which version of The Shining do you all like better? [Archive] - Horror.com Forums

PR3SSUR3

11-20-2006, 05:54 PM

Yes the two stories are told quite differently, with the miniseries being closest to the original novel.

Steven Weber is less psychotic from the outset than Jack Nicholson, though Kubrick's film has some very nice shocks indeed.

kpropain

11-20-2006, 06:15 PM

Like others have said the mini series was closer to the book...But the version with Nicholson was way better imo...

Burning in Hell

11-21-2006, 08:26 AM

King's version might be closer to his book, but it can't touch the Kubrick movie which is a brilliant adaptation.

PR3SSUR3

11-21-2006, 09:15 AM

Despare

11-21-2006, 09:26 AM

You really have to watch both of these because while some people do truly enjoy the Kubrick version more there are those people who say that anything Kubrick did was a masterpiece.

PhilnEdee

11-21-2006, 09:31 AM

You really have to watch both of these because while some people do truly enjoy the Kubrick version more there are those people who say that anything Kubrick did was a masterpiece.

yea...like the 2nd part of Full Metal Jacket...blah!

The Shining on TV is probably the only S. King TV movie I have enjoyed, but it doesn't have quite the dread/darkness you feel from Nicholson in the Kubrick...(and it could be because of the TV restrictions, because I thought the Weber guy was great) both films are well done IMO.

Burning in Hell

11-21-2006, 12:38 PM

So are you saying Kubrick managed to improve on the book with his lack of haunted topiary animals, death of Halloran, blood-filled lifts, jittery flake of a wife and menacing lead character who was clearly mad from the outset?

I'm saying that the Kubrick movie is superior to the King movie. There might be parts of the book missing, but the creepiness and atmosphere of the Kubrick version is unparalleled in my opinion. As for the King movie, it might have been more faithful, and an ok movie, but it suffered from a lack of atmosphere and a very bad casting choice. Hell, that kid had "Disney adds" written all over his face!!!

the_real_linda

11-21-2006, 02:11 PM

i watched the kubrick one first and was sooooooo disapointed by kings....it had no atmosphere terrible acting and a lame ass if true ending....jack nicholson rules......he aint ever gonna be beaten

Burning in Hell

11-22-2006, 05:24 AM

i watched the kubrick one first and was sooooooo disapointed by kings....it had no atmosphere terrible acting and a lame ass if true ending....jack nicholson rules......he aint ever gonna be beaten

100% with you on that one :)

Plus, as I've said, the kid was a terrible choice. Those that saw the miniseries on TV when it got out (like me) might remember that he was part of an extensive Disney add campaign just a couple of months before. That just ruined any credibility he could have had...

scaryminda15

11-22-2006, 06:09 AM

HE IS GOD TO ME, LOL. I adore all his movies.

PR3SSUR3

11-22-2006, 04:33 PM

I'm saying that the Kubrick movie is superior to the King movie. There might be parts of the book missing, but the creepiness and atmosphere of the Kubrick version is unparalleled in my opinion. As for the King movie, it might have been more faithful, and an ok movie, but it suffered from a lack of atmosphere and a very bad casting choice. Hell, that kid had "Disney adds" written all over his face!!!

The kid in Garris' version was indeed horrible, but I think it is obvious that the miniseries had a lot more depth than the film - and not just because it was two hours longer than the original version. By contrast, Kubrick's film was louder, more profane, more violent and more cinematic - but it did not build tension in the way of the book or the miniseries by making crazy Jack the star instead of the hotel itself. I think Steven Weber's Torrence was more devastating in his slow transformation into a hopeless slave, but there is no doubt both versions are excellent viewing in their own right for different reasons.

the_real_linda

11-22-2006, 04:46 PM

100% with you on that one :)

Plus, as I've said, the kid was a terrible choice. Those that saw the miniseries on TV when it got out (like me) might remember that he was part of an extensive Disney add campaign just a couple of months before. That just ruined any credibility he could have had...

