Did King like the movie?
-
sascha-17 — 10 years ago(August 14, 2015 02:44 AM)
And though King just hated Kubrick's version of "The Shining", he was very impressed with the "made for tv" version that was released, back in the '90s?? And no argument, that was a lot closer to the original novel. Worth checking out.
Well yeah. That was probably because he was directly involved in the production of the made for TV version. From imdb's trivia-page for the series:
Stephen King was extremely unhappy with Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the novel, which is why he had such a hands-on approach with the mini-series. He not only wrote the teleplay, but he even makes a cameo in it. The mini-series brings back a lot of the things that Kubrick ejected, particularly Jack's struggle with alcoholism.
And while there's no denying that the series is a lot closer to the novel than the movie, it's just a pile of cheese compared to the Kubrick-version. Don't get me wrong: I do like the novel, but the miniseries effectively shows that you can't just do a scene-for-scene book-to-screen adaptation and expect it to work. Film/TV and novels are very different types of media and what works in one of them doesn't necessarily translate directly to the other.
S. -
jbaker1-2 — 1 year ago(May 29, 2024 01:04 PM)
As seems to be the case with many King adaptations for some reason, IMHO the major problem with the miniseries is the cast.
For what it's worth I dislike Kubrick's
Shining
as much as King did, if not more.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
doowopfan — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 12:22 PM)
IN the book Stephen King at the Movies he says Cujo and Cat's Eye were his favorites. The Shining and Children of the COrn were his least favorites. And this it says there are some that leave me cold like Christine.
Not sure what he meant by that exactly but that is what he thought of it.
I did sixty in five minutes once -
TheSwordofValthrakian — 10 years ago(August 03, 2015 11:34 PM)
I watched the dvd years ago and either in the commentary or featurette, it was said that the screenplay and novel were being written simultaneously and at some point in the process, Stephen King took the novel in a different direction.
-
Chris-Au — 10 years ago(August 20, 2015 01:24 PM)
Re: Did King like the movie?
by
TheSwordofValthrakian
Mon Aug 3 2015 23:34:08
IMDb member since August 2006
I watched the dvd years ago and either in the commentary or featurette, it was said that the screenplay and novel were being written simultaneously and at some point in the process, Stephen King took the novel in a different direction.
Yeah
No.
Not true.
Stephen King wrote 'The Shining' in 1974 while living in Colorado. The book was published in January 1977.
At some point after the book was published Kubrick was in search of his next project after 'Barry Lyndon'. He was given a stack of horror novels and he read through them.
'The Shining' was the book he picked.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg
Chris -
eweland — 10 years ago(February 09, 2016 02:55 PM)
King has since softened his views on The Shiningand he should. Kubrick improved greatly on the book and made a near flawless tale of terror, with no wasted scenesunlike the book, which is bloated and self-serving.
Sorry, but there was NOTHING terrifying about hedge monsters coming to life and rambling on and on about a boiler.
King was big time into his cocaine and alcohol addiction when he wrote The Shining, and it shows in the book.
This. Absolutely, THIS!
_
Kubrick's film -
will always be the definitive version of
THE SHiNiNG
. -
jbaker1-2 — 1 year ago(May 29, 2024 01:11 PM)
I'm also a member of that small club. Just because the name Stanley Kubrick is attached to a movie doesn't make it a masterpiece. In fact, I find a fair percentage of Kubrick's work to be boring and self-indulgent, plus he had a (to me) very annoying habit when adapting a novel of more or less tossing out what the author wrote and using his/her characters to tell his own story. That's basically what he did with
The Shining
. To be honest, I think I disliked it even more than King did.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
IceboxMovies — 2 years ago(August 03, 2023 10:22 PM)
King was bored by it.
He had this to say in his introduction to the 2003 publication
Dreamcatcher: The Shooting Script
:
"I may just be the most adapted novelist in modern times… and I don't say that with pride so much as with a kind of stunned bemusement. Several honorable adaptations have come from this thirty-year spew of celluloid… and the best of those have had few of the elements I'm best known for: science fiction, fantasy, the supernatural, and pure gross-out moments… The books that do have those elements have, by and large, become films that are either forgettable or outright embarrassing. Others – I'm thinking chiefly of
Christine
and Stanley Kubrick's take on
The Shining
– should have been good but just… well, they just aren't. They're actually sort of boring. Speaking for myself, I'd rather have bad than boring." -
jbaker1-2 — 1 year ago(May 29, 2024 01:16 PM)
It seems that Hollywood just didn't know what to do with King - until Frank Darabont came along. Rob Reiner, to give credit where it's due, did turn
The Body
into a good movie, but by the time he was done with it, it wasn't really the story King wrote.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
AnthonySocksss — 1 year ago(December 24, 2024 07:20 AM)
it wasn't really the story King wrote.
wdym it’s almost word for word recreation of the novella
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
