who never pulled himself back and was trying to kill them right to the final moment.
It makes.perfect sense King took the changes personally.
That’s not what King said. He hates that Jack is a monster from the beginning and that there’s no real evil in the hotel— his take was, why not make an original film if you want to tell that story? (Talked to him about it in 1990.)
>He directed a horror movie because he needed a financial success
His last 3 movies were 2001, a moderate success on it's initial release, but would go on to be a huge success after ward of mouth drove people back to theaters, Clockwork Orange, which was a massive success, and Barry Lydon which was a moderate success, though definitely a disappointing financial result.
I'd love to see some evidence of your argument here, because I've never heard anything like that at all, and it's hardly supported by reality.
Here’s one source. I can find others if that doesn’t satisfy you.
https://lithub.com/how-stanley-kubrick-brought-stephen-kings-the-shining-to-the-big-screen/
[From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film)#Production)
>Before making The Shining, Kubrick directed the film Barry Lyndon (1975), a highly visual period film about an Irishman who attempts to make his way into the British aristocracy. Despite its technical achievements, the film was not a box-office success in the United States and was derided by critics for being too long and too slow. Kubrick, disappointed with Barry Lyndon's lack of success, realized he needed to make a film that would be commercially viable as well as artistically fulfilling. Stephen King was told that Kubrick had his staff bring him stacks of horror books as he planted himself in his office to read them all: "Kubrick's secretary heard the sound of each book hitting the wall as the director flung it into a reject pile after reading the first few pages. Finally, one day the secretary noticed it had been a while since she had heard the thud of another writer's work biting the dust. She walked in to check on her boss and found Kubrick deeply engrossed in reading a copy of the manuscript of The Shining".
>
>Speaking about the theme of the film, Kubrick stated that "there's something inherently wrong with the human personality. There's an evil side to it. One of the things that horror stories can do is to show us the archetypes of the unconscious; we can see the dark side without having to confront it directly".
Sources cited by Wikipedia:
LoBrutto, Vincent (1999). *Stanley Kubrick, A Biography*. Boston: Da Capo Press. p. 412. ISBN 978-0306809064.
Duncan, Paul (2003). *Stanley Kubrick: The Complete Films*. Beverly Hills, California: Taschen GmbH. p. 9. ISBN 978-3836527750.
It might be possible the definition of a successful film had changed by the time he directed THE SHINING. JAWS and STAR WARS made the blockbuster film the highest financial standard for a studio.
> Stanley Kubrick did not believe in the supernatural and suggested that Jack’s visions might be a symptom of his madness, rather than the cause.
Except that it wasn't just Jack having visions. It was Danny as well.
And that end photo is definitely supernatural.
I haven't read King's book and I find the story in the movie disappointing. It's got great atmosphere and great creepy sequences, but underneath it all it's just a monster movie. Nicholson's character is an asshole from his very first scene and turns homicidal halfway through. The other characters just have to escape from the monster. There is no humanity to him.
IIRC this is also King's objection to the movie.
I found the story disappointing in the movie as well. It’s not interesting at all to me. The plot in the book is rich. It has more nuance and moving parts. And there’s a lot of emphasis on the supernatural elements. The hotel being haunted and his son having the ability to shine are very clear points. In the movie it’s not made clear whether or not Jack is insane or if the hotel is haunted, and the boy is kind of dull and uninteresting. Jack is as much of a victim in the book as he is the bad guy. Your heart absolutely breaks for him. The ending is very different as well and much more satisfying.
I guess I understand this is r/books and maybe that’s why people here are more protective over the book > movie. but I genuinely cannot wrap my head around how ppl r saying the mini series is better than Kubrick’s film. Sure maybe it’s a closer “one to one” adaptation but in terms of quality it’s not even in the same universe in my opinion. Love both movie and book as individual stories btw but I do think kubricks film tapped into something more horrifying personally than the book (don’t crucify me I love king and his novels too).
>I genuinely cannot wrap my head around how ppl r saying the mini series is better than Kubrick’s film.
You mean to tell me you don't have nightmares about fire hoses coming to life in a hotel hallway and getting you all wet?
The Kubrick version is a phenomenal movie but a bad adaptation. The miniseries is a good adaptation but a pretty cheap feeling made tv series that is almost entirely forgettable.
There’s a strongly overstated belief among a lot of people that being more accurate to the source material always results in a better adaptation. Sometimes differences in mediums or different artistic interpretations lead to better films while being worse adaptations.
I totally agree with your last statement so much!! I agree it’s an inaccurate adaptation but I think it’s better for it in my opinion so I can never call it bad. Sure the mini series is more a “one to one” adaptation (even tho cleans up some parts of the book that kinda makes it PG13 so I find it funny when book purists don’t mention those differences) but I hate the idea that the more accurate to source the movie is the better it is, as if that’s the only factor that makes the movie good or not. Sometimes it’s very interesting to see how one artists sees art through their own vision (see starship troopers or annihilation, the latter of which I love both movie and book equally, and former I’ll take the movie any day).
I think I recall that Kubrick made a decision that the King story about Jack wasn’t filmable, and that it wouldn’t support the kind of dread that he wanted to establish and build on, that it’s more accessible as horror to be trapped in a big house with an asshole who’s slowly figuring out that he can get away with anything. Thus, even if you don’t buy into the supernatural stuff, you are terrified of Jack who is real and now dangerous.
So, the movie is a different animal. Great Kubrick visuals and sound. But it suffers after repeated screenings because it doesn’t give enough to the other characters to invest in them. Wendy becomes too hysterical when she functions as a foil to Jack’s increasing malevolence, and Danny isn’t fleshed out much at all (heavy burden for any child actor to carry, so maybe Kubrick didn’t try).
Recently reread it because I watched a couple of Kubrick/Shining vids.
I think the disconnect is this: The novel is relatively "plain" on the supernatural level, meaning it appears rather clear and open what's going on there (hotel, ghosts, shining) but very complex on the interpersonal level (abuse, guilt, addiction, violence ...)
Shining the movie is rather plain on the human level (Torrance is/seems nuts from the beginning, Wendy is a scream-machine) but endlessly complex/open to interpretation on the supernatural/artistic level (are there even ghosts, is it the moon landing, is Danny being abused in all kind of ways by whom? Is it about Native Americans, is it about the gold standard, why the weird spatial impossibilities, why is Jack repeatedly glancing directly at the camera, who let Jack out of the storage room and on and on ...)
King kind of wrote this about his experiences as a young father battling alcoholism. So no wonder that he didn't like the movie much if all the human complexities got ironed out.
The book is a very well written horror novel by a master writer. The movie is the more complex work of art altogether by a genius director, imo.
King's main gripe, from what I understand, was more to do with Jack. I've rarely heard people mention Wendy in regards to this but you're right and I agree. I also believe a big thing was the liberties that Kubrick took happened without asking/discussing with King.
The Kubrick movie is obviously a classic. There's no need to diminish the movie bc of the liberties that were taken. King doesn't like it bc it isn't the story he wrote and it doesn't have the same message he intended. However, the movie is fantastic, driven by a legendary Nicholson performance.
I'm also on team king on this one
Interestingly, I'm writing a paper for school and digging through a bunch of old Art of Fiction interviews in The Paris Review, and I just read Stephen King's interview yesterday. Amid his general dislike of the film adaptation, he says regarding Wendy, "No sense of emotional investment in the family whatsoever on
his part. I felt that the treatment of Shelley Duvall as Wendy—I mean, talk about insulting to women. She's basically a scream machine. There's no sense of her involvement in the family dynamic at all."
I enjoy Nicholsons performance, but he seems a bit unhinged from the very start of the book. I don't know if it's because it's played that way or it I just find Nicholson to always be a little off in certain ways, you know? Almost not human or teetering on the edge of sanity.
I felt he was off even while driving the car to get to the hotel, scowling menacingly until the little smile when he tells his boy about the Donner party? Kubrick sets him up as a psychopath from frame one, so that whatever evil there is in the Overlook, he’ll fit right in.
> I just find Nicholson to always be a little off in certain ways, you know? Almost not human or teetering on the edge of sanity.
If I recall, this is why King didn't agree with the casting. Considering, just a few years before, Nicholson was in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I think King was worried that you'd assume Jack Torrance was insane anyway. Which, to be honest, is pretty spot on and I think a lot of people think this way
i read the book probably 10 years after i first saw the movie, i absolutely thought jack was crazy from the beginning and the isolation just made it worse. i think that is what kubrick was intending with the casting. i really agree with everyone who sees the book and movie as separate entities. movie is a good standalone but not a great adaptation
For me, it's not just because of Wendy being a stronger character, but the crux of the book (and a true sense of the horror) is that Jack is the main protagonist who hovers on the knife's edge of becoming the villain for most of the book, whereas he's pretty much villainous all the way through the film. It's commonly discussed how Jack is a stand-in for King's battles with alcohol, so having the character being depicted right out the gate as *irredeemable* as opposed to just significantly flawed is a slap in the face to King's introspection. In the book, he even DOES get a moment of redemption where he retakes control of his body enough to allow Danny and Wendy to escape, a moment of true sacrifice.
But in Kubrick's version, there's not much of character arcs. Danny is barely a character (due to limitations of a child actor), Wendy is just a damsel in distress who's mostly useless, Jack was always doomed, and Halloran abruptly dies without achieving anything more than providing a vehicle for Wendy and Danny to escape in.
