0:07 - This is what Kubrick probably felt like that day Stephen King visited the set.
@cinemasmarts9462
9 жыл бұрын
Lol
@amelamontgomery808
9 жыл бұрын
+Peter Loew Well said! I have no idea what king is crying about! The movie was the master peace! He should be forever grateful to that man! Writing the book and making the movie based on the book is two different things as we all know.! I've seen all of the movies available that are based on Stephen King books and most of them were , to be blunt crap! Yet he is crying over this adaptation!
@isabelsiete10
8 жыл бұрын
+Peter Loew HAHAHA! WELL SAID XD
@mahes51
8 жыл бұрын
Epic
@robertgeorge2011
8 жыл бұрын
+Peter Loew ahahahahah
@stpat7614
4 жыл бұрын
Kubrick's Shining is about the horror of living with a violent man. King's Shining is about the horror of becoming a violent man.
@Caldari021
9 жыл бұрын
Stephen King writes books well, while Kubrick makes epic films. Kubrick could not write The Shining, but King could never make a movie about The Shining better than Kubrick.
@Prof_Tickles92
9 жыл бұрын
Caldari021 My main criticism of stephen king is that he CANNOT write movies/screenplays. King is a writer who writes until he story is done, and if the story ends up being 500 pages or 752 then thats that, but when king has to condense his work down into about 200 pages it loses a lot of quality. All of the best king adaptions on film have been by directors who were exceptionally talented and went their own way I.e Kubrick and Darabont
@Caldari021
9 жыл бұрын
NazcarFanatic24 Exactly.
@dannydeadly6669
9 жыл бұрын
+Caldari021 yes he could because its his fucking work. the shining isnt even a movie about the shining
@sclogse1
9 жыл бұрын
+Caldari021 Because?
@handsomestik
7 жыл бұрын
That's completely true.
@sanctuary8396
9 жыл бұрын
Kubrick's version of The Shining is an outstanding piece of cinematic art. It is also a horrible adaptation of the novel.
@IggyTthunders
9 жыл бұрын
+Earth Asylum I agree that it's terrifying, at times; but outstanding? #Debatable. It depends on your criteria. As a plot? No. It's very two dimensional and predictable, which is fine; but you don't CARE if the family lives or not: because the mother and son are horribly cast; and nobody buys Jack 'I love the little son of a bitch!' Nicholson's Jack Torrance as a loving dad. Also it suffers from Stanley's Kubrick-isms: like the guy in the dog suit giving random phallatio. It's explained in the book, I know. It's stupid in the book, but, yes, it's explained. Stanley didn't even care. Stanley's film however is, by far, the scarier of the two. (Hedge animals aren't scary, Steve.) But it's a flimsy plot arch with little to no character development, if we're all honest. Pretty two dimensional. Honestly crazy Jack and the Overlook steal the show...and that's a problem: you shouldn't root for the villains in a horror film. I don't know what bullshit Stephen's saying: "my books are warm"? 'The Shining' is the most morose, indulgently melodramatic bore I've ever had to power through: all so I could get to that genuinely sweet scene with Lloyd.
@hieuto5183
8 жыл бұрын
hey the way I see it, no way you can put the whole book, any book for that matter, into 2 hours of celluloid, so why not change it, what is the point of stick to it if you can't deliver the whole thing.
@clifftrainor6774
7 жыл бұрын
Thank God it was. Remember the Stephen King-approved made-for-TV adaptation he crapped out in the 90s? Supposedly that was a direct adaptation from the novel. Yuck.
@th3gps223
7 жыл бұрын
The reason the movie is a masterpiece is because it's different from the book. Had it been exactly like the book, it would be trash; the mini series proves that.
@Pat96813
7 жыл бұрын
Just because a film isn't faithful to the novel doesn't mean it is bad film. The film doesn't need to faithful to source material, this is what King seems to fail to understand.
@anthonyfox585
5 жыл бұрын
how is it misogynistic, Wendy acted in a way that I think most people would have in that situation, she was scared but she did whatever she needed in order to protect Danny
@revlo8483
4 жыл бұрын
Well you have most of the audience hating on her and the actress even received a golden raspberry for "bad acting"
@terrortower666
4 жыл бұрын
Co Lin I rlly don’t get that, she did an amazing performance. She was so believable. Her and Jack worked so well I thought.
@desoliver9712
4 жыл бұрын
@@revlo8483 Ironic, since she is the best actor in the movie. Her performance is massively underrated, and hours upon hours of takes she was forced to do in a constant state of heightened anxiety all while tolerating a very abusive Kurbrik, shows a phenomenal endurance.
@desoliver9712
4 жыл бұрын
There are certain aspects of the Shining that are misogynistic-Jack's conversations with the barman about woman, and the suggestions of Jack's abuse towards his son and the implication that he was abusive to her also, and I suppose the very conventional gender roles throughout the film. She is depicted as a very weak character-especially given the fact that she remained in an abusive relationship with a man who hurt her child. And, she rarely stands up for herself when admonished by her husband. However, Wendy manages to escape from a deranged killer, saving her child in the process-we could describe the environment as misogynistic perhaps, but not the character, she's the hero of the film.
@totallybored5526
4 жыл бұрын
Des Oliver just because a character says something that is classed as an ‘ism’ doesn’t mean the film is
@jackreed7287
5 жыл бұрын
King = great writer. Kubrick = cinematic genius.
@zoorockf1
4 жыл бұрын
jack reed Not a genius he is. But one of the best.
@luke9947
4 жыл бұрын
zoorockf1 stfu
@vaishnavinayak4830
4 жыл бұрын
@Les Grossman many serial killers have iq of that range..u'll still judge them based on their iq or their work?
@niktej1114
4 жыл бұрын
@Les Grossman he must be a Nolan tard
@anthonyg2003
4 жыл бұрын
None of you heard what Steven king just said about this man, he’s a compulsive man. He may be a genius but he’s a bad guy just look at the way Kubrick looks like at the end of the video. He mistreated Shelly Duvall and look at her now. You dumbfucks
@TrustATinOwl
8 жыл бұрын
Stephen King is such a cool dude, he doesn't care if his opinion offends. He's just himself. I personally think The Shining is fantastic but I can understand, after reading the novel, why King didn't like it.
@droogs8826
4 жыл бұрын
So did you like king's version 🤣😂 Stephen king is 🐐 of novels but the Stanley Kubrick was a 🐐 filmmaker he should stop being salty about him
@PralaynathGendaswami
4 жыл бұрын
@@droogs8826 come on man, the shinning is Stephen King's baby, Kubrick is just it's baby sitter, people might approve A babysitter for the way he is treating the kid, but it's upto the parent's approval after all. Anyway.. I've read The Shinning twice and saw the movie countless times.. still I would say, The book is damn deep, but it doesn't mean that the movie is shallow.. it's like, The movie is Mariana Trench, but the book is challenger's deep
@PralaynathGendaswami
4 жыл бұрын
@@droogs8826 for me the best movie based on Stephen King's work is The Shawshank Redemption then the Green Mile, Then No Smoking (Bollywood Movie directed by Anurag Kashyap) and then The Shinning (Followed by Carrie)
@droogs8826
4 жыл бұрын
@@PralaynathGendaswami I didn't say anything about the book I was saying he didn't like the movie so did he wanted movie to be like his mini series? Book maybe better than movie so he should stick with books let the filmmaker make the movies the shining is Stephen king's baby ok but film making is Kubrick's bitch and Stephen should not teach Kubrick how to make a movie Kubrick won't even hire him for babysitting his movie lol
@PralaynathGendaswami
4 жыл бұрын
@@droogs8826 bottom line here is.. I enjoyed The movie for how it was made - the set design, the feel, the performances, even music and narration and every aspect but one. The one that makes it a 99% perfect is the fact that 1% is how it was to be presented. King never became Kubrick's teacher.. he never intended to teach him how to do filmmaking. It's just what he wanted to present to the audience (non readers as well) was a bit unsatisfactory to him. That made him cash his money for a mini series.. and by no ways it was to teach Kubrick a lesson in filmmaking (for god sake Kubrick is a Prodigious filmmaker) and here he is just criticizing the movie, taking a dig on Charecters and all the literal aspects and not technical ones. He has no say in that. Moreover these are the words of Stephen King for Kubrick's The Shinning " A big, beautiful Cadillac with no engine inside it". And being a fan of both Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick, I agree to it..
@oldschool3424
5 жыл бұрын
Although I love both the book and the film, I understand where Stephen is coming from. The novel is a very character driven story while the movie is more driven by atmosphere and tone and to see those characters become less of what they originally were more than likely made the film feel empty to Stephen
@jubalcalif9100
4 жыл бұрын
Very well said ! You hit the nail on the head: the book is about characters and the film is about atmosphere !
