I thought this was a cool insight. I'll never get to know what it was like to work with Stanley Kubrick, a lot of people on here think he's the greatest director of all time and he very well maybe, I prefer Fellini or Welles myself but their all great. PEople think Kubrick was this great Mytic giant larger than life and people think the same of King too, truth is, their just very talented men. I thought this was a very human look at him from someone who worked with him.
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
Hey sorry to spam, but I am just letting everyone know that I have written a FREE EBOOK Dark Fantasy, if anyone is interested in getting a copy than please come onto my channel, there is a link on the promo video that I made, thanks!
The book is superior to Kubrick's film. And as a fan of the book, I prefer the 1997 miniseries. Yes, the hedge animals were lame, but the movie as a whole did justice to the book. Plus, I find Jack Nicholson to just be annoying as hell.
@Despina838 The two aren't really comparable. Kubrick jettisoned a lot from the novel to focus primarily on atmosphere and scares. What makes the film for me is Kubrick's unique camerawork and how he utilized scores by Bartok, Ligeti and Penedrecki to eerie effect. Film is visceral, novels are more about abstract ideas. Depends on what you want.
Many people who disregard Stephen King as a popular writer often haven't even read any of his works. The Shining is an incredible masterpiece of horror fiction that will be remembered well past the 20th century, I think
IMO, the book FAR surpasses Kubrick's film. But these things are hard to compare, because, as someone said, "if you see the film, then read the book, you'll hate the book. If you read the book, then see the film, you'll hate the film." And I think that's totally true. I can't watch the film, because I'll always judge it against the sheer, honest, personal expression that King was putting out there when he wrote it. That's why Kubrick's film can "suck it," for me.
It's understandable how the person that CAME UP WITH THE IDEA "letting" someone direct what ended up being an iconic movie may be pissed off when his OWN IDEA doesn't come off exactly "as planned".
Now we all know that Kubrick's "Shining" FAR surpasses that horrible remake that King oversaw. Stick to the keyboard Stephen.
BUT ! I gotta give credit to Stephen for speaking up.
If you CREATE something, you have EVERY RIGHT to criticize what has been done to YOUR creation.
Artists really are a different breed than the rest of us mere mortals, so the King Kubrick feud, to me comes as no great surprise. Actually it enhances both the source material and the film to the status of mythology. Cause you know no two Ancient Greeks could ever tell the same story, which I'm sure was a great source of controversy for all involved. Yet I'm equally as certain that all can agree that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
It seems that most of the complaints are three things 1. ''jack's crazy from the beginning'',2.''wendy is to mousy'',and the biggest,3.''there's not enough character development of jack''.So let's examine those complaints.1.He's not crazy at the beginning,he's a recovering drunk,and is CLOSE to the edge.2.Think of her situation:Isolated,stuck with an unstable husband and a son who goes in and out of trances,authentic behavior i say.3.Its not a 4 hour mini series,even kubrick had limitations.
@TheGatorfan93 how dare you fucking bash kubrick man, he was the greatest director of all time. watever bro, your so ungrateful. stannley kubrick had limitations? goerge lucas has limitations, steven spielberg has limitations , michael bay has limitations, chris nolan has limitations. STANLEY KUBRICK DOES NOT.
@TheGatorfan93 Agree with the second and third points, but I'm not buying the first one.
Jack Nicholson always looks like a lunatic, and knowing how the movie is gonna turn out, from the beginning you're always expecting Torrance to go crazy. I remember the first time I watched it, I was like "Oh, now he's gonna lose it!... oh, wait, not yet". It completely ruined the tension, and when he finally snapped, I was like "Really? I thought you snapped twenty minutes ago".
Haha i love the story about the cigarette, I do that to (not the altoids tin but i always roll up my filters into tight little balls) I'm so glad that someone else did that and that the other person is stanley fuckin' kubrick
I always try to stand up for the original source material when it comes to adapted screenplays but its very different with kubrick, kubrick was on a whole different level than King. As a fan of both the film and the book i acknowledge how strong the differences are but in my opinion the changes in the film from the novel are what make it a masterpiece. really kubrick just took king's basic outline and reshaded slightly more cynical and as more of a look into the nature of pure evil, genius moves
In his book ON WRITING, Stephen King calls following a plotline as a prescription the act of a "dullard". He prefers to explore characters who are in an interesting situation. Kubrick did the same thing in film, he explored his characters and situation, he didn't use King's book or anyone else's as the last word. I think book and film are two different explorations of the same premise. King should allow Kubrick the same freedom to create and explore his artform.
I once spent an afternoon with King and Kubrick on the day I suggested they use the line "Heeeeres Johnny". This came originally from the time I got the bum's rush right from the guest chair while being interviewed by Carson while taping was in progress.
It just so happened Kubrick was my ride home that night and he was thrilled with the idea of using that line to stick to Carson who he viewed as a despicable "white bread Goy". My payment for my contribution to "The Shining"... Lunch
@M0VIES4U2 That's understandable. It's a film that most modern audiences just cannot grasp (that isn't a slight towards them) because of slow the pace is when most films these days are fast paced. I just love it for how revolutionary it was and how it legitimized sci-fi as a genre in film (b-movies were all it had before that). It changed filmmaking forever and inspired me to become a filmmaker.
king enjoyed jack torrance eating asprin to temper his addiction to alcohol.. I have to eat asprin after I finish a king novel. Nothing but mostly surface level with king occasionally he has the ability to trick the reader into thinking he has more to say than his stock setups In my mind Kubrick took the basics of the shining and made it multi leveled.. Something King could never do. I read my last crappy king book called Duma Key. In between bashing George Bush he wrote dribble very well.
Oh boy Steve's alcohol induced days hungover for years and gets a call from Stanley Kubrick in case people don't know he was an alchy for years and love his R-rated humor just like me and other people i know
Stephen King is a faggot. Stanley took one of his piece of shit novels and turned it into something great. King should feel honored that an actual artist wanted something to do with his stupid ass.
I'm a big Stephen King fan... and i'm a big Stanley Kubrick fan too... but King you need to relax buddy. Because Stanley converted your cliché ghost story to an intellectual psychedelic labyrinth, give this guy some credits and be honest.... your remake was a unartistic adaption of your book, with slazy cheezy vfx and a uncreative B house director Mick Garris! Yes Mick Garris, the guy that ruined Desperation, Riding The Bullet, Sleepwalkers, Tales of the Crypt and many others!
Interesting tidbit about Kubrick rolling cigs into balls. I dug the book and appreciate that movie was quite different from the book. As it should be. They're two different mediums.
