Added: 5 years ago
From: ThisIsMyBoomStick
Views: 21,486
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (63)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • LOOKiiN' G0rG30US!!

  • i like the tv version more

    

  • The 1980 version differed so much from the book, it was funny, but Stanley Kubrick was a genius and The Shining (1980 Kubrick version) is one of my all time favorite movies. Comparing a Kubrick masterpiece that Kubrick spent years editing and fussing over obsessively like a mad man with a cheesy made-for-tv movie that just happens to "follow" the book more is a joke. Yeah, technically the re-make is truer to the book, but the acting, directing, music, lighting, special effects and makeup suck.

  • this is bullcrap compared to the kubrick version

  • I liked the remake of "The Shining"...though the end was crap. Casting was good, the flow of the story was fine...so why is everyone hating on it?

  • @angelix This is just my opinion, but you asked why everyone hates it. Obviously not everyone hates it (you like it). I don't "hate" it, I just don't like it. So why don't I like it: I found the acting to be poor and unbelievable. The make up effects were terrible. The hedge animals was laughable. There were none of the subtle artistic touches Kubrick put in to build tension. It was over the top, hackneyed and screamed "made for TV" movie, the kid's acting was horrible, and....out of room.

  • @lexikalfanfic Okay? Sorry, I posted this almost a year ago...I don't really care anymore.

  • whenever i hear someone say "the book is better" i want to punch them in the neck SO bad

  • @kingofallpie What if I read a book on how to stop your punch and punch you back 10x harder?

  • @Fmaack Instead you should read the book explaining how stupid it is to respond to a 7 month old forum post.

  • @kingofallpie Are there any books YOU can read?

  • @Fmaack There's a really good one that recently made the bestseller list. It's all about morons who keep arguments going even after they're spoonfed the fact that it's very dumb to treat old comments like they're fresh.

  • @kingofallpie OH NO! The old comments. What? I'm grandpa for making a comment that's 7 months old. WTF is wrong with people these days. Does everything have to have happened in the last 12 hours or it's utterly useless? I noticed this trend when using stumbleupon and giving 'thumbs up' to interesting but relevant articles from 2007. Some teenybopper comes in and says "OLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!" Maybe they could learn a thing or two.

  • @Fmaack Listen moron: there's a gigantic difference between 12 hours and about 210 days.

  • @kingofallpie OMG OLD! So why are you replying? Only new things are good! Burn all books from before 2000! If it's old, it must be CRAP!

  • @Fmaack Don't put words in my mouth you insignificant little shitstain! It's far more jaded and naive to be one of those pretentious assholes who hold movies to the same standard as books. They're different goddamned mediums so why bother getting pissed off at an apple for not being more like a carrot?

  • @kingofallpie I never said I held movies to the same standard. The Shining the book is pure pulp. It's not very well written although I thought it was a masterpiece when I was 13. That's pretty much the sure sign of a mediocre book. The Shining movie (Kubrick) is the best horror movie ever made. Stephen King didn't like it because his idea of subtlety is all kinds of references to his previous book and a really overblown metaphor (the hotel boiler).

  • @Fmaack I agree, King hated it, but I don't think he hated it for just the reasons you stated. You can pm me if you want because the explanation would take too long, but Kubrick was essentially pushing his buttons with symbols in that movie. Kubrick was extremely diligent and he didn't make "mistakes" (a lot of the so-called goofs people bitch about are supposed to be there- the man went over EVERY frame numerous times).

  • There is not that much of a difference. 210 days is a drop in the bucket. A reply is a reply.

  • @lexikalfanfic butt the fuck out, douche

  • @Fmaack I agree, they were dumb comments, but you won't teach teenyboppers so don't even try. Even when I was a teen (I was a weird one) I didn't bother trying to associate with them. You'll have a better chance teaching a gorilla the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics. Sadly, I'm not joking.

  • The reason I like this more thsn Kubricks version has nothing to with being truer to the book. I liked it because of the far superior development of Jack. I think in Kubricks that it seems as though Jack is already crazy before he enters the Overlook whereas in this version, you can clearly see his gradual decent into madness. Just my opinion. Book is better than both though.

  • Someone told me that Stephen King had a cameo in this, does anyone know where he is?

