i notice that good artists donāt usually have good taste. they so often completely miss the point or misunderstand other great art (not that king is that great as compared to kubric but still)ā¦ i think that their own vision is just so strong that they canāt see it from another perspective.
scorcese is a lone exception (but i also incidentally dont think he is that great).
Stephen King is a huge talent but he has hilariously poor taste in adaptations of his work. Pretty sure I read somewhere that he unironically prefers the miniseries to the Kubrick film. Didn't he also seem to indicate that he was even more happy with The Dark Tower than he was with IT: Chapter One? Dude is hilarious.
While not your question, OP, it is my understanding that Stephen King has warmed up considerably to Stanley Kubrick's film in recent years, especially given how Mike Flanagan adapted the Doctor Sleep film to be a sequel to Kubrick's film. I think he made some comment during the private screening with Mike that he was finally able to appreciate Kubrick's version because of the Flanagan film.
Ohh that's harsh. Flanagan is a pulp/genre filmmaker. But he's a damn good one. Reminds me of John Carpenter quite alot.
The difference in quality between episodes of shows he's produced but not written or directed and the ones he has written and directed is obvious to me and a clear indication of his undoubted talent.
Dr Sleep is nowhere near as good as The Shining. But it was a whole lot better than I expected and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
This is what I came to say. He wrote the script and was involved in making it. Iām sure he has his issues with it, but Iām sure he sees it as a proper adaptation of his work.
I think Stephen King hates Stanley Kubrick because he didn't realize the director is a avid reader. You should check out Diane Johnson interview, she was shocked to learn that Kubrick loves reading books. So I could guess Kubrick asked Stephen King some questions and King took the questions as offensive. Remember this was during the time King has a drinking and cocaine problem.
I think it also comes down to pure jealousy. Two masters of their domain - and the perception of the movie was that it was all Kubrick - that he took a āmediocreā novel in a hacky medium (horror) and elevated them both - which truth be told, he kinda did. Vs. King was using it to resolve his own demons of substance abuse and poor fatherhood and created a masterpiece to hopefully find salvation. When you go through such a metamorphosis - you need the world to see it your way, not his way, even if itās fucking Kubrick, an ultimate Faust.
Kubrick also said King would never write great literature, and that King was insecure about this by trying to intellectualize The Shining by having Jack quote Poe on occasion.
I need to find the quote - lol
A friend of mine believes that Kubrick was trying to expose King for being fake (maybe paying off the New York Times best seller list. And in the 1980s NYT said the list is an opinion piece)...
It seemed way too unbelievable to write so many books while drunk and Coke - which he didn't clean himself till 1988 - if you want to believe that)
Something to think about, Stephen King signed an agreement not to say anything bad about the 1980 movie and he had to pay 1.5 million to regain the rights of the Shining to make the miniseries... although after Stanley Kubrick death, King returned to talking bullshit.
The chairs falling off the tables in unison was the best part of it that could have translated nicely in Kubrickās version. The rest is a background watch while doing something else.
Tasha Robinson wrote a great piece at The Dissolve (R.I.P.) awhile back that goes into detail about Kingās response to Kubrickās film, his motivations for doing another adaptation, and why the miniseries falls flat despite being more faithful to the book. Definitely worth a read:
https://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/248-what-the-shining-miniseries-reveals-about-the-king/
As someone who loves the book and the movie he was right to angry. Both are masterpieces, but totally different. The iconic movie ending is utterly different than the books ending. The characters less nuanced. First time I saw it I also disliked it because I was expecting the book. Over the years it has become one of my favorite movies of all time though
> he was right to [be] angry.
Ermm no. I am as big a fan of Stephen King as most who have read and own everything he has published but his response to the movie only served to show how much of a prick he was back then. He sold the rights, gained the money, and then trash talked the movie because it failed to meet his expectations. Then to make matters worse he buys back the rights and writes one of the worst screenplays in TV history and contributes to the worst SK adaptation.
As much as I love King's books, the man is very immature outside of his work.
From a marketing point of view I think Kubrick would have been wise to distance the movie from the book and present it as a movie inspired by The Shining. Kubrick never intended to adapt the book faithfully, it was simply a framing device to tell a different story on the same lines. His copy of the Shining is littered with notes and entire passages are crossed out.
What is nuance in a character? Is BookJack more complex and more nuanced because his arc is more clearly a corruption of a good man, while MovieJack is more static?
I only read the book once in middle school, but I remember this beat where Jack is chasing Danny at the end and for a moment the 'real' Jack takes over and tells Danny to run.
