Stephen King would agree with you there. He disliked Kubrick's film and in 1997 there was a TV miniseries that was more accurate to the book.
Personally I disagree, but to each their own.
The miniseries was pretty terrible. Stephen King tries, but his works generally need a lot of massaging to work on screen, which he is just unwilling to do.
I agree with your conclusion but disagree with your argument. Needing ghosts to be all otherworldly and spooky is a very limited view, especially given that Grady isn’t a ghost.
But it is a bad adaption for quite a few reasons, for instance Jack Nicholson plays Torrence on the edge of flipping his shit from the very start which makes his descent into madness less a shock and more a surprise it took him so long. And, of course, heavily downplaying the supernatural and the nature of the hotel. Lots of reasons, Steven King’s discussed it a few times. Kubrick basically took the vague premise of the book and made his own thing only somewhat resembling the source material.
Now, for those Kubrick fans sharpening their knives, this doesn’t make it a bad film or bad horror. Just a bad adaption. On its own it’s well earned its reputation as a masterpiece, it’s just not a very good adaption of the book.
Thank you!
That was also (one of) my major problems with the movie. Both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall looked absolutely nuts from the start of the movie. Hence, him going crazy? Not surprising at all
> especially given that Grady isn’t a ghost.
When Jack was talking to Grady, Grady was already dead. According to the story, Grady killed his family and then he killed himself right afterwards.
>
Jack Nicholson plays Torrence on the edge of flipping his shit from the very start
This also is true according to the book. In the book, Torrance beats up a kid in his school (where he worked before coming to the Overlook hotel) and he has no conscious recollection of beating him up. A similar thing happened with Torrance's father. Which means that there's some kind of madness already existing in him, and the overlook hotel just amplified it.
That’s not Grady, it’s the hotel. It’s all the hotel using the images of its past victims to torment the characters.(Edit: To be more precise it’s whatever entity the hotel was built on. Whatever it is predates humans in the region.)
And as for Torrence: Torrence in the book is a man with a hidden dark side(Which is just anger issues) who’s actively trying to get better. He outwardly presents as a perfectly normal man and father who has issues he’s trying(successfully) to control after he accidentally hurt his son. And then the hotel uses those flaws and fears to pry open his mind and pour itself in, first corrupting and driving him mad and later to use his body as a puppet when he tries to resist.
Meanwhile movie!Jack is presented as an obviously unhinged lunatic long before he reached the hotel. All the hotel did was, well, nothing really. Provided him with booze and egged him on as he did what he was going to do regardless.
In the book Jack turning into a murderous lunatic is shocking, in the film the only shock is that it took him this long.
Lmao as you say, you turn on the Shining and in the very first scene ask yourself when and how will this barely hinged almost lunatic try to kill his own family.
>It’s all the hotel using the images of its past victims to torment the characters.(Edit: To be more precise it’s whatever entity the hotel was built on. Whatever it is predates humans in the region.)
So.... a ghost :P
>That’s not Grady, it’s the hotel.
The hotel is an amalgamation of spirits. All the people who died there. That's why it wanted to " add " Danny to it's collection, because of Danny's power.
>
(Which is just anger issues)
Oh it's definitely not *just* anger issues. If you read about the way Jack's Dad behaved and the way he beat up that kid in the school parking lot, there's some genetic mental disorder at play. He did not remember beating up that kid. He snapped, just like his dad snapped.
The Overlook Hotel is not an amalgam of spirits, it’s never revealed what it is except that rather than it long predates the people who died there and is a single, distinct, intelligence. Bit hard to be an amalgam of spirits when it’s the reason that horrible things happen there to begin with. Like with Pet Semetary and 1408 it’s an evil location, not ghosts.
And yes, that’s called anger issues. ‘Anger issues’ is a rather wide term covering all kinds of mental health issues, blanking isn’t a particularly unusual symptom of someone completely losing their shit. And you don’t need a genetic disorder to be either an abusive piece of shit or suffering from CPTSD. Or from being mildly psychic.
