"Stephen King's version of the Shining".

Stephen King is overrated in my opinion...

Well I haven''t actually read any of his books. But most movies based on his books suck.

I have to admit, Kubrick''s The Shining is one of the rare occasions where the movie''s better than the book.

You know you''re a programmer when your computer is like family. When it''s more like a lover, you need help.

The Shining is one King book I haven't read. The movie was great and still is even if it doesn't have all the fast edits that have become so popular in the last 10 years. Let's see... other King writings made into movies that I can recall off the top of my head:
Cujo (sucked)
Carrie - pretty cool for what it was
Christine - also pretty cool for what it was
Shawshank Redemption - entertaining
The Green Mile - entertaining
Stand By Me - entertaining

I've seen a few "made for TV" adaptations too, although the only one I can recall right now is "The Stand", which was ok. Oh and "Salem's Lot" which was kind of cheesy.

So, I think it fair to say that King's horror novels don't translate as well to film as his "slice of life" writings do.

// Edit: a couple more came to mind
Firestarter (sucked)
The Dead Zone - pretty damn cool


[edited by - lessbread on July 23, 2002 1:57:13 AM]

The Stand was a good (and lengthy) movie, and a good book. The book was better, in my opinion (I read the unabridged version).

I agree that I prefer movie version to the book.

But as for why Stephen King hates the movie: If you read the book, a major theme is Jack Torrence''s struggle with alcoholism, a problem Stephen King has had to deal with in real life. The Shining was a personal work, and Kubrick more or less jettisoned the entire element which made it such.

quote:

---

Original post by Thraddash
I agree that I prefer movie version to the book.

But as for why Stephen King hates the movie: If you read the book, a major theme is Jack Torrence''s struggle with alcoholism, a problem Stephen King has had to deal with in real life. The Shining was a personal work, and Kubrick more or less jettisoned the entire element which made it such.

---

Um... are you certain of that? Some of the best scenes in the movie are of Nicholson at the bar drinking ghost whiskey...

Silver Bullett (scary when I was a kid, but crappy now)
Needful Things (barely worth the $1 to rent it)
The Night Flyer (or something like that) (Barely a B Movie)


That''s all i can think to add at the moment..

The Green Mile is probably the best ''stephen king movie'', simply becuase the Shining was changes so much by Stanley Kubrick, it stopped being a Stephen King movie, and started being a Stanly Kubrick movie. (and Stanley Kubrick movies are ALL great).

quote:

---

Original post by LessBread
Um... are you certain of that? Some of the best scenes in the movie are of Nicholson at the bar drinking ghost whiskey...

---

hehe.. true.. the best parts of the movie are when Kubrick let Jack Nicholson do what he does best.. act like a crazed lunatic, talking to himself, and generally being creepy.

Pet Sematary - I didn''t see it so I can''t say.

I don''t know, I think "Stand By Me" was pretty good. It still holds up. I think "Shawshank" and "Green Mile" benefitted a lot from having really good actors too. But on the other hand, "Green Mile" holds the attention pretty well. And "The Dead Zone" seems a bit dated now, but Christopher Walken does a bang up job with it.

quote:

---

Um... are you certain of that? Some of the best scenes in the movie are of Nicholson at the bar drinking ghost whiskey...

---

True enough, it''s still there, but seriously diluted. Its been a while since I dipped into either the book or the movie, but it is the thing I remember most from the book, like how his drinking cost Jack his teaching job, contributed to him injuring Danny, the troubles it caused between him and his wife.

These all added to the depth of the character, whereas the movie Jack was more of a 1 dimensional psycho (albeit a very well acted one).

Someone explain the Bear scene really fast...

quote:

---

Original post by aegrimonia
hehe.. true.. the best parts of the movie are when Kubrick let Jack Nicholson do what he does best.. act like a crazed lunatic, talking to himself, and generally being creepy.

---

Yeah, he does play the homicidal maniac quite well, but I''m drawing a blank on other examples of that. McMurphy wasn''t quite homicidal and the guy in Chinatown ended up with his nose busted so...

quote:

---

Original post by Thraddash
True enough, it''s still there, but seriously diluted. Its been a while since I dipped into either the book or the movie, but it is the thing I remember most from the book, like how his drinking cost Jack his teaching job, contributed to him injuring Danny, the troubles it caused between him and his wife.

These all added to the depth of the character, whereas the movie Jack was more of a 1 dimensional psycho (albeit a very well acted one).

---

Movies aren''t very good at providing back story, whereas that''s what novels do best. I think Kubrick opted on spending more time establishing the "character" of the resort as that played a more central role this being essentially a "haunted house" story. He let the actors take care of the back story and fill in the empty spaces in regards to the "haunted house" as metaphor for tortured marriage.

quote:

---

Movies aren''t very good at providing back story, whereas that''s what novels do best. I think Kubrick opted on spending more time establishing the "character" of the resort as that played a more central role this being essentially a "haunted house" story. He let the actors take care of the back story and fill in the empty spaces in regards to the "haunted house" as metaphor for tortured marriage.

---

Which is part of the reason the film came off better than the book. I still thought Jack''s motives for going nuts could have been developed somewhat better. Just my opinion though.

oh yeah.. the dead zone! that was a good one.. a great one..
i''m a walken fan.. so yeah.

quote:

---

Original post by Thraddash
Which is part of the reason the film came off better than the book. I still thought Jack''s motives for going nuts could have been developed somewhat better. Just my opinion though.

---

Yeah, that part could have been elaborated a bit more at the beginning as part of the whole reason Jack took the caretaking job in the first place. But since it''s Kubrick''s style to let the scenery chew the camera rather than the actors, it''s not surprising that he spent more time on the back story of the lodge than the family. A lot of what narratively is delivered as a manifestation of the mental psychosis of the actors also goes towards building the "character" of the lodge - the claustrophia inducing scenes of the hallways and such. As the movie progresses the lodge looms larger and larger and each characters psychosis grows more intense as well until finally the lodge "takes" Jack - figuratively and ultimately literally too.

Going one step further, it''s also interesting to consider the double meanings of the words "lodge" and "resort" in a psychological context. Of course, that nod goes to King, but it''s Kubrick that truly fleshes it out. I think at base King''s horror writings aren''t far removed from comic books, and "The Shining" aside, of his other "horror" novels that were made into films, the best ones were those that recognized the comic book aspect and brought that to the screen.

Misery - Good Movie Surprised you guys Missed that one.
Sometimes They Come Back - Not so good (story was better)
Lawnmower Man - Nothing at all like the short story, except the lawnmower part.
The Dark Half - So long ago, I barely remember the movie
Tommyknockers - Not a good book, and not a good movie
It - Great Movie and even better book

The Book''s I want to see adapted to movies: The Talisman, and The Dark Tower Books (please, please, please!)

Didn''t King also write Creepshow and Maximum Overdrive?

I don''t like his writing much but I thought the movie and TV versions of The Shining were both good. Actually, I never saw the entire TV miniseries, but the episode or two that I did see looked pretty good. The Langoliers didn''t look too bad despite the fact that it contained one of the goofiest lines ever. The blind girl who heard the Langoliers approaching well before the others could likened the sound they make to Rice Crispies. At one point she screams out something like "I can hear them! That horrible cereal noise!" Nothing says terror quite like "snap, crackle, pop".

Sean

Well, Maximum Overdrive wasn''t a book adaptation, and I don''t think Creepshow was either.