  • @VillaValo13

    When Jack goes to the "ballroom" after having several drinks, King can be seen on the stage as the conductor of the band.

  • Kubrick's Version was obviously better than this, better acting, Subtle, more disturbing and much more deep, i think the reason why people think this is better is because it has an explanation for every single detail but with Kubrick's version of the film leaves you to think when the film is finished - why did that happen? who was she?, what did that mean? etc thats more fascinating, that's why it's better than this cheap TV Version of the shining

  • The miniseries may have been close to the novel but, Kubrick's version is sooo much better.

  • bought this the other day after not seeing it since it aired over ten years ago, next to pet semetary and the mist its my favourite king adaptation i reckon, the woman in 217 still shits me up!

  • Mighty Fine American, both version of the shining are great. Weber and Nicholson both convey the role extremely well. Each one has its good things and bad things.

  • Where's Johnny?

  • HERE'S JOHNNY!

  • Yay I feel dumb cause it took me months to figure it out XD

  • No one is an idiot simply for disagreeing with you. The original movie, love it or not, is Kubrick's TAKE on King's novel. Not an exercise in imitation.

    I think Kubrick earned himself a little creative license, don't you? Hmmm? 2001? Clockwork Orange? If this dude wants to colour outside the lines, I think he's allowed.

  • You don't get it, do you? I was only telling people to stop all these childish arguments already, because when it comes to opinion, it never ends, so why fight over shit like this? It doesn't end with their opinion, it doesn't end with mine, and certainly it doesn't end with yours.

  • "The 1980 version is the real deal... no, but the remake is better... no, but the remake is shit... no but the Kubrick version sucks ass... no, but the film is scarier... no, but the 1997 version is more like the book and is scarier while Kubrick's doesn't stay true to the original source... no, but Nicholson over Weber any day, no but I prefer Weber over Nicholson... blah, blah, blah..."

    Jeez! Quit it, you morons. It's all a matter of OPINION. When it comes to opinion, you can't win or lose.

  • I like this version better because Kubrick's version of The Shining, I really didn't like it because it didn't have some of the stuff that was in the book. I mean, what's the whole point of Jack hitting Dick with an flipping axe?

  • The Original shining could be at best a thriller it is not a horror movie. The mini series actually brought some fear into the movie unlike the jack nicholson version.

  • You are insane

  • And jack nicholson's version is scarrier? Ive seen scarrier things from barney than Jack nicolson's version of the shining. And the guy who played dick was just stupid the mini series found a much better actor for the role.

  • Stanly Kubrick's the shining was good don't get me wrong but i read the novel,then watched his version and i was pretty damned mad that it was almost nothing like the book.Stephen king's version is soo much better.

  • the acting and the way it was filmed was WAY better in the 1980 version, but i like the extra storyline in this one. hell i love em both!!!

  • howie's got the shining you find out in the book

  • Shining Orginal is MUCH better than this mini serie shit

  • God this version sucks ass. I think you need to take your medicine...1980 version was so much better. Kubrick all the way!

  • The 1980 version may not be as close to the book as this one, but the 1980 version was so much better than this one.

  • "but the 1980 version was so much better than this one. "

    Thats an opinion not an fact. Miniseries was much better than Kubricks version.

  • Your a fucking prick with an iq of one! makes sense that you need the whole film in connect the dots format! Stephen king is a novelist not a director or a producer. get bored of these pricks referring to the book every two secs! And wouldn't a remake of a naval be a novel?

  • Can somebody tell me where I can find this mini series? I read the book and saw the original movie and highly enjoyed both, but I haven't seen this one yet.

  • 42ben is putting it on youtube

  • ebay or Amazon maybe

  • I've never seen either, but from what I hear Kubrick's version was nothing like the book! which is an automatic disagreement with you, I'm afraid (I read the book...)

  • Kubrick's film was fuck all like the book but it's still good

  • I prefer the mini series of the shining. it is beter than the original. what u guys think?

  • I agree.

  • u dead mfa

  • The remake is nice, and better set with the book, but the actor in the original movie is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better for Dick halloran.

  • Actually, I imagined Dick looking MUCH more like this than how he appeared in the movie.

  • never knew sam raimi was in it

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more