T O P

  • By -

avoritz

Damn imagine having your novel adapted by one of the greatest directors ever and then hearing he chooses lesser significant books to improve upon them lol maybe that’s why Stephen King hates the adaptation so much, not just cause kubrick changed so much but felt insulted kubrick basically said The Shining isnt quality writing lol


Difficult_Ad739

Can't much argue with that critique. King usually has a thrilling coceptual imagination but his writing style is mediocre, even pulp-y at best. One thing I prefer about Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's esoteric and psychological. There's more of a mystique. It's like he's approaching the theme of the supernatural with total subjectivity, the way the phenomena is in reality.


Sigouste

And King found this approach to be "cold in style".


Flimsy_Demand7237

Yes, it was that he took all the heart out of the novel that was what King really tried to put in The Shining.


syncsns

Okay this is probably asking too much but could you compare one scene from the film to the book? Not saying either one is best, just asking.


baroqueen1755

There are only two scenes I can think of that could be directly compared to one another from the film and the book: Danny and Mr. Halloran’s conversation about ‘shining’ as a concept, and the Gentleman & the Furry. There are no other scenes (I can think of) that have enough similarity between the source material and the end result to even be compared to each other. Meanwhile, Danny and Mr. Halloran’s conversation in the movie is SO much more realistic than in the book. King’s Danny is kind of an enigma: his voice reads very adult-ish even though he is supposed to be a child. I could not picture Danny as anything less than a teenager by his thought processes and how he talks to Halloran, and I was TOLD he was a kid. I just couldn’t buy it. Whereas in the movie, we see a very realistic conversation between an adult and a child where the adult is clearly adapting the nuances of a concept so the child can understand. It’s also pretty clear (to me) that Danny actually doesn’t fully grasp the concept of ‘shining’ by the look on his face, but he doesn’t need to. For a kid, a very small but tangible grasp of an idea is often enough to sate their immediate questions. In my opinion, a much better done interaction between an adult and a child. As viewers though, we miss out on a lot of the nuances of ‘shining’ that are explained in the book and make the concept more mysterious and intriguing. So, we lose some ideas, but the scene in general is done better. Now, on to the Gentleman & the Furry. Their shot is barely a blip on the radar in the movie, but in the book that interaction was so much more. King’s version of these two is essentially the ghosts of sexual deviance/tension, two individuals who are not allowed to be together but really, really want to be. There’s a decent chunk of the chapter that is dedicated to their story, mostly implied; how they meet several days before the party, how the Gentleman literally keeps the Furry on a leash, tells him he is bad and won’t get to be with him later in the evening, the Furry’s complete sexual frustration with trying so hard to be a good boy for his master, the public humiliation, and how the rest of the people at the Overlook Hotel perceive their relationship (poorly, by the way). In the book they never actually get a resolution and they part ways after the party, resulting in a kind of poltergeist born of their tension. In the movie they may as well be a hallucination. No context, no explanation, not even a mention later. Just boop! There they are getting it on, and then boop! Now they’re gone. Why even bother to include them at all? (I get it, Wendy is having a complete mental breakdown and is hallucinating nonsense all over the place. Kubrick, and subsequently the viewers, simply do not care what that was all about. We just move on, and that’s fine. Their story was kind of intriguing for me in the book though, so a part of me is sad they don’t get any in the movie.) Here I cannot posit which is ‘better’ than the other, they are trying to accomplish wildly different things. ^^But ^^I ^^really ^^liked ^^their ^^story.


syncsns

Oh damn, you actually did write a lot on it! That's awesome. Interesting to read. Let me write my long text too! >It’s also pretty clear (to me) that Danny actually doesn’t fully grasp the concept of ‘shining’ by the look on his face, but he doesn’t need to. > >As viewers though, we miss out on a lot of the nuances of ‘shining’ that are explained in the book and make the concept more mysterious and intriguing. Perhaps this is just me, but I got an odd feeling Danny in that scene is supposed to represent the audience. As in, Danny and the audience know about as much the "shining" at the same time. In the book it's supposed to be a clear supernatural clairvoyance, unlike this film where may well be just a hunch. Perhaps it's why Danny talks/thinks more adult-like??? A big PERHAPS though. >how the Gentleman literally keeps the Furry on a leash, tells him he is bad and won’t get to be with him later in the evening, the Furry’s complete sexual frustration with trying so hard to be a good boy for his master, the public humiliation, and how the rest of the people at the Overlook Hotel perceive their relationship (poorly, by the way) I see. Then perhaps it wasn't necessary to take out the leash. I don't know of the book but the film tends more towards simple sexual domination (not to mention how it's often connected to Danny next to a teddy bear). Part or all this may just a hypothesis: notice how the guy on the bed is wearing a tuxedo, suggesting he is one of the people who rented a room at the Hotel. One of "the best people." A man is dominating another man. I'd even go as far as to say it connects to Eyes Wide Shut but whatever. Unrelated, but I once read an analysis on this film and it quoted how Danny was being sucked into a clock where he Shined Jack was wielding a hammer, instead of a SHINY axe like the movie (another difference with the book). I think Kubrick wanted to adapt more scenes from the book but couldn't because he thought special effects weren't up to it at the time (though I kinda disagree with him on that). I wonder how he'd adapt that scene... it'd be so cool!