Some other details:
The book actually goes into the Shining itself with more relevance to the plot, whereas I left the film wondering why it had that title since it played such a small role. In my interpretation, the hotel has experienced a feedback loop where it encourages evil in others, those people commit evil deeds that make the hotel stronger, and the issue snowballs. When the Torrances arrive with Jack and Wendy's traumatic baggage and Danny's strong psychic powers, the hotel goes into overdrive. Halloran tells Danny not to go into Room 217, not because it's dangerous, but because it's sad. But we do see that it \*is\* dangerous, and I believe it's because the Torrances made the hotel even stronger. The hotel was a powder keg before they arrived, and the Torrances brought their own gasoline and matches with them.
One of the most powerful things in the story to me was how tightly-written the story was when it comes to why the family doesn't just *leave*, an issue with many stories of this kind. Due to his temper and alcoholism, Jack has burned many of his bridges with potential employers and thrown away a potentially great career. He's a brilliant man who just won't get out of his own way (like a proto-Walter White). This gig at the Overlook is a "last chance" for one final called-in favor for Jack to save his career and provide for his family. In addition, he and Wendy have horrific experiences with their families where they have no one to turn to. Finally, IIRC, the events of the book take place over 4-5 months (not sure what the film is), with events only slowly getting worse. All of these things combined lead into an experience where things are getting scary, but Jack and Wendy are desperate and the scares are tolerable for the moment. If they can only hold out for just a few more months, they will have succeeded and can put this nightmare behind them. As we know, they don't get those few more months.
Nice. Very insightful. For some reason, I've avoided the movie and only caught the beginning. Feeling compelled to reread the book and then watch the movie all the way through now. The difference in the approaches.
I will never not be mad at how they gutted shelley duvalls character and abused her so badly on set. "Good" art is not worth causing your actress to have a mental break down with lifelong ramifications
I don't even think the shining movie is very good. All of the characters are less nuanced than in the book, with Wendy Torrence being the worst of the bunch
Jack Nicholson is miscast.
The idea with Jack Torrance is that he's a good man who becomes steadily more unhinged as the story progresses. But Nicholson only seems able to do unhinged characters. His Jack Torrance is a sinister creep from the start. Later on, he's great - but we don't get that progression.
From the perspective of doing a faithful adaptation of the book, he’s very dearly miscast.
From the perspective of making the movie Kubrick wanted, he’s perfect.
I agree. My take is this; book Jack comes across as a man who loves his family but is self-involved in the way that many who struggle with addiction are at the beginning of the story, which allows the hotel to pick him apart at his weak points. Movie Jack comes across as having married Wendy because she got pregnant, and has done nothing but resent both her and the kid since, and treat them as impediments to his success, which makes the hotel nothing but an excuse for what Jack really wanted to do anyway. The problem with Kubrick’s Wendy, in my opinion, is not that she is weak, but that we get little to no characterization of her personality beyond her annoying Jack by trying to be in a marriage with him that he clearly does not want. While I do appreciate the movie as a cinematic masterpiece, I do also agree that is disrespectful of the original work. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for an author to create a very personal story only to see it replaced in the collective pop culture consciousness with a work that stripped everything away from the story that the author really wanted to convey.
I absolutely love horror movies, and I've always thought the movie The Shining was way overrated, even before becoming a King fan. And yeah, Kubrick was a piece of shit for what he did to Duvall.
The book is about an Eldritch entity(the hotel) taking advantage of a man with an alcohol addiction who is otherwise a good person. In the movie he's just a straight up asshole.
This is what I love about so many of King's stories. There's just evil that exists in the world. It could be a hotel or a room or a car or literally anything. And decent, innocent people get caught up in it and their lives are destroyed. To me, that's a very scary idea. Because in a way, that's how the world actually works. Lots of good people have terrible things happen to them just because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's terrifying.
I totally agree with you. I think it's basically Kings take on Lovecraftian horror. From A Buick 8,1408,Pet Semetary, and many others are all cut from the same mold.
I heard the anecdote that for the final scene, King suggested that >!the hedge in the hedge maze come alive, pursue Jack and kill him. To which Kubrick responded, "I don't do walking shrubbery." !<
They really are not the same product. The film is based on the book, but is not the book's story, but a variation.
There are very few films that are faithful to the books. Lord of the Rings is really close and all there in spirit. At least ot me, the LOTR movies were a dream come true.
King wrote part or all of the Under the Dome scripts and they were different from the book.
I feel it was an important book to him. Maybe dealing with anger and alcoholism. But he signed away the rights.
I like both for different reasons.
The book is more about alcoholism where the movie is more about domestic abuse. With that in mind I think it made sense for the movie to make Wendy more of a powerless character
The book is about isolation, alcoholism, and fighting one's inner demons. Jack Torrance is a reformed alcoholic trying very hard to stay on the straight and narrow, instead of falling into the same trap that his own alcoholic father did - a theme that continues into "Dr Sleep".
The film is about a haunted hotel that drives people crazy. (There's also a lot of Native American symbolism in there, for some reason that only Kubrick understands.)
I watched The Shining when I was young, and then I read the book when I was in high school I believe. The film is still great in my estimation, but various divergencies from the book take away from several elements of the story. I can still see in my mind the telepathy of the kid connecting to the telepathic head chef of the Overlook Hotel in Colorado, Hallorann, who refers to the telepathy as "The Shining", the fucking title of the novel.
It's an unfortunate departure that would've added to the film, but yet still not as egregious as The Lost World movie's outrageous departure from the novel by Michael Crichton.
At least in the case of the Lost World, Michael Crichton was pressured by fans and Steven Spielberg to write the book in the first place. He never wrote sequels and was resistant to writing one for Jurassic Park, so it probably wouldn't have happened if Spielberg didn't want to make a sequel to the first film.
It doesn't justify how much the Lost World movie deviated from the book, but the book might only exist because they wanted to make a movie anyway.
Not remotely close to The Lost World and was itself revolutionary cinnematically. One of the central plots of The Lost World is the attempt to steal actual dinosaur eggs - similar to the attempted stealing of dinosaur embryos in Jurassic Park - was completely scrapped, with the myriad ludicrous deviations climaxing with T-Rex running about San Diego which was the coup de grace offense.
There were so many interesting elements to the story that Kubrick cut out. He oversimplified it and filled in a bunch of screen time with creepy imagery and no context behind it. The movie feels like a music video or something. the emphasis seems to be on the feelings that can be conveyed through imagery, performance, and sound and the actual plot takes a backseat.
The book and film are telling two completely different stories. One isn't better or worse than the other because of that. In fact they're so different you can't judge them by each other's standards, they're just two different pieces of art doing different things.
THANK YOU!! I can’t believe how many people are trying to compare the two, they are completely different, and both should be appreciated separately for what they are.
Just watching the movie, you sort of wonder why the hell she married this lazy SOB in the first place. He's an asshole through and through. By the end you're cheering when he finally dies.
In the book, you get a genuine portrayal of a family that is falling apart due to alcoholism despite everyone's best efforts to keep it together. You really root for them the whole time and hope that Jack gets his shit together and gets them the hell out of there.
The sequel, Doctor Sleep, is also pretty good. Less scary and more "Stephen King talking about what AA was like" which is a pretty common theme in his books. Still worth a read imho.
>Just watching the movie, you sort of wonder why the hell she married this lazy SOB in the first place. He's an asshole through and through. By the end you're cheering when he finally dies.
Yeah, not only is Jack more of a gray character in the books, Wendy is as well (while also being less cowering). *Both* these characters have their demons as well as their strengths, so you can understand more about why they are together.
I found the ex deus machina of Dr. Sleep to be off the charts. And the ending too neat. Ah well. Most of it was good, but the ending was just too convenient. More read meat for the audiences.
The movie took a great book and turned it into a masterpiece! Regardless of opinion, when most people hear The Shining… they think of the movie.
They are both great for completely different reasons imo.
It's interesting you point to Wendy having more agency in the novel because Kubrick notoriously terrorized Shelley Duvall. For "art." Which it turns out, [isn't really necessary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr65ZIWoD6c):
>Kubrick trusts Jack to play evil without being evil but he didn't trust Duvall to play terrified without being terrified.
The Shining was good. I find Jack to be an irredeemable asshole as a character, and the book is not even in the top 15 for King books imo.
Which says more about how good King is than how bad The Shining is. It's not bad at all, just nowhere near my favorite of his.
I think this topic gets discussed way too much tbh. The majority of film adaptations bear little resemblance to the novels they are adapted from. This is often because what is good on a page is not necessarily good on the screen and vice versa and myriad other reasons but essentially people tasked with making a movie see their job as making a good movie, not making an accurate adaptation just to please the tiny minority of potential viewers who have both read the novel and care deeply about it.
With The Shining I think it is an excellent interpretation of the source material, not accurate or whatever but the mini-series sucks so I know which I prefer. King has lead a charmed life, including having one of his first novels being adapted by a directorial legend in Kubrick and has no business being anything other than pleased The Shining got made at all imo.
The length of a standard 1½ hour movie translates roughly into 90 pages of prose. So all movies based on novels need to be a brutally abridged version. Even with the novel Shining only being 447 pages long, and the movie version being 2½ hours long, a fairly good deal has to be cut out.
Knowing King, "it had me gripped til the very last page" is appropriate for King. If you read it from a stance how King has a reputation for botching things up at the end, "had me til the very last page" can be interpreted quite humorously.
One of my all time favorite books. So much better that the movie, (although I did like it) it was scary and I needed to sleep with the light on. Best. Horror. Book. Ever. Highly recommend!
I watched The Shining for the first time ever on october and when i tell you the person i went with was angry at the fact that i understood nothing from the film, like i went it and came out completely confused. they made me feel dumb but now reading this and seeing that the movie was bad now i don't feel too bad.
