...people are so dependent on Kubrick's version.
If they had adapted The Shining in 1980, but they had made it like this version, people would really love it - it's only because Kubrick's was first that they prefer it and think it's better.
1980: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/awards
1997: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118460/awards
"You're not my daddy."
"What a clever little boy it is. Or thinks it is.
You're wrong.
shareNo, not all people like one over the other for that reason.
I have always loved the Kubrick version. Still do. Just went up to the Stanley Hotel yesterday, so I thought I'd give the mini-series another go, since it was filmed there.
The mini-series is cheesy. It's not /horrible/, but it's cheesy. And, the kid who plays Danny is so bad in the role that it's hard to watch.
Kubrick's version is scary, animated topiaries just aren't. OOOohhhh, lookout, that fire hose is gonna getcha!
Everyone has their own opinion, obviously, but I understand why most people love the Kubrick version and roll their eyes at the mini-series.
I couldn't agree more. Kubrick is a wonderful director just as Nicholson is a grade-A actor. And that film has been a classic horror film for years. What sickens me is how many people that don't know of the film learn about it, and either forget that it was Stephen King's story to begin with or disregard the mini-series all together. In terms of being a "film", and nothing more. Kubrick's version is perfect. Not everything from a book can translate to film, it would simply be too long. And the mini-series shows that. However, you can't simply cut down a story as long as The Shining to a mere 2 hour long film and not lose key story elements. This is what disgusts me. Simply too much was taken out and altered in Kubrick's version. His changes still made for a good movie, but I still think it would have been just as good if not better had he stuck more to the original story. King was searching for purity and wanted the story told the right way, which in ways is why I consider his version better. Here's my pro's and con's for both films.
The Shining (1980)
Pros:
A-List Actor Jack Nicholson
Superior Directing by Stanley Kubrick
Suspense Galore
Cons:
Original Story Inaccuracies
TERRIBLE Danny, Voice "Their is no Danny, only Zuel" Finger Twitch
Uses Shock Factor to Get Audiences to Praise How Scary It Is
The Shining (1997)
Pros:
Follows Original Story Almost Perfect
Stephen Weber as Jack Torrance, No offense to Nicholson, but Weber plays the PERFECT Jack Torrance, it's real, believable, you really see this guy go from the nice guy to over the the wall insane. Nicholson just always looks that way, lol
Limited budget actually led the crew to cooking up more creative scares :D
Cons:
4 Hours+, a little too long to tackle in a single sitting
Danny, a little better, but still room for improvement
Censorship, since this was TV it was censored from showing more gore, which I'm sure King wanted to include a little bit more.
No no no, just...no. The Kubrick version is much more popular because it's by far the better movie. Faithfulness to the book is irrelevant. Faithfulness to the book doesn't make it any less of a watered down tv movie.
Keep in mind I don't mind this miniseries. I appreciate it's faithfulness to the book and I'll watch it if it's on tv. But it is just not in the same league.
LedgerJoker: Tonight you'll break your one rule!
KeatonBatman: What rule? <breaks his neck>
No. It's because the Kubrick movie was better. Forget about this one being more faithful, that has nothing to do with it. I've read the book before and am currently re-reading it. It's a good novel. But unfortunately the mini-series, while more faithful, is absolutely soulless in it's presentation. Kubrick knew how to make a good film and succeeded in making a scary movie. The mini-series is just cheesy and not very compelling.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die.
[deleted]
People do connect to the first iteration, to some extent, no matter what the following versions change. I believe though that the experience of watching The Shining (1980) is one of the great film experiences I had though. It is because it is an experience made for film, and it doesn't feel like a novel or a short story. Specifically because of the number of tracking shots it feels like something only possible in the form of film.
People tend to forget what is so intriguing about the 1980 version when comparing, and this just ruins the whole argument. The point of Kubrick's was to leave questions unanswered, and as some others here said, Kubrick made what he wanted to make and he didn't want to make King's story. He wanted the premise because he saw something he could do with it that would be totally unique and his own.
King disliked the version because it wasn't his story, it was Kubrick's. Authors don't like seeing their work changed and that is completely understandable and I'd probably be upset too. But the film is too different to compare to a straight adaption of King's novel. Characters have different motivations and psyches.
The maze was implemented because it had a similar feeling to the hallways and it was cinematic. It would have served no purpose in the book because the form is different than print. Horror in writing doesn't compare to the experience of horror in person or in cinema, because seeing something and believing something are two different things.
Stephen King himself was the executive producer. That's good enough for me, as it should for everybody.
shareStephen King himself was the executive producer. That's good enough for me, as it should for everybody.
I like both.... I mean if Sam Raimi or John Carpenter came along to direct they would be different again.
shareNot sure how you can screw up your own story but whatever. I still liked both versions.
shareI like movies that are well made, that's why I prefer Kubrick's version. Cheap made-for-tv production values, horrible acting and uninspired and boring directing isn't anything I'm particularily fond of - but that's just me.
Here's a funny video that showcases Steven Weber's phenomenal acting performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny1tTTJk9Ok