@thesexyshark1646
3 жыл бұрын
The best way I heard it was Kubrick set out to make a movie that hurt people, and that he did. I personally prefer the movie to the book but hey that’s just me.
@jedijones
Жыл бұрын
@@thesexyshark1646 People understand why 2001 wasn't about characters. They should also understand why The Shining wasn't. Movies have the power to affect us directly like dreams. They don't require biographical details of characters to work. Stories that require piling on soap opera details about characters usually don't make for the best movies.
@Triadii
Жыл бұрын
If there was any more back and forth talk dialogue in the film I would be bored to death.
@scrodello6000
3 жыл бұрын
Shelly wasn’t stupid...she was the strongest of all the characters! She got her son outside doing activities...sought help when needed...and showed compassion for her husband even when she disagreed with him.
@jacobrogers2906
Жыл бұрын
Exactly, and she was bit of mouse maybe, but that was what was realistically needed to be married to Jack that Nicholson portrayed. She wasn't stupid, she was just a (slightly) different Wendy married to a different Jack.
@dizzytash1867
Жыл бұрын
She was weak. Nothing like the book version of Wendy at all. Maybe you should read the book. I don't think anyone should have an opinion unless they've read the book. It's just ignorant.
@WiredLain_
Жыл бұрын
@@dizzytash1867 you sound more ignorant and annoying than anyone i’ve seen in this comment section.
@menglund08
Жыл бұрын
agreed
@scrodello6000
Жыл бұрын
@@dizzytash1867 I read the book when I was 9. I’ve read many of Kings books.
@DH-br9kq
7 жыл бұрын
damm so kubrick was too dark for stephen king...
@brianj4201
5 жыл бұрын
D H that’s completely not the reason King hated Kubricks version of The Shining...
@brianj4201
5 жыл бұрын
It’s like you didn’t even listen to what he said.
@beachstreet101
5 жыл бұрын
No, it was because the film ended up being the complete opposite of what the book was.
@_Tigon
4 жыл бұрын
D H fr lmao
@zoorockf1
4 жыл бұрын
mov1987 lol Well then it is not SK
@MexlycanFilmico
9 жыл бұрын
I personally liked the movie more than the book, but again its just my opinion.
@zzzhuh
5 жыл бұрын
You've probably never even read the book X'D
@mickroyster6442
5 жыл бұрын
I've read the book before the ovie came out. I didn't like it too much. I mean, I liked it because it was Stephen King. But, in 1980, when I was seventeen, I saw the movie and i FUCKING LOVED IT!
@parapoliticos52
4 жыл бұрын
@Manuj Madan The book goes one and on and on and on and on.. If it weren't for the setting(remote hotel isolated/empty by snowfall-trapped inside it), which didn't came from SK's imagination, but from accidentally stepping on it(which was a nice breaking of his routine of plagiarizing stories), it would have been unbearable. As Dr Sleep is. Effectively in the book it's your imagination that does most of the scaring. Just put the stories anywhere else but the overlook, you ll see how utterly ridiculous they are.
@NewWave-ds4vn
4 жыл бұрын
@@zzzhuh He probably didn't just another person on the band wagon.
@andrjsjan4231
4 жыл бұрын
Manuj Madan and you are young as fuck baby.
@juancpgo
9 жыл бұрын
Why people think that is surprising?? I doubt any author would ever like adaptations of their books. It‘s quite impossible, you put your heart and soul into a story, and then someone takes it a turns into a completely different media? I mean, of course he's not gonna like it. It's like you make a painting and then someone write a story about it. It's not gonna make any fucking sense to you. It's just a different thing, it's stupid to compare a book to its adaptation on screen. And the author will do that inevitably. You can only enjoy the movie 100% if you are completely unattached to the book.
@heysatan8
9 жыл бұрын
If I was King I would have been extremely flattered that my story inspired one of the greatest filmmaker of all time. Art inspires art. Kubrick wasn't interested in copying the story exactly as is (that's what the book is for) but making it his own. That's what "adaptation" means.
@NefariousDreary
9 жыл бұрын
I never thought about it much but yeah, many authors probably don't like their stories' movie adaptations. Though, I that the writer of Interview with a Vampire thought the movie was good and that the characters were spot on. I know Anthony Burgess didn't like the "A Clockwork Orange" movie was directed by the American adaptation because it completely left out and even mislead the message of what the book was about.
@ULYSSES-31
9 жыл бұрын
Kasuo Ishiguro loves both adaptations of his books The Remains of the Day and Never Let Me Go.
@shirleyjones4161
9 жыл бұрын
Actually, King is quite pleased with the tv adaptation of Under the Dome, even though it's quite different from the book, because it still involves you in the characters and the situation in a similar way to the way he wrote them originally. As he said, it's about how cold Kubrick made the characters in the movie version. That being said, I originally saw that movie when I was six year old, and I've been a fan for over thirty years and the mastery of what Kubrick could make you feel with those camera angles and the starkness and hugeness of that place; how he put you in Danny's shoes in a way, that was what made that movie majestic, despite it not really having the heart of King's novel.
@markopolo958
9 жыл бұрын
What a generic argument. There have been MANY authors who have liked the movie version of their books, they might admit that it fealt a lot different but they still appreciate it. King is literally saying that he thought Kubrick missed the point
@wastehazey6468
6 жыл бұрын
Shelley did a great job and I really don't get why she gets so much heat. It's a wife that has to deal with a crazed husband trying to murder her and her son. It's a man that she loves, of course she screams and becomes hysteric, it's a ruthlessly traumatizing experience to live through. She acts like a normal human being would.
@jacobharris4838
8 жыл бұрын
Stephen King doesn't seem to truly understand cinema. Kubrick never intended to make a movie version of the book, how boring would that be? The text already exists, seeing it put directly to screen would've been useless to the world of art.
@Dave67AZ
8 жыл бұрын
+Jacob Harris If that were true, we'd never see movies about real events in history that actually tell the true stories. While it's true that often they'll leave important things out or add things in order to get it to fit in a nice, neat little Hollywood package, there's no need to change a character's personality in order for it to be considered "art". The idea that all art has to be entirely original and can't copy something that someone else has done is ludicrous. Putting something into a different medium is art even if it follows the literary story line to a tee.
@jacobharris4838
8 жыл бұрын
Dave Lewis you make a good case, but I don't think King has any reason to be upset by the adaptation
@Dave67AZ
8 жыл бұрын
+Jacob Harris I agree. I only took issue with the comment that a perfect adaptation of a book to a film has no place in the world of art. Adapting literature to any other medium is just as much art whether or not it stays perfectly true to the original piece. I think there's a lot more work in putting written words into a live-action performance than you might realize.
@jacobharris4838
8 жыл бұрын
Dave Lewis yeah you're roght dude. My comment mostly came out of frustration with Stephen King. In every interview where he discusses Kubrick, he makes sure not to say a single good thing about the man. But you're right, with good direction, a blatant replication of source material can make a valuable film
@Dave67AZ
8 жыл бұрын
+Jacob Harris I made another comment on here, a big rant, about how hypocritical King is being toward directors/producers who don't work with him when making the books into movies. He goes off on people like Kubrick for not being faithful to the story, then he turns around and rewrites characters and story lines so they can fit things like "Under the Dome" into a TV series. I think it's just a control freak thing, honestly. He wants changes to be approved through him. Sorry Steve. That isn't how it works. Just because you're still alive doesn't give you any more creative right over a film adaptation of your literature than Shakespeare gets over some of the adaptations of his works these days. As literary fans, most of us readers have books we'd love to see made into movies. And the vast majority of us want the movie to follow the story in the book, because THAT's what the book means to us. There's nothing wrong with making significant changes by the time it hits the screen, letting characters live in the movie when they died in the book, changing a character's sex or race, etc. But at least be honest about it and say the movie is "inspired by" such and such, rather than pretending that it's the same story. That, to me, is just dishonest marketing. There's nothing wrong with artistic interpretation. King knows that. He just doesn't like some interpretations. But to go off on a guy for interpreting something in a different way is silly. I can see both sides of the coin and while I understand WHY King reacts the way he does, what I don't get is how he is so two-faced about it, reacting one way when it's someone else making the changes, and another way when it's him.