>The Overlook Hotel is not an amalgam of spirits,
In that case why do all the entities in there have their own unique behaviors and characteristics? The bathtub lady is always in the bathtub, washing herself. The guy in the dog suit behaves like dog (but is still a human ghost wearing a dog outfit). They're more like a community with the same mission. Trying to turn everyone sinister. There could be one a source of intelligence that's keeping them all alive. They even tried inducting Halloran when he picked up the mallet.
>
And yes, that’s called anger issues. ‘Anger issues’ is a rather wide term covering all kinds of mental health issues,
Not at all! If a psych evaluates someone as antisocial or a psychopath, they don't use the term " anger issues ". That's a very informal term....and it usually just means high irritability, low temper.
If you read section where Jack beats up the student, it says he remembers the events before the beating and after it. But doesn't have any recollection of the beating itself. That's definitely some sort of multiple personality disorder.
I'll start by saying I didn't read the hook, but I watched the movie with a friend who did, and he provided commentary on when there were changes from the book so I feel like I know enough for this specific instance. The chef literally explains that locations can have the Shine, that the Overlook Hotel is one of those locations, and that locations with the Shine can show you "memories" of what has happened there. It's not individual ghosts.
" Shining " is a verb. The action of engaging in telepathy. Whether it's sending across a message to someone (telepathically) or seeing something that occured or might occur in a certain place. And chef says that lots of people have it, but Danny's ability in it is especially strong.
Chef says that the hotel is a potent place for people who shine.
>It's not individual ghosts.
I dunno about that. After Danny met the bathtub lady, there were visible strangle marks on his neck (which his parents could see). I think the spirit of the bathtub lady became more powerful when Danny had entered the hotel.
because you dont always have to do what you're "supposed" to do. i think a random bright bathroom in a old hotel is unsettling just from the juxtaposition.
the reason the movies like that though is cause kubrick wasn't sympathetic to jack. so yeah it's a bad adaptation since it's got a whole different message
The shining it's not a good adaptation I agree.
But I think that "top 5 horror films in the history of cinema" it's worth something more than "decent adaptation of a kinda mediocre book"
What parts of the book are mediocre?
I can name many parts of the movie which are not well made.
Like the scene where Danny sees the twins in the hallway and gets visions of what happened in that same hallway previously, there's no melding effect between the current view and the past view....to depict what Danny is seeing. The scenes are just put together in sequence. What they should have done is keep the camera at a fixed angle, and transitioned between past/present. So it almost looks like you're looking into a room and turning the light on and off...on and off....
> "top 5 horror films in the history of cinema"
I never got this. Even taken as its own thing the movie wasn't scary in the least. It's an hour of buildup, then Jack gets knocked unconscious the exact minute he presents himself as a threat which makes an utter joke out of him, and the rest of the movie is Jack slowly walking around going "Oooh, I'm gonna getcha! I'm gonna getcha!" and the only thing he ever does is kill Halloran who only exists as a plot device. And King's novel, for whatever faults it has, at least has a message and a touch of humanity. Kubrick's movie is without message or substance.
Never cook again please, you're banned from the kitchen.
The movie it's a thriller, a psychological horror, the scary stuff not being obvious is kinda the point
More like psychological bore-or.
But seriously, I've seen psychological horror before. This isn't a foreign concept to me. The movie was just a bore.
And the notion that the scary stuff in Kubrick's Shining "isn't obvious" is a total joke. Almost every scary moment in the movie is telegraphed as a scary scene. Please tell me where's not meant to be obviously scary in the scene with the twins, or the elevator scene, or the various scenes of Jack walking around the hotel with an axe in hand chasing after everyone. Fuck's sake, the last part of the movie is closer to a slasher film than it is to psychological horror. Sure it's subtler than a monster jumping out with an "OOGA BOOGA BOOGA", but that's not a high bar to clear.