@BorgKing001 Right, he was so overrated that pretty much every major director from the 60's onward cite him as a major influence. Fucking Star Trek loser DUMBASS.
umm the TV movie of the shining is horrible thats why Kubrick is a great director and stephen king is a great writer not a director has anyone seen maximum overdrive stephen kings attempt at film directing... its garbage but i hate adaptations that are basically word for word image for image thats why its reffered Stanley Kubricks the shining rather than kubricks adaptation, i love the film and the book but have always looked at them as seperate entitys
@drstranglove79 They were PURPOSELY separate entities... Kubrick used the Shining as a vehicle to tell people about something he had to do in his own life so he used The Shining to do this (so he could safeguard his life)...in the beginning when you see the red VW bug overturned that was Kubricks message to King - saying I'm going to wreck your story - and you then see the yellow vw bug making its way to the hotel ie this will be Kubricks story... in the original story its a red car
@drstranglove79 I'll give you a hint as to what Kubrick was really making a movie about - when the little boy's playing with the trucks and the ball rolls out to him from nowhere...have a look whats on his sweater - then watch the entire movie again
Man, Kubrick fanboys are nuts. There is NOTHING in this video that's particularly offensive or rude. It's just a couple of funny stories about Kubrick, though the first one does demonstrate quite well why he was the wrong guy to direct The Shining. His heart just wasn't in horror, he didn't get it.
Kubrick said that when a novel is really great, you don't wanna make a movie out of it and he was absolutely right: there ain't no director on earth who can compete with human imagination. That's why he chose "small books with no style" to make masterpieces...maybe it pissed King off ;)
@Fjord76 stfu! stanly Kubrick's just a try hard and the only reason hes famous is b?c all his movies are just some random shit pulled together, the only reason people like it is because its not the same old shit
Even though King doesn't like the Kubrick version of his film, Ive heard interviews with him where he has said that he does think he was a brilliant director and a genious.
Personally, I'm a fan of the Kubrick film because it was more open to interpretation. To me, it was more about Jack Nicholson's character going on a downward spiral of madness. I haven't seen the TV movie, nor do I have any particular need or desire to do so.
I'm getting sick of hearing Stephen King's fans slating Kubrick for making his movie. King signed a contract with Kubrick which allowed Stanley to change or re-write anything that he wanted to. It's King's fault for agreeing to it. Watch "Maximum Overdrive" and you'll get an idea of his 'talent' for directing movies.
ive just lost a bit of respect for king after watching this. he could at least show some respect for a fellow artist. Not very classy. Kubricks shining was way better than kings anyway.
@HarpoonTorpedo absolutely. King was just so pissed at Kubrick because he changed some things of the book in the movie, but you know, what I find really annoying is how he made fun of Kubrick saying the movie was positive. I remember Jack Nicholson talking fondly of that, what Kubrick meant was that the story was positive because it envolved ghosts, and therefore the film was implying that there was an afterlife which kubrick saw as positive. I thought King was more profesional, pity.
Just letting everyone know that I am first time published author. My Book Rasciss tells the story of Hollowawk a man who literally defied death and now must face the wrath of petty gods. Come onto my channel and check out the promo video I made for Rasciss. Leave a comment and if u like what u see than please pick yourself up a copy and let me know what u thought about it.
Hes a great ,lovely,Genius of a Drug addict,and he doesnt like Kubrick because Kubrick doesnt believe in Anything Supernatural,thats depressing for a Man like King
The Shining is saved only by its art design and its soundtrack. The casting and the characterizations are all wrong, save for Scatman Crothers, who absolutely nailed Dick Halloran.
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 remember reading somewhere that King disliked the movie primarily because it didn't allow Jack to redeem himself to his son (unlike in the book). Instead he just died as a lunatic.
I'm not sure whether or not to take the side of the book or the movie because they are both entertaining, Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick are just two creative individuals who never saw eye to eye.
@CultureClasher It's like this. If you watch the movie first you will love it and hate Stephen King's. If you read the book/ watch the mini series you will love Stephen King's and Haaaaate Stanley Kubrick's
seriously...I never understood why the movie was so acclaimed....I think the movie stinks....for me, a great fan of Stephen King, that didnt yet read the shining, its hard to believe that the movie is based in a kings novel...simply that
Really liked the book and really liked the movie. They each had their own special elements that could have only been pulled off by those two men. I am surprised they haven't remade the 80's movie yet. They will probably screw it up in good time.
Hello everyone, I'm a new writer. My new novel is titled "Black Isis." It's a story in the crime thriller genre. The novel can be ordered on bn.com and amazon.com I'm trying the best I can to sell my novel, so please support and tell me what you think. It's under the name Rob C. Johnson. Thanks!
kubricks the shining is the best adaptation of any of kings books i read kings books it a great way to get introduced to reading books and i still like him as a writer but king prefers the mini serie the shining over kubricks master piece
.
But lets face it Kubrick is a true master at movie making and king has proven as a director that he is complete shit when it comes to movies but as a writer king is obviously great ,its a pitty he doesn't see that you can't include everything in the movie
This has no relevance to 'The Shining' (which I think is pony) but I have always wanted to know what Stephen King made of Sissy Spacek's portrayal of 'Carrie'. Obviously her performance is universally acclaimed as outstanding and was a turning point in Spacek's career but as King created and envisaged the character(in the book as a fat, spotty girl) I am curious as to his opinion
@kamelion7 I think he liked her portrayal. In his Book "On Writing" he mentioned that he never liked the Carrie character much (as he created her) because she was a ready made victim and like a female Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. So even though the movie Carrie differs he probably didn't mind and might of even saw it as improvement, whereas he liked the Jack Torrence character he created and could relate to him which is probably why he hated the changes to that character so much.
oh, I love stephen so much. its a real shame that so few know that he has a great sense of humor. the ones that just watch the movies and dont read the books are missing out on some very funny stuff. but they have themselfs to blame.
it has happened very often that I read and get all worked up and tense about the story and BAM something really funny comes along and Im completely stunned by it.
@kyrastube What do you mean no one knows he has a great sense of humor? I think anyone who has ever read one of his books or seen one of his movies knows what a great sense of humor he has.
The Shining by Stephen King is one of the scariest books ever.The Shining movie by Kubrick is one of the greatest horror movies ever. There let's stop arguing and appreciate both men's work. They are both creative geniuses.
Film is where it's at, huh? If it were up to people like you, we would have mindless thrillers with no real storyline. He said "The Shining" wasn't like he wanted it. He came up with the whole premise of the story. Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have made teh movie if King hadn't created the book. Of course, idiots can't see that.
It wasn't like King wanted it because it totally blew off the father/son plot, which is what the original story was about. Bastards...
The book is horrific in the bad way. The movie is horrific in the greatest way, it scared the hell out of me and it's one of the greatest horror films of all time. I read the book before seeing the film and I got one of the most boring times of my life. When I saw the movie it was like... glory!
Stephen King (personally) is a ridiculous guy that writes moderate suspense books. His books are not horrifying, they have plain suspense and that's it. For me, of course.
King is such an asshole. He said The Shining sucked. Wtf! He is just mad cuz film is where it's at and making shitty similar plotline stories is boring as fuck.
I don't think Stephen likes films that are adapted from his books to stray from how he wrote them. He didn't like Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, but he loved the film adaptation of Dreamcatcher...which was a big pile of poo, in my opinion.
sry to all the cubrick fans here but the book was better then the film!
the film was awesome as well and i especially liked jack nickolsons play but the book gives you a way better look into what goes on witht the hotel etc.
King's book was really about alcoholism and the struggle to be a good husband and father when your demons keep sucking you down, a subject very personal to King, who was pretty much an alcoholic and drug addict at the time. Kubrick tossed these ideas out the window entirely and made a masterpiece about a whirling, mesmerizing, illogical descent into madness. King's point is that the heart of his story and the reason he loved the book in the first place was destroyed, and he didn't like that.
