How do you consider The Shining in comparison to its source material?

How do you consider The Shining in comparison to its source material?

Other urls found in this thread:

collativelearning.com/the shining.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's like a fuck ton better.

I don't consider it.

STEVEY KING BOOKS ARE A DIAMOND DOZEN

KUBRICK FILMS ARE A GIFT TO MANKIND

The movie is dogshit.
Probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen

all the source material kubrick took from was better than his films. then he goes and does something original like barry lyndon and it's complete irredeemable trash

Yoyo bed Steven.

Perhaps you need a good "talking to", if I may be so bold, sir.

Yeah King honestly isn't that great a writer, he's just prolific as hell

Barry Lyndon was an adaptation of the book

This user is on it's way to distort the party we're having.
>user?
A nigger sir.

Why would I care about the source material?

There are pros and cons to both.

In the book, his change from Nice Dad to Murder Crazy is a lot more gradual than in the movie. It really drives home the feeling of watching your only protectors while trapped in the middle of nowhere home. In the movie, you meet Jack NIcholson for the first time and you're like "Oh fuck this guy is crazy" right away.

In the book, Danny sees a shadow version of himself who shows him visions and information, hints about the spirits of the Overlook. I read the book first, so I was like WTF when it switched it to him talking to his fucking FINGER in a weird voice.

The book in general makes the Hotel itself feel more like it's own character. Just little things like the Bees (wasps?) that Jack has to take care of.

The subplot of the constantly, slowly rising boiler is a great concept and ending, and lends itself to showing how the Hotel itself is a character, and how much Jack is becoming tied to it. I hated the whole freezing to death in a maze thing, felt like a cop out.
The reason for the dog-mask guy is actually
important in the book. The Masquerade ball vs. the boiler and trying to control Jack is bascially it's whole conflict.

It was weird that Halloran was just immediately axed down in the movie? Like what was the point? In the book he basically saves the day.

Better about the movie? There's a bunch of goofy shit that was taken out, like the fucking topiary animals moving around. It was spooky in the book when she noticed they MIGHT be moving a little she THINKS. But then in the book when they are literally running around and shit that's the dumbest shit.

As always, King writes way too much. If we meet a very minor character, learning some small facts about them makes them feel like a real person existing in your narrative, sure. But we don't need to know the whole life story of every little person. This was a huger problem in IT, but still.

perhaps a bit more

Fuck the source material. I love it for Nicholson's acting alone. The scene with him and the bartender in the empty room was 10/10.

what are you smoking faggot?

Truth serum you homo

B A S E D
A
S
E
D
stfu

Audiobook>Movie
Scatman showing them the food is based. Thats it.

King is too attached to the character of Jack because (like so many King characters) he's a blatant self-insert. He's not an abuser, he's just an alcoholic who made a mistake. Kubrick has no such attachment to the character, or to the rest of the frankly bloated material, and he knows what elements of the book work and what ones don't. Compare it to the TV miniseries that King wrote the screenplay for with the intention of "fixing" the movie. Even discounting Kubrick's skills as a director, on a purely narrative level the movie works far better.

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

hehe xd

>false morals are a diamond dozen
Shouldn't that be morels?

blatantly obviously crazy man locked in a hotel with his family versus man with inner demons gradually drawn out by a force of evil, causing him to go crazy while locked in a hotel with his family.

book story is infinitely more interesting, honestly. better concept. i honestly think kubrick made it 100 times worse by just making jack a generic crazy guy. takes away any element of suspense.

Jack wasn't a murderer before the hotel in the movie. He was just an asshole.
Plus I'm convinced that to everyone in the movie, "Jack" was a different person. Maybe to them be looked just like whatever Stephen King initially envisioned. But to us, we could see him for who was really inside that body.

this. King's Shining was just a pulpy 'troubled man turns against family'
Kubrick used the good concept behind the Overlook and turned it into something else, the hotel and what it stands for is the true character in the movie

/lit/ here

King is shit

if Kubrick had been a writer he would have been Kafka tier, hell the screenplay for Kubrick's shining puts the source material to shame. To top it off, King is so angry at the fact that his work was remade by someone so much better than him, he even went as far as to call it "Beautiful but devoid of substance" as if his pulp novel is anything but cheap thrills and onomatopoeias.

Daily reminder that Shelly Duvall's performance was great, I don't understand why it's become popular to hate on her.

>Jack wasn't a murderer before the hotel in the movie. He was just an asshole.

Debatable

Because she went from being the prettiest woman alive to a swamp person

This both fills me with hope for my own ugly ass and inextinguishable dread that I could actually get worse.

If the hotel wanted Danny to die for his shining ability then why didn't it try to kill the cook while he worked there 6 months a year? Also he sits down with Danny and tells him the hotel is fine but then sternly tells him to stay the fuck away from room 237. What's up with that? Was that ball that rolled to Danny the same ball Jack was throwing around earlier?

t. user who just watched this for the first time last week

rightly absent:
topiary animals

wrongly absent:
the dead father over the radio scene
the boiler ending
Jack bashing his own face in with a roque mallet scene

Nickelson brought Jack to life well, but the sense of place - the Overlook as a character - doesn't quite make it as far in the film compared to the book.

Why did they cast such an ugly person as his wife? Couldn't feel scared for her at all.
I would've axed her too if i was him.

this

the book and the miniseries are overwritten sentimental crap with fire hose cobras and topiaries that come to life.

Kubrick took a piece of trash and made it a masterpiece.

She did a great job selling Wendy as this downtrodden, almost battered housewife who becomes beside herself with fear and distress. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say she did a bad job, their criticism would have to be with the character Kubrick wrote and then forced Shelly Duvall to be
She was also cute as a button

>reading books

Literally kys yourself

read this with an open mind, you don't need to believe in most of it, just enjoy reading it at least

forgot link
collativelearning.com/the shining.html

This. Generally speaking, Stephen King movies are only good when they diverge greatly from the source. Though he has made some good books (but most of them are trash).

The more "true to the book" the movies are, the crappier they are. The only exception to this rule is The Green Mile, that pretty much follows the book entirely and is a pretty solid movie.

Kubrick was an alchemist that turned shit into gold as far as The Shining goes.

Naturally Stephen King was so put off by the fact that he changed everything and made it great that he was very vocal about hating the movie. But honestly, that's how any actor would react to a filmmaker that took a shitty story of yours, changed it entirely, and made a great movie out of it.

King was so butthurt he tried to make his own television mini-series about The Shining in the 90s and it was complete shit in every way. Like 1/10, no redeeming traits. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story, bad screenplay, boring, and a dirt cheap budget that shows.

Because she became an easy target who can't defend herself.

never read the book but the movie was great

it gets better and better every time you watch it

Hi Stephen, your tv-version was million times better