@JoAlWiGeEdm 1997 was for those who like the book better. and wanted to see an adaptation closer to that. Stanley as a filmmaker made it his own while keeping the original material.
I think that I've gotten to the point where I can view King's novel and Kubrick's film as two almost separate entities. I love both, to put it simply, But, Kubrick, while he was perfectly capable of making more than on par film adaptions (A Clockwork Orange) made something delightfully disturbing, and terrifying in a very subtle way.
While I do enjoy the miniseries, it lacks the atmosphere, subtlety and puts more emphasis on sentimentality (which yes, was King's intention) but just didn't fly.
Kubrick's has to be viewed as a loose adaption, something that why containing critical elements, must be enjoyed in a different way. It has to be taken in as it's own film.
Like I said, the miniseries is decent, but it lacks the elements that made Kubrick's film so great. And at points, especially the one here, it seems like it's trying to ape Kubrick's cinematography.
TO ACCEPT JESUS INTO YOUR LIFE SAY THIS PRAYER WITH FAITH :) Lord God. I come to You a sinner and I humbly repent of my sins. I believe that Jesus is Lord and I believe You raised Him from the dead. I ask that Jesus will come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. I receive Jesus to change and take control of my life that I may live for Him from this day forth and from now on. Thank You Lord Jesus for saving me and cleansing me with Your precious blood. In Jesus name, Amen.
I know I know. Kubrick fans will hate the TV miniseries. Stephen King fans will hate Kubrick's version. I am more middle ground. They're both good. The 1980 one was more classic and creepy. But the miniseries was pretty scary too. Still... nobody can beat Jack Nicholson's performance.
Having seen both the movie and the miniseries I will admit to preferring the miniseries (it stayed truer to the novel) but the movie had some creepy shit going on. The scene with the elevator of blood was just CREEPY.
@Crazyphil2008 : Well, I would be more afraid of a croquet mallet. If someone were to be using an axe to kill you, you'd be smart enough to know that it would kill you in an instant. With a croquet mallet, if you watched the remake, would smash every single one of your bones with a blow. It would be a much more painful death. :-)
@RHN31214 : Because in the original novel, Jack uses a croquet mallet instead of an axe. Kubrick's version didn't follow the story. The miniseries remake had Stephen King as an executive producer, so it would follow the story.
@littlesmew the remake would be an attempt to make a more faithful version of the story. not only that, but to see what one's own style of horror in film could be used to bring King's stuff to their own vision.
Read the book, watch Kubrick's version, skip the abomination re-make. If you forget the book and focus on the movie as a project of it's own , ''The Shining'' is one of the best, if not the best movie. The music, atmosphere, acting, subliminal messages etc makes it a package that delivers. You can't compare books to movies. S.K. knows how to write books, Kubrick knew how to make movies. The End.
@LeLimeLine The first one is more accurate with the book, and the second is edited just to fit the actors. It's honestly best as the book... Movies are too shallow in the characters thoughts. but the girl in the second one looks fucking retarded...
@AGuyInAHat Actually in the book I think his name is John...I'm not sure :I I'm still reading it. But he is referred to John every once and awhile--the "He-ere's Johnny!" part comes from Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show awhile back. They used to introduce him with "And now, heeeere's JOHNNY!" in the beginning.
@AGuyInAHat The "Here's Johnny" scene was almost a joke against Johnny Carson's The Tonight Show. Johnny was always introduced by his sidekick Ed McMahon with his opening line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" In the movie, Jack Torrence was just making a reference to the line.
The root of the problem between Kubrick and King's versions seems to be that both were created by bona fide, yet opposed, visionaries. Kubrick more or less admitted to King that he didn't believe in the supernatural, which plays an integral role in most of King's fiction. He also rejected a script by King himself and didn't take any of King's casting advice. Yet the first film is a classic of psychological horror, possibly the best example ever created.
@pichoharispe are you serious??? thank God he eliminated that scene and didn't take into consideration because is kitsch..I'm sure that King is very grateful to Stanley because after the original Shining every book of King was sell out!
I did notice a difference. The Kubrick version was awesome and the remake wasn't. (Shelly Duvall seemed more terrified in her performance, Jack Nicholson Looked more threatening; I mean come on! How can you beat an ax with a crochet mallet? Lastly the Kubrick version was shot TONS better then the remake.
I like the original movie better but the newer one is a lot more accurate to the book in the original movie they even went as far as to change room 213 to 237
@switchwitch5 There was a big reason the room in Kubrick version was 237 start reserching , Kubrick shining is the moust subminal movie of all time man it tells many stories some propably not yet understood
What the fuck is so scary about trying to kill somebody with a croquet mallet i'd be more afaid of the ax that Jack nicoleson was using in The original
It is a shame that the miseries was a TV adaption and not theatrical as it is closer to the book in way of story telling, but sadly fails because of TV censorship so it can't go into the more darker areas of the book that would have made it hard R and areas of the book that Kubrick didn't even attempt to go into .
@EndlessLaymon Kubrick's movie has some nice directing and music but other than it is a lacklustre horror film completely lacking in scares and suspense and two very poor performance by Nicholson and Duvall the Wendy and Jack from the miniseries were a lot better and better written as I actually cared about them.
@EndlessLaymon It is a shame that both Shining movies are radically flawed as the book is one the best supernatural horrors of the last fifty years and given a good director and screenwriter to helm it , it would be an awe inspiring,deep , shocking and terrifying, horror movie sadly all we have is two mediocre adaptations .