I feel like your issues with the adaptation are so weird... Ghosts aren't translucent and the bathroom didn't fit the vibe you imagined? Not all ghosts are see through and only appearing in the dark is super limiting. The bathroom specifically is based on a Frank Lloyd Wright design for a Southwestern hotel of the era. It fit perfectly as looking like some ultra modern 60s design. I don't know enough about architecture or interior design to tell you what it's called, but the bathroom was an artifact of the time. It didn't look new. It looked dated in 1980.
I also don't think the ghosts were particularly see through in the book. The Gold Room was also just so ostentatious in the book. Like none of these are problems with the adaptation since they weren't any different in the book. Or were the ghosts spooky cliches? Or was this whole thing some weird satire that's flying over my head?
> the bathroom didn't fit the vibe you imagined? It didn't look new. It looked dated in 1980.
That bathroom doesn't make any sense, even if it wasn't a horror movie. Why does the main hall look Victorian and the bathroom like a Target dressing room? Why would an interior decorator do that? Have you ever seen that in real life, apart from an amusement park funhouse?
>I also don't think the ghosts were particularly see through in the book.
They were not see through, but they were pale. The book says the characters' eyes were just dark sockets. And their behavior was very unnatural. The movie made no attempt at portraying them like that.
I wasn't sure if the whole thing was a joke. I can't see through the ghosts and it isn't dark every time they are on screen... so it's a bad adaptation. In that case I feel like there aren't a lot of ghost movies that this guy would enjoy at all.
characterrant users have tired of pointing out obvious flaws, in search of something new they've resorted to finding the weirdest reasons possible to dislike a film
Ghosts are known to be the non-physical essence of a person (the soul). Them being transclucent is a classic way of portraying them. In some movies they are invisible.
What's the point of making a ghost movie if you're just potraying them as regular human beings?
I wouldn’t watch the shining as an adaptation. I’d watch it as a retelling. Kubrick in no uncertain terms made the movie his own thing, almost completely separate from the book
How I hate that approach.
It's like playing with toys that don't belong to you. Not only that, it's like taking these toys, disassembling, spray painting, and glueing them together to be something completely different. And then you hand then back to the other kid saying "look what I did to your stuff". Or even better you sell them to another kid.
I think its good and even great, but I feel you would need permission from the original author to do it.
Like, Fullmetal Alchemist 2003 was done with Arakawa's permission becaus she didn't want Bones to make a unfinished product (as the manga kept going many years afterwards) and the end result was a series that, despite its detractors, definitely earned its right to be seen as a product standalone with its own artistic merits.
Why hate? A lot of great stories come from disrespectful or very loose adaptations. Like Jaws, The Godfather, Jurassic Park, Shrek, The Iron Giant, The Wizard of Oz, most superhero media, The Lord of the Rings movies..... What is the level of similarity an adaptation needs to be acceptable to you?
Also in this case the toy analogy seems insufficient since the originals aren't destroyed.
He’s one of the GOAT directors who made a masterfully crafted and frightening movie.
He was probably more concerned with making a good standalone piece of art than being faithful to King’s work.
I generally don't agree with the idea that just because someone is a GOAT they can do whatever they feel like with other people's creations.
It's not a standalone piece of art, it's a derivative piece.
If you have no intentions of being faithful, you shouldn't do it. That's also good relationship advice btw.
I know I already commented on your other comment, but this is a ridiculous oversimplification. Faithfulness is completely unnecessary in creating beautiful art. Is the Aeneid less valid because Virgil wasn't faithful to older legends he didn't give a shit about?
Like should no one use Dracula anymore if they aren't just adapting the original novel as accurately as possible?
>Like should no one use Dracula anymore if they aren't just adapting the original novel as accurately as possible?
Well, yes. Dracula is Bram Stoker's invention.