@danielTHX1138
10 жыл бұрын
I can appreciate the writer not being happy. Kubrick horror and king horror are so different. I felt that next to the Exorcist that the Shining is the greatest horror movie ever made. And i appreciate it all the more with the older i get
@peepdeepful
10 жыл бұрын
I can't fathom the fact that people think The Shining is the greatest horror movie of all time. I think it is the most overrated movie I have ever seen. Nothing is coherent in the movie, random gimmicks, the acting is often very bad (even from Nicholson). To me NOTHING is scary in the film. Annoying waist of my time (other than that that I got to know my enemy).
@somberlight
10 жыл бұрын
Peepdeepful FO if that's what you think of Kubricks view, your mind and your head will explode if you take a look at the other attempts. the tv-version, for example, cannot be taken as anything other than a comedy. it's so hilariously bad
@madmaxbocka
10 жыл бұрын
Peepdeepful FO Well then don't watch it... Go watch paranormal activity or something. This wasn't as much a horror as it was an examination of the subconscious & fear, and the human condition, violence and the history of mankind (particularly the darker parts in time caused by white people)
@franjaime200
10 жыл бұрын
Peepdeepful FO You're right. The Shining is a very unscary movie. The novel is brilliantly terrifying.
@franjaime200
10 жыл бұрын
max rakestraw Which is fine but then Kubrick should have called it something else.
@cybernautadventurer
8 жыл бұрын
I really wish Nicholson's character had been more normal at the beginning.
@song4night
8 жыл бұрын
+The Real Mr J. like Obama?
@blakejohnson2206
5 жыл бұрын
There was a reason for the way he was portraying the character from the start. As seen at the end of the movie Jack was a major part in the theme of the repetition of violence. He needed to be separated from the good and wholesome characters so the audience would feel elated when his character dies at the end. There always needs to be an antagonist.
@saadahmad913
4 жыл бұрын
No kidding only then Jack's outcome would be the same as the Book
@wailer27
3 жыл бұрын
By making him slightly creepy from the beginning, it enhanced the ambiguity about whether the supernatural element even existed at all, or if everything was just in his own head... If the character had transitioned from totally good to totally evil, then what happened would almost certainly be depicted as a supernatural possession... But maybe the evil that people do all by themselves is the most scary thing of all...
@cybernautadventurer
3 жыл бұрын
@@wailer27 On second analysis, i think that by making Jack a looney right from scene 1, it takes the focus off of him and places it more onto the hotel itself and the scariness of it. The Shining is one of the scariest movies ever simply because of its ambience. You don't watch it because you're invested in the characters. You watch it because you want to explore a really dark and scary place - the Overlook Hotel. It's like a thrill-ride. Ironically, by not being true to the book, I think that might be the very reason why Kubrick's ''The Shining'' is such a powerful movie.
@Icantdothatrightnow
9 жыл бұрын
While I love the Shining, and find it to be one of the best Horror movies ever made, I completely agree with him about Wendy. In the book, she's a deep, complex character, but in the movie, she does genuinely seem to be there just to scream and run. Basically, in the book she's a character, in the movie she's more a tool for reaction.
@adamparker8137
9 жыл бұрын
+Icantdothatrightnow No, she's an inversion, just as the red objects are now yellow, the death in fire is now death in snow, the moving objects eg hedge, elevators are now stationary. It's a deliberate inversion of a bright blonde into a dull brunette. Kubrick did it all through the film. It's deliberate.
@HeatherSpoonheim
8 жыл бұрын
+Icantdothatrightnow This is all too true of far too many female characters in film. Kubrick was a genius, I'm certain - but he was also perfectly pleased to cash a cheque.
@adamparker8137
8 жыл бұрын
+Heather Spoonheim You're quite right about female representation in film. So true. But if Kubrick was perfectly pleased to cash a cheque - which I take you mean he put money ahead of other issues - then his sporadic release history would say otherwise. This was the guy who could have taken any blockbuster formula film contract he wanted in a heartbeat. So I would disagree there on the whys of the matter. Instead, I think this choice is a deliberate artistic strategy on Kubrick's part to invert the book - there's lots of evidence for this btw in the formal composition of the images when read comparatively against the King text - where that inversion has created a weak female character. I'd read it as Kubrick being so caught up in his own auteurship that he was unable or unwilling to see past his own devices to read and account for the politics this choice evidences to others. No less reprehensible, just a different provenance.
@HeatherSpoonheim
8 жыл бұрын
+Adam Parker Agreed - it wasn't necessarily money - he loved himself more than money. Look at his treatment of Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange. He was driven to complete his art at any cost.
@83loveanimals
8 жыл бұрын
yes but the book was too long to put in two hours movie. in my opinion this is the reason the characters can not be complex
@atolm1
9 жыл бұрын
Does he really think that high school production of the shining he did as a mini series is better than Kurick's timeless masterpiece? They should never even be mentioned in the same breath.
@ljpage19
9 жыл бұрын
He was talking about his novel, not the series
@vaderetro264
9 жыл бұрын
'Timeless masterpiece'? You kidding?
@atolm1
9 жыл бұрын
It has endured and is widely considered one of the finest examples of the genre. It will never lose its place from the pedestal its on now. so you may not think so but youre in the minority.
@RamsesTheStone
9 жыл бұрын
Piero della Francesca Maybe you are stupid, but it is a masterpiece.
@EmpereurdeLan3000
4 жыл бұрын
High school production!!! LOL You’re right it was so Cheesy
@MegaSilverBlood
8 жыл бұрын
Kubrick basically did what has always been done with comic book movies, NOT FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL, which, when done BRILLIANTLY, as Kubrick did, there´s abso-fucking-lutely no problem, its like Nolan´s the Dark Knight, did he use the original source material?, no he invented his own story, and executed it to near perfection. And that´s just one more of the many reasons why Kubrick was ahead of his time.
@georgea.567
8 жыл бұрын
If you sell the rights to your book you can't bitch about the movie.
@JHowesitgoing123
8 жыл бұрын
Of course you can wtf lol
@georgea.567
8 жыл бұрын
No if he wasn't willing to let Kubrick change his story at all he shouldn't have sold it.
@jaywunder13242
7 жыл бұрын
I think the original author has as much a right to an opinion as anyone.
@Druffmaul
7 жыл бұрын
Anybody who sells their book to Kubrick and then bitches about it is a jerk ass.
@ThePlur427
9 жыл бұрын
Im glad he said what he said about Shelley Duvalls wendy. You might listen to what he says here and think he didn't like what she brought to the movie but you have to remember Kubrick changed the character, in the book she's more in-tune with Danny and is much more cleaver and in the movie Kubrick basically drove Shelley Duvall insane in every which way possible even getting the rest of the crew to ignore her and not console her because he wanted his Wendy to be a crying mess - Shelley Duvall played the part beautifully if you are looking at it as kubrick wanted it but if your looking at it from a Stephen King fan perspective you will end up hating it and not liking Shelly Duvalls acting without understanding WHY she was like that and that it was really not her fault! Kubrick really messed up Shelly Duvalls mind and life because of this movie and i have a feeling King knows this and does not appreciate it.
@shirleyjones4161
9 жыл бұрын
So true. King wrote a real woman, not a two dimensional, piece of paper type person. While Duvall's reaction is so genuine that it really does give you goosebumps as you watch the movie each and every time, especially the part with Jack on the stairwell, it's not at all normal or what you would expect from a married couple, even one that had experienced one prior bout of domestic upset. It's really too bad about Duvall's career, too. She had something unique to give to the screen, and it was so short-lived. She was so natural that I always felt like I literally knew her as a kid. I have such mixed feelings. I admire both of these geniuses so much, and I can see why they felt they had to do their art the way they did it.
@madmaxbocka
9 жыл бұрын
Sr.Vonteese This is a great explanation. I'm so sick of arguing this WHO told the better story when they are almost completely opposite! People get so worked up, it's all art, art is subjective to the interpretation individually.. Why can't people like both stories? I prefer Kubrick's version but the book helped me realize WHY.
@mittROMNEY666
9 жыл бұрын
I also think a lot of women are really like that, weak and cowering. How is that misogynistic if it simply reflects the reality of her being in a position of vulnerability vis a vis her stronger, deranged husband?
@cringeclown4087
5 жыл бұрын
Bro I'd be the same fucking way if my husband was threatening to kill me and my son And I'm a man It's a realistic portrayal He molded Shelley like that to portray her correctly I wouldn't do what he did to the poor girl but I can say I'd like to see her without the pressure
@d.dedrick7991
5 жыл бұрын
@@cringeclown4087 Thank you, Sir‼️ Right on...😀👍
@pascalscherr5206
5 жыл бұрын
King got outclassed. It's not the most shameful thing, this is Stanley Kubrick he's trying to compare to
@sirschmoopybutthole1592
5 жыл бұрын
Untitled Document Stephen King, who has been cranking out best sellers for decades, was outclassed by Stanley Kubrick is this instance? When Stanley was adapting an original work by Stephen? You did read what you typed right? I mean Stanley is a genius without a doubt, but to say here he outclassed Stephen “The King of Horror” King is just wild.
