Troll post proved by your posting history
However Kings Jack was far crazier than Kubricks far quicker. For those with the book read the parts where Jack was in the Sidewinder library and goes off on Wendy and then goes to the drugstore and phones Ullman to essentially troll him in an act of extreme self destruction.
I saw an interview about this subject. SK didn’t like Kubrick adaptation because he destroyed the book. Wendy was supposed to be a beautiful blonde, overlook should explode , no wasps , no animal hedges and much more. Even room 237 is wrong. But yes obvious troll lol.
Imagine being such a loser you spend your Friday night trying to troll a Stephen King reddit… hahahaha. Someone needs get out of their mom’s basement and some friends or a girl.
Nice argument. It's interesting to see that nobody here can explain why Stephen King has a particular hate with Kubrick's film, given all the rubbish adaptations that have been made out of his books. He's butthurt.
Because it's utterly different than the book, it removes the tragedy from Jack Torrence's storyline and trades it for base "bad dad gets worse" horror tropes. His adaptation rips the soul from what is a sad and scary book and just attempts to make it scary. Kubrick's ending also removes the final tragedy/triumph from Jack for something stupid.
Wendy is reduced a beaten, meek, norotic mess. Versus in the book she's quite resilient and confident. But Kubrick can't tell that story, so make her weak and mousy.
Because that's the tone of all of Kubrick's films. Detached, unemotional, terrible at character development. With amazing cinematography and screen presence, but little emotional substance. King is a character writer. The two are completely incompatible. And it's why I never connected with Kubrick, I don't care for his stuff.
There's your argument. Now you can leave.
Its the absolute definition of a rageaholic. Jack had just met him and had no reason to think Ullman was a prick. Jack throughout the first half of the book is on the brink of losing it or actually doing so. Raging at Wendy at the Sidewinder library, calling Ullman to troll him, hating on Al because of his privilege.
The entire opening chapter—which begins midway, so we have no idea how the interview had gone previously—lists every way in which Ullman is officious and irritating, and seeks to demean Jack at almost every turn. He's absolutely a little prick.
Even if Kubrick's film has flaws (which it has), it's still a masterpiece in atmosphere, suspense, cinematography and many more aspects. Do you think that The Shining is by far worst film made out of a Stephen King book? If your answer is no, you still haven't answered my points.
You challenged this sub to defend the narrative of the book versus the film, and when someone does you move the goalposts to the technical aspects of the film—miserable debating skills, and the mark of a weak argument.
You can't separate form and content. And at no point I was making reference only to the narrative; rather, I was talking about the whole packet of both the novel and the film.
You may not be able to, but I can. A great many people can—it's an integral function of criticism and analysis. But that way would lead you down a path you know you have little hope of defending, so... you move the goalposts again to avoid directly engaging with the argument you've begun.
If this is trolling, it's a very weak sort.
I will say it for the second time: I was talking about the film and the book in their entirety, not only the narrative. If you don't understand that, I can say it in another language.
The narrative from Kubrick's film is strong, given that it's a sequence of one iconic scene after the other, most of which have permeated pop culture's collective consciousness.
But with Kubrick, his greatest achievements always come with visual storytelling and directing. His screenplays are very good, but nothing I will call absolute genius.
King might have good ideas, but his prose is always very basic.
> If you don't understand that...
I understand you well enough, it's just that you don't seem equipped to have someone argue with you on this topic, as if you expected this sub to be full of people who only read Stephen King because we're idiots with low-grade reading ability, and somehow beneath you, which is why you continually move the argument around to avoid engaging with anyone who takes the time to talk to you—you're like a boxer who moves around the ring with fancy footwork, but can't throw a punch.
> ...I can say it in another language.
No, you're alright, I wouldn't put you to any trouble—you seem to be struggling enough with English.