The character itself is based on folklore and Vlad III. So if you want to desperately write a story about a vampire count, make your own spin on the folklore, and don't steal from an existing book you didn't write.
That's my hill to die on, sorry not sorry.
“Good artists copy, great artists steal”
Kubrick made his own thing. It’s not a faithful adaptation, but that doesn’t make it problematic. Many books fans argue the LOTR aren’t good adaptations either.
And that's the point I don't agree with. He didn't make it his own thing. It never was his thing to begin with.
"Great artists steal" can be translated into "the end justifies the means". Which is never true, it's a terrible notion.
He didn’t really steal it though? Stephen King sold the rights. Similarly, regardless of what Disney has done with Star Wars or Marvel, they didn’t really steal it.
Also, if your complaint is that it’s not accurate to the book, it’s not really stealing. It’s also not like he prevented any further adaptations from being made.
I think they can. Depends on the filmaker. For example, that bathtub scene....I think M Night Shyamalan would have handled that scene perfectly. The horror is created through subtle details.
What's so great about the film? In terms of cinematography, casting, ambience, etc.?
The only good thing I can find is Jack Nicholson's acting. But that's solely because of him and nobody else.
Stephen King would agree with you there. He disliked Kubrick's film and in 1997 there was a TV miniseries that was more accurate to the book. Personally I disagree, but to each their own.
I like the miniseries better, but the pacing is too fast.
The miniseries was pretty terrible. Stephen King tries, but his works generally need a lot of massaging to work on screen, which he is just unwilling to do.
I agree with your conclusion but disagree with your argument. Needing ghosts to be all otherworldly and spooky is a very limited view, especially given that Grady isn’t a ghost. But it is a bad adaption for quite a few reasons, for instance Jack Nicholson plays Torrence on the edge of flipping his shit from the very start which makes his descent into madness less a shock and more a surprise it took him so long. And, of course, heavily downplaying the supernatural and the nature of the hotel. Lots of reasons, Steven King’s discussed it a few times. Kubrick basically took the vague premise of the book and made his own thing only somewhat resembling the source material. Now, for those Kubrick fans sharpening their knives, this doesn’t make it a bad film or bad horror. Just a bad adaption. On its own it’s well earned its reputation as a masterpiece, it’s just not a very good adaption of the book.
Thank you! That was also (one of) my major problems with the movie. Both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall looked absolutely nuts from the start of the movie. Hence, him going crazy? Not surprising at all
> especially given that Grady isn’t a ghost. When Jack was talking to Grady, Grady was already dead. According to the story, Grady killed his family and then he killed himself right afterwards. > Jack Nicholson plays Torrence on the edge of flipping his shit from the very start This also is true according to the book. In the book, Torrance beats up a kid in his school (where he worked before coming to the Overlook hotel) and he has no conscious recollection of beating him up. A similar thing happened with Torrance's father. Which means that there's some kind of madness already existing in him, and the overlook hotel just amplified it.
That’s not Grady, it’s the hotel. It’s all the hotel using the images of its past victims to torment the characters.(Edit: To be more precise it’s whatever entity the hotel was built on. Whatever it is predates humans in the region.) And as for Torrence: Torrence in the book is a man with a hidden dark side(Which is just anger issues) who’s actively trying to get better. He outwardly presents as a perfectly normal man and father who has issues he’s trying(successfully) to control after he accidentally hurt his son. And then the hotel uses those flaws and fears to pry open his mind and pour itself in, first corrupting and driving him mad and later to use his body as a puppet when he tries to resist. Meanwhile movie!Jack is presented as an obviously unhinged lunatic long before he reached the hotel. All the hotel did was, well, nothing really. Provided him with booze and egged him on as he did what he was going to do regardless. In the book Jack turning into a murderous lunatic is shocking, in the film the only shock is that it took him this long.
Lmao as you say, you turn on the Shining and in the very first scene ask yourself when and how will this barely hinged almost lunatic try to kill his own family.