@supoa9489
5 жыл бұрын
Yet he needed someone else work and title for the so called masterpiece
@Bella-Mae0422
6 жыл бұрын
I understand his frustration bc that wasn't the way he did the story in his book but regardless the movie was a master piece and will always be a classic and Jack Nicholson did a wonderful job in it. Jack is a great actor and Shelly Duvall put sweat and tears literally in that movie. It's better then that 1997 version BS.
@marilettak6782
Жыл бұрын
I honestly love the remake. It's true to the book
@TheAerovons
6 жыл бұрын
The scene between Jack and Shelly Duvall as she backs up the steps is one of the best acted scenes I've ever watched. The film is the film, the book is the book. Thank heaven's Spielberg didn't "stick to the book" for JAWS lol
@Venserql
11 ай бұрын
Funnily enough, Shelley Duvall got a razzie award for the worst actress for The Shining. IDK what were they smoking.
@TheAerovons
11 ай бұрын
@@Venserql She's just very odd and I'm not sure she connected with some. The whole film was acted oddly, about the only normal actor in it was Scatman. But that was part of what made it so different. That and the fact that many of the scary scenes were filmed with lights on in the hotel and not dark shadows. Strange and unique.
@SKARAB_PHAROH
9 ай бұрын
@@VenserqlI do she fucking ruined it. It was an absolutely amazing film... Nicholson was amazing... little Danny as a character was amazing. But I found her character fucking awful... irritating... terrible... and didn't do any justice to the character originally written in the book.
@billycasper3351
4 жыл бұрын
It wasn't the *WARMTH* of the story or the *INTERACTIVE CHARACTERS* that impressed Stanley to make a film out of it. Instead, it was the convertibility of the concept of psychokinesis into a story-was what impressed Stanley. (In an interview about The Shining, you can hear Stanley talk about his deep interests in the concept of Psychokinesis. He loved this concept already before even reading Stephen's novel.)
@phopanator
10 жыл бұрын
Stephen king is a good writer but he has had some flops, the shining made for tv series he wrote was absolute poo
@milenagonzalez8852
3 жыл бұрын
all the best of the book is in the miniseries, the characters feel like real people
@RetroRevivalLuke
5 жыл бұрын
Stephen King is insane. The Shining is the best horror film of all time and King is sour that he made the story better than his own
@Chuwopington
Жыл бұрын
The exorcist exists
@AC-LING666
Жыл бұрын
Of all time ? Is that the only horror film you've ever seen
@gdub454
8 жыл бұрын
Hey Stephen King..dude..you shouldnt be trying to portray Kubrick in a bad light...he made your OK book into a masterpiece of cinema suspense...and yes..you are right..the "cold" feeling you spoke of is what gives it its great suspense
@SpinosaurusTheProudSocialist
8 жыл бұрын
Do really think King's novel is just OK? Don't get me wrong I love Kubrick's Shining but it just doesn't compare to Stephen King's masterpiece.
@aternialaffsalot
8 жыл бұрын
undertakerfan4life11 definitely one of his better novels but honestly the film offers a lot more than the book imo
@SpinosaurusTheProudSocialist
7 жыл бұрын
***** I disagree but I respect your opinion.
@kurziieee
7 жыл бұрын
He also completly misses the fact that kubrick through the movie is trying to "shine" to the viewer through chants and visual subliminals and this is a very creepy way of immersing the viewer into the story.
@jeffsmaracheck
7 жыл бұрын
Cpt. Planet
@dynamicvoltage9765
2 жыл бұрын
The film is better than the book - depending on what you're looking for. I find the book's dialogue to be horrendous at times. Really corny. I also don't buy into Jack being good, then coaxed into being bad, then turning good at the end. It's much more logical that Jack was always on the brink and the cabin fever pushed him over the edge.
@roberthudson6284
8 жыл бұрын
A creative person wouldn't want Steven King anywhere near their place of work.
@LouisBanks-hv6sk
5 жыл бұрын
bravo sir
@mohanicus
5 жыл бұрын
there's always a fucking dickhead like you.....
@beachstreet101
5 жыл бұрын
Do you even know who the great Stephen King is? You sound like you’re nine years old.
@happybear3706
4 жыл бұрын
Kinda like how all or most of Kubricks work was based off of books?
@Bhatt_Hole
5 ай бұрын
@@beachstreet101 Does he even know who the great Stephen King is? Dunno. Good question. Maybe the McDonalds of writers? Who sounds like the 9 year old? It's as if you are talking about one of the classic writers or something. He writes books which appeal to the masses.
@TheBermudaMan
Жыл бұрын
It's hard to hear so many stories about Kubrick without suffering from "Rashomon syndrome," but the general impression I've received from most actors and writers who worked with Kubrick is that he was an incredibly draconian director who became strangely likeable as soon as you managed to adapt to his way of working. He wasn't a humorless man, but he was so determined to make movies that stood the test of time that he expected his coworkers to be similarly "all in." His movies are only truly perfect depending on who you ask. Ironically, what fans would consider his strengths as a filmmaker, his critics regard as weaknesses.
@lucidwindowsstudio
3 жыл бұрын
Kubrick didn’t use her in some kind of cheesy archetypal “scared screaming girl” sense, she represented a heightened sense of fragility and vulnerability. She took the audience to a deep rooted place which allows the other elements of the film to permeate. I’m baffled how King can’t differentiate that from some cheap trick/thrill commonly overused by hacks.
@anthonypike5588
2 жыл бұрын
She was abused on the set to make it seem realistic she was losing her hair from it Kubrick is horrible person for putting someone thru that
@ricardomurillo5205
9 жыл бұрын
King is a bit jealous here. Whenever I read King I like to read once. I can watch Kubrick's Shining 1000 times.
@garbageday587
8 жыл бұрын
Not only jealous but the dude has an ego as big as a mountain, the fact that he appears in almost every movies based on his books prooves it.
@ricardomurillo5205
8 жыл бұрын
I am reading his sort of biography called on writing. He is more down to earth there, I recommend it. He came from a very modest family, was an alcoholic and he understands how lucky he got. For instance out of frustration he had chucked Carrie in the bin and it was his wife who recovered it ; it was his major first success and could not believe it. But that does not mean he has no ego today and I am 100% certain he is jealous of Kubrick's legacy and genius; nobody is perfect.
@bannokelly18
8 жыл бұрын
I really dont think hes jealous or has an ego, he has been very complementary of many films based off his work, this us actually the only one ive heard him complain about
@Arcadia5309
8 жыл бұрын
well king has made many transcending monster
@ricardomurillo5205
8 жыл бұрын
I have seen many King movies. My favorite is Misery but in terms of photography and innovation the Shining is all art and I really don't care if a movie does not follow the book, because it is like trying to make a radio show into a tv series, very hard. King should be proud of having one of the best directors in history do a movie based on his book.
@Ingens_Scherz
5 жыл бұрын
King is a child. Kubrick made a movie for grown ups. And Shelley Duvall was the absolute - and absolutely genuine - hero of the movie. No matter the cause - doesn't matter (although it's all that matters to King) - she defeated an abusive, alcoholic husband she once loved who was threatening her child. Basically ignored in the book, but the best part of the film.
@chrismartino3519
4 жыл бұрын
But coldness is what made Kubrick great... We we're terrified by that film
@LowenKM
2 жыл бұрын
How ironic that King should call Kubrick 'anal', while bitterly complaining about the loss of 'control' over his own work. “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
@betelgeuse6617
5 жыл бұрын
I don't like to compare different forms lf art, but i think the movie is way superior
@andrjsjan4231
4 жыл бұрын
Betelgeuse 66 of what king movie or novel compared to what dumbo ass.
@andrjsjan4231
4 жыл бұрын
Betelgeuse 66 ??
@codex4811
4 жыл бұрын
You're iliterate
@paterfamiliasgeminusiv4623
4 жыл бұрын
Have you read the book?
@terrortower666
4 жыл бұрын
Double Orts I have. It’s very good but certainly not the best of King’s work and defiantly not one of the best in horror novel history. Kubrick’s adaptation however, imo is one of the most haunting, chilling and greatest horror movies ever made. It deserves all the praise it gets and more.