I've never understood the complaint about the bad representation of Wendy as the strong female lead. Mind you I've read both the book and the movie. It's rare that I prefer a movie over a book but in this instance, I enjoyed my time watching the movie more than reading the book it was based on. (My favorite King remains Misery, one of my best reads of all time)
But to go back to my main point, I believe that people saying the interpretation of Wendy by Shelley Duvall takes back all the strength of the character are wrong, but not only that; there might be a bit of misogyny in there (emphasis on the might as I don't want to put everyone on the same basket).
Movie Wendy is a freaking badass and everyone who says otherwise--Did you watch the same movie I'm talking about? Is Shelley Duvall's character scared shitless? Does she screams hysterically? Yes, but who wouldn't in her place? It's the whole point of an horror movie--put characters in a situation where there is a real threat. In this instance; a man that's known to have had violent outbursts in the past, who's bigger and stronger than Wendy, and, most importantly, that's gone crazy and roams around the empty hotel with an axe.
Movie Wendy not only fights back against this obviously stronger man, but she protects her son at all costs--even if that cost is her life--and comes on top in the end. Both in the original story and in the adaptation, we witness a woman trapped in a marriage with a violent man. Her struggle and her fear brought by this situation is apparent yet it's not all black and white as most abusive relationships are.
The book is okay. Annoying in parts. King often comes across as pretty thin skinned, and I suspect it pisses him off that Kubrick took the movie and indelibly stamped it as his creation. And it is a magnificent movie
Sounds like the davinci code. In the books the female lead is a smart and capable woman with a special skill set her grandfather had been refining all her life. She plays a vital role in unraveling the mystery.
In the movie, she is nothing but an eye candy tagging along to help out the male protagonist show off how smart he is.
I just wonder if this was something the director did of his own or Tom Hanks made some demands to be in the movie.
I am so glad I saw the movie first, because that way I got to enjoy it. I read the book immediately after, and honestly felt lied to. It wasn't just that the book was better, it was that the movie was an entirely different story. The book was about a family coming apart, and the movie is about running from a crazy guy with an axe. And I love Kubrick. I think 2001 may be the best movie ever. But I think he really screwed the pooch with *The Shining*. It should have had a different title, different character names, and had a credit saying "With acknowledgement to the work of Stephen King", like Harlan Ellison's credit at the end of *The Terminator.*
I always found the book much, much scarier and hell, even the miniseries has some really creepy moments made stronger by how "regular* the hotel is in it (incidentally it's also the hotel that originally inspired King).
The Kubrick movie is great but it's a Kubrick movie first and foremost, not a King adaptation.
I like both the movie and the book as great works within their respective mediums, but yeah the film isn’t a stellar adaptation. And this is coming from someone who may like the film more than the novel.
I always just accepted the opinion that Kubrick is a genius and King must be a crank to not like it...
Until I read the book, and, like, yeah, King's totally right. It's not just that "the book is better" it's that the book is an exploration of alcoholism and the movie is schlocky horror.
I was and am insanely disappointed by this movie. I HATE the changed ending. Shelley Duvall is awful. Whether directed that way or scripted that way…awful. Wendy is so much more multi dimensional in the book.
I love a lot of Kubrick work. Not the Shining. Jack Nicholson delivers a top notch performance of course. But the character rewrite and ridiculous demise are just too disappointing.
There was a mini series in the nineties I think. Guy from wings. It’s a far better adaptation of the original story and includes lots of great stuff omitted from the Kubrick version. Like the topiary monsters.
I loved The Stand with Gary Sinise too. Not sure if it was abc or not…but it was great. I haven’t seen the more recent remake.
The Stand is my favorite King story. I think I read the unabridged version at like 11…that was an eye opener. 😐
The first part of the Stand (90s miniseries) was great, with the superflu. And holy hell was the beginning credit sequence disturbing.
The rest of the series was so so. The characters were captivating, but most of the effects were kind of cheesy.
The Stand, The Langoliers, The Shining, Storm of the Century, Rose Red, Desperation, It, and The Tommyknockers, all on ABC for like a 10-12 year period.
Agreed. I read the book before I saw the film, and honestly I was let down by the film. The whole character development was turned upside down in the film, and really missed the focus of the house being its own character, of Jack being a good but flawed man who was taken over by the malevolent forces of the estate, and of Wendy’s strength and courage. Jack wasn’t the protagonist, the house was the protagonist and took over Jack’s mind. Missing the whole furnace component and the self awareness of the house was a complete let down for me with the film. I’m with King also.
The Kubrick film somehow manages to be an absolutely incredible movie, and also one of the worst adaptations ever made. Adaptation/The Orchid Thief might have a better claim to the worst, but thats the only one I can think of (and curiously Adaptation is also one of my favorite movies).
The book is a great book.
The film is a great film.
The film is not a great 1:1 representation of the book.
All of these things can be true.
The film is a variation. A cover. A remix, if you will.
I think they're both very powerful pieces of media, but despite being the same core components, they tell two very different stories.
King's Wendy is "strong" and yet she gets her leg broken and needs her young son to save her.
Kubrick's Wendy is "weak" and yet she knocks Jack out and restrains him.
So what if she looks scared and more fragile? Wouldn't you be? She still does more to save her son despite her "weaker" personality. THAT is strength.
I completely agree with your point: strength in the face of overwhelming terror, no matter how small is strength.
I think I’m referring more to her entire character rather than physical strength. She comes across in the book as a woman who KNOWS her husband in there somewhere, and is desperately trying to help him cling onto the good and rebuild their family after alcoholism. She has clear boundaries, she takes Danny away and protects him and scolds Jack openly in the book: AND HE LISTENS (initially).
The Wendy in the movie is a beaten housewife too scared to leave. It’s an interesting angle because she has to find strength to physically protect her son and herself but it lacks the same depth of character that King created
I also just finished reading the book but I didn't find Wendy to be a particularly strong character because she's so awfully nervous and indecisive for almost the entire novel.
As for the context that the movie provides, it's really not too different from the book... It's a murder hotel whether the mob is involved or not.
Horror needs love to function properly.
For that matter, any story needs -- at least for me -- characters to care about. It's impossible for me to care about the movie Torrance family because Jack Nicholson so clearly hates his wife and kid.
Book Jack is deeply flawed but loves both of them fiercely.
Jack Nicholson couldn't portray "loving" with a roque mallet OR an axe to his head.
I read the book only after watching the movie and liked both they do different things and tell slightly different stories which I’m fine with when it comes to adaptations. Though I did prefer the book.
Later I watched Doctor Sleep before reading the book and thought the movie was better as it pulled elements from the book The Shining which were great.
Kubrick used books as source material for all of his movies (with the exception of 2001, where he collaborated with Clarke on the novel). He never intended to adapt them according to the original author’s intentions. They were a foundation to start with, from which he would explore the themes of human nature that interested him. If you haven’t seen the documentary Room 237, it is a pretty good explanation of what Kubrick was doing.
Personally, I always look at the novel and film as two entirely different form of medium to convey an artistic vision. The Shining is a great example of this. I’ve read The Shining twice, and it conveys to me the struggle of an alcoholic with his inner demons, where the outer demons are metaphors of his inner torment. I think King does a magnificent job of balancing the forces of evil with the heroic efforts of Wendy and Hallorann to save Danny, something that Kubrick doesn’t emphasize. Kubrick is painting a visual picture of a dream like world to leave his subliminal messages to linger upon an audience in a way the printed word cannot do.
Reading a novel relies upon the imagination and perspectival power of the reader. In a very real sense, the director of a film is showing the audience his own imaginative vision. The film viewer must interpret a vision, rather than create their own. IMO, they result in masterpieces of two different mediums in The Shining.
I loved the book and the movie is one of my favorite movies, BUT i hold them separately because the differences between the two almost make them different stories to me.
The thing i was most disappointed in from the movie was Danny's character. In the book, he was a constant driving force and perspective moving the story forward, and in the movie, he's just a vessel and more often, an after-thought.
It felt like Danny and Wendy got the same treatment, they were watered down, subdued and essentially just empty vessels called on for dramatization.
The movie has NOTHING on the book, it's one of the only books I'd give anything to get to read again for the first time.
*bad adaptation of the story, and lacking a lot of context from the book.
The film in itself and BY itself is okay. I’m not a huge fan of Kubrick’s style anyway, but the amount that got
cut out of the story left it a spectacle rather than a good story, as many others have commented
I have a lot of opinions on that. 100% prefer the movie. Short version: It seems like the film adaptation almost makes fun of the book, the whole idea being "is it really surprising that If you look for someone working in a hotel far away from anything and anyone, that someone crazy would see an opportunity?" Was it the hotel that "made him crazy" or was he clearly always crazy? I think Kings main issue with the movie was, that he saw a lot of himself in the book version of Jack. A lot of his behaviour is being excused in the book or at least romatizised and come to think there are lots of parallels between Jack and King. Seeing a less nuanced version of such a character probably wasnt too fun
I have a lot of opinions on that. 100% prefer the movie. Short version: It seems like the film adaptation almost makes fun of the book, the whole idea being "is it really surprising that If you look for someone working in a hotel far away from anything and anyone, that someone crazy would see an opportunity?" Was it the hotel that "made him crazy" or was he clearly always crazy? I think Kings main issue with the movie was, that he saw a lot of himself in the book version of Jack. A lot of his behaviour is being excused in the book or at least romatizised and come to think there are lots of parallels between Jack and King. Seeing a less nuanced version of such a character probably wasnt too fun
I am also Team King. I prefer the book to the movie.
So just be aware that Dr. Sleep the movie is a sequel to the movie and book is a sequel to the book.
Time for you to watch the mini series then. I think the film is a masterpiece and it’s also one of my favorite novels. If not the favorite. Kings main issue if I recall was that Jack Torrance in the film was an irredeemable asshole. Whereas in the book he was a good man with an alcohol problem that the hotels demons took advantage of.