@EndlessLaymon And yes I know I am, in the minority with this opinion but I don't give a fuck I don't conform to liking a film because I am meant to. To be honest to me the 80's Shining movie is a average film being upheld because of the director nothing more.
Who gives a shit which is more faithful to the book? The miniseries is a decent comedy, and a shitty horror. The film an absolute classic. If you are mad there isn't a decent adaptation that remains true to the novel, blame King. He tried and failed when he made this miniseries.
Apperantly, most of the comments are from people who have never read the book. The remake is more similiar to the book the Kubricks work. Hell when I read the book I was suprised how much was left out, changed around, or completed madeup in the original first movie. At least with the mini-series, it was filmed at the very hotel that gave Stephen King his inspiration for the book.
The Original is better then the remake. That's what many people say around here. please Jack uses a mallet to kill his family in the remake. I think using an axe is better then a stupid mallet. In the remake a spirit is telling him to kill his family and all that but in the original Jack does it by himself and tries to kill his family
You have to have guts to "remake" it. And it looks so bad ! This is really a TV image and tv shots... People are complaining about the fact that Kubrick's film is not faithful to the book, but Kubrick made the book become a work of ark, because he add so much to the material, Kubrick's version is more intelligent, you can analyze it, it's real cinema (shots, performances). Cinema is an other medium and Kubrick fully used all its caracteristics, here you have a faithful version but poor, simple.
The Stanley version is so scary and the Stephen King version stays true to the book itself.Now if Stanley would have followed by the book it would have been GREAT.Jack had a roque mallet not an axe and most of the things Jack says on the Stephen King version is in the book.So here's a clue...READ THE BOOK.Then you'll see which movie stays closer to the story.
The difference here being that the Kubrick version was scarier. Although it would have actually been pretty cool to have the guy in the tux egging on Jack in the original.
i like the stephen king's version, very thrilling, but i never have watched the kubrick version so i cant definitely decide which is better. but i really like stephen king's version lol ! :P
ughh... the bitch in the original is so fucking ugly and irritating and dumber than shit. I wasn't a fan of the first movie. Why didn't she just kick the window until it broke anyways? oh ya cause she is as i stated above...Dumber than shit!!
Kubrick's version built up the suspense and terror through subtlety, up until this point, where the tension of the film begins to come to a nail-biting climax and subtlety is no longer needed. The "Here's Johnny" scene wouldn't be nearly as scary without the subtlety behind the rest of the film. King's version, however, attempts (key word being 'attempts') to build suspense and horror through flickering lights and soap opera drama. King might be a good author, but he sucks at film making.
everyone likes kubrick's version better because solely because of the amount of money he spent on the film. better picture, better acting, better effects, music, etc.
I totally agree with King that Kubrick didn't do a good job with the film. It seemed to me like Nicholson was ready to axe his wife and kid on the car ride to the hotel at the very beginning. King was realllly upset with the casting of jack nicholson and insisted on an everyday-type man that slowly transforms into a monster.
I agree. The problem with the original was that Nicholson seemed like a moody, murderous jerk right from the beginning. You never saw much of a love or connection between him and Danny or him and Wendy besides a brief and awkward talk between him and Danny in the middle when he seemed already over the edge. In the book, there were many moments of true affection that never translated onto the screen. This would've made his decent into madness so much more horrifying.
@yoggin02 I totally agree with everything you said except that I don't think Kubrick was really trying to adapt King's novel. The book is more about his descent into madness whereas the 1980 version is more of a ghost story. I mean, the book was too, but I don't think Kubrick's films was a cabin fever type story.
@yoggin02 that's not the point, it's about the fear of violence within the immediate family; the threat almost always comes from the alcoholic father. It is not about the journey of turning a sympathetic character into an unsympathetic one, it is about fear and madness; they fear the father long before they get to the hotel. Their isolation merely exacerbates the problems they already have which are problems a great deal of families have
@fleamarket3000 That may have been what Kubrick's vision was, but that definitely wasn't what King had in mind when he wrote the book. Kubrick turned King's book, which was a straight up supernatural horror, into a dark, psychological drama with supernatural undertones. Yeah, Kubrick's movie ws disturbing and scary and i dont deny that, but the book was absolutely terrifying. There were some psychological aspect to teh horror, but it was muted. Thats why i like the faithfulness of the reboot.
@yoggin02 How did he seem like a murderous jerk from the beginning?I can see moody,but cmon now.I think kubrick took a silly book,and actually made it disturbing.The twins,elevator of blood,the kid in bear suit.The claim that''moments of affection,would make his decent into madness so much more horrifying''are missing a point.Kubrick's was a major motion picture,not a mini-series.There's only so much content he can get in.The horror comes from the compositions,images,music and setting.
@yoggin02 you should know my friend that kubrick's film is almost different from the book...and the characters are different too....The original film is a masterpiece....so anything you see in kubrick's Shining is just not adventive...!
@yoggin02 Yeah, a lot like the original ending chapter in A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick made the right decision in leaving it out, and crafting something infinitely superior. Kubrick took King's crayoned picture off the refrigerator and turned it into a Rembrandt.