@Peter_1986
10 ай бұрын
Almost any woman would act more or less like Shelley if she was stuck in the middle of nowhere during the winter with a husband who had gone absolutely crazy and was trying to kill her, while her son at the same time started showing weird signs of some sort of chilling dissociative identity disorder, at a hotel that turned out to be haunted - try to imagine all of that for a moment.
@PMetheney84
9 жыл бұрын
The truth is that Kubrick didn't think much of King's writing. He just used the story of "The Shining" as a vessel, but didn't give a damn about it. I think King doesn't understand what Kubrick tried to do with it because he's not as intelligent as Kubrick.
@venaretro5444
9 жыл бұрын
Amen.
@ChuckHouse420
9 жыл бұрын
+PMetheney84 I think he understands perfectly what he did with it, but as the guy that made it, he doesn't like it. Let's say you made wooden chairs, by hand. You spent months lovingly crafting a beautiful elaborate chair and then you sell it. Now you know whoever buys it can do whatever they want with it, but you sell it to this guy that seems like he is going to really appreciate it. Then you find out he took it out and burned it because "Fuck you it's my chair now!" that's kind of how this went.
@manlymen552
7 жыл бұрын
PMetheney84 what????? lol
@SuperBrictson
7 жыл бұрын
Especially, two things: SHELLEY DUVALL (in the book that I haven't read yet but my sister did), many Stephen fans argue that the female character was way hotter and seductive in the book but Kubrick feels like that's inverosimile. Why such a woman like that would be with some lame writer as Jack Torrance? The other thing is the ENDING, in the book might sound good an explosion of a cauldron but in screen it would be a disaster. I know that fact 'cause I read a book called Stanley Kubrick Interviews, Stanley admitted that he didn't liked the original ending so he thought the maze is the most logical place where a kid can beat an psychopath adult as Jack Torrance. Sorry Stephen, I'm with Stanley, next time demand respect to your book in the clauses of the contract so nobody change a thing of your book!!!
@Burps___
3 жыл бұрын
Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "the Shining" is the most lauded of any adaptation for cinema of any Stephen King novel. It is a masterpiece. 🎥
@LowenKM
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, and even if he was _justifiably_ pissed about Kubrick's 'interpretation', the fact that King couldn't even think of one _good_ thing to say about such an acclaimed film by another artist, just makes him come across as childish and frankly kinda petty.
@nancyp3949
Жыл бұрын
Should have let Keith Richards direct it.
@ZoeChan-s4j
Жыл бұрын
@@LowenKM I think he was just disappointed in the lack of empathy in the characters. He’s praised elements of the film, but has justly criticized the impersonal tone.
@manuellagosmillan1033
Жыл бұрын
The Shining doesn't even touch a movie like The Shawshank Redemption.
@ralphiecifaretto8961
Жыл бұрын
Ever heard of Shawshank Redemption?
@Mo_Ketchups
3 жыл бұрын
Stevie, when will you ever come to terms that YOU, a masterful WRITER, willingly TOOK LOADS of MONEY to surrender your story to a masterful FILMMAKER, and they’re two SEPARATE artworks/mediums. Both HUGELY revered. LET - it - GO, Stevie. ✌️ Not to mention the millions more books his film helped YOU sell!
@Luxstar13
3 жыл бұрын
well yeah it does help him but i'm sure if you a storywriter and people make film that doesn't even near your story, it could be misleading and dissapointing that your work doesn't appreciated at all. it means people just used you for money.
@Luxstar13
3 жыл бұрын
plus money doesn't always something people want. Sometimes people just want to be appriciated for their hard work and quality.
@kirak1561
3 жыл бұрын
Kubricks Shining didn’t even make so much money. Stephen King doesn’t need Kubrick to be succesfull. Kubrick abuser the actress of Wendy on set. He’s an asshole & should have being held responsible. Don’t think his version of Shining was genius. The remake is better.
@tt55899
2 жыл бұрын
When will YOU ever come to terms with the fact that you're talking to him like HE'S actually gonna read this but he's NOT
@commentsdisabled2320
Жыл бұрын
Fun fact: Kubrick switched the color of Jacks Volkswagen to yellow , when it was red in the Kings book. Why is this important? Later in the movie you can see a red Volkswagen that has crashed in the blizzard. That’s essentially Kubrick saying to King “This is my film, you’re not in charge here”
@MelancoliaI
8 жыл бұрын
...so King didn't act like a star-struck ass kisser and the pseudo cinefile fanboys can't handle it. That's what i'm gathering
@armwrestlingfan6804
7 жыл бұрын
MelancoliaI Oh yeah, we must be "so misogynistic" That's what I'm gathering...
@cringeclown4087
5 жыл бұрын
Ass kissing? No. He just said he hated the movie and tried to get someone else remake it just because of that. Which is totally unrational.
@kummakummakummakummakummac8606
5 жыл бұрын
Melancolial - It's always the fanboys who cry the loudest. They are right and you are wrong no matter what.
@cooltalktalks4944
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah. In the end, it doesn’t matter that the tv mini series wasn’t as good - I didn’t think it sucked btw. This is just King giving his opinion. Another point, in movie when caretaker was driving to try and rescue Danny and Wendy, he passes by an overturned vehicle in snow that was red - the color that jack Torrance’s car was in the book but in the movie was yellow. This was Kubrick saying F-K YOU to King
@Huntersthomphson
6 жыл бұрын
Stephen king hating it just made the movie 100 times better.
@keithyw
3 жыл бұрын
i remember seeing King's version of The Shining for TV in Japan. At first, I wasn't sure what I was watching (it had subtitles in Japanese). But I was fascinated with the way he wanted to portray his book. I did think the ending was friendlier just because it was King's original vision of how he wanted the book to be. However, the Kubrick version is just an interpretative adaption of what King did and Kubrick made it his own (probably he saw himself as a version of Jack from what I've read and decided to have his own angle on the story). The main issue I have with the TV version is that it took what 2-3 episodes to say what Kubrick did in a single movie. That feels very indulgent. Also, the thing about Kubrick's version is that it's hypnotic and fascinating. There's so much memorable aspects from the acting to the surreal moments that you start to call into question your own reality as well as what the characters face. That disjointed feeling is something I never really received from King's TV version. Also, everyone would just play second fiddle to Jack Nicholson's performance and the actress in the TV version was horribly annoying. Shelley's casting and character is very sympathetic and she has a very good character arc where slowly she must face the internal horrors of Jack's abuse in being awakened herself with what she's seeing in the hotel (compare that to her first arrival where she's enthralled by the flash). But overall the issue here is that you have two masters of the craft in their respective worlds with very differing approaches to the subject.
@reinforcedpenisstem
9 жыл бұрын
The film works and is self-contained. The 'tone' of the film may be different, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't brilliant (which it is).
@kalebrblackman6304
7 жыл бұрын
I'm probobably the only person who is both a king fan and a Kubrick fan, they are both phenomenal artists but different types of artist. no hate please just putting some words out there.
@exclamationpointman3852
5 жыл бұрын
I like their work yoo3, but i dont like Kubrick's disrespectful personality.
@jubalcalif9100
4 жыл бұрын
As I do when I take off my hat, you make a good point ! A person can easily be a fan of both King & Kubrick ! Each are masters of their medium. Or in Kubricks' case, was.....
@EZbeauty
2 жыл бұрын
A clash of two geniuses. It’s fascinating, honestly.
@JaygeSattler
10 жыл бұрын
Stephen King is just JEALOUS of what an artist Kubrick was. And with his resentment for Kubrick's work I lost all respect for King & his books. He's a cheesy, low rent writer with little knowledge of integrity, literally taking a dump on paper & wiping his behind with the subsequent profits. Kubrick on the other hand, made The Shining BETTER than the book, it's own story, a film certainly better than the hilariously bad tv miniseries & created something you could watch once a day for the rest of your life yet still find appeasing on every pass. Can King do that? With a typewriter? No. Never. He's a goon.
@SasapessoS
7 жыл бұрын
Stephen King is right on his main points: 1. The Shining is a cold movie, it freezes you to death. 2. The only female character (ghosts don't count) is there only to scream. But Kubrick has something else on his mind, so King's opinion doesn't matter. Not every movie needs to be warm and not-misogynistic, filled with relatable generic Stephen King characters.
@XXthekingofyouXX
5 жыл бұрын
Jesus, between Kubrick and King, Shelley DuVall has really taken a beat down.
@mohammadmostafa9215
4 жыл бұрын
😂😂
@simont6439
Жыл бұрын
Kubrick used the novel as a shell, a camouflage, while really telling a different story that still today few have understood.