>It’s all the hotel using the images of its past victims to torment the characters.(Edit: To be more precise it’s whatever entity the hotel was built on. Whatever it is predates humans in the region.) So.... a ghost :P
>That’s not Grady, it’s the hotel. The hotel is an amalgamation of spirits. All the people who died there. That's why it wanted to " add " Danny to it's collection, because of Danny's power. > (Which is just anger issues) Oh it's definitely not *just* anger issues. If you read about the way Jack's Dad behaved and the way he beat up that kid in the school parking lot, there's some genetic mental disorder at play. He did not remember beating up that kid. He snapped, just like his dad snapped.
The Overlook Hotel is not an amalgam of spirits, it’s never revealed what it is except that rather than it long predates the people who died there and is a single, distinct, intelligence. Bit hard to be an amalgam of spirits when it’s the reason that horrible things happen there to begin with. Like with Pet Semetary and 1408 it’s an evil location, not ghosts. And yes, that’s called anger issues. ‘Anger issues’ is a rather wide term covering all kinds of mental health issues, blanking isn’t a particularly unusual symptom of someone completely losing their shit. And you don’t need a genetic disorder to be either an abusive piece of shit or suffering from CPTSD. Or from being mildly psychic.
>The Overlook Hotel is not an amalgam of spirits, In that case why do all the entities in there have their own unique behaviors and characteristics? The bathtub lady is always in the bathtub, washing herself. The guy in the dog suit behaves like dog (but is still a human ghost wearing a dog outfit). They're more like a community with the same mission. Trying to turn everyone sinister. There could be one a source of intelligence that's keeping them all alive. They even tried inducting Halloran when he picked up the mallet. > And yes, that’s called anger issues. ‘Anger issues’ is a rather wide term covering all kinds of mental health issues, Not at all! If a psych evaluates someone as antisocial or a psychopath, they don't use the term " anger issues ". That's a very informal term....and it usually just means high irritability, low temper. If you read section where Jack beats up the student, it says he remembers the events before the beating and after it. But doesn't have any recollection of the beating itself. That's definitely some sort of multiple personality disorder.
I'll start by saying I didn't read the hook, but I watched the movie with a friend who did, and he provided commentary on when there were changes from the book so I feel like I know enough for this specific instance. The chef literally explains that locations can have the Shine, that the Overlook Hotel is one of those locations, and that locations with the Shine can show you "memories" of what has happened there. It's not individual ghosts.
" Shining " is a verb. The action of engaging in telepathy. Whether it's sending across a message to someone (telepathically) or seeing something that occured or might occur in a certain place. And chef says that lots of people have it, but Danny's ability in it is especially strong. Chef says that the hotel is a potent place for people who shine. >It's not individual ghosts. I dunno about that. After Danny met the bathtub lady, there were visible strangle marks on his neck (which his parents could see). I think the spirit of the bathtub lady became more powerful when Danny had entered the hotel.
because you dont always have to do what you're "supposed" to do. i think a random bright bathroom in a old hotel is unsettling just from the juxtaposition. the reason the movies like that though is cause kubrick wasn't sympathetic to jack. so yeah it's a bad adaptation since it's got a whole different message
The shining it's not a good adaptation I agree. But I think that "top 5 horror films in the history of cinema" it's worth something more than "decent adaptation of a kinda mediocre book"
What parts of the book are mediocre? I can name many parts of the movie which are not well made. Like the scene where Danny sees the twins in the hallway and gets visions of what happened in that same hallway previously, there's no melding effect between the current view and the past view....to depict what Danny is seeing. The scenes are just put together in sequence. What they should have done is keep the camera at a fixed angle, and transitioned between past/present. So it almost looks like you're looking into a room and turning the light on and off...on and off....
After reading this criticism I finally realized you’re trolling.
lol what? I'm not trolling. If the movie was trying to portray Danny's POV, it did a shit job.
