The Shining

Lets discuss this film. and also how does Stephen king feel that he lost to Kubrick?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/uGOd_cM_voY
youtu.be/keo5HQcC0po
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why did he make that change?

To assert creative dominance over the source material.

they both have the same initals. what does it mean?

Its the Chadaptation to assert dominance over the virgin source material.

Sometimes I think Kubrick didn't even think about all of these stuff and its just autistic fans nitpicking shit.

...

No, youre just too dumb.

take Stephen King away from Kubrick and whats left? fucking nothing, thats what.

Kubrick just filmed other peoples books, stop sucking his dick so hard.

he turned mediocre books into great movies, pleb.

Kubrick is dead and King is still alive.

It's a decent movie, just nowhere on the level of masterpieces like Spider-Man: Homecoming

Where's Kubrick's National Medal of Arts?

if Kubrick didnt exist, would Stephen King still be successful? yes

if Stephen King didnt exist, would Kubrick be successful? No

Stephen King > Kubrick

Nah, Kubrick was autistically obsessed with detail. He probably let out loud, awkward and out of place laughs while filming the scene.

>if Stephen King didnt exist, would Kubrick be successful? No
I know this is probably bait, but he was a success before The Shining

Wait, are you serious? Kubrick was already amazingly successful before The Shining.

>implying Kubrick doesn't have CIA medals

you should look into how he made his movies.

>medal from ooga booga
>meaning anything

where?

>Sometimes I think Kubrick didn't even think about all of these stuff and its just autistic fans nitpicking shit.

No. It's why King was buttblasted. Anybody can shit out a movie version of his work. It's the personal dig that hurt.

>the american people
>having good taste

just look at any documentary that isn't room 237 tier

Kubrick pretty much told king to go fuck himself and changed a lot from the book.
Good man. King is a lib faggot and jack is basically a self insert for king about how much he hated his kid.

Like im pretty sure kubrick was autistic or on the spectrum, but like one of those high functioning autistics who is super good at shit. He didnt even go to film school, i think he dropped out of high school and just pretty much walked into Hollywood and just started directing shit. Before that he was a photographer. He has an insane and methodical approach to detail. He probably would have made a good painter in an older time

Funny, I was just thinking about making a Shining thread. I'm about to watch it (I've seen it before) and wanted to know which aspect ratio people prefer.

i used to really like the movie (kubrick one) until i read the book itself. the book was an amazing story, well written, characters well developed, the plot was interesting and exciting

once you read the book the movie just feel like a boring art project made by a high school student. it misses all the character development and interesting plot of the actual story. jack had a bunch of issues with his family growing up, and danny had actual conversations with his imaginary friend tony. even wendy had a backstory worth hearing.

i never saw king's film adaption but i wouldn't be surprised if it sucked because he's not a director. but the book really does take a big sloppy shit all over the kubrick one

i do realize however that the average kubrick fanboy is a borderline illiterate who doesn't understand any form of fiction that isn't 20 minute still shots of blank walls or whatever, so feel free to explain to me why i just don't understand his genius if you want, but i won't read it because i'm going to bed

>how does Stephen king feel that he lost to Kubrick?

salty

youtu.be/uGOd_cM_voY

...

man...not to suck ur dick user..but completely agree. I loved the movie, so decided to finally read the book. The book is so much better. First off, its way scarier. Secondly yes the characters are so much more developed (to be fair easier to do this over 100's of pages as opposed to 2 hours). Wendy wasn't some dumber screaming terrified woman in the book like the movie. I dunno, book wins out.

>success = quality

Both are great for what they are. I see no reason to make a King vs Kubie console war.

SS-S-S-S-S-SS-S-AMEFAG

one is a leech, the other isnt.
its not hard to figure out.

>the characters are more developed
>scarier

Well no shit, it's a book - characters and stories are always more drawn out in books than movies bc the medium is completely different. And it's scarier bc your imagination is always scarier than what can be put in film

That being said, the book is a good book while the movie is one of the best ever made in its genre and generally considered a masterpiece overall

I think this might be the first time I've seen a picture of him, he looks like a Spitting Image puppet of himself.

>WAAAH WAAHHH MY DEEP FAIRYTALE WAS BETTER THAN HIS DUMB STUDY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR WAAAHH
bitch should stay quiet about it, he's just embarrassing himself even more

...

>liking movies over books
>calls someone else pleb
You are fucking retarded.

you guys seem to forget that King made a TV adaption that redeemed himself

I think we are all getting a little tired, user

It's a different medium you stupid fuck, you have to compare it against other books or other movies. the point is the book is good while the movie is great

>liking mediocre books over great movies
no, really

If King is Jack, then maybe the ideas that Kubrick put in things about Jack molesting Danny have more weight.

>hedge monsters

Thats not what he said at all. Also if you actually like stephen kings books your a huge pleb. They are just screenplays with shitty prose.

>
>If King is Jack, then maybe the ideas that Kubrick put in things about Jack molesting Danny have more weight.

That's allegedly what the Shining is about. It is not confirmed in any way. No matter how many people say it and how many like yourself believe it as fact.

I-I enjoyed the dark tower. Well most of em

This is like some bullshit from live-action Saturday morning TV shows from 30 years ago.

Just because he changed details doesn't mean they were bad books. I doubt you've even read them to say that retard

>In an interview with Michel Ciment, Kubrick overtly declared that the photograph suggests that Jack was a reincarnation of an earlier official at the hotel.
youtu.be/keo5HQcC0po

I thought that was pretty clear.

I wish we knew what the source of the original photo was, though. We know what the original photo looked like, but not the actual source for it.