@aquagrl63
10 жыл бұрын
I quite liked Shelley Duvall as Wendy. I thought she did a very good portrayal of a woman suffering under an abusive relationship, trying to take care of both herself and her son. Also if you notice, she's the only one actually taking care of the hotel; Jack just sits around and types. Also, it's a bit mean of King to say that stuff about Kubrick. He doesn't have to like the film, but that doesn't mean he needs to attack Kubrick as a person. So what if he was a little weird?
@franjaime200
10 жыл бұрын
Which is why those of us have read the book don't like this Wendy. Kubrick was a little more than weird and King has every right to still be upset at the horrible mutilation of his novel. Btw, the author of "A Clockwork Orange" also ended up hating Kubrick.
@paulntraci99
9 жыл бұрын
Yeah, like King isn't a bit of a weird-o himself.
@franjaime200
9 жыл бұрын
paulntraci99 Yes, King is weird, more than a little in fact, but it was HIS story and a completely different one from Kubrick's.
@franjaime200
9 жыл бұрын
It's completely different from the book. Kubrick took an excellent book and turned into a pretty movie.
@casmo87
9 жыл бұрын
Fran jaime Kubrick took elements from the book and created his vision, as any director does. If an author doesn't want their book 'mutilated' as you say, they shouldn't sell the rights to film studios to do with it whatever they wish. The book is Stephen Kings 'The Shining'. The movie is Stanley Kubricks 'The Shining.'
@christianfrazier6202
9 жыл бұрын
I tell you guys one thing.....i don't care if King didn't like it.....but The Shining was very revolutionary.
@philherman6536
5 жыл бұрын
Stanley Kubrick was a master of subtlety, the small seemingly insignificant details that can be seen in this movie tell a story behind the story all on its own. Wendy was not a helpless, stupid girl but an emotionally, mentally, physically abused woman that finally snapped back when Jack lost his mind. For a writer such as King having also an eye for detail, I find it incredible that he would oversimplify artwork based on not adapted to his book. I too did not like this movie compared to the book when I was younger, but then again within this film are adult themes (comprehending those themes at a young age not advisable) that are rarely or never spoken of on film or in actual life for that matter. Stephen King should love Kubrick's movie and be grateful if only for the simple fact that his book has at least twice the notoriety because of Kubrick's movie. Stephen King deserves credit for creating this story, he told the story first his own way with his book, Kubrick told the story second with the movie and adapted details within the story to create one of the most infamous, iconic films that has or will ever be created. If Leonardo Da Vinci was a film director of the modern age, his name would be Stanley Kubrick. This film is a dark piece of beautiful art, a true testament to the genius and remarkable talent of Stanley Kubrick and all those who toiled to create "The Shining."
@IntenseLlama
4 жыл бұрын
King is just mad Kubrick took his good work and turned into something better that King will never be capable of.
@mohammadmostafa9215
3 жыл бұрын
😂😂
@THEBACKROOMSEXPLORER7
3 жыл бұрын
they're both at the top of their chosen craft
@blahblahblah9844
4 жыл бұрын
People Stan Kubrick but almost all of his movies are adaptations of other peoples work. Not really any original work.
@nexus7034
4 жыл бұрын
Matt Colburn people defending Kubrick are basically ass clowns with no originality themselves.
@nubgutter
4 жыл бұрын
It doesn't need to be "original" for it to be a masterpiece or be better than the original adaptation, That's like saying the dark knight isn't great because it's not the original adaptation of batman or joker lmao.
@nubgutter
4 жыл бұрын
@@nexus7034 And clowns like yourself are just people who over hype "originality" to where it becomes overrated and are too blind to realize that not everything has to be original for it to be a masterpiece, The dark knight and Joker are great examples of this and so is kubricks the shining, It's superior to king's book and movie and still holds up as a masterpiece even after 40 years, Unfortunately you clearly can't say the same for king's piss poor shining movie lmao.
@blahblahblah9844
4 жыл бұрын
@@nubgutter you're smoking crack if you think this hollow emotionless piece of shit movie is better than the book. And that's not even the point I was making at all. Kubrick made a career riding other artists coattails by adapting everyone's work. It has no heart at all and is like a collage of images.
@nubgutter
4 жыл бұрын
@@blahblahblah9844 But yet which one is universally known for being a masterpiece? Enough said Junior and stay mad at the fact that Kubrick made great universally known films. ;)
@DavesArtRoom
6 жыл бұрын
King I think is jealous of Kubrick’s version. Shelly Duval was not a stupid and yelled at character. She was more than that; she triumphed in the end despite Jack Torrence’s abusive treatment. Kubrick has the rational that looking at someone else’s story allows it to be looked at objectively and for the first time; something the created cannot do because it came from the creator. King does not want to acknowledge that human behavior is sometimes not warm; realistically human behavior is not Norman Rockwell, which is what Stanley Kubrick represents in horror; a Norman Rockwell feel. So King only sees through those eyes.
@truthof7382
3 жыл бұрын
I actually get what he is saying about his books being warm. I have read a lot of his work and the people are just as real and important as the plot. Its like you miss his characters when the book ends.
@brian-vz5hz
Жыл бұрын
True. I wish I could have missed Jack Torrence in the movie but he was never likable from the start. Character development was never Kubrick's strong point.
@jacksonfritts2988
3 жыл бұрын
Best novel adaption ever, even if it completely disobeyed it😂. What was spawned still keeps me up. Unforgettable film.
@auerstadt06
10 жыл бұрын
I'm so grateful that Kubrick and Diane Johnson didn't feel obliged to make Stephen King happy.
@MC_1993
2 жыл бұрын
That backyard is exactly how I would picture Stephen kings backyard to be. Probably gets some creepy nice sunsets
@andiabbeid
9 жыл бұрын
Kubrick filmed the apollo 11 moon landings and the shining was his way to show it to the world.
@UnleashthePhury
Жыл бұрын
Kubrick might say “Of course it’s cold, Stephen, they’re on a mountain in the middle of winter.”
@cosmiclino2080
8 жыл бұрын
King had one of his books made into a film by one of the greatest directors of the 2oth century, you never hear him bitch about Pet Sematary or the Langoliers or the Tommyknockers, i wonder why he has to bash Kubrick all the time ? the movie is amazing
@song4night
8 жыл бұрын
+Cosmic Lino Normally we talk about a movie as being inferior to the book,but in this case Kubrick took the book into dimensions King never dreamed about,hence the jealousy
@TooCooFoYou
8 жыл бұрын
+Cosmic Lino A lot writer whose books have been adapted by Kubrick hated the films. This is no surprise.
@song4night
8 жыл бұрын
***** I started reading king's new book,Revival.One long drag...by the middle of the book I just threw away the book on the street
@TooCooFoYou
8 жыл бұрын
song4night Just like Kubrick's movies, Stephen King's novels aren't for anyone. But just because its one drag to you, doesn't make it overall bad.
@zachmorley9566
8 жыл бұрын
Well, it gets people like you to talk about it, which gives him more popularity.
@connormacleod4326
9 жыл бұрын
Obviously King would hate the remake of his novel because The Shining was one of King's most personal novels and he wrote it out of his heart and put alot of love and care into it and when he saw that Kubrick didn't care about that at all it made King furious, but the issue isn't that Kubrick didn't make it directly the same as the novel, the issue is people compare the two, too often and we need to remember Kubrick read novel's and looked at them as a blank canvas or a crucial starting piece to accelerate his creativity to make a brilliant film in his own vision, and if i was King myself I would feel honoured that Kubrick thought the shining left such a mark on Kubrick that it made him want to create something spectacular in his own vision. I love both King and Kubrick for what they both are, writers and visionaries, they both have put forth amazing pieces of art for the world.
@daintiestquarters3411
9 жыл бұрын
Kubrick made a great film out of a bad book, and that is probably what hurts King the most.
@fishels3895
8 жыл бұрын
Exactly. King lacks any subtlety, I mean killer shrubs? Really? I'll take kubricks shining any day.
@billybobjoefromalabamei5888
6 жыл бұрын
Fuck off idiot
@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823
6 жыл бұрын
SPOILERS: I think King would take a chainsaw to his right hand for 2 things: "All work and no play..." on the whole book and the elevator of blood. I can't explain why someTHING seems to be IN that river, tho...
@gabix7488
6 жыл бұрын
Bad book ? Says the one that doesn't read. Shining , just like most King's books, was translated all over the world, it's still in the top 10 best American horror novels. Every book this man writes goes to screen. Without his book, this lame movie wouldn't exist.
@asada4L
Жыл бұрын
@@gabix7488 So now the movie is lame? That’s definitely not factual.