@MyName42 I think it's an exaggeration to say these ideas are tossed out the window. Kubrick just likes to make ambiguous gestures so that the audience can make up their own mind about what's going on. The drink is definitely in the movie. The thing is: what's going on in the minds of the characters is not being fully exposed by a voice over or anything like that. It's just like people in real life, their dark thoughts are kept mostly secret.
I do wonder, was "The Shining" the only movie adaption that King didn't like, or were there others. I hate to think that "The Shining" was the only disappointment. Thers got to be others. I mean there are other King remakes out there besides "The Shining". I even saw a "Carrie" remake.
Stephen said (as Paul Sheldon in Misery) that often, people who know how to tell stories usually don't know to write them and vice versa, but I must say that King knows how to do both well.
jesus, Kubrick fans never shut up! Kubrick was a great director, probably the best director and like history has showed us, King isn't a bad writer. every great writer isn't respected at first (Shakespeare, Dickens, Lovecraft)
I read the book and while Kubrick changed certain elements of it he completely nailed the overall mood and atmosphere of the novel. Much more so than King's crappy 1997 made for TV version.
What do you mean, "fuck Kubrick's 'vision'"? Are you a Rhodes Scholar or something? You're a fan of the book...so what? How does being a fan of the book qualify your assertion that Kubrick "missed the point of the book entirely"?
@degree7 Yeah, substituting a cheap and poorly thought out anti-alcohol message for a story about reincarnation, vengeance, and incorperating older stories into particular scenes for poetic purposes. What a dick, right?
@degree7 I've read it three times. There's no significant motive for the hotel's hostility. The characters are cliche and unlikeable (tragedy alone doesn't make me empathize with characters, and neither does cutesy dialogue). And the supposed "scary" scenes, while maybe once or twice well done, were overall, corny as hell. People seem to forget that King's most well rounded, creative, and by far his darkest work was in the 80s, not the 70s.
No siginicant motive for the Hotel? As opposed to the movie? The characters are cliche and unlikeable? Jack Nicholson brought NOTHING to the role, he doesn't represent Jack Torrance of the novel at all! He's an asshole from the start, whereas in the book you can emphathize with him. Wendy too.
The characters in the book were just well fleshed out, you delve deep into their thoughts. In the movie, what do we see, some strange cardboard family.
@degree7 Book motivation: an ambiguous supernatural force wants to eat psychic energy (LOL), the film motive: the spirits of murdered indians take out revenge on the reincarnation of the caretaker that murdered them. Jack Nicholson brought a more believable character to the table, since nice fathers aren't just motivated to kill their families because of spooky hallucinations and alcohol. An asshole makes more sense.
@HardforJesus Jack wasn't a nice father, he was a drunken failure. The Overlook was thus able to posess him much more easily. The Hotel wanted Danny from the outset, so they drew Jack in.
In the movie, it's certainly interesting with Kubrick's take on the American Indian and his imagery that goes with it. But I prefer King's version of the Hotel being the villain. Jack Nicholson was just miscast, IMO.
And you don't have to (LOL) anymore, it's getting quite annoying.
@degree7 He wasn't miscast because he wasn't playing the same character. Everytime a director tries to stay true to the novel, they fail. The Kubrick version was at least consistent, rather than simply demonizing alcoholics and actually showing that Mr. Torrence is an evil character without booze and ghosts. I've met some pretty desperate alcoholics in my life, and none would even consider murdering their families, so for that, King is a simp and/or possibly a sociopath.
@HardforJesus You know, I can agree with you about Kubrick not ripping the book word for word, but Jesus, it's not like if a competent director attempted to that it would be IMPOSSIBLE. The hardest part is putting what you see in your minds eye onto screen. Obviously Kubrick didn't give a shit about the book, he wanted the bare bones story. But the result is a hollow, cold, emotionless dreck to me. And for the last time (if you actually read the book like you said) Jack is possessed by the hotel
@degree7 What's interesting about Degree7's comments is that most critics of the movie call the original book "trashy, simple reading" (TV Guide) turned into a work of genius. Here Degree 7 is saying exactly the opposite!
@degree7 MISCAST! wow now thats a statement. Kubrick told his own story. not kings, watch the tv miniseries if you wanna have a visual interpretation of the book. also going by that series (which isnt at all scary) its more like a drama and the hedge animals look like poo. and that was in 1997, imagine how it would have looked in 1980...
@degree7 Also, seeing into the character's minds is sort of a given, since narration usually requires such. Seeing a character's thoughts doesn't mean you can empathize with them. Especially if they're unrealistic and unlikable, and if there's anything cliche and unrealistic about King's earlier work, it was his characters. The film was far from cardboard characters, just because they don't wear all their emotions on their sleeves to make it easier for the average simp who doesn't get it.
@degree7 Yeah hedge animals are terrifying (LOL), and the literal visions of Tony were fucking corny and gave too much away. "The boy who lives in my mouth" as opposed to some cheesy sci fi time travel nonsense of Danny speaking to his future self. When it comes to Dick Halloran, the film used a far more human and once again, less cliche "friendly noble simple black guy". King's stereotypes are insulting.
The hedge animals were terrifying man. What, did you have your senses burnt out from watching too much Saw IV? Are you telling me that you weren't unnerved by Jack turning his back for a second, only to find the topiaries having actually crept up behind him when he wasn't looking? Are you saying King isn't a master of paranoia? And Tony, holy shit man, Kubrick just went completely wrong with that cringeworthy finger trick.
@degree7 I've never seen any but one of the Saw films. Unlike King fans, my fears are initiated by dynamic, not cheap thrills and shock violence. The hedge animals were corny, borderline childish fears. Tony in the film wasn't a "finger trick" and was far creepier as the concept of Tony was completely vague. You didn't know if Tony was some wicked demon inside Danny, or an inner voice protecting him emotionall. Just calling him "the boy inside my mouth" is 10 times darker than some corny vision.
@HardforJesus And as for Halloran, he's supposed not supposed to be a creepy old man, he's the soul of the story. But no, Kubrick kills him off because he's making a 'scary movie moment'.
If anything, King gave more life to the character than Kubrick did.
@degree7 Not sure if you even watched the film now that you made such a retarded statement. The Dick Halloran in the film was far more down to earth and believable. He was never intended to be "creepy". He shows genuine concern for Danny, even has a slightly angry and disturbed reaction when Danny mentions room 237. See that's the problem with King in the 70s, the only time his characters had any humanity was when he didn't describe them at all, which says alot about his social skills.
I don't know what you're getting at. Dick Halloran's conversation with Danny sounded completely cold and wooden (although this seems an awkward presence in many Kubrick films). Basically, he's talking to a little kid who doesn't know shit the whole time. But in the book it was different, Dick is actually a younger, "Friend" of Danny's, they share a special connection directly through the Shining. Utterly avoided here, instead it's grandpa talking down to a toddler.
The idea is most simple than all that, king belive in miracles, gods, phamtoms and all that shit, Kubrick directly know than any ghost or fantasy comes from mental illness, on Kubrick's film, Jack has a ''delirium tremens'', the imagination of the kid makes him seem things and the mother start to whatch things when she became paranoid by strees, by the way, for king all that crap is not real too, but, keeping that thing going on, he is making money
what a waste of time it would have been to just copy it directly from Kings book, what would be the point in that? Kubrick created a film that is timeless.