@LeLimeLine I have to disagree, Kubrick's film is all over the place when compared to the book and mini series. Although Kubrick's version is shot better and has a far more sinister and chilling atmosphere (which I think is chiefly down to the score), thematically and as far as the story goes, it doesn't hold up in my opinion. Nicholson's decent into madness is terribly rushed, the hotel's history is barely touched upon and the decision to have the talking finger is just plain daft.
Ok, the actress in the newer version is way better, but who wouldn't be? I still prefer Kubrick's version though and Nicholson has a lot to do with it. I just love his job! He freaks me out sometimes! LOL
Ok, the actress in the newer version is way better, but who wouldn't be? I still prefer Kubrick's version though and Nicholson has a lot to do with. I just love his job! He freaks me out sometimes! LOL
Hey everybody - I just released my solo album "Mirror Image" that contains ambient songs (and upbeat songs) heavily inspired by Stephen King's novel and movies The Shining, as well as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. If you're interested you can check out the songs on my youtube page, and links to my myspace page and places to download the full album are on my youtube channel as well :) .
I didn't actually like the Kubrick version. I loved the book, so I'm looking forward to watching the miniseries on Youtube. Good to see that they used the mallet in the minseries.
this scene might have been more scary in kubricks version, but the first one is more true to the story, and for that, i respect it more. I think kings version is much better, compare the scenes in 217 from kubricks and the remake, the remake wins hands down
okay, "The Shining" is my favorite book and movie. I've never watched the entire mini-series, but from this and a few other videos I've seen of it, I really like that it follows the storyline. I guess that comes from Stephen King producing it. The acting may have been better in Kubrick's version, but hey, he had JACK NICHOLSON. lol. the only thing i wished the movie had was the storyline from the book.
Anyone else notice that the Kubrik version of Wendy did less damage with a butcher knife then the King version did with a little razor blade? Man, Kubrik must have been a real chauvanist.
Looking at it movie-wise and not as an adaptation, I still say King/Garris - purely because of the family. Steven Weber was a normal guy who had gone down the wrong road; Jack Nicholson was a crazy-ass dad who was just insane. Rebecca DeMornay was strong, confident, and a good mother; Shelley Duvall was the opposite. Danny Lloyd was a cute, normal five-year-old; Courtland Mead was too old for himself, and that made him all the better.
I honestly think the shining is one of the greatest novels ever written. Granted, it didn't scare me at all. i thought it was extremely deep on an emotional level, and had characters that genuinley felt human. The only problem with the book to film transition, in my opinion, is that a lot of stuff in the book just couldn't work on the screen
The Original was so much better. I can't believe anyone thinks King's was better. The original aaalways takes the cake. Jack Nicholson was fucking crazy.
I preferred the mini -series because Steven weber was in it. He is sooo fine. I wanna do him on the kitchen table. He and I are gonna have a gang bang.
The three little pigs thing is so stupid, ruins any tension the scene might've had. Nicolson was much more frightening earlier in the movie. He's just silly towards the end.
Parts of Kubrick's version are brilliant and parts are just poorly done, like the entire third act. Why the hell are they running around a maze? Again, Nicolson isn't even scary anymore, just silly and actually kind of stupid. And don't get me started on how AWFUL the actress for Wendy is in Kubrick's version.
@BobaFettRules321 I was mainly just talking about that one line. I think, overall, Kubrick's version is the better movie. But, because it's so faithful to the book (which I think is amazing), I like part of the TV min-series better.
I think Jack Overlooked something! XD
Antii1985 1 week ago
1980 is better 1997.
JoAlWiGeEdm 1 week ago
@JoAlWiGeEdm 1997 was for those who like the book better. and wanted to see an adaptation closer to that. Stanley as a filmmaker made it his own while keeping the original material.
codename617 1 week ago
1:20 "boo" ...biggest let down ahaha
tweekedoutrabbit 1 month ago
Comparison?
You cannot come even close to compare one of the most recognizable lines in cinema "Here's Johnny" with a childish "boo".
Get real!
Stephen King may be the king of writing scary novels, but Stanley Kubrick is the God of making movies!
Kubrick101Fan 2 months ago
I think that I've gotten to the point where I can view King's novel and Kubrick's film as two almost separate entities. I love both, to put it simply, But, Kubrick, while he was perfectly capable of making more than on par film adaptions (A Clockwork Orange) made something delightfully disturbing, and terrifying in a very subtle way.
While I do enjoy the miniseries, it lacks the atmosphere, subtlety and puts more emphasis on sentimentality (which yes, was King's intention) but just didn't fly.
amirabel88 2 months ago 2
Kubrick's has to be viewed as a loose adaption, something that why containing critical elements, must be enjoyed in a different way. It has to be taken in as it's own film.
Like I said, the miniseries is decent, but it lacks the elements that made Kubrick's film so great. And at points, especially the one here, it seems like it's trying to ape Kubrick's cinematography.
amirabel88 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ACCEPT JESUS INTO YOUR LIFE SAY THIS PRAYER WITH FAITH :) Lord God. I come to You a sinner and I humbly repent of my sins. I believe that Jesus is Lord and I believe You raised Him from the dead. I ask that Jesus will come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. I receive Jesus to change and take control of my life that I may live for Him from this day forth and from now on. Thank You Lord Jesus for saving me and cleansing me with Your precious blood. In Jesus name, Amen.