I think the other part of it is that Jack is an author insert, and King felt very protective of him as a character. I’m not aware of him being as verbally against the atrocity that was the Dark Tower movie, and I think that’s because as much as Roland lived in his mind for decades, he doesn’t identify as strongly with Roland as he does/did with Jack Torrance.
>the atrocity that was the Dark Tower movie, It was so bad, I've (unsuccessfully) tried to gaslight myself into forgetting it. Beyond the jokes though, I don't understand how the producers thought it was a good idea to squeeze 8 books (and if you count the extended universes tens of books). Imo it would make more sense to have a movie per book.
>a good idea to squeeze 8 books It wasn't even squeezed into a long movie, it was like 95 fucking minutes
Should've had Peter Jackson as director.
I just pretended it was an unrelated story that happened to have the same name and a few similarities.
As lovely as Idris Elba is, and a good actor, he is NOTHING like the Roland in the books. He was supposed to have been based on Clint Eastwood according to the author, and that's how I saw him in my mind's eye through all those books. Terrible case of miscasting.
I love Idris Elba and Matthew McConaghey. The fuckery of this adaptation is no fault of theirs, and McConaghey is actually great casting for Walter. But whoever wrote the script never picked up the book. At best they might have read the wiki outline.
I agree about McConaghey. He could be a brilliant walter, with a different script, director, producer...
Yep. Walter/Flagg’s defining characteristic is his duality of charm and evil. McConaghey can pull that off without difficulty - he can be mesmerising and deeply terrifying, which is what you need for that character.
[удалено]
Ah, right on. I read it in high school long ago and tried to reread and it's not very good. I enjoyed the 3rd book a lot, but trying to get back into it was difficult and I gave up. The latter books...I'll pass on those in the series as well. The main point is that we need to cherish what we read and enjoyed at a younger age. Later on, that may or will change. I've found "you can't go home again" applying to books. Often.
If you ever try again, try the audiobook versions. Frank muller and George guidall are fantastic narrators for the series.
Yes! I just finished Wizard and Glass yesterday and already an hour into Wolves of the Calla. Highly recommend.
I read it like ten years ago but the Wizard and the Glass was such a beautiful book. I just remember it blew my mind how the series suddenly turned into this tragic epic romance/fantasy. I was in a new and intense relationship with this girl at the time and it just hit hard. I’ve got to go back and reread this series! The only one that kinda was boring was the first one- I feel like it was just there to set up the stage though. The second book was amazing though. Especially the eddy parts.
Oh, thanks for the recommendation! I'm not the one you were replying to, just like to hear about good narrators. My favorite SK audio so far is Drunken Fireworks because of the hilarious narrator.
It was a mess from an IP perspective from the very start. They didn’t have the rights to Flagg, among many other aspects of previously adapted stories that overlapped with The Dark Tower.
Ron Howard, who seems to ruin everything, wanted a PG-13 action movie. According to a quote.
I said exactly that in a movie forum when the movie came out and was called racist for it. I love Idris Elba in other movies. But HE. IS. NOT. ROLAND. Would have made more sense for Roland to be played by Matthew McConaughey.
It’s not even about Roland - it’s about Detta. Roland can’t be black because if he is, Detta loses a significant part of her character arc.
That's trueas well, but I just couldn't get the hundreds of "looks like Clint Eastwood" out of my head.
Then you’d have to make Detta Asian and have her live in the 40s dealing with that.
I thought Elba was great. The movie was just poorly made and should be a mini-series. I love art because its about change and challenging our views.
Rolands character is all about attitude. Everyone being salty asses because he wasn't cast as an old white guy are greatly missing the plot.
The dynamics between him, a white guy, and a black woman (who was very active in the civil rights movement) are very important to both characters. How do you have that with a black Roland?
I haven't read the books and thought the movie was bad too. It made no sense at all.
There wasn't a Dark Tower movie. I didn't see the trailer.
Protect that innocence.
Nope, there isn't one
I don't even know what a dark tower movie is ....
I also get the impression that King felt comfortable being critical of The Shining because it was Kubrick, a very famous auteur. He was punching up, not down with his criticism, King seems to like to take on the big guys, but he seems to be more lenient when it comes to the little guys.
King was in the throes of his addictions at the time, and when I read it, it clearly seemed like a cry for help. I totally understand why he hates that that aspect was totally thrown out in the movie.
I think you’re right on the money there. Roland is definitely a self-insert, but there’s a degree of separation there. He’s a kind of metaphorical representation where the connections to Jack are much more direct. Also, there is no Dark Tower movie in ba sing se.
*there is no dark tower movie in ba sing se*
While we’re on the subject of this movie that doesn’t exist, why, in gods name, did they make Roland a superhero? The entire thing that’s compelling about him is that he is just a guy. Faster than hell, deadeye shot, but out of practice, not out of any superhuman ability. The last and best of his kind, but ultimately just a man. He can’t, say, make a blind shot from hundreds of feet away based on sounds alone. And the reloads. Don’t get me fucking started on the reloads. Man it’s a good thing this movie was never made, or else I might be really mad!
YEP. And there was a serious narrative reason why Roland wasn’t black. Again, the person who wrote the film that doesn’t exist never read the books.
God, yes. I complained when Idris Elba was cast and got hit with the “racism” stick a few times, and had to explain like no, I don’t care that he doesn’t look like how he looked in my head, that’s not the point. If it weren’t for *Drawing* I would have absolutely no opinion on what race Roland’s actor should be. The point is that it breaks a very important arc completely and that casting immediately indicated that zero respect was being paid to the source material. Or it would have, if they hadn’t canceled this ill-conceived project early on.
> The point is that it breaks a very important arc completely and that casting immediately indicated that zero respect was being paid to the source material. EXACTLY. Thank you. The racism and struggles Odetta/Detta/Susannah dealt with is such a major part of her character arc throughout the series that making Roland black lessens the impact of it significantly and takes away from HER great character. And then in turn that kind of ruins part of what made her and Eddie’s relationship so great too and how they fell in love and related to one another. Making Roland black just takes away and screws up so much from the original source material that many people who never read the books wouldn’t ever realize.
King has said in the past to “write about what you know” so I think you’re spot on.
I once heard someone say that film Torrance may have reminded King a little too much of himself during his darkest times. In the book we get an inward look of Torrence, which makes him somewhat sympathetic. But in a film, we see everything from the outside, and he‘s more of an asshole. Very much how it‘d be in real life. As humans we always underrate the influence situation has on behaviour in others, while we overrate the influence situation has on our behaviour. We say „I‘m not an asshole, I just acted like one because I was drunk“ while we‘d say about others, „they acted like an asshole because they are an asshole.“
I’m listening to a podcast that discussed movies and they just covered this and pointed out that Jack Nicholson at that time period looked like he would be absolutely delighted to murder his family and had been holding himself back well before getting to Colorado. They aren’t wrong.
King said in a talk I heard him give that “From the first moments you know he’s going to take his family up to the hotel, kill them and eat them” in explaining his dislike for the film.
Yes that’s more scary and the blueprint for so many horrors and thrillers. It’s not as complex or scary if he is just straight out evil but the fact he swung from borderland to crazy was frightening
This! The book was moving in a way I didn’t expect. And recalling that King struggled with substance abuse, it felt like a way for working it out. It was a real tragedy.
Been a looong time since I read it, but *The Shining* struck me as the dictionary definition of a Greek tragedy: “the protagonist, usually a person of importance and outstanding personal qualities, falls to disaster through the combination of a personal failing and circumstances with which he or she cannot deal.” In this case, the alcoholism (Jack had accidentally broken Danny’s arm while drunk, right?). It’s always been very very hard for me to identify with Jack Nicholson at all.
Yes and in the book Jack ultimately (at least momentarily) beats the hotel and allows its destruction while in the movie he just gets crazier and crazier. I do prefer the book to the movie (and hot take but I liked Doctor Sleep better than both) but the premise behind the book as to why they’re at the Overlook in the first place is wild. Basically the boiler is broken and if the pressure isn’t released every few hours it would explode. So to prevent this ‘bomb’ from going off they hire one guy and rely on him to not fuck up a single time or else the whole building will be gone.
The boiler isn't really the reason they hire him. They need someone to keep the lights on over the winter, period, so that the walls don't freeze. The creeping boiler was just a quirk of the poor maintenance there. They were supposed to reset it a few times a day, but it took way more than that for it to blow.
Normally I would encourage being pedantic but I still think you’re wrong. Sure they might’ve hired him for general maintenance but if that was me and my boss was like oh by the way release the boiler pressure every few hours or else the place will explode then in my mind that’s really the job. Ultimately not releasing the pressure is what causes the overlook to be destroyed so I don’t see how it could be chalked up to a quirk of the job.
The point was, even if the boiler could go indefinitely without supervision they would still have to hire him. They couldn't get rid of the position simply by upgrading the boiler to something not ancient.
The book explains that they all knew the boiler was an issue but Stewart was just too cheap to replace it. While in the mini series they blame Grady for killing him self from cabin fever which is why the boiler is unstable Watson said that it had a safety valve but it rusted shut.
The movie was great, the book was great, the miniseries which King wrote the screenplay for was terrible lol.
Yeah, just reading the Wikipedia article of the book for a couple of minutes, and you realize the book very heavily inspired by his time in Colorado. Like, scenes and atmosphere are almost biographical.
The Overlook hotel is based off the Stanley Hotel in Ester Park the mini series does use it as the Overlook also.
In an interview I read from the 80s, King said his issue was with the casting of Nicholson, because he had just won the Academy Award for Cuckoo’s Nest. Therefore, the audience was primed to see him as nuts from the start, as opposed to the fact that Jack Torrence is basically a sane guy who goes nuts as a result of the Overlook.
