The Shining (1997 Mini-Series)

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.

[urgeok]

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

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 STE]

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)

[urgeok]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
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.

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..

[AUSTIN316426808]

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

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.

[urgeok]

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 STE]

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

[hello,danny]

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.

[urgeok]

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:

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by hello,danny

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

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.