Why does King hate Kubrick's version of The Shining?

Why does King hate Kubrick's version of The Shining?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9sGl1LVtszU
rabb.it/r/o35eqy
youtube.com/watch?v=FnCdOQsX5kc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

the wife wasn't Olive Oyl in the book and apparently her being so distraught pissed King off

It was better.

because, unlike king's other movies/books, it was actually good.

They completely fucked up the ending of the book.

because it's actually about the moonlanding or jfk or some shit

because kubrick said he liked to make good films out of bad books

Because it was better than his

/thread

In kings version they drove a red car. In mu ricks version they drove a yellow car, as they are driving we see the exact type of red car (in Kings version) smashed up on the side of the road, Jack gives a red car a good long look as he drives past it in his yellow car and continues on his way.

The red car represents kings version and the yellow car is kubricks, Kubrick is saying to him that- this is not kings version anymore, kings version has been smashed and tossed aside, this is kubricks vehicle now.

...

It's this kind of nth dimensional checkers that's far beyond King's mindset. He practically wants his characters to smash skulls and that's it.

>nth dimensional checkers

I have to admit that for several years I didn't really "get" Kubricks films, beyond what was on the surface. But once you start looking hard into some of the meanings and symbolisms.... wow, just wow. For anyone interested thats still in this thread I'd suggest starting by looking into the "gold room".

>wow, just wow
you have to go back

King's story was another piece of tripe in which the characters are essentially flawless and it is all "le ebil hotel XDDD" that drives Jack to evil. It's essentially the sort of plot that would normally be fit for a Goosebumps book.

Meanwhile, Kubrick took King's stupid Goosebumps story and turned it into character study about the devolution of the human psyche in the face of isolation, stress, and existential self-loathing, finally broken by the realization of just how horrible/fucked up everything is.

No magical houses here, Steve! In Kubrick's version, it's existence itself that drives Jack completely nutters by the end. And he goes to fairly great lengths to shit over King's hackneyed plot elements in the process.

Exactly this.

>no magical houses
Are you forgetting the door of the pantry being unlocked for Jack ? Checkmate

He doesn't, he said so in the foreword for one of his other books.

Theres also another door leading into the store room

I've read and liked the book and Kubrick's ending was better.

The Shining is a very personal book for King. Jack is essentially Stephen, because they both had a serious alcohol problem.

That's why Kubrick changing the book really annoyed King.

I thought King had a coke problem not an alcohol problem? Or was it both?

King smokes opium.

Cause he made his own version and it sucked.
youtube.com/watch?v=9sGl1LVtszU

Because king is a hack who can't write endings for the life of him

Because it did things differently and ended up better than the source material because Kubrick knew what he was doing

He only made his version years later and it was ass

>wow just wow

gimme a synopsis of the ending again

also its been a minute, did wendy get killed?

i know jack and the boy does

Because Jack's character is based off of Stephen King himself. In the book, it's the hotel that drives Jack into madness, whereas in the movie Jack himself is inherently flawed and his evil side is only amplified by the hotel. I'm guessing Stephen King just wasn't impressed that Kubrick made him out to be the bad guy.

isnt that snow scene like 2/3'ds into the film?

when scruthers is driving back to the mansion

...

In the movie? The boy doesn't die, does he? It's been a while since I've watched it but I thought Wendy and him get away and Jack dies in the maze?

The boy survives.
I haven't read the book in like 5 years but I'm pretty sure the ending went something like this: Jack forgets to tend to the furnace, and it explodes and kills him and destroys the hotel as Wendy and Danny escape with Dick Halloran on a ski-do.

This. King will never be kino like Kurbrick and he knows it

that seems kind of anti-climatic

how does King even build up the explosive ending?

i mean did he literally use that as a tension builder through the ending, rather than the tension of jack trying to kill his family?

desu that seems kinda cheap, if that was used in a film it would probably be panned

infact just reading it makes me think of all those shitty 1980s movies where theres a timer and it keeps going back to it (yet is slower/faster than the movie's actual run time)

Because he's your standard egotistical writer pissed off that the adaptation outshines the original book.

