• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

has there been any movie that was......

Stephen King on Kubrick/The Shining

"Bare Bones: Conversations on terror with Stephen King" -Tim Underwood & Chuck Miller, editors.

("Playboy Interview: Stephen King." Published in U.S. Playboy, June 1983)

He used to make transatlantic calls to me from England at odd hours of the day and night, and I remember once he rang up and asked, "Do you believe in God?" I thought a minute and said, "Yeah, I think so." Kubrick replied, "No, I don't think there is a God," and hung up. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of the Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others... The second problem was in characterization and casting. Jack Nicholson...was all wrong for the part...What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by man who thinks too much and feels too little...I'd like to remake The Shining someday, maybe even direct it myself...
Click to expand...

I love that last part about remaking The Shining ;)
 
stand by me is a great film. part of the reason I enjoy it so much is that I saw it on tv when I was really young, so it's always had this kind of a mystical quality to it.

by the way, I read that stephen king interview in fangoria a couple months ago. I'm inclined to think stephen king was rather unfair with kubrick. basically, what it comes down to is that he was pissed off that he didn't get to write the screenplay for the shining, so he disowned the film completely. at least that's what started it. I don't know, part of the reason that interview from playboy keeps getting republished is that, by contract, stephen king isn't allowed to say anything bad about kubrick's version of the shining, not since kubrick gave him the rights to produce his own version of it.
 
Libra6Poe said:
I love that last part about remaking The Shining ;)
Click to expand...

Stephen King did remake The Shining, I think as a TV mini-series. It was a lot better than Kubrick's film (which I personally hate), but still wasn't quite right.
 
Wow. What am I missing? I loved the movie The Shining. I thought Jack Nicholson was awesome and the whole movie was really cool. Let's also not forget that the mini-series for TV that King did covered something like 4-5 hours of viewing time so some details could be worked out a little better, and Kubrick only had 1.5 hours or something like that right? Plus it's easier for somebody to go back and remake the same thing years later and "improve" some of the shaky places. Hindsight is 20/20 right?

Maybe I shouldn't question this because I don't want to have any of you change my opinion of the original, but I don't get how the mini-series was better than the movie.

I think King should stick to writting the story and let somebody else have control of the movie. Kings best movies are the ones where he's not directly invovled. At least as far as I know. King had nothing directly to do with Shawshank or Stand By Me did he?
 
The Wizard of Oz book is terrible. Boring, babyish, no interest in the characters.

And the movie, well, the music is brilliant, the set design is awesome, and it was turned into a parable for 900 different things.
 
cider house rules. i really enjoyed the movie and have liked other john irving novels, but oh how i hated that book. i never finished it.
now, the world according to garp, i loved book and movie alike. and i liked a widow for one year and have yet to see door in the floor i think it is called?
 
Halo said:
Stephen King did remake The Shining, I think as a TV mini-series. It was a lot better than Kubrick's film (which I personally hate), but still wasn't quite right.
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Yeah, I saw it on TV many years ago. What I loved about that last part was, well, it came true. ;)

I feel the same way you do about both Shinings.
 
Motokid said:
Wow. What am I missing? I loved the movie The Shining. I thought Jack Nicholson was awesome and the whole movie was really cool. Let's also not forget that the mini-series for TV that King did covered something like 4-5 hours of viewing time so some details could be worked out a little better, and Kubrick only had 1.5 hours or something like that right? Plus it's easier for somebody to go back and remake the same thing years later and "improve" some of the shaky places. Hindsight is 20/20 right?

Maybe I shouldn't question this because I don't want to have any of you change my opinion of the original, but I don't get how the mini-series was better than the movie.

I think King should stick to writting the story and let somebody else have control of the movie. Kings best movies are the ones where he's not directly invovled. At least as far as I know. King had nothing directly to do with Shawshank or Stand By Me did he?
Click to expand...

Did you read The Shining? Because we're just talking about comparing both movies to the book. And of course King's movie is more right on with the characters. Afterall, it's his characters.

