The Shining (1997 Mini-Series)
 

My mum got it for me...and I havent seen it yet. But for people who have... What do u think?

Is it scary? Good? Well-Made?
:D
Comments plz...

not as good as the kubrick version

i heard it was decent though.

it's ok

It´s longer.

Oh, and the face makeup-effects is very well made and scary-looking as hell. Too bad it is only used in a couple of scenes.

it was silly - SK should stay away from any film/video adaptations of his work and leave it to the professionals

It's very much like the book...although I prefer the Kubrick version...probably worth seeing once or twice though.

it's more accurate as an adaptation of the book, but not as good as a movie.
The Stand was a far better mini-series (his best m-s, IMO)

The Stand mini series wins over anything just because it includes the line 'Don't screw with my disco'

I loved the first hour (episode) of the STAND but thought it fell apart later - weak acting and poor budget

the stand is one that should stay as just a book.

great concept, but i thought the movie wasnt very good.

book. yay

I kinda enjoyed the television adaptation. Obviously not as good as the Kubrick version, but I thought it stayed pretty faithful to the book (until the very end of course). But I thought Steven Weber did a great job.

I think it's silly to compare books and movies--they're two TOTALLY different art forms. That said, why does a movie get props because it's faithful to the novel?

Anyway, the mini-series is limited by the fact that it's a mini-series--and a NETWORK one at that.

Kubrick's nightmarish vision is one of the greatest horror films ever made--the horror films of today should take a much needed lesson from Kubrick's ability to SLOW DOWN, STEP BACK, and allow the terror to infiltrate the otherwise mundane.

Horror movies today have become too fast, too manic, too impatient. Kubrick took the genre and made it an art. I'm waiting for someone to step and have the bravery to do the same.

the mini series was crap, especially that happy ending.

agreed - though i still think some adaptations are better than others - though its not an issue of how "close" or "true" the adaptation is - sometimes its more about the "spirit" of the novel

I prefer it to Kubrick's but that's because I loved the book so much.

I mean c'mon, check out Kubrick's trailer. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/shining.html

That was hilarious!

Agreed.

The miniseries has some edges over the Kubrick film. While I love Jack Nicholson, he starts out too much on the edge. It makes the descent into madness less satisfying. Watching a crazy person go crazy is far less interesting than watching a nice guy lose it. Also, I like that the miniseries has more of a focus on Danny which is more of what the book's about. The novel's called the Shining, not Jack Goes Apeshit. The happier ending is sort of annoying, though. Kubrick has a place as a creator of high art, but he has no respect for source material. Personally, as a writer, I would hate to think somebody found my novel good enough to adapt, but not good enough to use. The miniseries is simply better heremeneutically.

I think faithfulness is a good quality to have--but not when making a film based on literature or other art. I mean, what's the point? Being "faithful" doesn't mean something is good (in my opinion), and it doesn't mean it deserves more praise.

being faithful has merits ...
as everyone knows - the source material is almost always more detailed, full, and generally better than the subsequent film ..
not always - but usually.

when a very popular and loved novel is adapted the loudest cry you hear from fans is how much it deviated from the origional.
changes are usually a result of time, budget, or understanding of the source.

That being said i have no problem with a competant filmmaker putting his own spin on things (a la Kubrick's Shining)

i'm happy to see a big screen budget with great actors compared to a bunch of TV stars struggling along with tha material and significantly smaller budget.

here's a formula: ...
lower budget = lower pay
lower pay = lesser talent (all aspects of a production)
lesser talent = a less than stellar output.

again - there are always lucky exceptions ... but they are few and far between.


as far as the 'its better to see a nice guy go bad instead of an already typcast whacko like Jack' : well, the character in the book wasn't a stable guy himself... he wasn't such a nice guy.
he was nuts from the beginning.

this story is similar to Session 9 in that respect.

a malevolent force inhabiting a building taking advantage of someone in the brink of self estruction .. a fragile personality.

or ... is it just madness ?

I couldn't care less about movies sticking to their book counter parts.


If someone comes along and remakes Silence of the Lambs and it turns out ok and sticks closer to the book, that doesn't make it a better film nor would it become my favorite version strictly based on that irrelevance.

you might not .. but a million people would ..

i dont care if it's done properly .. i.e. its just a good movie no matter what ...

but if it doesnt bother to try - or changes things so much that it doesnt resemble the book at all .. or messes with key points that made it a good story to begin with ... then just call it something else ...

a book is a book, a movie's a movie. Two totally different mediums.

a book is a book, then it's adapted to a screenplay from which a movie is shot.

they are both telling stories .. one is a visual representation of the other.

one inspired the other.

there is a direct connection - different mediums or not.



actually this is no different than the arguement of remaking movies ... how close they kept to the origional - or not ..

no, it's almost impossible for a book and a movie to tell the EXACT same story.