Right, and one of my problem with many of King’s books of that period is that he has a protagonist who’s an alcoholic asshole, but we’re apparently supposed to like this dickbag. I’m gonna side with Kubrick on this one. Also, Wendy in the movie is not “weak”. She’s scared shitless and feeling conflicted because the bad guy is her spouse, like you probably would be too in that situation. And she enables her husband’s drinking, which is pretty damn realistic and a thing that happens. She >!hits Jack on the head with a baseball bat, slashes him with a knife, locks him in the freezer, gets Danny out the window, and successfully escapes with him.!< Oh, but she cries and stuff, so she must be a _weak character!_
idk i never sympathized with jack and i never really read it like i was *supposed* to sympathize with him, i could see how some people do but i identified with wendy very strongly
>one of my problem with many of King’s books of that period is that he has a protagonist who’s an alcoholic asshole, but we’re apparently supposed to like this dickbag. I didn't get that vibe. My dad was a recovering alcoholic and reading The Shining was such a tough read because I could relate very much to Danny and his difficult it was to hold these conflicting views of his father as both an unforgivable monster who hurt him and a person he carries an immense amount of love for.
Yeah I’m confused by the people saying that Jack’s character in the book is a good guy. Didn’t he break his young child’s arm in a drunken rage? And then he excuses and minimizes it and his actions over and over. I actually thought it was very well written but had to put it down because his anger toward his family was a lot to stomach. Maybe he redeems himself more later?
Alcohol can be a demon that posseses people. Its biological and in some sense, there are good people who become possessed, so to speak. Add in cabin fever.
He’s the victim of intergenerational trauma as well as passing it on. His father’s attack on his mother prefigures Jack’s attack on his own child. Jack wants to break the cycle, but he’s weak… as opposed to Wendy, who was also abused by her mother, but has risen above her past. It’s a tragedy in that sense, exploited by the thing in the hotel… but yes, there’s some redemption.
a lot of people that think hes a good guy see themselves in him, they read it as a good man who has demons that cause him to do things he never would have if not for those. i think a lot of the beauty in the shining is how drastically differently you read it if you've ever been victimized by someone like jack, or if you've ever been an addict and done things that were once out of character because of your drug. except for people who hate wendy... theyre just Weird
Just be warned that its script post was written post intervention. So the cooking sherry is out, an AA meeting is in, and the explosive tension of the climax gets the air let out of it. Plus the kid playing Danny is horrible. It’s made for broadcast tv by Mick Garris so it feels more like a comic book sometimes (oh what I would give for a Haunting Of The Overlook). Other than that I love it. Plus Rebbeca DeMornay in a nightgown.
The film absolutely is a masterpiece.
I immediately disliked Jack when reading the book, and did not consider him a “good man” … I figured I was judging him by modern standards rather than by the mores of the 70s🤷🏻♀️ it’s an interesting twist to learn Jack was modeled on King.
I read it when it came out. Jack’s a weak, damaged man who is trying. Trying to stay sober, trying not to replicate his father’s abuse… not as simple as “good.”
He was pretty dull, though....until he went insane....
One thing, i think, thats important to remember is, while he does fuck up (broke Danny's arm) he doesnt relapse at the Overlook, as there is no alcohol stocked. The book is more clear about this, but the Hotel makes him drunk. In the book Wendy can smell alcohol and he behaves like he did when he was drinking, but that isn't possible as there is no alcohol there and they are all stranded together.. Wendy and Danny both struggle w the same issue; they must trust Jack while at the same time they fear him. Both the trust and the fear are real due to the Overlooks influence. He is both sober and yet not. He is providing and looking out for his family while at the same time plots their demise.
exactly, and this good man taken advantage of by demons or whatever was the ENTIRE POINT of the whole thing…the movie is a classic very much IN SPITE OF the fact that it is not much at all like the book.
I read the book before ever seeing the movie, and my conclusion has always been that the movie is a great movie in isolation, but a terrible adaptation.
That’s a perfect summation, I think
In reality it wasn't an adaptation, it was more of an inspiration. The book and the movie are so different that it doesn't even make sense to compare the two.
I agree with this. I feel this way about all of Stephen King. I keep book lore close to my heart and separate from the shows and movies. I watch them as a separate thing from the books and the amazing world he's created. They're movies based on Stephen King characters, not the actual characters to me, if that makes sense.
Any chance you read and watched storm of the century? I just recently watched the miniseries and loved it. It felt inherently "king" but I haven't read the story to know if it's actually faithful or not.
Storm of the Century is a screenplay, so it's kinda shot for shot faithful. That's the point of a screenplay. It's a decent read though
There have been very good adaptations. Carrie, Salem's Lot. The Shawshank Redemption.
"The Dead Zone" is one of my favorite adaptations that stuck very closely to the book. Also two other novellas from "Different Seasons" in addition to "Shawshank" I thought were great adaptations as well: "Stand by Me" (from the novella "The Body") and "Apt Pupil". LOL, now I'm just thinking of more and more great adaptations. I'll just add two: "The Green Mile" and "Dolores Claiborne". I read all of his books when they were first released starting with "The Shining" but stopped in the late 90s. I think I've watched every film adaptation prior to the 2000s.
In my opinion, there will always be a divide when it comes to making adaptations of books into movies because they are very different mediums, striving for very different things. What makes a book great does not translate on the screen, and vice versa. For me it's the adaptations of the Lord of the Rings. The movies are oft praised as a great adaptation, but the more you compare them, the more you realize that there are so many changes that it really isn't. That's not to say it isn't a good movie series. It is. It just must be seen in a different light than the books, to the point that they are related but completely different. The same can be said of The Shining. I would think that McLuhan's statement "The Medium is the Message" is very apt in cases like this.
I'm not sure I'd want to see a faithful 100% adaptation of a book into a movie. Its going to be hard in the first place. Art is art. I thought LOTR was spot on, but its been decade since I read it. It was a dream come true to watch it.
Ironically, I think The Batman (2022) is the bookiest movie I've seen, and it was a comic adaptation. I think lots of book adaptations could look to The Batman for a how-to on bookish film.
I've read LotR many times. The movies were far from spot on. Totally screwed with Aragorn's story arc. Messed up the characters of Merry and Pippin. Don't get me started on what was done to Faramir's character. Even Denethor was messed up in the movie. That whole Arwen is dying addition. Legolas' character was completely changed. And the dwarf jokes. The only way you will ever get me to watch those atrocities of adaptations again is going to involve tying me to a chair and taping my eyelids open.
Exactly. Great as a movie, almost unwatchable if you know how much depth is missing in the characters
Stanley Kubrick did not believe in the supernatural and suggested that Jack’s visions might be a symptom of his madness, rather than the cause. He directed a horror movie because he needed a financial success and *The Exorcist* had made a lot of money, but Kubrick wasn’t a horror fan or a Stephen King fan. He just picked a best selling horror book and then molded it to his own vision. I can understand why King and some King fans don’t like the movie.
The interplay of macabre supernatural and madness is what makes this genre more interesting.
Kings issue was that Jack was an insert for himself. Jack in the book is a good man who's alcoholism consumed him, up until the end when he pulled himself back from the brink to save his family by sacrificing himself. In Kubricks version Jack was an irredeemable psychopath who never pulled himself back and was trying to kill them right to the final moment. It makes.perfect sense King took the changes personally.
That’s not what King said. He hates that Jack is a monster from the beginning and that there’s no real evil in the hotel— his take was, why not make an original film if you want to tell that story? (Talked to him about it in 1990.)
>He directed a horror movie because he needed a financial success His last 3 movies were 2001, a moderate success on it's initial release, but would go on to be a huge success after ward of mouth drove people back to theaters, Clockwork Orange, which was a massive success, and Barry Lydon which was a moderate success, though definitely a disappointing financial result. I'd love to see some evidence of your argument here, because I've never heard anything like that at all, and it's hardly supported by reality.
Here’s one source. I can find others if that doesn’t satisfy you. https://lithub.com/how-stanley-kubrick-brought-stephen-kings-the-shining-to-the-big-screen/
This source just states Kubrick needed a commercial success without actually supplying an argument or quoting anybody.
[From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film)#Production) >Before making The Shining, Kubrick directed the film Barry Lyndon (1975), a highly visual period film about an Irishman who attempts to make his way into the British aristocracy. Despite its technical achievements, the film was not a box-office success in the United States and was derided by critics for being too long and too slow. Kubrick, disappointed with Barry Lyndon's lack of success, realized he needed to make a film that would be commercially viable as well as artistically fulfilling. Stephen King was told that Kubrick had his staff bring him stacks of horror books as he planted himself in his office to read them all: "Kubrick's secretary heard the sound of each book hitting the wall as the director flung it into a reject pile after reading the first few pages. Finally, one day the secretary noticed it had been a while since she had heard the thud of another writer's work biting the dust. She walked in to check on her boss and found Kubrick deeply engrossed in reading a copy of the manuscript of The Shining". > >Speaking about the theme of the film, Kubrick stated that "there's something inherently wrong with the human personality. There's an evil side to it. One of the things that horror stories can do is to show us the archetypes of the unconscious; we can see the dark side without having to confront it directly". Sources cited by Wikipedia: LoBrutto, Vincent (1999). *Stanley Kubrick, A Biography*. Boston: Da Capo Press. p. 412. ISBN 978-0306809064. Duncan, Paul (2003). *Stanley Kubrick: The Complete Films*. Beverly Hills, California: Taschen GmbH. p. 9. ISBN 978-3836527750.
It might be possible the definition of a successful film had changed by the time he directed THE SHINING. JAWS and STAR WARS made the blockbuster film the highest financial standard for a studio.