Kubrick may have been difficult to work with but his movies were fucking awesome and his pedantry for a good scene shone through, especially in the shining.
King is a moron. Oh yeah, he really showed Kubrick who's boss when he made that absolutely awful miniseries that was so faithful to his precious book. The only horror movie of King's I like is The Shining, and it's because Kubrick had the intelligence to improve it. This video is quite sickening. You can tell it's a bunch of fanboys of Kings who will laugh out loud at every little thing King says. It's pathetic. They worship him like he's some kind of organized religion. His movies bomb.
@VJWU The movie is very good but has nothing to do with the original source (which would piss me of too if I were the author). If you think it was an improvement on the story, you didn't understand the book!
I read Stephen King, and respect him. But just because he thinks Kubrick was neurotic doesn't mean I'm just taking King's personal opinion as some kind of gospel.
years later King would put his foot in his mouth writing the ABC miniseries of the Shining. And his old pal, Mick Garris would direct. Talk about a director who misses the point. The guy is a hack. Whether or not it's a faithful adaptation, Kubrick's the Shining is one of the few good adaptations of a King Horror story.
And forgive me for posting four times in a row, but I gotta give my two cents.
The book is a whole lot better than the movie.
King is a freaking genius.
But the movie is pretty good too - it couldn't possibly be any better, movie wise.
King is good at writing, Kubrick is good at making movies.
That's all there is to it.
Needleinvein 1 week ago
I thought this was a cool insight. I'll never get to know what it was like to work with Stanley Kubrick, a lot of people on here think he's the greatest director of all time and he very well maybe, I prefer Fellini or Welles myself but their all great. PEople think Kubrick was this great Mytic giant larger than life and people think the same of King too, truth is, their just very talented men. I thought this was a very human look at him from someone who worked with him.
buckshoty 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
jesmarlesmar 2 months ago
Kubrick does not sound like raspy old man. He actually has a cool voice.
jigggzful 2 months ago
That was hilarious as hell.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
peopledick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey sorry to spam, but I am just letting everyone know that I have written a FREE EBOOK Dark Fantasy, if anyone is interested in getting a copy than please come onto my channel, there is a link on the promo video that I made, thanks!
theabominationuknow 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out Stanley Kubrick's new movie coming out Christmas 2011!
It's been kept very hush-hush, but someone leaked the trailer!
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Click my username below to watch!
allouTV 3 months ago
The book is superior to Kubrick's film. And as a fan of the book, I prefer the 1997 miniseries. Yes, the hedge animals were lame, but the movie as a whole did justice to the book. Plus, I find Jack Nicholson to just be annoying as hell.
Despina838 3 months ago
@Despina838 The two aren't really comparable. Kubrick jettisoned a lot from the novel to focus primarily on atmosphere and scares. What makes the film for me is Kubrick's unique camerawork and how he utilized scores by Bartok, Ligeti and Penedrecki to eerie effect. Film is visceral, novels are more about abstract ideas. Depends on what you want.
AtorTheFlyingEagle 1 month ago
@Despina838 The hedge animals worked quite well in the book, don't you think?
Needleinvein 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The scariest horror book ever published is 'Thirteen Volume One' by Andrew Hannon.
Google it.
lordmontya 4 months ago
Many people who disregard Stephen King as a popular writer often haven't even read any of his works. The Shining is an incredible masterpiece of horror fiction that will be remembered well past the 20th century, I think
PoetsLight 4 months ago
Stephen King's Shining - Stanley Kubrik's Shining
PoetsLight 4 months ago
IMO, the book FAR surpasses Kubrick's film. But these things are hard to compare, because, as someone said, "if you see the film, then read the book, you'll hate the book. If you read the book, then see the film, you'll hate the film." And I think that's totally true. I can't watch the film, because I'll always judge it against the sheer, honest, personal expression that King was putting out there when he wrote it. That's why Kubrick's film can "suck it," for me.
0TheStrangerSide0 4 months ago
It's understandable how the person that CAME UP WITH THE IDEA "letting" someone direct what ended up being an iconic movie may be pissed off when his OWN IDEA doesn't come off exactly "as planned".
Now we all know that Kubrick's "Shining" FAR surpasses that horrible remake that King oversaw. Stick to the keyboard Stephen.
BUT ! I gotta give credit to Stephen for speaking up.
If you CREATE something, you have EVERY RIGHT to criticize what has been done to YOUR creation.
TacomaPaul 4 months ago 5
Artists really are a different breed than the rest of us mere mortals, so the King Kubrick feud, to me comes as no great surprise. Actually it enhances both the source material and the film to the status of mythology. Cause you know no two Ancient Greeks could ever tell the same story, which I'm sure was a great source of controversy for all involved. Yet I'm equally as certain that all can agree that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
303image 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WIN A KINDLE GIFTCARD! Like "The Fiction of J. Richard Singleton" on Facebook for details. facebook.com/#!/groups/176148129105121/
screenwriterjohn 5 months ago
Please tell me you have the full version of that? It will give me a ton of insight into their relationship for my book and documentary.
Devinthirteen 5 months ago
Both Anthony Burges and Stephen King hate Kubrick I think because the movies were better then the books in my humble opinion.
While the books were entertaining, the movies had a certain depth rare in movies that turned them more then face value.
fromdaghettowithlove 5 months ago 2
@fromdaghettowithlove im totally with you
1bardh1 5 months ago
It seems that most of the complaints are three things 1. ''jack's crazy from the beginning'',2.''wendy is to mousy'',and the biggest,3.''there's not enough character development of jack''.So let's examine those complaints.1.He's not crazy at the beginning,he's a recovering drunk,and is CLOSE to the edge.2.Think of her situation:Isolated,stuck with an unstable husband and a son who goes in and out of trances,authentic behavior i say.3.Its not a 4 hour mini series,even kubrick had limitations.
TheGatorfan93 5 months ago 5
@TheGatorfan93 how dare you fucking bash kubrick man, he was the greatest director of all time. watever bro, your so ungrateful. stannley kubrick had limitations? goerge lucas has limitations, steven spielberg has limitations , michael bay has limitations, chris nolan has limitations. STANLEY KUBRICK DOES NOT.
malows1234 1 month ago
@malows1234 He's not bashing Kubrick."Despite Kubrick being awesome, he had limitations". You know, just like every other human being.
Anyone who's only allowed to make a 2-hour long movie has this kind of limitation.
You can't argue with that, you can't turn a 400 page book into a movie exactly the way it is.
Even so, Kubrick managed to do a really great movie.
Great directors aren't those who have no limitations (everyone does), but the ones who do a great job despite them.
Needleinvein 1 week ago
@TheGatorfan93 Agree with the second and third points, but I'm not buying the first one.
Jack Nicholson always looks like a lunatic, and knowing how the movie is gonna turn out, from the beginning you're always expecting Torrance to go crazy. I remember the first time I watched it, I was like "Oh, now he's gonna lose it!... oh, wait, not yet". It completely ruined the tension, and when he finally snapped, I was like "Really? I thought you snapped twenty minutes ago".