Kesey was another one with the One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest film

It's made pretty clear throughout the book that the furnace is old and shitty and will fucking explode if it isn't properly taken care of.

Actually in the book the hotel and all it's ghosts were like slowly possessing Jack, because they wanted to use him to get to Danny because he has the shining or something like that.

So a classic Hollywood ending? Kubrick did the right thing.

Of course the kid doesn't die, there's a sequel with the boy now being an adult released a few years ago.

What about Clockwork Orange?

God, this! Get to the end of Needful Things, and some goddammned origami thing?! comes out of nowhere to wrap it up? And The Stand, my GOD!! Dig the whole book, then some lame 'hand of god' garbage reaches down to stop the big splosion.....
King's endings suck.

so was the shitty made for tv version ending with the furnance?

Because King is a coked out hack and lucky that one of his works actually ended up being source material for a good work of art

And Jack becoming part of the 1920 picture.

Torrence is a stand in for King himself and his alcoholism, in the book Torrence is evil because the spirits of the hotel make him evil, in the movie Torrence is already a bit unhinged and King didn't like that Kubrick wouldn't go along with it was all the hotel\booze that made him\me do it, he\i'm not a bad person.

The writer hated his own book in the first place iirc but he also hated Kubrick's film, or more specifically the unwanted fame the writer got, because he'd rather stay low.

>King didn't like that Kubrick wouldn't go along with it was all the hotel\booze that made him\me do it, he\i'm not a bad person.
This! We don't like knowing that we are bad people; better to have a convenient excuse, like liquor, or ghosts, or hormones, or whatever. The demons made me do it, don't ya know?

I haven't seen that version.

Kubrick's film also omits the book's final chapter which gave the book a drastically different message

This. Just watch King's TV movie. King can't into movies, whereas Kubrick is top tier.

Kubrick's film always felt like it was cut short, it's such a bizarre ending.

Because King thought he had written something really good and Kubrick changed it a lot for this adaptation. Kubrick took a spooky dooky low-rate horror novel with cheap character issues (while personal to King), and he turned it into a slow creeping psychological horror with less bullshit like ghosts and moving hedge animals.

Kubrick's underlying message about the ever-repeating cycles of historical atrocities being broken by 'shining' or reflecting back on them- is way superior to King's 'I have succombed to my vices and become the thing that I hated' theme. King dislikes it because Kubrick took his garbage, made it into something better, and the movie was praised way more than his book.

I thought the hedge animals were spooky as fuck until they actually started attacking Halloran and it became ridiculous.

His big beef was that you can tell Jack was unstable from the get-go, so the family falling apart isn't really as obvious.

Which is a valid complaint, but taken on its own merits the Shining is a fantastic movie.

Also after the abortion that was the TV movie King has no room to talk shit.

rabb.it/r/o35eqy

King has an every-substance problem. Most of IT was written on a combination of Coke and Painkillers.

because it's good

Yea, it's something that Kubrick pulled of better because you have this character driven horror with minor 'horror fantasy' elements, but the characters are the point of all conflict in the end- like they are in the movie.

It's ok to have a movie about fighting horror mosters but it will make your character conflicts largely irrelevant.

That explains the junior gangbang.

When did you guys outgrow King? For me it was around the time of The Dark Tower. Last one I read was Cell.

Not better than the book but better than the other movie.

When HE directs, yes, he can fumble. What was that evil truck movie? He totally fucked that up. But his books translate well into movies usually.

>Checked again and again, all night long I check those digits. Again and again.

We have to go back

Hm, the hand of God wasn't that bad an ending. It was properly foreshadowed. The ending was WORSE is a bit too quick. They drag everyone out and then POW! the ending! Great book though.

If King understood quality his books wouldn't be shit.

