Carth: In the book Danny's "imaginary friend" tony plays a much bigger role. He shows Danny what has happened in the past at the hotel and what his father is going though and helps protect him. Also in the book it is a lot clearer that the hotel itself is possessing Jack to the point he doesn't have control over his own actions anymore. During the final chase scene jack momentarily regains control of his body tells his son to run away and mutilates his own face before losing control to the hotel and going back on his rampage.

Jack also starts out in the book as just a regular guy who went through a really rough patch, not a man already right on the edge of sanity like he appears in Kubrick's film. There's plenty more about the hotel, too, including who the hell the guy in the bear suit is (Horace Derwent, the millionaire who restored the Overlook in the 1940s).

Wendy is also not nearly as annoying in the novel, Dick Halloran (who also appears in IT) doesn't just get axed in the back, and you do come to understand that it's not ghosts that art haunting the Overlook, the place itself is evil.

Eh, The Shining kinda sucked, anyway. The annoying little kid, the fish-woman who played the mom, and Jack Nicholson being crazy from the start just made for a bland, mildly creepy experience. No offense to those who loved it, but I don't consider a prequel to be sacrilege or anything.

wiredroach: Kubrick didn't miss the point any more than he did with "Red Alert" while making Dr. Strangelove, or "The Short-Timers" while making Full Metal Jacket, or for that matter his collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke on "2001," even though the book and film differ in some important ways. Kubrick always started from the novel but quickly made each film his own story. You're free to prefer the book, but Kubrick's choices were deliberate. "The Shining" is a great book, but the film is a better movie than the novel is a book.

Yes, his choices were deliberate, but it makes you wonder why use someone else's material in the first place? If you don't want to actually follow the point of the story, why even use it as a basis? He could have made a haunted house movie without it being The Shining. The bulk of the guy's work seems to be to take someone else's ideas and then completely re-do them and present them as his own, and that doesn't sit well with me.

His cinematography was excellent, and all the subtle stuff in the film are great, but it's still not his story. Maybe it's because I'm an author myself. It just feels sort of slimy.

Am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that some people think the line "Heeeeeere's Johnny!" originated in that movie?

/Old

Dr. Whoof: Shadowknight: He ultimately redeems himself by sacrificing his life to take out the hotel, or at least let it get destroyed by an overtaxed boiler, while his wife and son escape.

And this, right here, is why I hate Kubrick's version. He totally and completely missed the point of the story. The novel is about a good man who falls into evil and in the end redeems himself by saving his family and destroying the evil that consumed him. The novel is about a psycho with an axe. You can talk about how great the imagery is, and all the subtle stuff Kubrick added in, but all he did was make a typical haunted house story. He completely and utterly missed the point of the whole damned story.

Wait a minute. I just read the book about a month ago, and that isn't what happened at all.

In the book, Jack is overtaken by the hotel, chases Danny up to the third floor and to a dead end in the hallways. Danny refuses to believe that it's his daddy that is being all murdery, and the hotel-possessed Jack agrees and bashes himself in the face with the mallet until there isn't really a face left, and says something like "no more masks". Danny then remembers what it is that was forgotten (the boiler), and tells Jack-hotel that he had forgotten to reset the boiler and Jack was like oh shiat and ran off to fix it before the place blew. As Danny, Wendy, and Dick ran out the front door to escape Jack resets the boiler and is just congratulating himself on having saved the hotel (and planning on going back to kill them all) when it becomes clear it was too late and the boiler is going to blow anyways. As it explodes Jack is killed. Dick heads into the shed to get a blanket for Wendy and is almost possessed by the spirit of the hotel (which is dying but not yet dead, and REALLY pissed), but fights it off and they escape.

Jack is not redeemed, except in that it is made clear that he wasn't in control at that point (though he more or less willingly gave up that control along the way). He doesn't do anything to save his family, and he tries desperately to save the evil hotel.

The movie is about a man that is driven mad by ghosts in a hotel. The book is about a man that is gradually possessed by a hotel, which is an evil entity itself. But really, they're both haunted house stories of a kind. Frankly, I think the book version is a little more absurd because it makes an inanimate object a primary character, instead of just making it the location where the evil ghosts haunt.

Stephen King doesn't know when to stop, and that's what makes his novels so...tedious.

Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is superior to the novel in almost every way. Kubrick understands the idea of "economy" in storytelling. Leaving stuff out is important. That's where King fails in EVERY novel he's written since "Carrie". He rambles and digresses and it's boring-as-fark. King's short-stories, however, are generally pretty good.

King needs an editor that isn't afraid to say "Okay, this book is about 30% longer than it needs to be"

brigid_fitch: And don't forget the part in the book where the Overlook blows up real good. That was the dumbest part of the book: "You will remember what your father forgot, Danny." Ooooo, that sounds ominous. Is it a moral imperative, maybe, or some deeply subconscious link they both share? What is it? TELL ME!

Oh, Jack forgot to dump the boiler so the furnace blows up. Ta-da.

How is that dumb? It's foreshadowing. It's basic storytelling. It also means Danny will remember that his father is a good man at heart, so it has a double meaning.

So..yeah, not getting how that was dumb.

Shadowknight: He ultimately redeems himself by sacrificing his life to take out the hotel, or at least let it get destroyed by an overtaxed boiler, while his wife and son escape.

And this, right here, is why I hate Kubrick's version. He totally and completely missed the point of the story. The novel is about a good man who falls into evil and in the end redeems himself by saving his family and destroying the evil that consumed him. The novel is about a psycho with an axe. You can talk about how great the imagery is, and all the subtle stuff Kubrick added in, but all he did was make a typical haunted house story. He completely and utterly missed the point of the whole damned story.

Also, for those who don't like the miniseries....

Kubrick's Wendy:


Miniseries Wendy:

miss diminutive: skinink: Instead of seeing a prequel to the Shining, I actually would like to see a good movie that does closely follow the book. The TV version was just too cheesy and held no suspense. I could imagine Ben Foster or Ed Norton as the lead in a remake.

Where did Kubrick's version deviate from the book?

Well, it took him a LOT longer to go crazy in the book. It doesn't mention his history of abuse either, does it? Also, living plant art animals, but I'm kind of glad those weren't in the movie... I enjoyed the book a little more, but the movie was very good too.

What, the first one wasn't boring enough?

Hetfield: FTA: It centres on a tribe of vampiric immortals called The True Knot, who feed off the energy of children who can "shine".

Good Lord. Stephen King has turned into the Kevin Smith of writing.

Turned into? I think you mean Kevin Smith is the Stephen King of directing.

DeltaPunch: To be perfectly honest I'm fine with the writers from Shutter Island, Black Swan, and Zodiac working on this. The latter two movies rated 87% and 90% on RT, respectively. And I'd much rather see the backstory to the twins getting murdered than whatever vampire sequel King is working on now.

Yeah, I can't say I can argue with putting directors that have worked mostly on nonsensical, simplistic, and blatantly manipulative but popular and stylish tripe on a Stephen King project. It does seem kind of right, in a way.

It is kind of an insult by association to Kubrick, though, I mean he tended to make actual movies with plots 'n shiat, the Shamalayan twist bullshiat that fueled Shutter Island and Black Swan is kind of unworthy of a project that even vaguely references him.

//Didn't see Zodiac on the assumption that it was probably better when it was called Dirty Harry. According to most of the critics I was apparently pretty much right.

James F. Campbell: What was wrong with the first one?

Besides putting me to sleep and having no relation to the book? Nothing, nothing at all.