Needleinvein 1 week ago
Haha i love the story about the cigarette, I do that to (not the altoids tin but i always roll up my filters into tight little balls) I'm so glad that someone else did that and that the other person is stanley fuckin' kubrick
MrZebbz 5 months ago
I always try to stand up for the original source material when it comes to adapted screenplays but its very different with kubrick, kubrick was on a whole different level than King. As a fan of both the film and the book i acknowledge how strong the differences are but in my opinion the changes in the film from the novel are what make it a masterpiece. really kubrick just took king's basic outline and reshaded slightly more cynical and as more of a look into the nature of pure evil, genius moves
MrZebbz 5 months ago
In his book ON WRITING, Stephen King calls following a plotline as a prescription the act of a "dullard". He prefers to explore characters who are in an interesting situation. Kubrick did the same thing in film, he explored his characters and situation, he didn't use King's book or anyone else's as the last word. I think book and film are two different explorations of the same premise. King should allow Kubrick the same freedom to create and explore his artform.
straker2 5 months ago
FUCK YOU, DINA RIGBY!!!!!!!
amazon.com/Dish-Served-Tales-Revenge-ebook/dp/B004W82MCK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1312233835&sr=1-1
2009frankcastle 6 months ago
I once spent an afternoon with King and Kubrick on the day I suggested they use the line "Heeeeres Johnny". This came originally from the time I got the bum's rush right from the guest chair while being interviewed by Carson while taping was in progress.
It just so happened Kubrick was my ride home that night and he was thrilled with the idea of using that line to stick to Carson who he viewed as a despicable "white bread Goy". My payment for my contribution to "The Shining"... Lunch
At HoJos!
Therealtaxidriver 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That second story is about as true as any of King's novels.
roguefilmmaker 6 months ago
Stephen King is married to Selma Bouvier?
AlexSlams 6 months ago
@AlexSlams Stop being silly. He's married to Patty, a true fan would know that.
HoudiniTheKing 6 months ago
@HoudiniTheKing But Patty is a Lesbian, a TRUE fan would know that! :P
AlexSlams 6 months ago
@AlexSlams I stand corrected!
HoudiniTheKing 6 months ago
king is a hack, the original shining story is fucking terrible
fleamarket3000 6 months ago
@cgmyaccount1 If you have one, what's your favorite movie of his. Mine is 2001: A Space Odyssey.
lukaspukas1 7 months ago
@lukaspukas1 Really? I don't know. I always found it boring compared to Dr. Strangelove.
M0VIES4U2 6 months ago
@M0VIES4U2 That's understandable. It's a film that most modern audiences just cannot grasp (that isn't a slight towards them) because of slow the pace is when most films these days are fast paced. I just love it for how revolutionary it was and how it legitimized sci-fi as a genre in film (b-movies were all it had before that). It changed filmmaking forever and inspired me to become a filmmaker.
lukaspukas1 5 months ago
@lukaspukas1 Yeah, tell me about it.
M0VIES4U2 5 months ago
@cgmyaccount1 Who doesn't remember him. He is one of the greatest filmmakers who ever lived.
lukaspukas1 7 months ago
All of Kubrick's movies are masterpiece!
junkyturd 7 months ago
king enjoyed jack torrance eating asprin to temper his addiction to alcohol.. I have to eat asprin after I finish a king novel. Nothing but mostly surface level with king occasionally he has the ability to trick the reader into thinking he has more to say than his stock setups In my mind Kubrick took the basics of the shining and made it multi leveled.. Something King could never do. I read my last crappy king book called Duma Key. In between bashing George Bush he wrote dribble very well.
jimmynorton1001 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Book readers, check this amazing website: LoveAHappyEnding (dot) com
Lunage1 7 months ago
Oh boy Steve's alcohol induced days hungover for years and gets a call from Stanley Kubrick in case people don't know he was an alchy for years and love his R-rated humor just like me and other people i know
seth5220 7 months ago
Oh boy Steve's alcohol induced days hungover for years and gets a call from Stanley Kubrick
seth5220 7 months ago
You people need to calm down, I love both King and Kubrick. Stephen king has a right to an opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
BeavisNButtheadRock 8 months ago 13
Stephen King is a faggot. Stanley took one of his piece of shit novels and turned it into something great. King should feel honored that an actual artist wanted something to do with his stupid ass.
Pappas170 8 months ago
BUT THE SCREENPLAY WAS GOOD MR KING!
TheMonsieurVerdoux 8 months ago
I'm a big Stephen King fan... and i'm a big Stanley Kubrick fan too... but King you need to relax buddy. Because Stanley converted your cliché ghost story to an intellectual psychedelic labyrinth, give this guy some credits and be honest.... your remake was a unartistic adaption of your book, with slazy cheezy vfx and a uncreative B house director Mick Garris! Yes Mick Garris, the guy that ruined Desperation, Riding The Bullet, Sleepwalkers, Tales of the Crypt and many others!
TheMonsieurVerdoux 8 months ago 2
Interesting tidbit about Kubrick rolling cigs into balls. I dug the book and appreciate that movie was quite different from the book. As it should be. They're two different mediums.
WoodSugars 8 months ago
Kubrick is very overrated BUT he gave us a nude Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut so I'm forever grateful to Stanley.
DhrKotsemmer 8 months ago
@DhrKotsemmer
All those great movies and that's all you remember? Overrated? IDIOT
EnzoTheBaker 7 months ago
@EnzoTheBaker Yes, he's overrated and on par with Uwe Boll.
DhrKotsemmer 7 months ago
Kubrick was an overrated pervert
BorgKing001 9 months ago
@BorgKing001 Right, he was so overrated that pretty much every major director from the 60's onward cite him as a major influence. Fucking Star Trek loser DUMBASS.
thewideninggyre 9 months ago
umm the TV movie of the shining is horrible thats why Kubrick is a great director and stephen king is a great writer not a director has anyone seen maximum overdrive stephen kings attempt at film directing... its garbage but i hate adaptations that are basically word for word image for image thats why its reffered Stanley Kubricks the shining rather than kubricks adaptation, i love the film and the book but have always looked at them as seperate entitys
drstranglove79 9 months ago 2
@drstranglove79 They were PURPOSELY separate entities... Kubrick used the Shining as a vehicle to tell people about something he had to do in his own life so he used The Shining to do this (so he could safeguard his life)...in the beginning when you see the red VW bug overturned that was Kubricks message to King - saying I'm going to wreck your story - and you then see the yellow vw bug making its way to the hotel ie this will be Kubricks story... in the original story its a red car
tiarnan76 8 months ago
@drstranglove79 I'll give you a hint as to what Kubrick was really making a movie about - when the little boy's playing with the trucks and the ball rolls out to him from nowhere...have a look whats on his sweater - then watch the entire movie again
tiarnan76 8 months ago
@tiarnan76 What's on his sweater?
