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

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

That would be the kid :D

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.

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

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

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..

The original.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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/stan...he_shining.jpg

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

OMG.. No brainer..the original. 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?

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.