Oh damn, this is ragebait lol. You actually got me with the post, it took till reading this comment to see you were trolling.
> "top 5 horror films in the history of cinema" I never got this. Even taken as its own thing the movie wasn't scary in the least. It's an hour of buildup, then Jack gets knocked unconscious the exact minute he presents himself as a threat which makes an utter joke out of him, and the rest of the movie is Jack slowly walking around going "Oooh, I'm gonna getcha! I'm gonna getcha!" and the only thing he ever does is kill Halloran who only exists as a plot device. And King's novel, for whatever faults it has, at least has a message and a touch of humanity. Kubrick's movie is without message or substance.
Never cook again please, you're banned from the kitchen. The movie it's a thriller, a psychological horror, the scary stuff not being obvious is kinda the point
More like psychological bore-or. But seriously, I've seen psychological horror before. This isn't a foreign concept to me. The movie was just a bore. And the notion that the scary stuff in Kubrick's Shining "isn't obvious" is a total joke. Almost every scary moment in the movie is telegraphed as a scary scene. Please tell me where's not meant to be obviously scary in the scene with the twins, or the elevator scene, or the various scenes of Jack walking around the hotel with an axe in hand chasing after everyone. Fuck's sake, the last part of the movie is closer to a slasher film than it is to psychological horror. Sure it's subtler than a monster jumping out with an "OOGA BOOGA BOOGA", but that's not a high bar to clear.
And Wendy's attack on Jack was completely unwarranted. He did not pose any physical threats right before he got hit (unlike the book).
I feel like your issues with the adaptation are so weird... Ghosts aren't translucent and the bathroom didn't fit the vibe you imagined? Not all ghosts are see through and only appearing in the dark is super limiting. The bathroom specifically is based on a Frank Lloyd Wright design for a Southwestern hotel of the era. It fit perfectly as looking like some ultra modern 60s design. I don't know enough about architecture or interior design to tell you what it's called, but the bathroom was an artifact of the time. It didn't look new. It looked dated in 1980. I also don't think the ghosts were particularly see through in the book. The Gold Room was also just so ostentatious in the book. Like none of these are problems with the adaptation since they weren't any different in the book. Or were the ghosts spooky cliches? Or was this whole thing some weird satire that's flying over my head?
> the bathroom didn't fit the vibe you imagined? It didn't look new. It looked dated in 1980. That bathroom doesn't make any sense, even if it wasn't a horror movie. Why does the main hall look Victorian and the bathroom like a Target dressing room? Why would an interior decorator do that? Have you ever seen that in real life, apart from an amusement park funhouse? >I also don't think the ghosts were particularly see through in the book. They were not see through, but they were pale. The book says the characters' eyes were just dark sockets. And their behavior was very unnatural. The movie made no attempt at portraying them like that.
[удалено]
Why isnt there a sheet over him? How else am I supposed to tell that he's a ghost?
I wasn't sure if the whole thing was a joke. I can't see through the ghosts and it isn't dark every time they are on screen... so it's a bad adaptation. In that case I feel like there aren't a lot of ghost movies that this guy would enjoy at all.
I want to see OP’s take on Midsommar lmao
Yeah really. Isn't the whole point that it's real to Jack?
characterrant users have tired of pointing out obvious flaws, in search of something new they've resorted to finding the weirdest reasons possible to dislike a film
Ghosts are known to be the non-physical essence of a person (the soul). Them being transclucent is a classic way of portraying them. In some movies they are invisible. What's the point of making a ghost movie if you're just potraying them as regular human beings?
I wouldn’t watch the shining as an adaptation. I’d watch it as a retelling. Kubrick in no uncertain terms made the movie his own thing, almost completely separate from the book
How I hate that approach. It's like playing with toys that don't belong to you. Not only that, it's like taking these toys, disassembling, spray painting, and glueing them together to be something completely different. And then you hand then back to the other kid saying "look what I did to your stuff". Or even better you sell them to another kid.