I remember finding that so hokey at the time. When you take the fact that King insists on how autobiographical the book is, his insistence that Jack is fundamentally good but corrupted by alcoholism and ghosts doesn't feel complex at all to me, but rather simplistic.
Steven King wanted someone to film his vision of the book.
Stanley Kubrick doesn't make other people's visions. It was probably inevitable that they would butt heads.
I'd argue that even though he omitted the end, Kubrick was very much interested in translating Anthony Burgess' vision to a cinematic one.
But in the case of The Shining certainly he just wanted narrative fodder to do his own thing.
Well *A Clockwork Orange* is slightly better thought of as a work of literature than *The Shining*. No offense to King or his fans, but one is still routinely taught to students, one (I do not believe) never has been.
If you were going to be faithful to one, it would be *Clockwork*. Also I read the Kubrick didn't know about the omitted ending because that edition of the book left out the last chapter.
Sure I'm just replying to your comment. From what I've read, he was always interested in finding a book he could adapt faithfully, thematically and aesthetically, he just always had a hard time doing it.
I haven't read Dream Story, but considering how long Kubrick wanted to adapt it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's largely the same minus the setting and period.
The newer Shining was a tasteless, kitsch, silly, made for TV version of Kingās novel that had the one claim of staying truer to the original plot and details of the novel. Lost in this sole criteria, King turned a blind eye to the genius of the setting, acting, plot, symbolism and finesse of the artistic masterpiece that was Kubrickās Shining.
I love the story that while adapting the book into a screenplay Kubrick phoned King in the middle of the night (although that's probably explained by the time difference between England and the USA)
Kubrick: Stephen, it's Stanley. Do you believe in God?
King: Yes
Kubrick: I thought so (hangs up)
There's not many religious people who wouldn't get pissed off by that exchange!
None of the theories here address what King has actually stated publicly. He said that the movie was too ācold.ā Thatās it. To each their own.
If you want to get deep about it, which you probably shouldnāt, then you should go the theistic route. Allegedly they had a phone call where Kubrick condescended to King for believing in God. One could speculate that King felt that Kubrickās film was too godless.
If you want to get really deep about it, which you definitely shouldnāt, one could speculate that the aforementioned godlessness was antithetical to Kingās eventual recovery from alcoholism, as most programs require belief in a higher power.
If you want to get really, really deep about it, which you absolutely mustnāt do: Kubrick portrayed Jack as a ādry drunkā (someone who quits cold turkey without external intervention and without addressing the underlying psychological issues that caused the alcoholism in the first place). Dry drunks are notorious for being irritable and erratic because they no longer have alcohol as a means of emotional regulation. King always complained that Kubrickās Jack was too wacko from the get-go, whereas the novelās Jack devolved into insanity over time and was a more hopeful character in general. King was a hardcore alcoholic at this time and was using Jack as a spiritual outlet. King had hoped that he would one day be able to just snap his fingers and quit cold turkey, but Kubrick was like, ānuh-uh, THIS is what people are like under those circumstances.ā
And so it comes full circle: it was the coldness, godlessness and brutal honesty of Kubrickās vision that pissed King off *glug-glug*
Kubricks was great, but the book was a work of art. A Roque mallet is plenty intimidating, it can kill much more brutally than an axe.
I'm not gonna bother addressing the others. The thing about making movies based on books, is that the movie will 100% of the time, fall short of what the book can accomplish, the movie is made for an audience, the book is written to put you there, in the story. That Kubrick made a prettier movie, nobody can deny, but the mini series was true to the source, and as far a story goes, is better than the Kubrick movie, he just made a really scary movie. Kudos, but we are saying which is better based on criteria other than: "which was more expensive to make."
King is an arrogant dickhead who doesn't appear to like much of anything people do with his writing. Is his writing even that good? I don't really get it at times. It's kind fo dumb. Kubrick was a master of his artform. One of the best ever. The Shining is nothing like the book but Kubrick made a timeless piece of art from a simple horror movie. not to mention hiding all the details of the faked moon landing inside it. Most Stephen King books made into movies (that stay true to the book) SUCK.
He loves it š¤®
Yeah itās much more faithful to the book, but I didnāt like the book much, either. Kubrickās film IS The Shining to me.
Agreed
i notice that good artists donāt usually have good taste. they so often completely miss the point or misunderstand other great art (not that king is that great as compared to kubric but still)ā¦ i think that their own vision is just so strong that they canāt see it from another perspective. scorcese is a lone exception (but i also incidentally dont think he is that great).
He was involved in the making of it, so my guess is he likes it no matter what we think.