@LysolTheGiver
3 жыл бұрын
Yes the books characters were deep and conflicted, but the movie characters turned out to be unreliable assholes.
@stevenmacdonald229
5 жыл бұрын
I'm 45 years old, best horror I've ever seen.Can' t be doing with all the jealous bullshit from King, it's a great film, get over yourself.
@THEBACKROOMSEXPLORER7
3 жыл бұрын
what is he jealous of? stephen is more popular than kubrick
@pc9467
3 жыл бұрын
It's refreshing to hear someone speak their mind. Without fear of treading on other's toes.
@vorpal72
10 жыл бұрын
The Shining and The Exorcist ARE two of the greatest horror films ever concieved. This is simple fact. King's dislike of Kubrik's vision of his book is understandable however. I myself was dissapointed at what Peter Jackson did with The Two Towers. Yet I enjoyed the movie in the sense that I understood it is a "re-telling" and an adaptive version of the book. I enjoyed Kubrik's version of Stephen King's book for the same reason. Artistic licence taken to their logical extremes considered.
@franjaime200
10 жыл бұрын
No, sorry. Artistic license does not mean you get to create a completely different story using the same name.
@vorpal72
10 жыл бұрын
Apparently it does in fact mean that. The film's exist! Ha! As do thousands based however loosely on books.
@kevinericsongs
10 жыл бұрын
Fran jaime yes it does if you buy the rights
@franjaime200
10 жыл бұрын
heroehat You may have the legal right to but it shows you are a crap and a fraud.
@bobbiebodamer1094
7 жыл бұрын
if someone says they'll turn my book into a movie and it sucks Im sorry but I'll bitch about it. this is something that I do and it is something I love and he made a big mockery of it so yes he has every right to talk shit
@punisherfan644
7 жыл бұрын
only difference is those people likely aren't even book readers at all. Millions of books readers are out there who enjoyed the novel.
@kaikashsiwityblackney4202
5 жыл бұрын
S.King doesn't know much about cinema
@PralaynathGendaswami
4 жыл бұрын
He is an author, that too a damn good one.. it doesn't matter.. it's just his baby wasn't treated the way he Supposed..
@coolbeans5911
3 жыл бұрын
And Kubrick probably doesn't know much about writing lol As far as i remember, King's fave movie adaptation is Green Mile, which is an absolutely brilliant film and it stays true to the book. Same with Shawshank Redemption (which is very highly regarded). His books can translate well into film (Geralds Game did really well, and it was considered to be one of King's books that wouldn't work as a movie), but i think it does that a specific director & team to do it right. The Shining film i really don't see as an adaptation of the book; i think Kubrick just borrowed some ingredients from King's work and made an entirely different dish. Personally i loved the book more because of how the characters are written and how the horror creeps under your skin, but i also love the movie for the visuals and how unsettling it is. Both are great, but to compare them would be pointless
@prettywitty1912
3 жыл бұрын
Even the ending of the movie was : Cold 👐
@lapidus9552
6 жыл бұрын
You can either adapt the vision of Stephen King, or you can make it good.
@InMemoryOfDougWest
5 жыл бұрын
I don't agree with Kings opinion/perception of Shelly Duvalls Wendy. She was strong. She called Jack a "S.O.B" when she thought he touched Danny. She gave him 2 good whacks with a baseball bat. She won out in the end and protected her child and got away from him.
@mrblonde609
8 жыл бұрын
He is right about the movie being cold, but that's why it sends chills to my spine. The atmosphere, cinematography, editing, music and so on are brilliant and terrifying. King doesn't understand movies, Kubrick did.
@justinstark5732
8 жыл бұрын
King understands how to portray characters and setting in story form. But from what I've seen in the movies he directed, he doesn't seem to know shit about how to portray characters and settings in film. Stanley kubrick on the other hand is a legendary film maker that is even ahead of our time. I theorize that kubrick had a preference for cold and calculating villains over more sympathetic ones. I mean look at Hal and Alex
@JohnMartin-oh6bf
2 жыл бұрын
Kubrick may have directed the shining,but it is truly owned by king. There’s none better to criticize the movie than king himself. The novel was way superior in every way.
@virgogaming6488
Жыл бұрын
King is spot on with how he feels, the movie did not respect him or his work.
@Prof_Tickles92
9 жыл бұрын
My main criticism of stephen king is that he CANNOT write movies/screenplays. King is a writer who writes until he story is done, and if the story ends up being 500 pages or 752 then thats that, but when king has to condense his work down into about 200 pages it loses a lot of quality. All of the best king adaptions on film have been by directors who were exceptionally talented and went their own way I.e Kubrick and Darabont
@bannokelly18
9 жыл бұрын
What screenplays did he write
@Prof_Tickles92
9 жыл бұрын
Bannokelly: to name a few children of the corn, and all the episodes of under the dome.
@bannokelly18
9 жыл бұрын
ive heard both of those were successful
@Prof_Tickles92
9 жыл бұрын
not really, both are of tremendously terrible quality.
@ricomajestic
8 жыл бұрын
+NazcarFanatic24 under the dome the tv series was absolutely horrible and the tv version of the shinning was not that good!
@reicansino6730
5 жыл бұрын
I always hated the movie, even as a kid I thought it was stupid. Finally read the book this year and it shows how vapid the film is. Some good cinematography and that's all it has going for it.
@nubgutter
4 жыл бұрын
I guess the saying "people hate what they don't understand" is true lmao.
@Dave67AZ
8 жыл бұрын
I have a bookshelf full of King's novels. I've been a big fan for decades. Still, I'm seeing today's King as a total sellout and hypocrite. On one hand he bitches and moans about how some of the movie adaptations of his books aren't true to the story he wrote. He complains about how characters' personalities don't match the tone he created. He gripes that "this" was left out and "this" was put in instead. Then he abandons his arguments about staying true to literature and rewrites "Under the Dome" so it will fit into a neat little "made for TV" drama. Now he's allowing The Dark Tower, a story in which 2 of the 7 books rely heavily on a racial disconnect between two of the main characters, to be rewritten so they can change the race of one of the characters. Make up your mind, Stephen. Either you're against rewrites, or you're okay with them, but when you take a racist character (Odetta) and remove all of that hatred toward Roland, you've just destroyed her storyline and removed every bit of personal growth during the novels. Rather than having to overcome her hatred for Roland because of his skin color, now she'll have no struggle and, as such, no growth, and thus no reason for your Constant Readers to feel anything for her. May as well just remove her from the stories altogether, or cast her as a lily white chick from a privileged background. Either way, Mr King, you make yourself look pretty hypocritical when you have a fit that someone else is rewriting your books in order to bring them to the big screen when all you REALLY have a problem with is someone else doing what you yourself have done numerous times.
@emanmark
8 жыл бұрын
+Dave Lewis - Yeah, I cannot understand why King slams Kubrick's version so much! He says it was 'to cold' here?. It's about a man who tries to kill his family for Christ sakes! That's pretty cold. He didn't even think Nicholson was right for the role, yet you watch the mini-series (presumably King had creative control) and they cast Webber, who could be Nicholson's brother. The big problem is The Shining is a large story, you can't tell it in a few hours. As a mini series it's just melodramatic, drawn out and not at all scary. It was pretty bad. The novel can create the transitions, tell us how he looses his mind, but hard to do this with film, so I think Kubrick made some interesting changes. The maze was a great metaphor for madness. King should be thanking Kubrick and De Palma for putting first stories on film. His writing career took off because of that.!
@christopherleodaniels7203
2 жыл бұрын
One dude was a doting dad and devoted husband, who made films surrounded by family. And the other dude, I’m sure loved his wife and family but admittedly drank and abused them, at least for a period, and wrote a book about it called The Shining. Warm and Cold, indeed.
@Bella-Mae0422
7 жыл бұрын
Stephen is a genius and his books are marvelous. He will always be a legend and his work will always be admired.
@marysutton434
4 жыл бұрын
Right on.
@guitarman8462
3 жыл бұрын
Someone once told me that they never read stephen king , I corrected them. And when tried to stop me from doing my duty , I also corrected them .
@hypercomms2001
2 жыл бұрын
King is pissed off that he attempts to make a better "Shining" movie than Stanley Kubrick has failed...
@King-Of-Horror
7 жыл бұрын
stephen king: I can make a better one 3 months later it sucker stephen king: WTF >:U
@vijayarchitect
Жыл бұрын
Kubrick didn’t wanted to be novel version he wanted to his vision of psychology of terror in mood
@aruvielevenstar3944
6 жыл бұрын
He said it soooo right!