IdigAponyONtheROOF 2 months ago
I know I know. Kubrick fans will hate the TV miniseries. Stephen King fans will hate Kubrick's version. I am more middle ground. They're both good. The 1980 one was more classic and creepy. But the miniseries was pretty scary too. Still... nobody can beat Jack Nicholson's performance.
ViceroyBoss 3 months ago
One of the worst films ever.
MrRazorblade999 3 months ago
That is completely retarded.
DrSpecksTillman 3 months ago
Having seen both the movie and the miniseries I will admit to preferring the miniseries (it stayed truer to the novel) but the movie had some creepy shit going on. The scene with the elevator of blood was just CREEPY.
DivineKala 3 months ago
King didn't like Kubrick's version but it's sure better than the stupid TV version!
emanmark 3 months ago
I just masterbaited onto a sock.
THEBONEENGINE 3 months ago
Im sorry where is "Here's Johnny!" and why is he using a croquet mallet
robirdsfilmmaker 3 months ago
@robirdsfilmmaker because this is the remake on tv.......except you probably knew that but were mad.
ChookaaFindlebean 3 months ago
@robirdsfilmmaker he's using a roque mallet because that's what he used in the book, not an axe.
flyingmotorbike 3 months ago
Haven't seen King's adaptation, but I know that it can't be worse than Kubrick's.
TheMarkSasuke64 3 months ago
@TheMarkSasuke64 Worse than Kubricks? what the fuck are you talking about. It is worse. Kubricks is a masterpiece
Fuckingflesheater 3 months ago
the music & the settings of Kubrick's version is the one that's scary although "Wendy" actress' acting is like a wood. The miniseries one is so-so.
MieHanz 4 months ago
heeeeree's JOHNNY!!
AllieRoseify 4 months ago
Seems like they don't make doors like they used to. The croquet mallet seems to work better or at least just as well.
VanillaLimeCoke 4 months ago
1:19
Boo (10 dB)
Wendy scampers away
Screams (280 dB)
2:40
Smashes fancy antique lamp and then TV (wtf?) why'd he do that???!
VanillaLimeCoke 4 months ago
@VanillaLimeCoke Becuase he is a crazy evil motherfu%$er
vicbaez 4 months ago
Comment removed
clintbronson5 4 months ago
1980's version is better!!!!!!
CannibalBitch1 4 months ago
Glad Kubrick changed all that shit!
CaptainPommby 4 months ago
@Crazyphil2008 : Well, I would be more afraid of a croquet mallet. If someone were to be using an axe to kill you, you'd be smart enough to know that it would kill you in an instant. With a croquet mallet, if you watched the remake, would smash every single one of your bones with a blow. It would be a much more painful death. :-)
HorrorLuva4Life 5 months ago
@RHN31214 : Because in the original novel, Jack uses a croquet mallet instead of an axe. Kubrick's version didn't follow the story. The miniseries remake had Stephen King as an executive producer, so it would follow the story.
HorrorLuva4Life 5 months ago
how come in the remake he uses a mallet instead of an axe?
RNH31214 5 months ago
@RNH31214 he used a mallet in the book.
xX7ristanXx 4 months ago
@xX7ristanXx oh..i didnt know that
RNH31214 4 months ago
geee, i wonder which one is better .. hmmmm AND ITS KUBRICK! BY A FREAKING MILE
what kind of dryshite is king thinking he could outdo the master. Yes Stephen, you are a dryshite!
MrHopeTelevision 5 months ago
@AGuyInAHat
In much the same way Becky is a form of Rebekah, Liz is from Elizabeth and Liam is short for William Jack is another way of saying John.
You're welcome.
littlesmew 5 months ago
When you consider the original it begs the question why bother re-making?
I know King wasn't keen on Kubrick's take on the book but most discerning people considered it a classic.
littlesmew 5 months ago
@littlesmew the remake would be an attempt to make a more faithful version of the story. not only that, but to see what one's own style of horror in film could be used to bring King's stuff to their own vision.
kilnorc 5 months ago
@KirillVova ok
1. never said it was the worst
2. it was bad when your looking for a good adaptation of the book
3. if Stanley wanted to, he would've just made his own original movie with a different title and characters
4. The Exorcist is the most iconic horror film in history
Myytmovies 5 months ago
I hate to talk crap about the mini series because I love it and HATE the movie but couldn't jack just bust through the middle to begin with? =o
americanpsycho93 5 months ago
entire the film exists??
epistaths 5 months ago
THE REMAKE IS SHEET THE BEST IS THE SHINING OF KUBRIK, AND JACK NICHOLSON IS THE BEST ACTOR...
jorgeraga 5 months ago
@jorgeraga Actually Kubrick's Shining is the worst because it follows so little of the original story
Doesn't matter about how good or bad the actors were, it should matter if they followed the original source material right
Myytmovies 5 months ago
@Myytmovies Bullshit! I want to see a film becouse its good, not becouse its supposed to follow the original movie or book!
PinguKrueger 5 months ago
@PinguKrueger movie is good on its own, but as a faithful adaptation: no it's not
Myytmovies 5 months ago
Stephen WROTE it... so, credit must be given to the insane man with a typewriter.... BUT ! Stephen, stick to the keyboard.
Kubrick's version is a part of cinematic history.
Yes, I know... it was not your "vision" and that'd probably piss me off too (we all want to "cast and direct" every book we read)... but WOW !
The "remake" SUUUUCKED and the "original" is iconoclastic.