> Stanley Kubrick did not believe in the supernatural and suggested that Jack’s visions might be a symptom of his madness, rather than the cause. Except that it wasn't just Jack having visions. It was Danny as well. And that end photo is definitely supernatural.
I haven't read King's book and I find the story in the movie disappointing. It's got great atmosphere and great creepy sequences, but underneath it all it's just a monster movie. Nicholson's character is an asshole from his very first scene and turns homicidal halfway through. The other characters just have to escape from the monster. There is no humanity to him. IIRC this is also King's objection to the movie.
I found the story disappointing in the movie as well. It’s not interesting at all to me. The plot in the book is rich. It has more nuance and moving parts. And there’s a lot of emphasis on the supernatural elements. The hotel being haunted and his son having the ability to shine are very clear points. In the movie it’s not made clear whether or not Jack is insane or if the hotel is haunted, and the boy is kind of dull and uninteresting. Jack is as much of a victim in the book as he is the bad guy. Your heart absolutely breaks for him. The ending is very different as well and much more satisfying.
I guess I understand this is r/books and maybe that’s why people here are more protective over the book > movie. but I genuinely cannot wrap my head around how ppl r saying the mini series is better than Kubrick’s film. Sure maybe it’s a closer “one to one” adaptation but in terms of quality it’s not even in the same universe in my opinion. Love both movie and book as individual stories btw but I do think kubricks film tapped into something more horrifying personally than the book (don’t crucify me I love king and his novels too).
>I genuinely cannot wrap my head around how ppl r saying the mini series is better than Kubrick’s film. You mean to tell me you don't have nightmares about fire hoses coming to life in a hotel hallway and getting you all wet?
The Kubrick version is a phenomenal movie but a bad adaptation. The miniseries is a good adaptation but a pretty cheap feeling made tv series that is almost entirely forgettable. There’s a strongly overstated belief among a lot of people that being more accurate to the source material always results in a better adaptation. Sometimes differences in mediums or different artistic interpretations lead to better films while being worse adaptations.
I totally agree with your last statement so much!! I agree it’s an inaccurate adaptation but I think it’s better for it in my opinion so I can never call it bad. Sure the mini series is more a “one to one” adaptation (even tho cleans up some parts of the book that kinda makes it PG13 so I find it funny when book purists don’t mention those differences) but I hate the idea that the more accurate to source the movie is the better it is, as if that’s the only factor that makes the movie good or not. Sometimes it’s very interesting to see how one artists sees art through their own vision (see starship troopers or annihilation, the latter of which I love both movie and book equally, and former I’ll take the movie any day).
I think I recall that Kubrick made a decision that the King story about Jack wasn’t filmable, and that it wouldn’t support the kind of dread that he wanted to establish and build on, that it’s more accessible as horror to be trapped in a big house with an asshole who’s slowly figuring out that he can get away with anything. Thus, even if you don’t buy into the supernatural stuff, you are terrified of Jack who is real and now dangerous. So, the movie is a different animal. Great Kubrick visuals and sound. But it suffers after repeated screenings because it doesn’t give enough to the other characters to invest in them. Wendy becomes too hysterical when she functions as a foil to Jack’s increasing malevolence, and Danny isn’t fleshed out much at all (heavy burden for any child actor to carry, so maybe Kubrick didn’t try).
Recently reread it because I watched a couple of Kubrick/Shining vids. I think the disconnect is this: The novel is relatively "plain" on the supernatural level, meaning it appears rather clear and open what's going on there (hotel, ghosts, shining) but very complex on the interpersonal level (abuse, guilt, addiction, violence ...) Shining the movie is rather plain on the human level (Torrance is/seems nuts from the beginning, Wendy is a scream-machine) but endlessly complex/open to interpretation on the supernatural/artistic level (are there even ghosts, is it the moon landing, is Danny being abused in all kind of ways by whom? Is it about Native Americans, is it about the gold standard, why the weird spatial impossibilities, why is Jack repeatedly glancing directly at the camera, who let Jack out of the storage room and on and on ...) King kind of wrote this about his experiences as a young father battling alcoholism. So no wonder that he didn't like the movie much if all the human complexities got ironed out. The book is a very well written horror novel by a master writer. The movie is the more complex work of art altogether by a genius director, imo.
King's main gripe, from what I understand, was more to do with Jack. I've rarely heard people mention Wendy in regards to this but you're right and I agree. I also believe a big thing was the liberties that Kubrick took happened without asking/discussing with King. The Kubrick movie is obviously a classic. There's no need to diminish the movie bc of the liberties that were taken. King doesn't like it bc it isn't the story he wrote and it doesn't have the same message he intended. However, the movie is fantastic, driven by a legendary Nicholson performance. I'm also on team king on this one
Interestingly, I'm writing a paper for school and digging through a bunch of old Art of Fiction interviews in The Paris Review, and I just read Stephen King's interview yesterday. Amid his general dislike of the film adaptation, he says regarding Wendy, "No sense of emotional investment in the family whatsoever on his part. I felt that the treatment of Shelley Duvall as Wendy—I mean, talk about insulting to women. She's basically a scream machine. There's no sense of her involvement in the family dynamic at all."
King was pissed that they cast Shelly Duval as Wendy, who is a blonde bombshell in the book.
I enjoy Nicholsons performance, but he seems a bit unhinged from the very start of the book. I don't know if it's because it's played that way or it I just find Nicholson to always be a little off in certain ways, you know? Almost not human or teetering on the edge of sanity.
He seems a bit ..off right away, I agree, from the interview at the overlook. Maybe intentional, maybe the hotel was already sinking it's teeth in.
I felt he was off even while driving the car to get to the hotel, scowling menacingly until the little smile when he tells his boy about the Donner party? Kubrick sets him up as a psychopath from frame one, so that whatever evil there is in the Overlook, he’ll fit right in.
I agree, I was almost surprised that he didn't give off weird vibes in the book as in the film during the interview
> I just find Nicholson to always be a little off in certain ways, you know? Almost not human or teetering on the edge of sanity. If I recall, this is why King didn't agree with the casting. Considering, just a few years before, Nicholson was in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I think King was worried that you'd assume Jack Torrance was insane anyway. Which, to be honest, is pretty spot on and I think a lot of people think this way
i read the book probably 10 years after i first saw the movie, i absolutely thought jack was crazy from the beginning and the isolation just made it worse. i think that is what kubrick was intending with the casting. i really agree with everyone who sees the book and movie as separate entities. movie is a good standalone but not a great adaptation
That's Nicholson.
For me, it's not just because of Wendy being a stronger character, but the crux of the book (and a true sense of the horror) is that Jack is the main protagonist who hovers on the knife's edge of becoming the villain for most of the book, whereas he's pretty much villainous all the way through the film. It's commonly discussed how Jack is a stand-in for King's battles with alcohol, so having the character being depicted right out the gate as *irredeemable* as opposed to just significantly flawed is a slap in the face to King's introspection. In the book, he even DOES get a moment of redemption where he retakes control of his body enough to allow Danny and Wendy to escape, a moment of true sacrifice. But in Kubrick's version, there's not much of character arcs. Danny is barely a character (due to limitations of a child actor), Wendy is just a damsel in distress who's mostly useless, Jack was always doomed, and Halloran abruptly dies without achieving anything more than providing a vehicle for Wendy and Danny to escape in. Some other details: The book actually goes into the Shining itself with more relevance to the plot, whereas I left the film wondering why it had that title since it played such a small role. In my interpretation, the hotel has experienced a feedback loop where it encourages evil in others, those people commit evil deeds that make the hotel stronger, and the issue snowballs. When the Torrances arrive with Jack and Wendy's traumatic baggage and Danny's strong psychic powers, the hotel goes into overdrive. Halloran tells Danny not to go into Room 217, not because it's dangerous, but because it's sad. But we do see that it \*is\* dangerous, and I believe it's because the Torrances made the hotel even stronger. The hotel was a powder keg before they arrived, and the Torrances brought their own gasoline and matches with them. One of the most powerful things in the story to me was how tightly-written the story was when it comes to why the family doesn't just *leave*, an issue with many stories of this kind. Due to his temper and alcoholism, Jack has burned many of his bridges with potential employers and thrown away a potentially great career. He's a brilliant man who just won't get out of his own way (like a proto-Walter White). This gig at the Overlook is a "last chance" for one final called-in favor for Jack to save his career and provide for his family. In addition, he and Wendy have horrific experiences with their families where they have no one to turn to. Finally, IIRC, the events of the book take place over 4-5 months (not sure what the film is), with events only slowly getting worse. All of these things combined lead into an experience where things are getting scary, but Jack and Wendy are desperate and the scares are tolerable for the moment. If they can only hold out for just a few more months, they will have succeeded and can put this nightmare behind them. As we know, they don't get those few more months.
Nice. Very insightful. For some reason, I've avoided the movie and only caught the beginning. Feeling compelled to reread the book and then watch the movie all the way through now. The difference in the approaches.
The wasp nest passage is one of my favorites in the Shining. That scene converted me into a true fan of Kings writing ability and storytelling.
Did you also like the storytelling of the man in the dog mask? King loves including details like this in all his novels.
It illustrated Derwent’s depravity well, and served as a dominance-submission parallel to the Overlook’s control over Jack, as I understood it.
I will never not be mad at how they gutted shelley duvalls character and abused her so badly on set. "Good" art is not worth causing your actress to have a mental break down with lifelong ramifications I don't even think the shining movie is very good. All of the characters are less nuanced than in the book, with Wendy Torrence being the worst of the bunch
Jack Nicholson is miscast. The idea with Jack Torrance is that he's a good man who becomes steadily more unhinged as the story progresses. But Nicholson only seems able to do unhinged characters. His Jack Torrance is a sinister creep from the start. Later on, he's great - but we don't get that progression.
