Yes the Kubrick film is better than this
It's also better than Stephen King's schlock novel - which no one would remember if not for Kubrick's film.
shareKing's novel was a best seller before Kubrick's film came out. Don't post stupid things, its a horror classic.
Kubrick's film became a classic in its own right but the book did not need it to be remembered.
Actually it's got a glaring mistake: who would not retrofit a million-dollar historic hotel with a modern boiler? Or at least hire the same person to be the winter caretaker for years on end, not just a different person each season.
So much for a horror classic.
The book certainly wasn't remembered as fondly after the stupid miniseries.
The Kubrick film IS far superior, in every way.
Actually it's got a glaring mistake: who would not retrofit a million-dollar historic hotel with a modern boiler? Or at least hire the same person to be the winter caretaker for years on end, not just a different person each season.
So much for a horror classic.
The book certainly wasn't remembered as fondly after the stupid miniseries.
The Kubrick film IS far superior, in every way.
Wow. Really? Lets see, "well I used to like Stephen King's novel the Shining, but that mini-series ruined for me," said no one ever. I will be the first to admit a lot of people disliked the mini series, but it did not affect the popularity of the book one way or the other.
And why they didn't get a new boiler was clearly and rationally explained. The Overlook had never made a lot of money despite its popularity, almost everyone who tried to run it lost money because of the depreciation losing a lot of business over the late fall, winter, and spring caused. Ullman and his people had run in the red for several years, the previous season to when the Torrances were there was the first season they ran in the black. In a situation like that replacing the boiler would be difficult if you are losing money. Its hardly infeasible for people running things to skimp on seemingly mundane aspects of a hotel operation if they feel like they can get by with it. Apparently you've never know anyone cheap before. In fact Jack refers to Ullman as a cheap prick a number of times.
As to why they didn't hire the same people to be caretakers of the Overlook, I would imagine it would be hard to find anyone to take a job where they are in a situation of being cut off from the world for months for even one season, much less get someone to do it every single year. Who in the world except some crazy hermit would want to be marooned in a hotel by himself for months every single year?
If you don't like the novel, that's your business and right. Just don't act like it needed Kubrick's film to be popular, Kubrick's film wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the novel. Its not a bad film don't get me wrong, but its a far cry from being the flawless classic people make it to be.
There's no such thing as a 'flawless classic'. That's just hyperbole. Kubrick's film is just damn good film making and people still return to it again and again. Kubrick's film making language is much more expressive than King's literary language. I will say though that both are better than this miniseries.
shareTo add to your post..
No guest were at the hotel over the winter. I wouldn't have replaced a working furnace that was used a handful of times at the end of the season.