the kid was terrible reminded me aof a ginger kid who lived next door to me whilst growing up.....whimpy kid.....the kubrick kid is so cute and adorable and was perfect

stubbornforgey

11-22-2006, 04:58 PM

the kid was terrible reminded me aof a ginger kid who lived next door to me whilst growing up.....whimpy kid.....the kubrick kid is so cute and adorable and was perfect

i so hated the kid ..
and that negro guy!!puhlease..
after all that hype ..he walks in and gets killed in an instant..:rolleyes:
and the woman..shit!!
this is one of king movies i sooooooooooooo HATED..
redrum my fucken ass !!

the_real_linda

11-23-2006, 12:29 AM

http://www.geocities.com/shiningboy01/dannymirror.jpg

REDRUM!!!!!!!!! REDRUM!!!!!!

http://fusionanomaly.net/shiningdannycloseup.jpg

PR3SSUR3

11-23-2006, 08:37 AM

i so hated the kid ..
and that negro guy!!puhlease..
after all that hype ..he walks in and gets killed in an instant..
and the woman..shit!!
this is one of king movies i sooooooooooooo HATED..
redrum my fucken ass !!

Since you mentioned the 'negro'... one of the major changes in Kubrick's interpretation was to kill off Halloran almost as soon as he reaches the Overlook. After his cross-country journey, this is certainly a shock, and something of an anti-climax (though it does add to the cold nature of the film).

Melvin Van Peebles was allowed to live as per the book in the miniseries, though the final shining scene at the University was a bit twee.

Shelley Duvall was certainly a presence in Kubrick's version, but this timid and neurotic Wendy Torrence was nothing at all like King's character.

urgeok

11-23-2006, 09:01 AM

i loved the movie - havent yet seen the tv show ...can no longer remember much of the book.

only problem is that with jack nicholson, there is no gradual descent into craziness ... he always looks crazy. he looks crazy when he's sleeping.

i do remember that his character (in the book) had problems before he got to the overlook or whatever its called ..but i still think he pulled off the illusion of normalicy a little longer than ol jack.

Despare

11-23-2006, 09:17 AM

In the book his character started off as a schoolteacher recovering from a problem with alcohol and in Kubrick's version they didn't touch much on his previous addiction or him hurting one of his students.

obsessedwhorror

01-13-2007, 04:03 PM

I personally like Stephen King's The Shining ('97) better than the 1980 Jack Nicholson version.
Everyone thinks i'm crazy!
I haven't seen every second of the 1980 version, but I found it kind of...boring.
Maybe i wasn't paying enough attention.

alkytrio666

01-13-2007, 04:12 PM

You weren't paying enough attention.

Stanley Kubrick's version (1980) is much better, although much farther from the book. It's a good example, though, of a movie that strayed away from the book and worked well.

Jack Nicholson is outstanding!

obsessedwhorror

01-13-2007, 04:16 PM

I'll give it another try.
It was a long time ago.
What did you think of the 1997 version?

alkytrio666

01-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Not bad, but something didn't quite click with me.

crippler666

01-13-2007, 07:04 PM

I prefer the cast of the orignal, but the location of the latter version

But both versions were nowhere near as good as the book

neverending

01-13-2007, 07:08 PM

Gotta go with the Kubrick version.

obsessedwhorror

01-13-2007, 07:09 PM

never read it.

crippler666

01-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Ending is so much better.... Alot more violent......

He caves his own face in with a roque mallet.... then chases his son around without a face.....

Wendy get the hell beat out of her and the other guy gets it aswell.....

paws the great

01-13-2007, 08:13 PM

Kubrick's is alot better,but I do like the new one.

roshiq

01-13-2007, 09:22 PM

I have only seen the Kubrick version:o ...and that was awsome.

The_Return

01-13-2007, 09:55 PM

I have only seen the Kubrick version:o ...and that was awsome.

What he said

Ive been meaning to check out the newer version, but I just never bother with it. Liked the book and would be kinda interested in seeing how a more faithful adaption works...I dont know, it just doesnt really look that great.

zwoti

01-14-2007, 01:23 AM

kubrick & nicholson or garris & stephen weber

no contest

phantomstranger

01-14-2007, 02:51 PM

I was never a big fan of the original film. It's okay, but to me it's not the classic everyone else thinks it is. To each their own. I liked the remake a whole lot more.

BASSI

01-14-2007, 03:29 PM

I was never a big fan of the original film. It's okay, but to me it's not the classic everyone else thinks it is. .