TacomaPaul 5 months ago 2
Read the book, watch Kubrick's version, skip the abomination re-make. If you forget the book and focus on the movie as a project of it's own , ''The Shining'' is one of the best, if not the best movie. The music, atmosphere, acting, subliminal messages etc makes it a package that delivers. You can't compare books to movies. S.K. knows how to write books, Kubrick knew how to make movies. The End.
Baychimo 6 months ago
I wanted to film a parody of The Shining, but Stephen King beat me to it.
LeLimeLine 6 months ago 9
@LeLimeLine The first one is more accurate with the book, and the second is edited just to fit the actors. It's honestly best as the book... Movies are too shallow in the characters thoughts. but the girl in the second one looks fucking retarded...
FUUAAAAAAAARRRRKKKKK 2 months ago
Jack Nicholson is all crazy and no tender-hearted dad.
Shelley Duvall looks like a fish
Danny Lloyd for some reason, thinks his finger is Tony
americanpsycho93 6 months ago 4
@americanpsycho93
LOL c:
HorrorLuva4Life 4 months ago
The remake is so much better. Kubricks version wasnt faithful to the book at all.
cmarshall497 6 months ago
after sooo many year the orginal stell beat the remake.
mahender6969 7 months ago
You know I just noticed something, Johnny isn't even his real name! Isn't it Jack Torrence???
AGuyInAHat 7 months ago
@AGuyInAHat Actually in the book I think his name is John...I'm not sure :I I'm still reading it. But he is referred to John every once and awhile--the "He-ere's Johnny!" part comes from Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show awhile back. They used to introduce him with "And now, heeeere's JOHNNY!" in the beginning.
Kopious11011 7 months ago
@AGuyInAHat Not sure if serious
thetramp123 6 months ago
@AGuyInAHat The "Here's Johnny" scene was almost a joke against Johnny Carson's The Tonight Show. Johnny was always introduced by his sidekick Ed McMahon with his opening line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" In the movie, Jack Torrence was just making a reference to the line.
Shadywolf09 3 months ago
@Shadywolf09 Really? Huh, You Learn Something New Everyday!
AGuyInAHat 3 months ago
any 1 no where i can watch the 97 version?
Myytmovies 7 months ago
The root of the problem between Kubrick and King's versions seems to be that both were created by bona fide, yet opposed, visionaries. Kubrick more or less admitted to King that he didn't believe in the supernatural, which plays an integral role in most of King's fiction. He also rejected a script by King himself and didn't take any of King's casting advice. Yet the first film is a classic of psychological horror, possibly the best example ever created.
eddystone333 7 months ago
what's with the green shit?
andrespereyda 8 months ago
Which one is which?
PeanutButterJelly500 8 months ago
@PeanutButterJelly500 woe
andrespereyda 8 months ago
Why did Kubrick eliminated the hedge animals scene? Because he wanted to ruin the movie. So, Stephen King's much better.
pichoharispe 8 months ago
@pichoharispe tell that to clockwork orange and eyes wide shut
andrespereyda 8 months ago
@pichoharispe With really bad cartoony CGI!
junkyturd 8 months ago
@pichoharispe are you serious??? thank God he eliminated that scene and didn't take into consideration because is kitsch..I'm sure that King is very grateful to Stanley because after the original Shining every book of King was sell out!
AcidRainAgain 7 months ago
Stephen King's much better!!!
pichoharispe 8 months ago
I did notice a difference. The Kubrick version was awesome and the remake wasn't. (Shelly Duvall seemed more terrified in her performance, Jack Nicholson Looked more threatening; I mean come on! How can you beat an ax with a crochet mallet? Lastly the Kubrick version was shot TONS better then the remake.
NextGenerasionCinema 8 months ago
@NextGenerasionCinema i have to agree, ax > crochet mallet
supermechadeath333 8 months ago
It's so lame compared to Kubrick! Like a bad made for TV movie!
JerrysFunhouse 8 months ago
@JerrysFunhouse It's a tv mini series so it is a bad made for tv movie.
NextGenerasionCinema 8 months ago
god the remake jack torrence has lost his mind even more then the original has.
DanNZ4 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i have gotta see the remake good or not i have to see it.
DanNZ4 8 months ago
I like the original movie better but the newer one is a lot more accurate to the book in the original movie they even went as far as to change room 213 to 237
switchwitch5 9 months ago
@switchwitch5 There was a big reason the room in Kubrick version was 237 start reserching , Kubrick shining is the moust subminal movie of all time man it tells many stories some propably not yet understood
F1brawfa 9 months ago
@switchwitch5 its 217
coolguy111ish 8 months ago
I think taht seconds 1:57 - 2:00 looks better than 6:20 - 6:23
vicbaez 9 months ago
What the fuck is so scary about trying to kill somebody with a croquet mallet i'd be more afaid of the ax that Jack nicoleson was using in The original
Crazyphil2008 9 months ago
Why did the guy wipe snow off the sign? He knew where the place was!
JyeSherwell 9 months ago 7
@JyeSherwell i seen that and dint think nothing of it til i read ur comment and chuckeled.
1WhoMee1 9 months ago
It is a shame that the miseries was a TV adaption and not theatrical as it is closer to the book in way of story telling, but sadly fails because of TV censorship so it can't go into the more darker areas of the book that would have made it hard R and areas of the book that Kubrick didn't even attempt to go into .