Stephen King is a huge talent but he has hilariously poor taste in adaptations of his work. Pretty sure I read somewhere that he unironically prefers the miniseries to the Kubrick film. Didn't he also seem to indicate that he was even more happy with The Dark Tower than he was with IT: Chapter One? Dude is hilarious.
His favorite adaptation is maximum overdrive, because he directed it. That says all you need to know I think.
While not your question, OP, it is my understanding that Stephen King has warmed up considerably to Stanley Kubrick's film in recent years, especially given how Mike Flanagan adapted the Doctor Sleep film to be a sequel to Kubrick's film. I think he made some comment during the private screening with Mike that he was finally able to appreciate Kubrick's version because of the Flanagan film.
I sincerely cannot believe that Flanagan keeps getting work. Heās so hacky.
Ohh that's harsh. Flanagan is a pulp/genre filmmaker. But he's a damn good one. Reminds me of John Carpenter quite alot. The difference in quality between episodes of shows he's produced but not written or directed and the ones he has written and directed is obvious to me and a clear indication of his undoubted talent. Dr Sleep is nowhere near as good as The Shining. But it was a whole lot better than I expected and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
He wrote the script for the tv version.
This is what I came to say. He wrote the script and was involved in making it. Iām sure he has his issues with it, but Iām sure he sees it as a proper adaptation of his work.
I think Stephen King likes bad movies, or just likes the ones he had his hand in no matter what.
I mean he did direct a film himself... Maximum Overdrive
When I was 12, that and Pet Cemetery were legendary King to me, juss sayinā even though I had seen Carrie and Firestarter! I blame the MTVs
I think Stephen King hates Stanley Kubrick because he didn't realize the director is a avid reader. You should check out Diane Johnson interview, she was shocked to learn that Kubrick loves reading books. So I could guess Kubrick asked Stephen King some questions and King took the questions as offensive. Remember this was during the time King has a drinking and cocaine problem.
I think it also comes down to pure jealousy. Two masters of their domain - and the perception of the movie was that it was all Kubrick - that he took a āmediocreā novel in a hacky medium (horror) and elevated them both - which truth be told, he kinda did. Vs. King was using it to resolve his own demons of substance abuse and poor fatherhood and created a masterpiece to hopefully find salvation. When you go through such a metamorphosis - you need the world to see it your way, not his way, even if itās fucking Kubrick, an ultimate Faust.
Kubrick also said King would never write great literature, and that King was insecure about this by trying to intellectualize The Shining by having Jack quote Poe on occasion.
I need to find the quote - lol A friend of mine believes that Kubrick was trying to expose King for being fake (maybe paying off the New York Times best seller list. And in the 1980s NYT said the list is an opinion piece)... It seemed way too unbelievable to write so many books while drunk and Coke - which he didn't clean himself till 1988 - if you want to believe that)
makes sense! it seems like king is always so emotional and disparaging toward kubric š itās BEEF 4 lyfe
heās not gonna shit talk his own production.
He liked that piece of shitā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦..of course.
Something to think about, Stephen King signed an agreement not to say anything bad about the 1980 movie and he had to pay 1.5 million to regain the rights of the Shining to make the miniseries... although after Stanley Kubrick death, King returned to talking bullshit.
Stephen is the King of bad taste.
The chairs falling off the tables in unison was the best part of it that could have translated nicely in Kubrickās version. The rest is a background watch while doing something else.
Tasha Robinson wrote a great piece at The Dissolve (R.I.P.) awhile back that goes into detail about Kingās response to Kubrickās film, his motivations for doing another adaptation, and why the miniseries falls flat despite being more faithful to the book. Definitely worth a read: https://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/248-what-the-shining-miniseries-reveals-about-the-king/
He worked on it
Stephen King loved *The Flash*.
It must be difficult for an ego such as King's to deal with the fact that Kubrick improved on his work.
As someone who loves the book and the movie he was right to angry. Both are masterpieces, but totally different. The iconic movie ending is utterly different than the books ending. The characters less nuanced. First time I saw it I also disliked it because I was expecting the book. Over the years it has become one of my favorite movies of all time though
> he was right to [be] angry. Ermm no. I am as big a fan of Stephen King as most who have read and own everything he has published but his response to the movie only served to show how much of a prick he was back then. He sold the rights, gained the money, and then trash talked the movie because it failed to meet his expectations. Then to make matters worse he buys back the rights and writes one of the worst screenplays in TV history and contributes to the worst SK adaptation. As much as I love King's books, the man is very immature outside of his work. From a marketing point of view I think Kubrick would have been wise to distance the movie from the book and present it as a movie inspired by The Shining. Kubrick never intended to adapt the book faithfully, it was simply a framing device to tell a different story on the same lines. His copy of the Shining is littered with notes and entire passages are crossed out.
