Go to Discussions about Stephen King
- Add a comment
- Go to Looking for Advice About The Shining.
Thanks Gypsy Wolf.
For sharing all that information; much of it I did not know.
posted by
archiew
on March 4, 2004 at 7:37 AM
| link to this | reply
No Jack, no "Shining"...
That's just my own personal take on it. I've seen both the original and the remake, and to me, the remake pales by comparison. There IS no comparison between them, actually. I know that King never liked Kubrick's version (Kubruck "strayed" from the book a bit in some areas, and completely omitted the classically chilling topiary altogether*). But it is still a CLASSIC HORROR MOVIE, regardless. It can even go up against today's horror fare and stand its ground just fine. To me, the only man for the job as "Jack Torrance" was and still is Jack Nicholson. And although I give Steven Weber full credit for having the cojones to step into those immensely intimidating and legendary shoes, he just didn't have what it took. Toward the end of the remake, when "Torrance" started really losing it, the special-effects department had to come in on it to try to "make" Weber look spooky; they failed (he just looked ridiculous). Nicholson merely contorted his facial features, and it was "goose-bump city"! And Shelley Duvall, much as I don't particularly like her, made for the perfectly mousey "Wendy Torrance", as well. My hubby, a longtime King worshipper, disagrees with me -- he actually prefers the remake. But he does admit that Nicholson was definitely perfect for the role of "Jack Torrance". From my own views, though, I'd stick with the original and forget about the remake.
(*Kubrick DID attempt, by the way -- many times -- to incorporate the topiary into the movie. But with special-effects technology being as limited as it was back then, none of the efforts by the SPFX crew worked out. Kubrick said the hedge animals looked ridiculous, and the effect would have been completely lost. So, he had to finally scratch the idea, substituting the hedge maze for the topiary. Hence, Kubrick can't be totally held to blame for leaving it out...)
posted by
GypsyWolf
on March 4, 2004 at 7:26 AM
| link to this | reply
OK the book was scary as hell, but the movie with jack nicholson made me almost shit my britches on a few parts, but I scare easily.hehehe
posted by
SizeXtraPoor
on March 1, 2004 at 11:20 PM
| link to this | reply
I've never heard of the miniseries. Loved the film and if the series is better, then surely it's a must.
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on February 24, 2004 at 2:42 PM
| link to this | reply
The DVD Miniseries
Stephen King hated the movie (hollywoodized) version of his book. The series on DVD is more closely tied to the original story. I thought it was excellent. Give it try.
posted by
First_Fig
on February 18, 2004 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
I haven't seen the mini-series...
however, I agree with Cantey. It is nearly impossible to do a decent portrayal of all of the thoughts & emotions he writes about. The only book I felt was even remotely portrayed well on screen was Delores Claiborne.
posted by
Tamara99
on February 18, 2004 at 1:26 AM
| link to this | reply
It is imposible to translate Kings writing to screen so filmakers must add their own skill and flair to Kings premise. What makes Kings writing so unforgettable and endearing is his gifted ability for complex and startling charectar invention which is impossible in 2 hrs of conventional celluliod. So, stick to Kubrick.
posted by
cantey
on February 18, 2004 at 1:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks Sassyass
I'll check that out this evening and put it on my rental list.
posted by
archiew
on February 17, 2004 at 6:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Go rent Jeepers Creepers
Its a better movie. I personally didn't like the movie The Shining so I can't imagine a part two.
posted by
Sherri_G
on February 16, 2004 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Beedle!
I guess I'll have to rent it and see. Can't say I'll be able to bear it without Jack Nicholson! But, I'll leave my opinion on this blog after I watch it.
Thanks again. 
posted by
archiew
on February 16, 2004 at 8:02 PM
| link to this | reply
I'd say don't bother
Apparently the new version is truer to the book and King never liked the first The Shining. Interesting to see, I guess, for those reasons - but no Jack Nicholson? No Kubrick? a tv version starring the guys from Wings? I haven't bothered watching it yet.
posted by
beedle
on February 16, 2004 at 5:08 PM
| link to this | reply