EndlessLaymon 9 months ago
@EndlessLaymon Kubrick's movie has some nice directing and music but other than it is a lacklustre horror film completely lacking in scares and suspense and two very poor performance by Nicholson and Duvall the Wendy and Jack from the miniseries were a lot better and better written as I actually cared about them.
EndlessLaymon 9 months ago
@EndlessLaymon It is a shame that both Shining movies are radically flawed as the book is one the best supernatural horrors of the last fifty years and given a good director and screenwriter to helm it , it would be an awe inspiring,deep , shocking and terrifying, horror movie sadly all we have is two mediocre adaptations .
EndlessLaymon 9 months ago
@EndlessLaymon And yes I know I am, in the minority with this opinion but I don't give a fuck I don't conform to liking a film because I am meant to. To be honest to me the 80's Shining movie is a average film being upheld because of the director nothing more.
EndlessLaymon 9 months ago
Who gives a shit which is more faithful to the book? The miniseries is a decent comedy, and a shitty horror. The film an absolute classic. If you are mad there isn't a decent adaptation that remains true to the novel, blame King. He tried and failed when he made this miniseries.
MapleDrip 9 months ago 2
kubricks is clearly so much better
downrodeo2112 9 months ago
Nobody can play Jack Torrence better than Jack Nicholson.
MomRunsOrc1 10 months ago
Apperantly, most of the comments are from people who have never read the book. The remake is more similiar to the book the Kubricks work. Hell when I read the book I was suprised how much was left out, changed around, or completed madeup in the original first movie. At least with the mini-series, it was filmed at the very hotel that gave Stephen King his inspiration for the book.
Rob8729 10 months ago
I bet he wanted to say here's johnny so bad lol
I thought this version was really awful and no comparison to Kubricks, King needs to stick to writing novels
electricEntity81 10 months ago
The Original is better then the remake. That's what many people say around here. please Jack uses a mallet to kill his family in the remake. I think using an axe is better then a stupid mallet. In the remake a spirit is telling him to kill his family and all that but in the original Jack does it by himself and tries to kill his family
DanNZ4 10 months ago
@DanNZ4
Well it follows the book.
wannabex01 9 months ago
Comment removed
DanNZ4 10 months ago
green was better
Tiffany65978 10 months ago
You have to have guts to "remake" it. And it looks so bad ! This is really a TV image and tv shots... People are complaining about the fact that Kubrick's film is not faithful to the book, but Kubrick made the book become a work of ark, because he add so much to the material, Kubrick's version is more intelligent, you can analyze it, it's real cinema (shots, performances). Cinema is an other medium and Kubrick fully used all its caracteristics, here you have a faithful version but poor, simple.
Films7art 10 months ago
@Films7art You are totally correct! The movie is an artistic masterpiece that far surpasses the book.
ivankaramasov 10 months ago
Green Wins!
bunkashaaa1 10 months ago
The mini-series seems like a parody of it from Scary Movie.
redrover327 11 months ago 2
I liked the original a lot more nothing can compare to "heeeres Johnny" ;)
Lizabite 11 months ago
boo is no match for HEEEERRRREEE'S JOHNNY!!!!!!
QuestionYourThoughts 11 months ago 33
@QuestionYourThoughts "boo" isn´t supoes to match "HEEEERRRREEE'S JOHNNY!!!!!!", it supous to match "HONEY, IM HOME!!!!"
vicbaez 9 months ago
@QuestionYourThoughts Agree Heeeeeres Johnnnny !
JohnPiperBoots 8 months ago
@QuestionYourThoughts that's jack's line, he can't use it
Myytmovies 7 months ago
@QuestionYourThoughts If you watch the hole serie (the first one it's a serie, way more like the real novel), that "boo" means a lot!
santiagorojaspiaggio 7 months ago
@QuestionYourThoughts Very true but Stanley Kubrick is no match for STEPHEN KING!!!!!!!
americanpsycho93 7 months ago
@QuestionYourThoughts AGREED!..INDEED!
Mspendragon72 6 months ago
The Stanley version is so scary and the Stephen King version stays true to the book itself.Now if Stanley would have followed by the book it would have been GREAT.Jack had a roque mallet not an axe and most of the things Jack says on the Stephen King version is in the book.So here's a clue...READ THE BOOK.Then you'll see which movie stays closer to the story.
valeriepowers 1 year ago
the original is a great movie the remake sucks
waldner97 1 year ago
Comment removed
calmsnowfall 1 year ago
Comment removed
vanillakoolaid 1 year ago
the main difference is that the 1980's version has a big green block at the bottom...
9res 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:47 Wendy I'm Home
daemion812 1 year ago
Wendy I'm home
daemion812 1 year ago
shma i like the original better
Bobetteylambert 1 year ago
Didn't reall like the series
Phat20s 1 year ago
only the miniseries movie version of stephen king. & if ur asking what planet im from, maybe jupiter
jennyarcon 1 year ago
The difference here being that the Kubrick version was scarier. Although it would have actually been pretty cool to have the guy in the tux egging on Jack in the original.
tolchok89 1 year ago
i like the stephen king's version, very thrilling, but i never have watched the kubrick version so i cant definitely decide which is better. but i really like stephen king's version lol ! :P
jennyarcon 1 year ago
@jennyarcon
.....you've never seen the shining? What planet are you from!?!