Felix0072 8 months ago
PLEASE COULD YOU TRANSLATE THIS VIDEO IN FRENCH :(
SuperJackkiller 9 months ago
Man, Kubrick fanboys are nuts. There is NOTHING in this video that's particularly offensive or rude. It's just a couple of funny stories about Kubrick, though the first one does demonstrate quite well why he was the wrong guy to direct The Shining. His heart just wasn't in horror, he didn't get it.
mistabook 10 months ago
@mistabook his heart was completely in the movie. not the book or genre. you i think are the one that didn't get it. symbolism through juxtaposition.
fydiousmckormick 8 months ago
@mistabook his heart was completely in the movie. not the book or genre. you i think are the one that didn't get it. symbolism through juxtaposition.
fydiousmckormick 8 months ago
Kubrick said that when a novel is really great, you don't wanna make a movie out of it and he was absolutely right: there ain't no director on earth who can compete with human imagination. That's why he chose "small books with no style" to make masterpieces...maybe it pissed King off ;)
Fjord76 10 months ago
@Fjord76 stfu! stanly Kubrick's just a try hard and the only reason hes famous is b?c all his movies are just some random shit pulled together, the only reason people like it is because its not the same old shit
potdoggy123 10 months ago
Even though King doesn't like the Kubrick version of his film, Ive heard interviews with him where he has said that he does think he was a brilliant director and a genious.
hauntedmythcaves 11 months ago
Personally, I'm a fan of the Kubrick film because it was more open to interpretation. To me, it was more about Jack Nicholson's character going on a downward spiral of madness. I haven't seen the TV movie, nor do I have any particular need or desire to do so.
tolchok89 11 months ago
I'm getting sick of hearing Stephen King's fans slating Kubrick for making his movie. King signed a contract with Kubrick which allowed Stanley to change or re-write anything that he wanted to. It's King's fault for agreeing to it. Watch "Maximum Overdrive" and you'll get an idea of his 'talent' for directing movies.
desirewalkson99 11 months ago
ive just lost a bit of respect for king after watching this. he could at least show some respect for a fellow artist. Not very classy. Kubricks shining was way better than kings anyway.
HarpoonTorpedo 1 year ago
@HarpoonTorpedo absolutely. King was just so pissed at Kubrick because he changed some things of the book in the movie, but you know, what I find really annoying is how he made fun of Kubrick saying the movie was positive. I remember Jack Nicholson talking fondly of that, what Kubrick meant was that the story was positive because it envolved ghosts, and therefore the film was implying that there was an afterlife which kubrick saw as positive. I thought King was more profesional, pity.
hallowedbeeddie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just letting everyone know that I am first time published author. My Book Rasciss tells the story of Hollowawk a man who literally defied death and now must face the wrath of petty gods. Come onto my channel and check out the promo video I made for Rasciss. Leave a comment and if u like what u see than please pick yourself up a copy and let me know what u thought about it.
theabominationuknow 1 year ago
Hes a great ,lovely,Genius of a Drug addict,and he doesnt like Kubrick because Kubrick doesnt believe in Anything Supernatural,thats depressing for a Man like King
Legrandez666 1 year ago
@Legrandez666 Did you even listen to the first story that he told?
texkeks 1 year ago
The Shining is saved only by its art design and its soundtrack. The casting and the characterizations are all wrong, save for Scatman Crothers, who absolutely nailed Dick Halloran.
JoyGrenade 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 remember reading somewhere that King disliked the movie primarily because it didn't allow Jack to redeem himself to his son (unlike in the book). Instead he just died as a lunatic.
clenelyn 1 year ago
Never really got the Kubrick cult. He made some ok movies but I wouldn't call him some kind of revolutionary film genius.
Sconz32 1 year ago
@Sconz32 Surely you jest.
JimboWHO 1 year ago
@Sconz32 I'm in film school, and we analyzed Kubrick work. Everyone of his films revolutionized the genre and the medium.
antoine3070 1 year ago
@antoine3070 Well, you certainly make a compelling argument there.
Sconz32 1 year ago
I'm not sure whether or not to take the side of the book or the movie because they are both entertaining, Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick are just two creative individuals who never saw eye to eye.
CultureClasher 1 year ago 17
@CultureClasher lol the movie is terrible...
revolutionvolk123 7 months ago
@revolutionvolk123 Because it isn't shitty torture porn? Come back when you know what a REAL horror movie is.
lukaspukas1 7 months ago
@lukaspukas1 lolz Did you read the book? I love it, but the movie is FLAT! Even Stephen King dont like it...
revolutionvolk123 7 months ago
@CultureClasher It's alright I have that same problem...
AGuyInAHat 6 months ago
@CultureClasher It's like this. If you watch the movie first you will love it and hate Stephen King's. If you read the book/ watch the mini series you will love Stephen King's and Haaaaate Stanley Kubrick's
americanpsycho93 5 months ago
hey Stephenie Meyer who do you remember? Noone that's because you write bollocks
Twiggymaster666 1 year ago
seriously...I never understood why the movie was so acclaimed....I think the movie stinks....for me, a great fan of Stephen King, that didnt yet read the shining, its hard to believe that the movie is based in a kings novel...simply that
bahbi23 1 year ago
Check out "WARS OF TIMES by LUN"
at Amazon and Barnes&Noble online bookstore
A world like you've never imagined before!!
Lunage1 1 year ago
Really liked the book and really liked the movie. They each had their own special elements that could have only been pulled off by those two men. I am surprised they haven't remade the 80's movie yet. They will probably screw it up in good time.
tylerdurden1681 1 year ago
@tylerdurden1681 They remake it in the 90´s for TV.
mackgalo84 1 year ago
is hell more more or less optimistic than dying and decomposing into the soil.....?
Dpesh7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello everyone, I'm a new writer. My new novel is titled "Black Isis." It's a story in the crime thriller genre. The novel can be ordered on bn.com and amazon.com I'm trying the best I can to sell my novel, so please support and tell me what you think. It's under the name Rob C. Johnson. Thanks!
starcominfinity 1 year ago
Stephen King looks like a gorilla.
wiseoldlady77 1 year ago
@wiseoldlady77 What do you mean?
syko567890 1 year ago
Stephen king as a person is kind of a tool
choloOnEaster10 1 year ago
kubricks the shining is the best adaptation of any of kings books i read kings books it a great way to get introduced to reading books and i still like him as a writer but king prefers the mini serie the shining over kubricks master piece
.
But lets face it Kubrick is a true master at movie making and king has proven as a director that he is complete shit when it comes to movies but as a writer king is obviously great ,its a pitty he doesn't see that you can't include everything in the movie
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
The Shinning (movie by Kubrick) rules.
And i dont give a fuck but is this cunt King laughing at dead Stanley
jammmon 1 year ago
HA! those were great. I wish there was more to this video!
colinrenteria2006 1 year ago
This has no relevance to 'The Shining' (which I think is pony) but I have always wanted to know what Stephen King made of Sissy Spacek's portrayal of 'Carrie'. Obviously her performance is universally acclaimed as outstanding and was a turning point in Spacek's career but as King created and envisaged the character(in the book as a fat, spotty girl) I am curious as to his opinion
kamelion7 1 year ago
@kamelion7 I think he liked her portrayal. In his Book "On Writing" he mentioned that he never liked the Carrie character much (as he created her) because she was a ready made victim and like a female Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. So even though the movie Carrie differs he probably didn't mind and might of even saw it as improvement, whereas he liked the Jack Torrence character he created and could relate to him which is probably why he hated the changes to that character so much.
awesomechris92 1 year ago
oh, I love stephen so much. its a real shame that so few know that he has a great sense of humor. the ones that just watch the movies and dont read the books are missing out on some very funny stuff. but they have themselfs to blame.
it has happened very often that I read and get all worked up and tense about the story and BAM something really funny comes along and Im completely stunned by it.
kyrastube 1 year ago
@kyrastube What do you mean no one knows he has a great sense of humor? I think anyone who has ever read one of his books or seen one of his movies knows what a great sense of humor he has.
greg5566 1 year ago
@VioletTwylite lol
Neidhardt84 1 year ago
@VioletTwylite go watch some more cat videos and be lonely
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
@VioletTwylite Shut up, slut! You're not even from a legitimate country!