True, there is a connection but after they take the story there's no obligation to stick directly to the book, only to make a great film.

Kubrick did what he wanted to do and came up with one of the best horror films ever made. Mick Garris did what Stephen King wanted to do(stay close to the book)and came up with a just ok film.

A director has to do his own thing with a story.

no one said anything about being 'exact'

just being faithful to the subject material or not.
(i.e. removing key characters - or radically changing them)

that is what upsets people who know the books ..

look at the uproar over the Harry Potter books.
people know them so well that they go to the theatre and expect to see the book come to life...


i havent seen any changes to those books that bothered me (like it does the rabid fankids) but i also understand why certain things were done.

i'm not arguing that they should or shouldnt do these things .. its up to the filmaker (for the most part)

i'm just saying that often the success of a movie can depend on how faithful it is to the source - especially if it is a very popular story.


for a really good example of this - wait until the davinci coce comes out ..

I just think it's a little fanatical to dislike a film or prefer a lesser film just because of it's level of faithfulness to the book.

oh don't even mention the fucking Harry Potter fans, those people are nuts. They're like glorified Trekkies

Shining wasn't even one of Kubrick's best
 

Can't agree with anyone who think Kubrick's The Shining is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. It's not even one of Kubrick's best -- Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove and 2001 are all far better.
Kubrick never even read The Shining. He had an assistant do a one-page synopsis for him. King even hated Kubrick's version at first, although he's lessened his hatred of it over the years.
The miniseries stuck closer to the book and was better in that regard, at least for the first two parts, but the third was basically just another crazy-guy-with-an-ax film, which is the crux of Kubrick's Shining.
And, for the life of me, I can't understand this love of The Stand, in book or movie version. I've read it twice, including the unabridged version, and it just isn't that good. Nothing really happens. Flu kills most of world, folks walk to Las Vegas and Boulder and, when they get there, they don't do much of anything until the end. Lots of walking, lots of talking, not much going on.

more like mystified trekkies..

check the arguements in IMDB sometime if you want to see how nuts they are.

i think the films are good though.
great entertainment

The visual effects are good, they've got a few damn good actors (Rickman, Oldman, Gleeson, Finnes), and a couple of the kids are starting to be good actors (but that red headed kid still sucks beyond belief)

i'm not arguing that at all..
(for the record i like the Shining (Kubrick) and i wouldnt even bother to see the TV miniseries ...)

but the flip side of this are the botched attempts .. unneccessary deviations that distract. If i can think of a good example i'll give one.

a fan of the book will have some expectations ... they dont want to see radically different story and that's fair.

i agree that quibbling over nonsense details that have no bearing on the mood or feel of the film is just silly..

That's a good way to put it...

Psycho remake was damn near word for word but it wasn't all that good. The director for the Dawn of the Dead took the story and did his own thing(fast zombies,more characters,besides Ving Rhames..who was only loosely based on Peter.. complete removale of characters ect.) and made what I think is a very good movie.


Like I said,that's a good way to look at it but a movie has been made better than it's book on many occassions. With the exception of 'The Thing' I've yet to see a remake overtake an original.

i pretty much (along with the rest of the world) always thought the book was better .. as far as the imagery and letting your imagination create things most movies werent capable of..
casting your own leads .. etc ....

the 1st time i thought a movie was better than the book was Christine, the next time was the Dead Zone ..

i'm sensing a pattern here :)


i'm being serious though ... thats about the time i started to feel that King isnt that shit hot of a writer.

The only time I'll compare a movie with the book is Requiem for a Dream, cause Aronofsky just fucking NAILED the feel of the book

LOL--this is hysterical! WHAT A DEBATE!

Okay, I've said it before, I'll say it again:

It is POINTLESS to compare books and film. Doing so makes just about as much sense as if one were comparing brocoli and a shoe. I mean, come on! They're two COMPLETELY different mediums!

Now, I think there is some validity to this whole STORY argument, but then again not really: A movie has to act on very certain and distinct terms--and if that means altering the story to fit those certain and distinct terms, it really has no other choice.

And even when story changes (even major ones) seem not motivated by these "certain and distinct terms," it's downright silly to get upset if something major is changed, say, because the director/screenwriter is like, "You know, I want to make this huge change because it pleases me." I mean, how BORING is it to just have a novel caught on film. I like it when movies change, manipulate, distort, add, and probe into things that its book counterpart doesn't. NOTHING is so sacred that we can't try to look at it in a different way, a new way, in a way that is fresh and (even) scary to us. It's called opening our minds, and we could all do well to do so.

so if you go to a restaurant and ask for a chicken dish, and they bring you poached salmon ... but call it the chicken dish ... just have an open mind :cool:

I'm gonna go make a movie based on the Bible, but in MY movie Jesus is a nazi and he fights an army of talking bears.