I agree

i have yet to see remake

BlackSunProductions

01-15-2007, 12:34 AM

Its Kubrick for me too. I've seen the conclusion of the '97 version and to me the acting seemed forced. That's why Nicholson was such a great man for the role... he didn't have to act:D .

the_real_linda

01-15-2007, 04:55 AM

Its Kubrick for me too. I've seen the conclusion of the '97 version and to me the acting seemed forced. That's why Nicholson was such a great man for the role... he didn't have to act:D .

yeah nothing beats kubricks version....i cant and ive tried twice to watch the other and i just cant......nicholson is a legend

XtRaVa

01-15-2007, 05:53 AM

the_real_linda

01-15-2007, 05:56 AM

i hope they were being sarcastic

Shadow

01-24-2007, 07:08 AM

Im probably gonna read the book then watch the 1980 version then the 1997 version. Is this a good plan?

crazy raplh

01-24-2007, 07:17 AM

I thought it was just as good as the psycho remake......bad.

crazy raplh

01-24-2007, 07:28 AM

I agree although I never got into the omen thing. I did like the pep hole scene the the psycho remake that was funny. and modernist it. but yea your right I would say unessessary

Roderick Usher

01-24-2007, 08:49 AM

i.e.

actually I think you meant "e.g." for exempli gratia (meaning "for example") and not "i.e." for id est (meaning "it is") :D

Oh - and Garris is a hack

Burning in Hell

01-24-2007, 10:01 AM

Not bad, but something didn't quite click with me.

That would be the kid :D

Vodstok

01-24-2007, 10:15 AM

I liked Kubrick's better. I can understand King not caring for the radical changes made from his story, but it was a beautiful and effective movie. Kubrick was weird, but his old movies oozed with passion.

Cadaver

01-24-2007, 02:38 PM

I go with the Kubrick version. Nicholson will always be Jack Torrance to me. Steven Weber just didn't come across as menacing.

seely

09-08-2009, 11:48 AM

The film
the miniseries os great, much more 'compete' storyline, and the scene at the end between jack and danny was immense! And the bathtub lady was creepy as ever, but overall, the film is just amazingly good, the blood coming out of the elevators, the twin girls, the music, the bathtub scene......it's just a masterpiece

I'm new by the way, so hi

wufongtan.

09-16-2009, 05:06 PM

I'd say the original. As i only saw the remake only once some years ago. I thought it was ok. But that part with the women in the tub and she cased that kid. man that freaked me out something bad man..

RedRose

09-26-2009, 09:28 PM

The original.

boyfoundslain

10-05-2009, 07:02 AM

i'll be honest, i saw the original a few times when i was younger and i thought it was boring. About 6 months ago though i picked it up on bluray cause it was on sale for like 8 dollars. I watched it with my girlfriend at the time and boy did my views change. Such a great movie. Kubrick just slowly builds this blanket of tension and uneasiness until the climax at the end, it's awesome. Jack's descent into madness is captured flawlessly. Really great film.

I've seen bits and pieces of the miniseries and i didn't think it was bad, but i can't give my full judgment on it cause i've yet to see the whole series.

oh and, incase anyone hasn't seen this, this is probably my most favorite version of 'the shining'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA

that video is hilarious.

nightmare_of _death

10-05-2009, 11:28 AM

I've only seen the original,and really liked it.

Clean, Shaven

10-06-2009, 05:55 PM

I hated the remake. The little boy in particular was just a generally annoying kid. And even an indie director could've said at some point, 'Kid, blow your nose and stop talking with your hands".

I'm a huge Kubrick fan, though. The original was the first movie I ever sat through (watched it at two years of age) and it changed my life.