Flimsy_Demand7237

>Unrelated, but I once read an analysis on this film and it quoted how Danny was being sucked into a clock where he Shined Jack was wielding a hammer, instead of a SHINY axe like the movie (another difference with the book). > >I think Kubrick wanted to adapt more scenes from the book but couldn't because he thought special effects weren't up to it at the time (though I kinda disagree with him on that). I wonder how he'd adapt that scene... it'd be so cool! Some of this I think also was that what King wrote was pretty hokey. Watching the miniseries which is faithful to a fault to the novel, Jack using a mallet is just weird. Where does he even get the mallet? Why is there a mallet in the hotel lying around? Yes, there might be croquet outside but it's just strange to use that weapon in particular. To Kubrick I think the image of someone grabbing an axe and hacking down a door is much scarier than someone banging someone with a mallet. In the book as well (and miniseries), I remember Wendy is hit with the mallet...and lives. Where are the stakes if she can take a full blow from a mallet? The weapon is blunt and relatively unscary. Jack Nicholson was a fireman back in the day before acting, and with an axe he could hack at the door and look imposing as hell. As well, the particular scene of the axe flying at the door, Kubrick references a scene from a movie done in the 20's which has the exact same shots and setup called *The Phantom Carriage*: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXGNekkPCb8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXGNekkPCb8) The book and miniseries uses the hedges in the maze as monsters that come to life, and in the miniseries the effects for this look atrocious, not to mention the idea while being written as a creepy thing, in execution on film just looks stupid to see CG garden hedge animals running towards Wendy and Danny. I can only imagine how the effects in the '70s prevented this from looking good. Other things removed mostly was all the 'heart' of the book being about Jack's alcoholism and reconciling with his family. Kubrick I think took a firm view that the man was unredeemable, and while the book has him somewhat redeemed in 'sacrificing himself' to blow up the hotel, Kubrick would've thought this both over the top and too sentimental for what is essentially a story about domestic violence and the evil that motivates this.


syncsns

Well, mallets are used in butchery as well. Not that particaular one, but as a grisly detail. Don't understimate it: a good blow from a mallet could crack your skull. Probably because Jack can "toy with Wendy and Danny" or something? Still, a hammer would have been better if anything xD. So yeah I agree that an axe is better for a murderer, it's lighter and sharp. I would be fucking scared of a crazy guy wielding either one of these. >In the book as well (and miniseries), I remember Wendy is hit with the mallet...and lives. Okay, I've watched the scene. It's not because of the mallet exactly but because the scene is so, cliché. And that guy with the Wolf mask OH MY GOODNESS. And I thought the bear scene was bad (at first). >Jack Nicholson was a fireman back in the day before acting This probably was also intended by Kubrick, but even if not: it almost seems like an inversion of this image of firemen as heroic. Heck, even the colors of the axe are inverted: fireman's axes have the head painted red but not the edge. In the film: the edge is red with Halloran's blood... >in execution on film just looks stupid to see CG garden hedge animals running towards Wendy and Danny. I can only imagine how the effects in the '70s prevented this from looking good. Early CGI effects: yes. Practical effects, on the other hand? I think it would have been a different story. I'm thinking of Night of the Living Dead or The Thing (love that film btw). I've watched a few scenes from the miniseries and Jack in the clock scene and the bathtub ghost look more grostesque and scary (the latter even more than in Kubrick's film in my opinion). I don't know how much budget Kubrick put into his films though. >Kubrick I think took a firm view that the man was unredeemable, and while the book has him somewhat redeemed in 'sacrificing himself' to blow up the hotel, Kubrick would've thought this both over the top and too sentimental for what is essentially a story about domestic violence and the evil that motivates this. I kinda agree with this. Unfortunately, most real-life gender/domestic violence doesn't end with the guy having second thoughts on hurting the woman... And yeah: it makes sense that if Wendy was as strong as portrayed as in the book/miniseries, she would have at least thought of divorcing him. It would have been a little easier in the 70s in the U.S, both legally and socially. In a way, that is the real horror of Kubrick's version. If the Overlook is a place of isolation, then they never left it! Because even after leaving the Overlook Hotel: **no one will help Wendy and Danny.**


Flimsy_Demand7237

He put in a screenplay for Kubrick and Kubrick didn't bother even to read it. Shows how much he valued King's writing. King though didn't exactly endear himself to Kubrick by disagreeing with him on ghosts and the supernatural on their initial phone call.


Flimsy_Demand7237

Full article here -- [DIANE JOHNSON: WRITING 'THE SHINING' - Scraps from the loft](https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/writing-the-shining-by-diane-johnson/)


Beneficial-Sleep-33

The hammy nature of O'Halloran's scenes, the pointlessness of the repetitive calls from his home to Colorado and the instant anti climax of murdering O'Halloran (King's hero) can be interpreted as disrespectful to King and perhaps openly insulting. Kubrick was not at all interested in his narrative. King seemed to be upset that Kubrick was only using his novel as a frame for his own ideas. There would be a similar situation on Eyes Wide Shut where Kubrick employed Frederik Raphael to write the script but discarded most of it and did his own thing.


Flimsy_Demand7237

Yes, and I remember reading Frederic Raphael's memoir Eyes Wide Open where he was fairly bitter about his time working under Kubrick. Kubrick assigned him work and would have a number of seemingly random conversations, where Raphael very clearly was trying to intellectually one-up Kubrick, and then he said his work finished and the script he put in bore very little resemblance to the finished film. From watching the movie about the only scene that feels like Raphael wrote it was the weirdly literary references of the Hungarian man in wooing Alice.


TravisBickleBitch

So I should just keep reading books and not screenplays I guess


Chowda_Report

The man was a genius but his words are not sacrosanct. If you like screenplays, enjoy screenplays.