>watching The Shining
>book is about an alcoholic who is driven to insanity by the hotel
>Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance looks insane prior to even arriving at the hotel
Stanley Kubrick made literally one of the worst casting decisions in the history of film-making. What a fucking hack.
nah, he went insane sometime after staying at the hotel with all the hallucinations n shit.
>book is a piece of shit
>movie is a masterpiece
The only difference that matters.
was he insane or did the hotel drove him insane?
did the hotel drove the wife insane too?
what about the child?
also, is The Shining a ghost story? was he driven insane by the ghosts of the hotel?
I've heard a lot of criticisms but I don't think I've ever heard jack was a bad casting choice
And /thread
No idiot, the point is that he was always an abusive alcoholic; the horror is that the warning signs were always there and that a weak-willed shrew like Wendy is exactly the type of person to stick around a guy like that long enough to get herself killed. Literally 2deep4u
I think Kubrick was trying to foreshadow his involvement in the Apollo program.
He wasnt available between 1968-69 when it took place.
The kid has the Apollo shirt.
Jack's character seems to be screaming at the audience for not getting "it".
Immediately after the moon landing was over he is suddenly humble enough to only ask for something small to work on which was the Clockwork Orange project with limited budget.
There's also the fact that Kubrick was a photographer and knew how to build sets but was stupid enough to not account for distance.
I think someone has the other gif showing the valleys in the background moving in the opposite direction whilst the camera moves a small distance.
Kubrick was a perfectionist but wasn't knowledgeable in this subject.
Nice bait
kys
This is the flaw in all Kubrick movies. He doesn't write real people as characters. The characters only exist to serve the plot. It's why all of his movies feel sterile and alienating. Probably down to him being a legit autist.
see
Both what that user said and what I did can be true at the same time. There's no character development. There's no human drama. Jack is insane before he gets to the hotel. Wendy is the shrieking battered wife for the whole movie. They aren't characters, they're utterly one-dimensional. Like in all Kubrick movies. Which is why despite being a high-school tier writer, King's story is better.
>This is the flaw in all Kubrick movies. He doesn't write real people as characters.
Not really a flaw though. Just an observation. Kubrick's interests merely lie elsewhere.
It's the heart of storytelling. He might have more interest in creating visual puzzles, and that's fine... he pushed the boundaries of what movies can do. But it's not what makes a good story.
holy shit what a clueless retard
Woah, I had the same exact thought after watching the movie user. They should have cast a guy that doesn't look unhinged just by smiling.
It's not even bait at this point kiddo
Everything King wrote is a piece of shit.
And it shouldn't be, it starts pretty well and then it turns to utter shit. If he had stuck to Misery or Cujo he might have been decent, but he keeps putting in shit twists, like "IT'S NOT GHOSTS, IT'S THE PAST THE KID IS SEEING" or "LMAO THEIR BUDDY WAS AN ALIEN".
Fuck off Stephen. Go back to writing about child gangbangs.
OP does not get the joke
>thinking this was an accident
Is this bait? There seem to be a lot of retards in this thread
I dunno man, the first like 3 pages of the book are talking about his "toothy PR grin" and how he was repeating the same line over and over in his head because he was so uncomfortable in the interview. Jack Torrence was pretty much always like that.
ah yes! The old "can't argue back so I'll call him a retard" trick, very nice
You're saying Kubrick actually directed the moon landing? I'm not really into conspiracy theories myself but to me, his personality doesn't seem the kind to litter his opinions in his movies, or try to hide very specific things in them. Wasn't that something he deliberately avoided doing anyways?
Wouldn't he have been moderately knowledgeable in the subject, considering he had just completed 2001? Not sure if I'm getting the years wrong, I don't know how close the moon landing was with the movie
It also seems that's why he wanted a smaller project, because he had just spent 5 years making the damn thing
>They aren't characters, they're utterly one-dimensional. Like in all Kubrick movies.
Lord Barry Lyndon would like a word. So would Sir Alex DeLarge. And Also Dr. David Bowman.
One dimensional isn't a figure of speech that you seem to comprehend. I don't mind people not liking Kubrick, but your statement is objectively false.