kubrick VS Garris

[tom-tom]

whose version of the shining did you find was more entertaining? For me it was Garris's version. it may have been much longer but it included most of the necassary detail that makes SK's novel a masterpiece...
Any thoughts?

[barbra]

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13933

[slasherman]

Kubrick of course

[Rufus]

Kubricks version is awsome but I like Mick Garris's version a bit better because it followed the book.

[zwoti]

kubrick

[_____V_____]

Kubrick's was more into the psyche...so Kubrick it is

[bwind22]

kubrick

[EXTR3MIST]

Always wanted to see the King-scripted version, knowing how dissatisfied he was with Kubrick's film.

[jay o2 waster]

Lynch:p

[gordytheghoul]

Kubrick, made a great movie. Instead of watching Garris' long and corny version, try reading King's book.:)

[EXTR3MIST]

But Kubrick's version strays well away from the book, and King wrote the more faithful script to Garris' version himself...

What you're saying is, Kubrick made a more digestible cinematic adaptation, whereas the book as it is did not translate well to the screen?

A common problem with much of King's writing.

[gordytheghoul]

What I'm saying is that Kubrick made a good movie. Stephen King wrote a good book. Garris made a lame movie, that King wrote. I like Kubrick's movie, and King's book, but they are two seperate artists working in two seperate mediums working from the same source.:)

[slasherman]

Originally posted by jay o2 waster
Lynch:p
what about him :confused:

[EXTR3MIST]

What I'm saying is that Kubrick made a good movie. Stephen King wrote a good book. Garris made a lame movie, that King wrote. I like Kubrick's movie, and King's book, but they are two seperate artists working in two seperate mediums working from the same source.

But Kubrick's "good" movie needed to be changed from King's "good" book - this was proved by Garris'/King's faithful adaptation not translating well to the screen.

Phrase this any which way you like, I guess.