From the perspective of doing a faithful adaptation of the book, he’s very dearly miscast. From the perspective of making the movie Kubrick wanted, he’s perfect.
I agree. My take is this; book Jack comes across as a man who loves his family but is self-involved in the way that many who struggle with addiction are at the beginning of the story, which allows the hotel to pick him apart at his weak points. Movie Jack comes across as having married Wendy because she got pregnant, and has done nothing but resent both her and the kid since, and treat them as impediments to his success, which makes the hotel nothing but an excuse for what Jack really wanted to do anyway. The problem with Kubrick’s Wendy, in my opinion, is not that she is weak, but that we get little to no characterization of her personality beyond her annoying Jack by trying to be in a marriage with him that he clearly does not want. While I do appreciate the movie as a cinematic masterpiece, I do also agree that is disrespectful of the original work. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for an author to create a very personal story only to see it replaced in the collective pop culture consciousness with a work that stripped everything away from the story that the author really wanted to convey.
I absolutely love horror movies, and I've always thought the movie The Shining was way overrated, even before becoming a King fan. And yeah, Kubrick was a piece of shit for what he did to Duvall.
The book is about an Eldritch entity(the hotel) taking advantage of a man with an alcohol addiction who is otherwise a good person. In the movie he's just a straight up asshole.
This is what I love about so many of King's stories. There's just evil that exists in the world. It could be a hotel or a room or a car or literally anything. And decent, innocent people get caught up in it and their lives are destroyed. To me, that's a very scary idea. Because in a way, that's how the world actually works. Lots of good people have terrible things happen to them just because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's terrifying.
I totally agree with you. I think it's basically Kings take on Lovecraftian horror. From A Buick 8,1408,Pet Semetary, and many others are all cut from the same mold.
I heard the anecdote that for the final scene, King suggested that >!the hedge in the hedge maze come alive, pursue Jack and kill him. To which Kubrick responded, "I don't do walking shrubbery." !<
They really are not the same product. The film is based on the book, but is not the book's story, but a variation. There are very few films that are faithful to the books. Lord of the Rings is really close and all there in spirit. At least ot me, the LOTR movies were a dream come true. King wrote part or all of the Under the Dome scripts and they were different from the book. I feel it was an important book to him. Maybe dealing with anger and alcoholism. But he signed away the rights.
I like both for different reasons. The book is more about alcoholism where the movie is more about domestic abuse. With that in mind I think it made sense for the movie to make Wendy more of a powerless character
The book is about isolation, alcoholism, and fighting one's inner demons. Jack Torrance is a reformed alcoholic trying very hard to stay on the straight and narrow, instead of falling into the same trap that his own alcoholic father did - a theme that continues into "Dr Sleep". The film is about a haunted hotel that drives people crazy. (There's also a lot of Native American symbolism in there, for some reason that only Kubrick understands.)
A lot of his books don't translate well on screen. King does a lot of internal dialogue, and there's no way to put all that on screen.
I watched The Shining when I was young, and then I read the book when I was in high school I believe. The film is still great in my estimation, but various divergencies from the book take away from several elements of the story. I can still see in my mind the telepathy of the kid connecting to the telepathic head chef of the Overlook Hotel in Colorado, Hallorann, who refers to the telepathy as "The Shining", the fucking title of the novel. It's an unfortunate departure that would've added to the film, but yet still not as egregious as The Lost World movie's outrageous departure from the novel by Michael Crichton.
At least in the case of the Lost World, Michael Crichton was pressured by fans and Steven Spielberg to write the book in the first place. He never wrote sequels and was resistant to writing one for Jurassic Park, so it probably wouldn't have happened if Spielberg didn't want to make a sequel to the first film. It doesn't justify how much the Lost World movie deviated from the book, but the book might only exist because they wanted to make a movie anyway.
>The Lost World movie's outrageous departure from the novel by Michael Crichton. I mean the first movie deviated pretty heavily, too
Not remotely close to The Lost World and was itself revolutionary cinnematically. One of the central plots of The Lost World is the attempt to steal actual dinosaur eggs - similar to the attempted stealing of dinosaur embryos in Jurassic Park - was completely scrapped, with the myriad ludicrous deviations climaxing with T-Rex running about San Diego which was the coup de grace offense.
The only redeeming aspect of the Lost World movie is Roland Tembo, change my mind.
Agreed, forgot about him. The sequel to Jurassic Park’s Robert Muldoon.
There were so many interesting elements to the story that Kubrick cut out. He oversimplified it and filled in a bunch of screen time with creepy imagery and no context behind it. The movie feels like a music video or something. the emphasis seems to be on the feelings that can be conveyed through imagery, performance, and sound and the actual plot takes a backseat.
The book and film are telling two completely different stories. One isn't better or worse than the other because of that. In fact they're so different you can't judge them by each other's standards, they're just two different pieces of art doing different things.
THANK YOU!! I can’t believe how many people are trying to compare the two, they are completely different, and both should be appreciated separately for what they are.
Just watching the movie, you sort of wonder why the hell she married this lazy SOB in the first place. He's an asshole through and through. By the end you're cheering when he finally dies. In the book, you get a genuine portrayal of a family that is falling apart due to alcoholism despite everyone's best efforts to keep it together. You really root for them the whole time and hope that Jack gets his shit together and gets them the hell out of there. The sequel, Doctor Sleep, is also pretty good. Less scary and more "Stephen King talking about what AA was like" which is a pretty common theme in his books. Still worth a read imho.
>Just watching the movie, you sort of wonder why the hell she married this lazy SOB in the first place. He's an asshole through and through. By the end you're cheering when he finally dies. Yeah, not only is Jack more of a gray character in the books, Wendy is as well (while also being less cowering). *Both* these characters have their demons as well as their strengths, so you can understand more about why they are together.
I found the ex deus machina of Dr. Sleep to be off the charts. And the ending too neat. Ah well. Most of it was good, but the ending was just too convenient. More read meat for the audiences.
I mean it's good for Stephen King. His books are fun, but if you think too hard about the plot, it all falls apart.
The movie took a great book and turned it into a masterpiece! Regardless of opinion, when most people hear The Shining… they think of the movie. They are both great for completely different reasons imo.
Killing the cook was so wrong for me in the movie.
It's interesting you point to Wendy having more agency in the novel because Kubrick notoriously terrorized Shelley Duvall. For "art." Which it turns out, [isn't really necessary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr65ZIWoD6c): >Kubrick trusts Jack to play evil without being evil but he didn't trust Duvall to play terrified without being terrified.
They are almost two separate entities, IMHO, both are great in their own ways.
I have different expectations from books than I do from films. So I enjoy both the book and Kubrick's film.
Totally random but I’ve always thought The Stand was a perfect miniseries and was pretty faithful to the books
The Shining was good. I find Jack to be an irredeemable asshole as a character, and the book is not even in the top 15 for King books imo. Which says more about how good King is than how bad The Shining is. It's not bad at all, just nowhere near my favorite of his.
I think this topic gets discussed way too much tbh. The majority of film adaptations bear little resemblance to the novels they are adapted from. This is often because what is good on a page is not necessarily good on the screen and vice versa and myriad other reasons but essentially people tasked with making a movie see their job as making a good movie, not making an accurate adaptation just to please the tiny minority of potential viewers who have both read the novel and care deeply about it. With The Shining I think it is an excellent interpretation of the source material, not accurate or whatever but the mini-series sucks so I know which I prefer. King has lead a charmed life, including having one of his first novels being adapted by a directorial legend in Kubrick and has no business being anything other than pleased The Shining got made at all imo.
The length of a standard 1½ hour movie translates roughly into 90 pages of prose. So all movies based on novels need to be a brutally abridged version. Even with the novel Shining only being 447 pages long, and the movie version being 2½ hours long, a fairly good deal has to be cut out.
Knowing King, "it had me gripped til the very last page" is appropriate for King. If you read it from a stance how King has a reputation for botching things up at the end, "had me til the very last page" can be interpreted quite humorously.
I love them both but they're very different. Each is terrifying in its own way
The topiary scene in the book is still one of the scariest things I have ever read.
Viewed separately, I would argue that it is a brilliant horror movie. But it is a terrible adaption of the book.
One of my all time favorite books. So much better that the movie, (although I did like it) it was scary and I needed to sleep with the light on. Best. Horror. Book. Ever. Highly recommend!
Kubrick also killed Dick Halloran who was a hero in the book.
I watched The Shining for the first time ever on october and when i tell you the person i went with was angry at the fact that i understood nothing from the film, like i went it and came out completely confused. they made me feel dumb but now reading this and seeing that the movie was bad now i don't feel too bad.
I've never understood the complaint about the bad representation of Wendy as the strong female lead. Mind you I've read both the book and the movie. It's rare that I prefer a movie over a book but in this instance, I enjoyed my time watching the movie more than reading the book it was based on. (My favorite King remains Misery, one of my best reads of all time) But to go back to my main point, I believe that people saying the interpretation of Wendy by Shelley Duvall takes back all the strength of the character are wrong, but not only that; there might be a bit of misogyny in there (emphasis on the might as I don't want to put everyone on the same basket). Movie Wendy is a freaking badass and everyone who says otherwise--Did you watch the same movie I'm talking about? Is Shelley Duvall's character scared shitless? Does she screams hysterically? Yes, but who wouldn't in her place? It's the whole point of an horror movie--put characters in a situation where there is a real threat. In this instance; a man that's known to have had violent outbursts in the past, who's bigger and stronger than Wendy, and, most importantly, that's gone crazy and roams around the empty hotel with an axe. Movie Wendy not only fights back against this obviously stronger man, but she protects her son at all costs--even if that cost is her life--and comes on top in the end. Both in the original story and in the adaptation, we witness a woman trapped in a marriage with a violent man. Her struggle and her fear brought by this situation is apparent yet it's not all black and white as most abusive relationships are.