REBELMEDIAVIDEOS 1 year ago
ughh... the bitch in the original is so fucking ugly and irritating and dumber than shit. I wasn't a fan of the first movie. Why didn't she just kick the window until it broke anyways? oh ya cause she is as i stated above...Dumber than shit!!
zzzhuh 1 year ago
@zzzhuh she is wearing make up so she looks ugly she could not break the window because she did not have any shoes on
HauntedMask24 1 year ago
@HauntedMask24 I highly doubt it. She looks the same in poppie
zzzhuh 1 year ago
@zzzhuh
omg. i think the real dumb is YOU.
HelvonMaranburg 1 year ago
@HelvonMaranburg oh great.....I like the mini series better deal with it.
zzzhuh 1 year ago
@zzzhuh
I MEAN: you say you prefer king's mini series, after watching kubrick's masterpiece? OMG pt. 2
HelvonMaranburg 1 year ago
WTF is dat?!?!?!?!? O.o
JackScrolls 1 year ago
is that the guy from Wings?
2000gorillas 1 year ago
Kubrick's version built up the suspense and terror through subtlety, up until this point, where the tension of the film begins to come to a nail-biting climax and subtlety is no longer needed. The "Here's Johnny" scene wouldn't be nearly as scary without the subtlety behind the rest of the film. King's version, however, attempts (key word being 'attempts') to build suspense and horror through flickering lights and soap opera drama. King might be a good author, but he sucks at film making.
chinchychilla 1 year ago
Comment removed
chinchychilla 1 year ago
everyone likes kubrick's version better because solely because of the amount of money he spent on the film. better picture, better acting, better effects, music, etc.
I totally agree with King that Kubrick didn't do a good job with the film. It seemed to me like Nicholson was ready to axe his wife and kid on the car ride to the hotel at the very beginning. King was realllly upset with the casting of jack nicholson and insisted on an everyday-type man that slowly transforms into a monster.
JayMalone 1 year ago 2
@JayMalone
I agree. The problem with the original was that Nicholson seemed like a moody, murderous jerk right from the beginning. You never saw much of a love or connection between him and Danny or him and Wendy besides a brief and awkward talk between him and Danny in the middle when he seemed already over the edge. In the book, there were many moments of true affection that never translated onto the screen. This would've made his decent into madness so much more horrifying.
yoggin02 11 months ago 14
@yoggin02 I totally agree with everything you said except that I don't think Kubrick was really trying to adapt King's novel. The book is more about his descent into madness whereas the 1980 version is more of a ghost story. I mean, the book was too, but I don't think Kubrick's films was a cabin fever type story.
blablaidontcarewhour 8 months ago
@yoggin02 that's not the point, it's about the fear of violence within the immediate family; the threat almost always comes from the alcoholic father. It is not about the journey of turning a sympathetic character into an unsympathetic one, it is about fear and madness; they fear the father long before they get to the hotel. Their isolation merely exacerbates the problems they already have which are problems a great deal of families have
fleamarket3000 8 months ago
@fleamarket3000 That may have been what Kubrick's vision was, but that definitely wasn't what King had in mind when he wrote the book. Kubrick turned King's book, which was a straight up supernatural horror, into a dark, psychological drama with supernatural undertones. Yeah, Kubrick's movie ws disturbing and scary and i dont deny that, but the book was absolutely terrifying. There were some psychological aspect to teh horror, but it was muted. Thats why i like the faithfulness of the reboot.
elkadir70 7 months ago
@yoggin02 How did he seem like a murderous jerk from the beginning?I can see moody,but cmon now.I think kubrick took a silly book,and actually made it disturbing.The twins,elevator of blood,the kid in bear suit.The claim that''moments of affection,would make his decent into madness so much more horrifying''are missing a point.Kubrick's was a major motion picture,not a mini-series.There's only so much content he can get in.The horror comes from the compositions,images,music and setting.
TheGatorfan93 7 months ago
@yoggin02 you should know my friend that kubrick's film is almost different from the book...and the characters are different too....The original film is a masterpiece....so anything you see in kubrick's Shining is just not adventive...!
AcidRainAgain 7 months ago
@yoggin02 The first one (it's a serie) it's a lot like the book! you sholud watch it all till the ending... :) you'll like it.
santiagorojaspiaggio 7 months ago
@yoggin02 Yeah, a lot like the original ending chapter in A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick made the right decision in leaving it out, and crafting something infinitely superior. Kubrick took King's crayoned picture off the refrigerator and turned it into a Rembrandt.
LeLimeLine 6 months ago
@LeLimeLine I have to disagree, Kubrick's film is all over the place when compared to the book and mini series. Although Kubrick's version is shot better and has a far more sinister and chilling atmosphere (which I think is chiefly down to the score), thematically and as far as the story goes, it doesn't hold up in my opinion. Nicholson's decent into madness is terribly rushed, the hotel's history is barely touched upon and the decision to have the talking finger is just plain daft.
fallenkingdan 6 months ago
Stephen Kings is the original u dumb ass
BecksBolero17 6 months ago
I dont like the fact that kunrick put a that green box under the film. Muste ne some trick to make the thing more scary :)
Collstertyp1 1 year ago
A hammer ? Realy
Collstertyp1 1 year ago
I love when he's like "boo" hahaha <3
samstephproductionz 1 year ago
at 7:00 why are both door panels axed out? lmao thats weird....