I grew into King and even now I can read some of his books and enjoy them. They're not bad, as long as you pick the right ones.

because it was better than his

We have to go back

Nicholson, probably.

They aren't.

Because he's an alcoholic, egotistical man child who has never made anything in his life that could add up to Kubrick at his worst. Never understood the circle jerk over Stephen King. Highly overrated.

>Kubrick's underlying message about the ever-repeating cycles of historical atrocities being broken by 'shining' or reflecting back on them- is way superior
Just wanted to repeat an important point. King talked about being overcome by monstrousness; Kubrick talked about the cycle of monstrousness.

It ends with Danny graduation from university and the ghost of Jack congratulating him. Also Jack basically sacrifices himself to be killed by that boiler because eventually he realizes how EVUL he became

I wonder why some prefer the Kubrick version

Source?

This should have been the first and last post of the thread, but Sup Forums's naivety and retardation knows no bounds.

Well the sacrifice part does sort of happen in the book. The university thing though sounds cringe.

>the characters are essentially flawless and it is all "le ebil hotel XDDD" that drives Jack to evil.
The book is shit but it wasn't like that. Jack was already an alcoholic and a shitty person and that made it more vulnerable for the evil in the hotel.
It's still one of those shit good vs. evil King stories that he doesn't know how to end in an interesting way. My guess is that he hates it because Kubric actually knew how to make a satisfying ending to a story, something that King might have acheived 5 times in all his career.

...

>Americans literally inducted Stephen "Word Count Mogul" King into the literary pantheon amongst the likes of Ambrose Bierce, John Steinbeck and Flanery O'Connor

Will never stop being funny

It wasn't a strict adaptation and Kubrik just passed by sections of the book with no explanation.

Meanwhile Arthur C. Clarke admitted that he liked '2001' movie better than his own book and wrote '2010' as a film's sequel.

>5 times

which ones?

They aren't shit but they are nothing special he's a good first adult author when you're like 16ish

I still reread his older stuff, I just don't think he's as good anymore.

Personally I think the car accident fucked him up. Also his best work was written while he was pounding drugs, nicotine, and booze 24/7 so that's also probably a factor.

I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with the fact that Stephen King is a gigantic mangina.

The only one of his novels I've read that I think is a legitimately good horror novel is Pet Semetary.

I don't know, I thought I'd throw some safe number instead of just saying "never". I liked his ending of Apt Pupil better than the movie's, for one.

Speaking of King, the teaser trailer for IT was just released

youtube.com/watch?v=FnCdOQsX5kc

Reminder

Who cares.

>wow, just wow

I started with The Stand, read an old collection of short stories, went onto IT and then stopped reading him altogether after that mess of an ending. I can't remember the name of the collection or the story itself, but there's a short story he wrote about a clapping monkey toy that's pretty great and my favorite thing of his. All of the short stories were pretty good, he should have stuck to that format from what I've read.

It's true but to be fair the movie was barely related to the book. Kubrick used this movie to talk about himself. And King never wrote anything but horror books for children.

This, king cant write for shit

The Walk
Green Mile
Shawshank Redemption (not horror)
Misery
Running Man
11/23/73 (also not really horror)
Cujo and Children of the Corn (are okay)

I remember Duma Key having a decent ending, but then again I haven't read it since high school. IT and Salem's Lot were pretty decent too. But yeah, King is definitely not the greatest writer.

wah the house haunted or was jack jsut a crazy psychic?

One time in class the teacher made us get in groups and answer questions on a sheet as an ice breaker. One of the questions was "what celebrity does your partner look like?"

And the fucker who was paired with me said Stephen King. Just call me an ugly piece of shit monkey at that point.

That's the pleb answer by those who have zero or 1 book by him.

What I enjoy is when millennials pretend to have read a bunch of King's books but in reality they maybe read half of Cujo when they were 11 and that's it.

wew, just wew.

Reminder of what?
Reminder that King doesn't need a safe echo chamber about petty shit for a work that he created?
What were you going for here?