Stephen Kings The Shining
 

I seen the other version of the shining the one with Jack N, and everyone says the stephen king version is better is that true?

no...........

I liked them both a lot to be honest. Stanley's version is very well done but the mini-series brings the book to life very nicely.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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!!!

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...

i adore Stephen King!
 

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

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 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 !!

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

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

http://fusionanomaly.net/shiningdannycloseup.jpg

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.

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.

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.

which version of The Shining do you all like better?
 

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.

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!

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

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

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

Gotta go with the Kubrick version.

never read it.

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.....

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

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.

kubrick & nicholson or garris & stephen weber



no contest

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.

I agree

i have yet to see remake

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

Who are you and what have you done with an actual human being?

i hope they were being sarcastic

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

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