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
By favourite writer and favourite director
Bad audio though
siddparkar 1 year ago
lol
JohnThePunk584 1 year ago
The Shining by Stephen King is one of the scariest books ever.The Shining movie by Kubrick is one of the greatest horror movies ever. There let's stop arguing and appreciate both men's work. They are both creative geniuses.
NielDaRebelde 1 year ago 36
@NielDaRebelde POTD
restlessr84 1 year ago
Film is where it's at, huh? If it were up to people like you, we would have mindless thrillers with no real storyline. He said "The Shining" wasn't like he wanted it. He came up with the whole premise of the story. Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have made teh movie if King hadn't created the book. Of course, idiots can't see that.
It wasn't like King wanted it because it totally blew off the father/son plot, which is what the original story was about. Bastards...
facelesspenman 1 year ago
The book is horrific in the bad way. The movie is horrific in the greatest way, it scared the hell out of me and it's one of the greatest horror films of all time. I read the book before seeing the film and I got one of the most boring times of my life. When I saw the movie it was like... glory!
Stephen King (personally) is a ridiculous guy that writes moderate suspense books. His books are not horrifying, they have plain suspense and that's it. For me, of course.
AlbinusMakedonion 1 year ago
King is such an asshole. He said The Shining sucked. Wtf! He is just mad cuz film is where it's at and making shitty similar plotline stories is boring as fuck.
IWantDaveKast 1 year ago
Both are fucking genious!
whomitaw 1 year ago
I don't think Stephen likes films that are adapted from his books to stray from how he wrote them. He didn't like Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, but he loved the film adaptation of Dreamcatcher...which was a big pile of poo, in my opinion.
IAmThePumaMan 1 year ago
steven and stanley, 2 awesome people of Hollywood!
amyntut 1 year ago
Stephen King isn't much of a deep thinker.
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
@TheJabberwock -So are you
siddparkar 1 year ago
Boring!
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
sry to all the cubrick fans here but the book was better then the film!
the film was awesome as well and i especially liked jack nickolsons play but the book gives you a way better look into what goes on witht the hotel etc.
Antillektuell 1 year ago
King's book was really about alcoholism and the struggle to be a good husband and father when your demons keep sucking you down, a subject very personal to King, who was pretty much an alcoholic and drug addict at the time. Kubrick tossed these ideas out the window entirely and made a masterpiece about a whirling, mesmerizing, illogical descent into madness. King's point is that the heart of his story and the reason he loved the book in the first place was destroyed, and he didn't like that.
MyName42 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
@MyName42 I think it's an exaggeration to say these ideas are tossed out the window. Kubrick just likes to make ambiguous gestures so that the audience can make up their own mind about what's going on. The drink is definitely in the movie. The thing is: what's going on in the minds of the characters is not being fully exposed by a voice over or anything like that. It's just like people in real life, their dark thoughts are kept mostly secret.
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
can someone translate what he says in french , i don't understand what he says about the best director ever !!
SuperJackkiller 1 year ago
I do wonder, was "The Shining" the only movie adaption that King didn't like, or were there others. I hate to think that "The Shining" was the only disappointment. Thers got to be others. I mean there are other King remakes out there besides "The Shining". I even saw a "Carrie" remake.
DerekBayRoberts1 1 year ago
Stephen said (as Paul Sheldon in Misery) that often, people who know how to tell stories usually don't know to write them and vice versa, but I must say that King knows how to do both well.
NescioQuidErgoDeus 1 year ago
why is he doing kubrick with a gravelly voice?
ajitvir90 1 year ago
jesus, Kubrick fans never shut up! Kubrick was a great director, probably the best director and like history has showed us, King isn't a bad writer. every great writer isn't respected at first (Shakespeare, Dickens, Lovecraft)
bobb328 1 year ago
He got a point, in a way ghost stories are positive. Because they are based ont he idea of an afterlife.
Kubrick didn't believe in an afterlife wich is probably why he only made on film based on a ghost story.
ZkinandBonez 1 year ago
stanley kubrick was awesome
I dont believe in hell
ha ha awesome!
BROKENHOUSEFILMS 1 year ago 4
John Carpenter's Christine is a very underrated Stephen King adaptation, great film
MGD81 2 years ago 6
i like the character's in that movie...just not the whole plot lol...u know what im sayin?
juggalizzle4izzle 2 years ago
As a fan of the book, I have to say, fuck Kubrick's 'vision', or whatever the hell it is.
He missed the point of the book entirely.
degree7 2 years ago
I read the book and while Kubrick changed certain elements of it he completely nailed the overall mood and atmosphere of the novel. Much more so than King's crappy 1997 made for TV version.
thx291 2 years ago
What do you mean, "fuck Kubrick's 'vision'"? Are you a Rhodes Scholar or something? You're a fan of the book...so what? How does being a fan of the book qualify your assertion that Kubrick "missed the point of the book entirely"?
Please enlighten me. What is the book's point?
Please enlighten me.
cliklab 2 years ago
Akinfofblue3 explains it better than I can, about 12 comments down.
degree7 2 years ago
@degree7 Yeah, substituting a cheap and poorly thought out anti-alcohol message for a story about reincarnation, vengeance, and incorperating older stories into particular scenes for poetic purposes. What a dick, right?
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus
Cheap and poorly thought out, I suggest your read the book again.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 I've read it three times. There's no significant motive for the hotel's hostility. The characters are cliche and unlikeable (tragedy alone doesn't make me empathize with characters, and neither does cutesy dialogue). And the supposed "scary" scenes, while maybe once or twice well done, were overall, corny as hell. People seem to forget that King's most well rounded, creative, and by far his darkest work was in the 80s, not the 70s.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus
70s worse than the 80s? Like hell they were!
Carrie, Night Shift, The Dead Zone, The STAND, SALEM'S LOT, and ALL of his Bachman books!!!!
Personally, I don't think King ever surpassed his younger years.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 As opposed to Misery, The Gunslinger, and Pet Sematary. That and all his great short stories. Yeah, case proven on my part.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus
No siginicant motive for the Hotel? As opposed to the movie? The characters are cliche and unlikeable? Jack Nicholson brought NOTHING to the role, he doesn't represent Jack Torrance of the novel at all! He's an asshole from the start, whereas in the book you can emphathize with him. Wendy too.
The characters in the book were just well fleshed out, you delve deep into their thoughts. In the movie, what do we see, some strange cardboard family.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 Book motivation: an ambiguous supernatural force wants to eat psychic energy (LOL), the film motive: the spirits of murdered indians take out revenge on the reincarnation of the caretaker that murdered them. Jack Nicholson brought a more believable character to the table, since nice fathers aren't just motivated to kill their families because of spooky hallucinations and alcohol. An asshole makes more sense.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus Jack wasn't a nice father, he was a drunken failure. The Overlook was thus able to posess him much more easily. The Hotel wanted Danny from the outset, so they drew Jack in.