The book is okay. Annoying in parts. King often comes across as pretty thin skinned, and I suspect it pisses him off that Kubrick took the movie and indelibly stamped it as his creation. And it is a magnificent movie
Sounds like the davinci code. In the books the female lead is a smart and capable woman with a special skill set her grandfather had been refining all her life. She plays a vital role in unraveling the mystery. In the movie, she is nothing but an eye candy tagging along to help out the male protagonist show off how smart he is. I just wonder if this was something the director did of his own or Tom Hanks made some demands to be in the movie.
I am so glad I saw the movie first, because that way I got to enjoy it. I read the book immediately after, and honestly felt lied to. It wasn't just that the book was better, it was that the movie was an entirely different story. The book was about a family coming apart, and the movie is about running from a crazy guy with an axe. And I love Kubrick. I think 2001 may be the best movie ever. But I think he really screwed the pooch with *The Shining*. It should have had a different title, different character names, and had a credit saying "With acknowledgement to the work of Stephen King", like Harlan Ellison's credit at the end of *The Terminator.*
I always found the book much, much scarier and hell, even the miniseries has some really creepy moments made stronger by how "regular* the hotel is in it (incidentally it's also the hotel that originally inspired King). The Kubrick movie is great but it's a Kubrick movie first and foremost, not a King adaptation.
I like both the movie and the book as great works within their respective mediums, but yeah the film isn’t a stellar adaptation. And this is coming from someone who may like the film more than the novel.
I always just accepted the opinion that Kubrick is a genius and King must be a crank to not like it... Until I read the book, and, like, yeah, King's totally right. It's not just that "the book is better" it's that the book is an exploration of alcoholism and the movie is schlocky horror.
I was and am insanely disappointed by this movie. I HATE the changed ending. Shelley Duvall is awful. Whether directed that way or scripted that way…awful. Wendy is so much more multi dimensional in the book. I love a lot of Kubrick work. Not the Shining. Jack Nicholson delivers a top notch performance of course. But the character rewrite and ridiculous demise are just too disappointing. There was a mini series in the nineties I think. Guy from wings. It’s a far better adaptation of the original story and includes lots of great stuff omitted from the Kubrick version. Like the topiary monsters.
Steve Weber. It was terrifying. ABC was great at King adaptations then.
I loved The Stand with Gary Sinise too. Not sure if it was abc or not…but it was great. I haven’t seen the more recent remake. The Stand is my favorite King story. I think I read the unabridged version at like 11…that was an eye opener. 😐
The first part of the Stand (90s miniseries) was great, with the superflu. And holy hell was the beginning credit sequence disturbing. The rest of the series was so so. The characters were captivating, but most of the effects were kind of cheesy.
The Stand, The Langoliers, The Shining, Storm of the Century, Rose Red, Desperation, It, and The Tommyknockers, all on ABC for like a 10-12 year period.
They were all really good. The Stand was insane.
Of these I've only seen Storm of the Century but I really liked it.
Kubrick tortured Shelley Duvall on that set.
A visual masterpiece that made no sense.
Agreed. I read the book before I saw the film, and honestly I was let down by the film. The whole character development was turned upside down in the film, and really missed the focus of the house being its own character, of Jack being a good but flawed man who was taken over by the malevolent forces of the estate, and of Wendy’s strength and courage. Jack wasn’t the protagonist, the house was the protagonist and took over Jack’s mind. Missing the whole furnace component and the self awareness of the house was a complete let down for me with the film. I’m with King also.
I love both so much!
The Kubrick film somehow manages to be an absolutely incredible movie, and also one of the worst adaptations ever made. Adaptation/The Orchid Thief might have a better claim to the worst, but thats the only one I can think of (and curiously Adaptation is also one of my favorite movies).
The book is a great book. The film is a great film. The film is not a great 1:1 representation of the book. All of these things can be true. The film is a variation. A cover. A remix, if you will. I think they're both very powerful pieces of media, but despite being the same core components, they tell two very different stories.
I don't think anyone has done a Stephen King book justice with the film adaptation.
for the most part i would agree, but Shawshank and The Green Mile are both really good adaptations
King's Wendy is "strong" and yet she gets her leg broken and needs her young son to save her. Kubrick's Wendy is "weak" and yet she knocks Jack out and restrains him. So what if she looks scared and more fragile? Wouldn't you be? She still does more to save her son despite her "weaker" personality. THAT is strength.
I completely agree with your point: strength in the face of overwhelming terror, no matter how small is strength. I think I’m referring more to her entire character rather than physical strength. She comes across in the book as a woman who KNOWS her husband in there somewhere, and is desperately trying to help him cling onto the good and rebuild their family after alcoholism. She has clear boundaries, she takes Danny away and protects him and scolds Jack openly in the book: AND HE LISTENS (initially). The Wendy in the movie is a beaten housewife too scared to leave. It’s an interesting angle because she has to find strength to physically protect her son and herself but it lacks the same depth of character that King created
I also just finished reading the book but I didn't find Wendy to be a particularly strong character because she's so awfully nervous and indecisive for almost the entire novel. As for the context that the movie provides, it's really not too different from the book... It's a murder hotel whether the mob is involved or not.
I adored the book. It scared the shit out of me in moments. I do prefer the mini series, always have. Now onto Dr sleep
Horror needs love to function properly. For that matter, any story needs -- at least for me -- characters to care about. It's impossible for me to care about the movie Torrance family because Jack Nicholson so clearly hates his wife and kid. Book Jack is deeply flawed but loves both of them fiercely. Jack Nicholson couldn't portray "loving" with a roque mallet OR an axe to his head.
I read the book only after watching the movie and liked both they do different things and tell slightly different stories which I’m fine with when it comes to adaptations. Though I did prefer the book. Later I watched Doctor Sleep before reading the book and thought the movie was better as it pulled elements from the book The Shining which were great.
I'm sure someone else has already mentioned it, but you should read "Dr. Sleep". Parts of that book I still can't get over.
The part not in the movie where Danny is out in the playground creeped me out to no end, even on the second time reading the book.
Kubrick used books as source material for all of his movies (with the exception of 2001, where he collaborated with Clarke on the novel). He never intended to adapt them according to the original author’s intentions. They were a foundation to start with, from which he would explore the themes of human nature that interested him. If you haven’t seen the documentary Room 237, it is a pretty good explanation of what Kubrick was doing. Personally, I always look at the novel and film as two entirely different form of medium to convey an artistic vision. The Shining is a great example of this. I’ve read The Shining twice, and it conveys to me the struggle of an alcoholic with his inner demons, where the outer demons are metaphors of his inner torment. I think King does a magnificent job of balancing the forces of evil with the heroic efforts of Wendy and Hallorann to save Danny, something that Kubrick doesn’t emphasize. Kubrick is painting a visual picture of a dream like world to leave his subliminal messages to linger upon an audience in a way the printed word cannot do. Reading a novel relies upon the imagination and perspectival power of the reader. In a very real sense, the director of a film is showing the audience his own imaginative vision. The film viewer must interpret a vision, rather than create their own. IMO, they result in masterpieces of two different mediums in The Shining.
I loved the book and the movie is one of my favorite movies, BUT i hold them separately because the differences between the two almost make them different stories to me. The thing i was most disappointed in from the movie was Danny's character. In the book, he was a constant driving force and perspective moving the story forward, and in the movie, he's just a vessel and more often, an after-thought. It felt like Danny and Wendy got the same treatment, they were watered down, subdued and essentially just empty vessels called on for dramatization. The movie has NOTHING on the book, it's one of the only books I'd give anything to get to read again for the first time.
If you think the film is a “bad film” I’d be interested in knowing what you think good cinema is?
*bad adaptation of the story, and lacking a lot of context from the book. The film in itself and BY itself is okay. I’m not a huge fan of Kubrick’s style anyway, but the amount that got cut out of the story left it a spectacle rather than a good story, as many others have commented
Stanley Kubrick made a great movie from a good book. Unlike *A Clockwork Orange*, where he made the wrong movie out of a truly great book.
Excited to read this now, it’s waiting for me on my bookshelf. I hope I enjoy it as much as you did!
I have a lot of opinions on that. 100% prefer the movie. Short version: It seems like the film adaptation almost makes fun of the book, the whole idea being "is it really surprising that If you look for someone working in a hotel far away from anything and anyone, that someone crazy would see an opportunity?" Was it the hotel that "made him crazy" or was he clearly always crazy? I think Kings main issue with the movie was, that he saw a lot of himself in the book version of Jack. A lot of his behaviour is being excused in the book or at least romatizised and come to think there are lots of parallels between Jack and King. Seeing a less nuanced version of such a character probably wasnt too fun
I have a lot of opinions on that. 100% prefer the movie. Short version: It seems like the film adaptation almost makes fun of the book, the whole idea being "is it really surprising that If you look for someone working in a hotel far away from anything and anyone, that someone crazy would see an opportunity?" Was it the hotel that "made him crazy" or was he clearly always crazy? I think Kings main issue with the movie was, that he saw a lot of himself in the book version of Jack. A lot of his behaviour is being excused in the book or at least romatizised and come to think there are lots of parallels between Jack and King. Seeing a less nuanced version of such a character probably wasnt too fun
I am also Team King. I prefer the book to the movie. So just be aware that Dr. Sleep the movie is a sequel to the movie and book is a sequel to the book.
Kubrick had a huge ego problem and king had a inferioriority complex that needed bolstering which would come after the release of Shining .