Well, I suppose what it comes down to is... apples & oranges. ;)
 
jenngorham said:
cider house rules. i really enjoyed the movie and have liked other john irving novels, but oh how i hated that book. i never finished it.
now, the world according to garp, i loved book and movie alike. and i liked a widow for one year and have yet to see door in the floor i think it is called?
Click to expand...

*Gasp!!* :eek: I loved them both!! I read the book when the movie came out (I'm one of those - gotta read it before I see it people), and adored it! It was the first John Irving I ever read, and I've read all that I can find since then. The themes and values of that book really sung to me - that one must be 'of use', and that rules can be broken (I know I defined that better after I read it, but it escapes me now).

Remember reading English books back in high school where teachers seemed to really squeeze the life out of them by over analysis and grasping at tenuous 'themes'? Well, this one hung them out there to dry and they weren't contrived at all.

I finally got around to seeing the movie about 2 months ago, and it was just as good as the book. The same themes rang true, and the characters were just like in the book. My father was a little perplexed by the whole thing, but I simply adored it!

I still haven't seen 'The Door in the Floor', but I saw it for sale in the video store last night so it's out on DVD. I'll be renting it as soon as I get some time and will definately be posting about it for good or bad.
 
let me know what you think of the movie. i will have to give the book another chance then. i really really loved the movie, so maybe that was the prob. i will try not to compare. and for anyone who is just waiting to stomp all over this statement, i almost always think the book is far better than the movie, even when the movies are fab.
 
jenngorham said:
let me know what you think of the movie. i will have to give the book another chance then. i really really loved the movie, so maybe that was the prob. i will try not to compare. and for anyone who is just waiting to stomp all over this statement, i almost always think the book is far better than the movie, even when the movies are fab.
Click to expand...

No, I can understand. That movie *was* awesome. But I reckon you should try the book again. I will definately let you know what I think of 'The Door in the Floor'.
 
The Shining

On the Stephen King/Shining comparison, I pick the book. I read it when I was 13 and it scared the crap out of me and compelled me to read and collect his books. I've read it twice since-its one of the only books I've re-read!

The first movie is practically a different story, and while it has cool scares and special effects, it doesn't make up for the details left out or entirely changed. Especially the ending-completely different.

The King remake is closer to the book, but... :confused:

I heard that King actually liked the film version of 'Carrie'. It seems he was sitting behind two large muscular men when he went to see it, and they were all jumpy and talking to the screen, and King said to his wife something like 'This is going to be huge!', and was very pleased with it.
I think "Carrie" is equal to the book because of Sissy Spacek. She is so scary and intense in the last half hour of that film--her eyes, her walk, the end with Mom--scary---and one of my favorites!

Also agree that 'Rosemary's Baby' is great on film. Its got everything. Mia Farrow is excellent in it as well as Ruth Gordon as the 'sweet old lady next door'.
 
The Scarlet Pimpernel was much better as a movie. The book is downright badly written. The movie version is more polished.
 
The Graduate was a far better movie than book.
I disagree about The Princess Bride - loved the book, thought the movie was weak. Plus, I read it years before the movie came out - as I recall.

I wonder if it matters if you see the movie first or read the book first. In most cases, I won't see a movie of a book first, if I'm intending to read the book. The movie spoils the book for me, on the other hand, the book psychs me up for the movie - but I'm invariably disappointed in the movie if I really liked the book.

I read On The Beach a few months ago and thought it incredibly powerful, in an understated way. I looked for the Stanly Kramer movie w/ G. Peck and A. Gardener, but could not find it. At last I ordered it from Amazon and watched it a few days ago - thought it was great and pretty faithful to the book - still, the book was far better.

In general, books are a more powerful medium than cinema as far as provoking the imagination and emotional responses, and creating attachments to characters. I think if a book is pretty weak - like The Graduate, and they make a movie out of it with a great director (Mike Nichols) and great actors (Dustine Hoffman, Ann Bancroft) then probably the movie is going to be better. On the other hand, if a book is great, than the movie is going to be inferior no matter HOW great the actors and director. And after all, they use great books as source material for movies MOST of the time. And that's why the movie is usually not as good as the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top