@joseloreto4284
8 жыл бұрын
Stephen King doesn't like to be cold. Stephen King likes to makes things hot as hell. Besides, on not a fan of Kubrick, I wasn't that interested in his film. But I do like Misery and the Mist.
@joydivsion77
9 жыл бұрын
Movie > Book. No question, no hesitation. The film is a fucking marvel.
@simonpurist4499
9 жыл бұрын
Fans of the book seem to think that the movie was terrible... but Stephen King is no Stanley Kubrick. There's a reason that even the book "The Green Mile" has Tom Hanks's picture on it, i.e. the story sucks, so they need a celebrity to sell it. And Shelley Duvall doesn't just scream, she has to play an ordinary person who has to watch as her family goes mad.
@RamsesTheStone
9 жыл бұрын
Simon Purist And if you're saying Shelley Duvall's character is misogynistic you could also say that Nicholson's character is a horrible portrait of a man. And I personally think that the book is one of King's weaker stories, if it wasn't for the movie I probably would not have read it a second time.
@RamsesTheStone
9 жыл бұрын
***** Dude. Come back from fanboyland
@madmaxbocka
9 жыл бұрын
joydivsion77 IN MY OPINION, I like both but Movie>Book times infinity. The reason I prefer Kubrick's version is because the book helped me realize WHY. Here's some actual Stanley Kubrick quotes on The Shining which I had to post in the above comments to be clear = 'The Overlook maze is the only maze to be planted this century. It consists of over a mile and a half of pathways and can take up to 90 minutes to find your way out from the center. However, there is a system by which you can more easily find your way out. Whenever you come to a new junction, take any path you like. Whenever you come by a new path to an old junction, turn back. But, whenever you come by an old path to a new junction, take a new path.’ ‘For the purposes of telling the story, my view is that the paranormal is genuine.' 'If Danny had perfect ESP, there could be no story… His perception of the paranormal must be imperfect and fragmentary.' 'The supernatural cannot be taken apart and analyzed too closely. The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back of your neck.' 'There's something inherently wrong with the human personality. There's an evil side to it. One of the things that horror stories can do is to show us the archetypes of the unconscious: we can see the dark side without having to confront it directly.' 'I read an essay by the great master H.P. Lovecraft where he said that you should never attempt to explain what happens, as long as what happens stimulates people’s imagination, their sense of the uncanny, their sense of anxiety and fear.' "I have always enjoyed dealing with a slightly surrealistic situation and presenting it in a realistic manner. I've always liked fairy tales and myths, magical stories. I think they are somehow closer to the sense of reality one feels today than the equally stylized “ realistic” story in which a great deal of selectivity and omission has to occur in order to preserve its “realist” style" "There’s something in the human personality which resents things that are clear, and conversely, something which is attracted to puzzles, enigmas, and allegories.” “I do not want to give any rationalizing explanation of this story. I prefer to use musical terms and speak of motives, variations and resonances. With this kind of narrative, when one tries to offer an explicit analysis, one tends to reduce it to a point of ultra-transparent absurdity. From this point on the musical or poetic utilization of the material is that which is most appropriate.’ "I think we tend to be a bit hypocritical about ourselves… We are capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil, and the problem is that often we can’t distinguish between them when it suits our purpose." THAT is why Kubrick>King
@simonpurist4499
9 жыл бұрын
RamsesTheStone What other Stephen King movies didn't suck? They ALL did. Shining was the only classic. Kubrick took a lemon and created Minute Maid.
@theone9224
10 ай бұрын
1:01 Finally the man himself utters my view I had from the very first moment watching the movie. I understand what Kubrick tried to do with the character but all he caused was bringing the actress' fear into the character which was totally unprofessional.
@fartzerelli1385
2 жыл бұрын
As someone who's read the novel several times, and also as someone who greatly respects Kubrick as a director...I'm sorry to say but as brilliant as Kubrick was, he completely did what Mr. King described here. He basically took all the humanity from the book making Jack a loon waiting to snap and Wendy a one-dimensional doormat. The movie is brilliant on its own but nothing next to the book.
@americancitizen748
7 жыл бұрын
I hope King recognizes Kubrick's brilliance now.
@secondcomingofbast9908
7 жыл бұрын
As someone who loved both the book and the movie, I empathize with King, but I disagree heartily with him.
@georgewerner6404
8 жыл бұрын
I came to a realization recently about great authors having their work adapted by great auteurs: Neither of them are going to be satisfied with each other's work. That is why IMHO Kubrick kept spinning out new script pages literally on-set of "The Shining" on almost a daily basis. King is one of the bestselling authors of all time who doesn't need any more praise, or to worry about it. He does need to understand, however, the greats in other fields. He does need to respect what Kubrick brought to his work. Without his adaptation of "The Shining," I probably would have never been drawn to read King much at all. What the film did well compelled me to discover the novel, which did what the film did well but in more depth, magnetism and sheer terror. The first time I read it, I was up all night. I literally could not put the book down. "The Shining" film has haunted me since I was 14. Kubrick's film was a single brilliant light. King's novel illuminated every remaining dark inch of the room. What other single work can say that--and why must one adapter be less than the other? I challenge anyone to listen to Penderecki's Awakening of Jacob or Ligeti's Lontano and not be haunted by images from "The Shining." I also challenge anyone to read the chapter, "Hallorann: Going Up the Country," from the book, then put it down and go on to something else afterwards. We tear down each other far too much in this country as it is. We need to draw on genius wherever we see it for greater effect--not try to destroy ourselves attempting to dilute it for no good reason.
@stephanieparker5049
2 жыл бұрын
💯
@doncorleone8489
3 жыл бұрын
Sounds a lil jealous!
@THEBACKROOMSEXPLORER7
3 жыл бұрын
why would he be jealous??
@filmbuff2777
3 жыл бұрын
@@THEBACKROOMSEXPLORER7 Because Kubrick's film has so many iconic images & moments that were either not in the book, or far superior to those scenes in the book. He's bitter that his 1997 miniseries, which he claims is "film making genius" is completely forgotten, despite apparently being vastly superior to Kubrick's film in every way.
@Berserk_96
2 жыл бұрын
Kubrick is a good director but i agree with Stephen King's point. Even so Kurbick wanted Shelley character to be THAT good, it is pretty selfish from him to only care about his movoe rather than à human emotions
@natpeirce1121
4 жыл бұрын
Kubrick is a king. Make that thing cold. Let those compulsions through. Do 150 takes to get just that perfect edge of ice cold sweetness.
@e.erin.
3 жыл бұрын
Kubrick, inspired by King’s story, had his own vision, and created stand-alone art. This isn’t a situation where we would, or even should, look for how well or not a film followed a book. People either get that, or they don’t. The only one who can be mad is King. I understand why he’s mad. As a woman, I also admire and appreciate why. He’s described Kubrick’s ‘Wendy’ as a “screaming dishrag” and he’s not wrong. He wrote her as strong, smart, and capable, and Kubrick shrunk her down into something much less. In the end, we don’t get the impression that Wendy kept herself and her child alive, because she was tough as nails and quick as lightening. Definitely not. It’s more like she stumbled, stupidly, into the right spot in the nick of time, and somehow managed to keep breathing. Dumb luck. Kubrick really didn’t develop any of the characters, though. Male or female. What he did develop, was the hotel. His focus was visual and psychological. The only character I’ve felt any affection for in ‘The Shining’ is Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) and I’m betting I’m not alone in that. Kubrick didn’t need for us to feel attached to these people, so he sacrificed them. And well, it works. It’s a masterpiece.
@stanwu3238
4 жыл бұрын
Kubrick was so cold that he didn’t want Danny in any of the actual filming of the graphic parts-just reaction shots. The remake of the shining had King’s Danny right in the violent scenes... being a part of the “warmth”...
@anthonypike5588
2 жыл бұрын
Umm he abuse shelley Duvall on set she was losing her hair from the stress and he made her do the baseball bat scene 127 times her hands where cut up and bleeding
@stanwu3238
2 жыл бұрын
@@anthonypike5588 don’t believe everything you hear. There is a lot of spiritual significance to what Kubrick allows to be said or shown regarding his work. For instance, 127 is “the woman’s number” in Hebrew gematria. “Bat” can even be looked at in a number of ways, particularly in relation to something stated earlier in the scene. A bat is a symbol of sacrifice in certain cultures 😉
@milesbeining
4 жыл бұрын
Stephen King doesn't necessarily dislike The Shining just cause it differs from the novel, he dislikes it as a horror film on its own. I don't think the film was terrible, but in my personal opinion it's not the epic horror film it's made out to be
Пікірлер: 1,2 М.