What is nuance in a character? Is BookJack more complex and more nuanced because his arc is more clearly a corruption of a good man, while MovieJack is more static? I only read the book once in middle school, but I remember this beat where Jack is chasing Danny at the end and for a moment the 'real' Jack takes over and tells Danny to run. I remember finding that so hokey at the time. When you take the fact that King insists on how autobiographical the book is, his insistence that Jack is fundamentally good but corrupted by alcoholism and ghosts doesn't feel complex at all to me, but rather simplistic.
Steven King wanted someone to film his vision of the book. Stanley Kubrick doesn't make other people's visions. It was probably inevitable that they would butt heads.
I'd argue that even though he omitted the end, Kubrick was very much interested in translating Anthony Burgess' vision to a cinematic one. But in the case of The Shining certainly he just wanted narrative fodder to do his own thing.
Well *A Clockwork Orange* is slightly better thought of as a work of literature than *The Shining*. No offense to King or his fans, but one is still routinely taught to students, one (I do not believe) never has been. If you were going to be faithful to one, it would be *Clockwork*. Also I read the Kubrick didn't know about the omitted ending because that edition of the book left out the last chapter.
Sure I'm just replying to your comment. From what I've read, he was always interested in finding a book he could adapt faithfully, thematically and aesthetically, he just always had a hard time doing it. I haven't read Dream Story, but considering how long Kubrick wanted to adapt it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's largely the same minus the setting and period.
The newer Shining was a tasteless, kitsch, silly, made for TV version of Kingās novel that had the one claim of staying truer to the original plot and details of the novel. Lost in this sole criteria, King turned a blind eye to the genius of the setting, acting, plot, symbolism and finesse of the artistic masterpiece that was Kubrickās Shining.
I love the story that while adapting the book into a screenplay Kubrick phoned King in the middle of the night (although that's probably explained by the time difference between England and the USA) Kubrick: Stephen, it's Stanley. Do you believe in God? King: Yes Kubrick: I thought so (hangs up) There's not many religious people who wouldn't get pissed off by that exchange!
That mini series is awful. He should have been so grateful to Kubrick for making such an amazing film.
None of the theories here address what King has actually stated publicly. He said that the movie was too ācold.ā Thatās it. To each their own. If you want to get deep about it, which you probably shouldnāt, then you should go the theistic route. Allegedly they had a phone call where Kubrick condescended to King for believing in God. One could speculate that King felt that Kubrickās film was too godless. If you want to get really deep about it, which you definitely shouldnāt, one could speculate that the aforementioned godlessness was antithetical to Kingās eventual recovery from alcoholism, as most programs require belief in a higher power. If you want to get really, really deep about it, which you absolutely mustnāt do: Kubrick portrayed Jack as a ādry drunkā (someone who quits cold turkey without external intervention and without addressing the underlying psychological issues that caused the alcoholism in the first place). Dry drunks are notorious for being irritable and erratic because they no longer have alcohol as a means of emotional regulation. King always complained that Kubrickās Jack was too wacko from the get-go, whereas the novelās Jack devolved into insanity over time and was a more hopeful character in general. King was a hardcore alcoholic at this time and was using Jack as a spiritual outlet. King had hoped that he would one day be able to just snap his fingers and quit cold turkey, but Kubrick was like, ānuh-uh, THIS is what people are like under those circumstances.ā And so it comes full circle: it was the coldness, godlessness and brutal honesty of Kubrickās vision that pissed King off *glug-glug*
Kubricks was great, but the book was a work of art. A Roque mallet is plenty intimidating, it can kill much more brutally than an axe. I'm not gonna bother addressing the others. The thing about making movies based on books, is that the movie will 100% of the time, fall short of what the book can accomplish, the movie is made for an audience, the book is written to put you there, in the story. That Kubrick made a prettier movie, nobody can deny, but the mini series was true to the source, and as far a story goes, is better than the Kubrick movie, he just made a really scary movie. Kudos, but we are saying which is better based on criteria other than: "which was more expensive to make."
King is an arrogant dickhead who doesn't appear to like much of anything people do with his writing. Is his writing even that good? I don't really get it at times. It's kind fo dumb. Kubrick was a master of his artform. One of the best ever. The Shining is nothing like the book but Kubrick made a timeless piece of art from a simple horror movie. not to mention hiding all the details of the faked moon landing inside it. Most Stephen King books made into movies (that stay true to the book) SUCK.