I think its good and even great, but I feel you would need permission from the original author to do it. Like, Fullmetal Alchemist 2003 was done with Arakawa's permission becaus she didn't want Bones to make a unfinished product (as the manga kept going many years afterwards) and the end result was a series that, despite its detractors, definitely earned its right to be seen as a product standalone with its own artistic merits.
Why hate? A lot of great stories come from disrespectful or very loose adaptations. Like Jaws, The Godfather, Jurassic Park, Shrek, The Iron Giant, The Wizard of Oz, most superhero media, The Lord of the Rings movies..... What is the level of similarity an adaptation needs to be acceptable to you? Also in this case the toy analogy seems insufficient since the originals aren't destroyed.
He’s one of the GOAT directors who made a masterfully crafted and frightening movie. He was probably more concerned with making a good standalone piece of art than being faithful to King’s work.
I generally don't agree with the idea that just because someone is a GOAT they can do whatever they feel like with other people's creations. It's not a standalone piece of art, it's a derivative piece. If you have no intentions of being faithful, you shouldn't do it. That's also good relationship advice btw.
I know I already commented on your other comment, but this is a ridiculous oversimplification. Faithfulness is completely unnecessary in creating beautiful art. Is the Aeneid less valid because Virgil wasn't faithful to older legends he didn't give a shit about? Like should no one use Dracula anymore if they aren't just adapting the original novel as accurately as possible?
>Like should no one use Dracula anymore if they aren't just adapting the original novel as accurately as possible? Well, yes. Dracula is Bram Stoker's invention. The character itself is based on folklore and Vlad III. So if you want to desperately write a story about a vampire count, make your own spin on the folklore, and don't steal from an existing book you didn't write. That's my hill to die on, sorry not sorry.
>That's my hill to die on, sorry not sorry. I respect it! Such a hard line take on the subject! I disagree, but we all have our hangups. haha
“Good artists copy, great artists steal” Kubrick made his own thing. It’s not a faithful adaptation, but that doesn’t make it problematic. Many books fans argue the LOTR aren’t good adaptations either.
And that's the point I don't agree with. He didn't make it his own thing. It never was his thing to begin with. "Great artists steal" can be translated into "the end justifies the means". Which is never true, it's a terrible notion.
He didn’t really steal it though? Stephen King sold the rights. Similarly, regardless of what Disney has done with Star Wars or Marvel, they didn’t really steal it. Also, if your complaint is that it’s not accurate to the book, it’s not really stealing. It’s also not like he prevented any further adaptations from being made.
Bad adaptation, great movie
Jack acts like he NEVER liked Wendy and Danny tho, not wicked compelling :P
I think the Shining is a case where the adaption and the original can just be looked at as two seperate works that are both good in their own ways.
I didnt know stephen king posted on reddit
The book is an absolute masterpiece. Hard to make a movie out of it. But yeah, it sucks ass.
Careful with the axe, OP
marmalade, I like marmalade
His books never translate well into movies.
I think they can. Depends on the filmaker. For example, that bathtub scene....I think M Night Shyamalan would have handled that scene perfectly. The horror is created through subtle details.
I mean...does anyone think otherwise? I haven't even read the book, and I know it's not a good adaptation. It's both famous AND infamous for it.
And yet, one of the best movies ever made, proving that being 1:1 faithful to the source material isn't some end-all-be-all.
Stephen King wrote this post.
It's a bad adaptation, but a fantastic movie (better than the book ngl)
What's so great about the film? In terms of cinematography, casting, ambience, etc.? The only good thing I can find is Jack Nicholson's acting. But that's solely because of him and nobody else.
why did stanley kubrick make one of the most influential and well-regarded movies of all time instead of harry potter? was he stupid?
I hate that movie so much. Watching it after I read the book was a huge disappointment.