In the movie, it's certainly interesting with Kubrick's take on the American Indian and his imagery that goes with it. But I prefer King's version of the Hotel being the villain. Jack Nicholson was just miscast, IMO.
And you don't have to (LOL) anymore, it's getting quite annoying.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 He wasn't miscast because he wasn't playing the same character. Everytime a director tries to stay true to the novel, they fail. The Kubrick version was at least consistent, rather than simply demonizing alcoholics and actually showing that Mr. Torrence is an evil character without booze and ghosts. I've met some pretty desperate alcoholics in my life, and none would even consider murdering their families, so for that, King is a simp and/or possibly a sociopath.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus You know, I can agree with you about Kubrick not ripping the book word for word, but Jesus, it's not like if a competent director attempted to that it would be IMPOSSIBLE. The hardest part is putting what you see in your minds eye onto screen. Obviously Kubrick didn't give a shit about the book, he wanted the bare bones story. But the result is a hollow, cold, emotionless dreck to me. And for the last time (if you actually read the book like you said) Jack is possessed by the hotel
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 What's interesting about Degree7's comments is that most critics of the movie call the original book "trashy, simple reading" (TV Guide) turned into a work of genius. Here Degree 7 is saying exactly the opposite!
PabloPena108 1 year ago
@degree7 in the book yes, film no
vAmpyr616 1 year ago
@degree7 MISCAST! wow now thats a statement. Kubrick told his own story. not kings, watch the tv miniseries if you wanna have a visual interpretation of the book. also going by that series (which isnt at all scary) its more like a drama and the hedge animals look like poo. and that was in 1997, imagine how it would have looked in 1980...
vAmpyr616 1 year ago
Comment removed
degree7 1 year ago
@vAmpyr616
Correction on my part. I would have *liked to have seen Kubrick simply use stationary topiary to increase the paranoia, without special effects.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 Also, seeing into the character's minds is sort of a given, since narration usually requires such. Seeing a character's thoughts doesn't mean you can empathize with them. Especially if they're unrealistic and unlikable, and if there's anything cliche and unrealistic about King's earlier work, it was his characters. The film was far from cardboard characters, just because they don't wear all their emotions on their sleeves to make it easier for the average simp who doesn't get it.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus As for the scary scenes, in the movie we get no hedge grove animals, and we don't get a Tony either, just a lame "finger movement".
And don't even get me started on Dick Halloran.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 Yeah hedge animals are terrifying (LOL), and the literal visions of Tony were fucking corny and gave too much away. "The boy who lives in my mouth" as opposed to some cheesy sci fi time travel nonsense of Danny speaking to his future self. When it comes to Dick Halloran, the film used a far more human and once again, less cliche "friendly noble simple black guy". King's stereotypes are insulting.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus
The hedge animals were terrifying man. What, did you have your senses burnt out from watching too much Saw IV? Are you telling me that you weren't unnerved by Jack turning his back for a second, only to find the topiaries having actually crept up behind him when he wasn't looking? Are you saying King isn't a master of paranoia? And Tony, holy shit man, Kubrick just went completely wrong with that cringeworthy finger trick.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 I've never seen any but one of the Saw films. Unlike King fans, my fears are initiated by dynamic, not cheap thrills and shock violence. The hedge animals were corny, borderline childish fears. Tony in the film wasn't a "finger trick" and was far creepier as the concept of Tony was completely vague. You didn't know if Tony was some wicked demon inside Danny, or an inner voice protecting him emotionall. Just calling him "the boy inside my mouth" is 10 times darker than some corny vision.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus And as for Halloran, he's supposed not supposed to be a creepy old man, he's the soul of the story. But no, Kubrick kills him off because he's making a 'scary movie moment'.
If anything, King gave more life to the character than Kubrick did.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 Not sure if you even watched the film now that you made such a retarded statement. The Dick Halloran in the film was far more down to earth and believable. He was never intended to be "creepy". He shows genuine concern for Danny, even has a slightly angry and disturbed reaction when Danny mentions room 237. See that's the problem with King in the 70s, the only time his characters had any humanity was when he didn't describe them at all, which says alot about his social skills.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus
I don't know what you're getting at. Dick Halloran's conversation with Danny sounded completely cold and wooden (although this seems an awkward presence in many Kubrick films). Basically, he's talking to a little kid who doesn't know shit the whole time. But in the book it was different, Dick is actually a younger, "Friend" of Danny's, they share a special connection directly through the Shining. Utterly avoided here, instead it's grandpa talking down to a toddler.
degree7 1 year ago
@degree7 It was only cold and wooden to people who have a "Transformers 2" understanding of character interaction.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
@HardforJesus All right man, I can see you're struggling with this argument, so I'll let you off easy by just calling a draw.
You like your movie, I like my book.
Fair?
degree7 1 year ago
The idea is most simple than all that, king belive in miracles, gods, phamtoms and all that shit, Kubrick directly know than any ghost or fantasy comes from mental illness, on Kubrick's film, Jack has a ''delirium tremens'', the imagination of the kid makes him seem things and the mother start to whatch things when she became paranoid by strees, by the way, for king all that crap is not real too, but, keeping that thing going on, he is making money
Mesaru36nouta 2 years ago 2
Stanley Kurbrick is the best director of all time and Stephen King is the best writer of all time.
That should settle it.
thisisrumorcontrol 2 years ago
@thisisrumorcontrol You were right on the first one, but there are tons of writers better than King, many of which he obviously emulates.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
what a waste of time it would have been to just copy it directly from Kings book, what would be the point in that? Kubrick created a film that is timeless.
tokyomd 2 years ago
Kubrick may have been difficult to work with but his movies were fucking awesome and his pedantry for a good scene shone through, especially in the shining.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
King is a moron. Oh yeah, he really showed Kubrick who's boss when he made that absolutely awful miniseries that was so faithful to his precious book. The only horror movie of King's I like is The Shining, and it's because Kubrick had the intelligence to improve it. This video is quite sickening. You can tell it's a bunch of fanboys of Kings who will laugh out loud at every little thing King says. It's pathetic. They worship him like he's some kind of organized religion. His movies bomb.
VJWU 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you suck. King's a Geunius, Kubrick is an ego-prick!
Chrispat8 2 years ago
@VJWU The movie is very good but has nothing to do with the original source (which would piss me of too if I were the author). If you think it was an improvement on the story, you didn't understand the book!
Bartelsen 2 years ago 3
I wish I could've heard this with better audio, but those're great stories. :D
genofreek 2 years ago
I read Stephen King, and respect him. But just because he thinks Kubrick was neurotic doesn't mean I'm just taking King's personal opinion as some kind of gospel.
years later King would put his foot in his mouth writing the ABC miniseries of the Shining. And his old pal, Mick Garris would direct. Talk about a director who misses the point. The guy is a hack. Whether or not it's a faithful adaptation, Kubrick's the Shining is one of the few good adaptations of a King Horror story.
mistermajestyck 2 years ago