EarlAgeeTV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok, the actress in the newer version is way better, but who wouldn't be? I still prefer Kubrick's version though and Nicholson has a lot to do with it. I just love his job! He freaks me out sometimes! LOL
nathfairy 1 year ago
Ok, the actress in the newer version is way better, but who wouldn't be? I still prefer Kubrick's version though and Nicholson has a lot to do with. I just love his job! He freaks me out sometimes! LOL
nathfairy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everybody - I just released my solo album "Mirror Image" that contains ambient songs (and upbeat songs) heavily inspired by Stephen King's novel and movies The Shining, as well as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. If you're interested you can check out the songs on my youtube page, and links to my myspace page and places to download the full album are on my youtube channel as well :) .
ORTmusic 1 year ago
I didn't actually like the Kubrick version. I loved the book, so I'm looking forward to watching the miniseries on Youtube. Good to see that they used the mallet in the minseries.
deathwishtaco 1 year ago
Much better King's version. Kubrick blewed it.
pichoharispe 1 year ago
OMG WHAT'S THIS SHIT ?!?!?!?!?!?!! the first one is SOOO bad, it looks like a parody !
sachounettexxx 1 year ago
this scene might have been more scary in kubricks version, but the first one is more true to the story, and for that, i respect it more. I think kings version is much better, compare the scenes in 217 from kubricks and the remake, the remake wins hands down
H4rryP0773r 1 year ago
okay, "The Shining" is my favorite book and movie. I've never watched the entire mini-series, but from this and a few other videos I've seen of it, I really like that it follows the storyline. I guess that comes from Stephen King producing it. The acting may have been better in Kubrick's version, but hey, he had JACK NICHOLSON. lol. the only thing i wished the movie had was the storyline from the book.
kayluhmichelle13 1 year ago
the bitch in the second was sucks ass at acting
TheProcab 1 year ago
Anyone else notice that the Kubrik version of Wendy did less damage with a butcher knife then the King version did with a little razor blade? Man, Kubrik must have been a real chauvanist.
fdragon010 1 year ago
jack Nicholson's act, his lines, the way he destroys that fucking door and the music are awesome
Kubrick's version have diferences with the book, but the way he did the movie is great and I think it's much better than the novel
tadeuk2k 1 year ago
Looking at it movie-wise and not as an adaptation, I still say King/Garris - purely because of the family. Steven Weber was a normal guy who had gone down the wrong road; Jack Nicholson was a crazy-ass dad who was just insane. Rebecca DeMornay was strong, confident, and a good mother; Shelley Duvall was the opposite. Danny Lloyd was a cute, normal five-year-old; Courtland Mead was too old for himself, and that made him all the better.
King/Garris = Win
Kubrick = Fail
MrsPennywise96 1 year ago
For sets, score and camera shots, Kubrick's wins.
For acting, script, direction, AND score, King/Garris's wins.
And for adaptation, the winner is, of course, King/Garris.
MrsPennywise96 1 year ago
wendy is really hot in the TV version. Kubrick's version in infinitely better though, no question about that
Doriamos 1 year ago
wow. there's a mistake in the movie: see minute 7: actually, he only destroyed one side of the door but then it's both!
schnuffi123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I honestly think the shining is one of the greatest novels ever written. Granted, it didn't scare me at all. i thought it was extremely deep on an emotional level, and had characters that genuinley felt human. The only problem with the book to film transition, in my opinion, is that a lot of stuff in the book just couldn't work on the screen
thehappyloser 1 year ago
the Kubrick version is much better. I've read the book, too. While he changed a lot, Kubrick's film is the better film. MUCH scarier than the remake.
EnragedClementine 1 year ago
Comment removed
thehappyloser 1 year ago
The Original was so much better. I can't believe anyone thinks King's was better. The original aaalways takes the cake. Jack Nicholson was fucking crazy.
SkyyRene 1 year ago
I preferred the mini -series because Steven weber was in it. He is sooo fine. I wanna do him on the kitchen table. He and I are gonna have a gang bang.
klutzfan334 1 year ago
the second is better then the first but when he goes Wendy i am home we kinda get your home lol
HauntedMask24 1 year ago
kings was better
cat123456789101 1 year ago
The three little pigs thing is so stupid, ruins any tension the scene might've had. Nicolson was much more frightening earlier in the movie. He's just silly towards the end.
Parts of Kubrick's version are brilliant and parts are just poorly done, like the entire third act. Why the hell are they running around a maze? Again, Nicolson isn't even scary anymore, just silly and actually kind of stupid. And don't get me started on how AWFUL the actress for Wendy is in Kubrick's version.
TheJunlee23 1 year ago
@TheJunlee23 okay, so three little pigs ruins it but boo and papa bear are just fine?! bullshit!
BobaFettRules321 1 year ago
@BobaFettRules321 Bullshit, indeed. Never once did I say that the "boo" and papa bear" lines were better.
TheJunlee23 11 months ago
@TheJunlee23 well the way u bashed the Kubrick one it kind of hinted at that the 1997 one was better
BobaFettRules321 11 months ago
@BobaFettRules321 I was mainly just talking about that one line. I think, overall, Kubrick's version is the better movie. But, because it's so faithful to the book (which I think is amazing), I like part of the TV min-series better.
TheJunlee23 11 months ago
Garris' was better.
MrsPennywise96 1 year ago