I'm not a big fan of the book, either. I was surprised at how weak King's early stuff was when I finally got around to reading it. Salem's Lot is my least favorite King movie, but it's the best of his early novels.

matth1981

10-09-2009, 07:46 PM

Both were good, however, the Kubrik version was a better film. I saw a documentary in the mid-1990's on Sundance (I believe). The Kubrik version was originally a lot longer, but once it hit the cutting-room floor a lot was lost to avoid a theatrical intermission. Have the DVD, but none of the scenes are up there, and the documentary is different. I think that Stephen King could have had a really good version if he had have had the funding and not had to rely on cut-rate CGI sequences (as well as cast members).

jenn

10-15-2009, 01:21 PM

i'm with you on that i didn't like the 1980's version either

p1zl3

10-17-2009, 12:48 PM

I'ma have to throw in my vote for the Kubrick version of The Shining. It had atmosphere, great cinematography, decent character portrayal, a good cast (apart from Shelley Duvall playing Wendy), and a very eerie score. That movie was a veritable "nightmare generator" for me when I was a kid...

http://lookintomyowl.com/images/stanley_kubrick-the_shining.jpg

The TV version was just OK, but truer to the original story... which apparently didn't help it out much. :p

hacelikewhoa

10-21-2009, 04:56 PM

OMG.. No brainer..the original. The remake had shitty actors. Who the hell wastes their time with it?

p1zl3

10-22-2009, 04:13 PM

The remake had shitty actors. Who the hell wastes their time with it?

:rolleyes:(**whistling**)

I thought this discussion might warrant a reviewing... DON'T JUDGE ME!!!!
You gotta admit Rebecca De Mornay is super-MILF of the century and Courtland Mead's performance as Uh-Huh in The Little Rascals was legendary... How could I NOT review 1997's made for TV horror travesty, one more time?

TwistedWitch

10-25-2009, 05:04 AM

For me it has to be Kubrick's original - the remake lacked atmosphere not to mention wasn't too sold on the acting either!

thedarkknight

11-11-2009, 12:04 AM

First I'm ever hearing of a Shining remake, the original was good but boring I'll only watch the 1 time I did watch it. How big was this Shining remake?Should I know about it?

p1zl3

11-11-2009, 10:34 AM

First I'm ever hearing of a Shining remake, the original was good but boring I'll only watch the 1 time I did watch it. How big was this Shining remake?Should I know about it?

No. No you shouldn't.

annekke

11-11-2009, 04:24 PM

I have to go with the original. Jack in all his glory was the role and his shoes nearly impossible to fill. Though the the TV version more closely fit the book, it's the TV version of chewing bubble gum. Not very spicy.

ChronoGrl

11-11-2009, 07:21 PM

I look at this thread title and think, "Is that a serious question?" How can people who consider themselves true horror fans possibly like the TV miniseries better?

p1zl3

11-13-2009, 07:01 PM

I look at this thread title and think, "Is that a serious question?" How can people who consider themselves true horror fans possibly like the TV miniseries better?

To each their own... Horror is all about what gets the pulse racing for you. To some that's a haunting whisper in an abandoned house, to some it's the shimmer of a freshly sharpened axe, but either way, it's effective. The TV version of The Shining although lacking in elements had some very eerie parts that shouldn't go unappreciated...

Doc Faustus

11-13-2009, 07:06 PM

I look at this thread title and think, "Is that a serious question?" How can people who consider themselves true horror fans possibly like the TV miniseries better?

I do. I think Kubrick's film was sterile, tyrannical and traitorous to its source material. I'm with King on it. It goes so far as to change the protagonist. Also, Steven Weber starts off sane and goes crazy, Jack Nicholson starts off crazy and gets slightly crazier. The tv version is more of an onslaught and puts the focus on Danny, where it belongs.

ChronoGrl

11-14-2009, 07:48 PM

I do. I think Kubrick's film was sterile, tyrannical and traitorous to its source material. I'm with King on it. It goes so far as to change the protagonist. Also, Steven Weber starts off sane and goes crazy, Jack Nicholson starts off crazy and gets slightly crazier. The tv version is more of an onslaught and puts the focus on Danny, where it belongs.

I think that it works conceptually, but not actually. I also really hated what they did to Jack's character in the end, but you're right; it's more like the original story... And I thought that the Kubrik movie had a better ending than the book.

Doc Faustus

11-14-2009, 08:02 PM

I don't think the tv version is a masterpiece or even particularly well made, but for those who cannot be bothered to read or want to see what shit in the book looks like, it's better. I can't stand Kubrick in general. He kind of barks orders at his audience. Like, take a Clockwork Orange for instance. The book is an ethical debate. The film is a sermon.