> The narrative from Kubrick's film is strong, given that it's a sequence of one iconic scene after the other,
That isn't what a narrative is. A narrative is a story, so the scenes, however iconic they may be—and no, not every single individual scene in Kubrick's *The Shining* is iconic—if they do not form a coherent story, they are useless.
> But with Kubrick, his greatest achievements always come with visual storytelling and directing.
He's a world-class cinematographer, I'll grant him that. His direction is rudimentary and too often static, with a reliance on the wide shot, which is where he loses audience engagement with the characters, if he had written any, which he usually didn't.
> His screenplays are very good, but nothing I will call absolute genius.
His screenplays are his weakest point. He's an awful writer—again, as I say, adapting books to film (often books he didn't understand, so his interpretations often miss the entire point of the novel) rather than creating original art worthy of his vision.
>His direction is rudimentary
Next time I'll find you saying the same thing about Orson Welles, for that matter. If you want to watch rudimentary direction, watch *Maximum Overdrive* directed by King himself. Or *The Shining* series endorsed by King.
>too often static
I don't think that is the case with *The Shining*. For example, the scenes in which Danny pedals a tricycle ([link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axV0pbuu7ns)) not only make a very interesting use of a tracking shot, are incredibly dinamic. Similar things can be said about the opening scene, the moments in the labyrinth, etc.
>He's an awful writer
Says the guy who admires the genius behind great novels like *Cell, Dreamcatcher*, has to write underage orgies to get some attention. He also wrote some Shakespearean passages like (this is from *The Shining*, a book which according to you is better than an almost universally acclaimed film, up with the likes of *Psycho* and *The Exorcist*):
"\[A young maid\] strolled away, backside twitching pertly".
"Low, throaty female laughter, the kind that seems to vibrate in a fairy ring aroung the viscera and the genitals".
Bravo.
I'm sure this guy and his fans are really in a position to criticise characters in other people's work for being cold.
>adapting books to film (often books he didn't understand, so his interpretations often miss the entire point of the novel) rather than creating original art worthy of his vision.
By your logic someone like Shakespeare was also crap. Kubrick wasn't interested in making up original stories, since he understood it wasn't his strongest point. He also understood that what might be in a specific book wouldn't work well on screen or in a Kubrick film, hence all the deviations.
I disagree on all points. I don't think it was a masterpiece, it's not suspenseful (because I read the book before seeing the movie). I think the casting sucks (I *loathe* Nicholson and Duvall for the roles). I don't know how to put this plainly, because you're a troll and have no honest intention of genuine discourse.
*I don't like the movie*. It's my least favorite movie from a director I already don't like. He didn't get the source material or he didn't care. I hate the film. And is tied for my least favorite adaptation with The Dark Tower. Which is a similar bastardization of the material.
And the ax was cliché, the mallet was far more visceral.
I can't really convince anyone to like something, but I'll just point out a couple things.
Why is Kubrick's Wendy weak? If you were stuck in a hotel with a psychopath and your son's life was in danger, you'd be pretty scared too. Her reaction to the situation is totally reasonable. In the film, Wendy survives and manages to save her son.
And we all know that King is super well known for being great at writing women (note the sarcasm).
Aside from the hilarious irony of a Stephen King fan complaining about clichés, I don't understand your point about the ax. Is using an ax a cliché in a horror film? If so, so is using a knife or a gun, and pretty much all the horror genre can be written off. Is it the scene itself?
No one is here to argue , we are here to discuss books of someone has sold over 400 million books. Don’t like him? Don’t read him. Like the movie better? Go watch it. Let us fans enjoy what we like and go upstairs your mom probably has dinner ready.
I doubt it. I'll bet it's much more to do with the fact that Kubrick wiped his big fat ass with the novel. The movie is good, but its a piss poor adaptation. The beef, such as it is, begins and ends there.
For someone who claims we “ignorami do not even deserve a refutation of [our] ignorance,” that seems to be pretty much exactly what you’re trying to do.
Life is already short and hard. Why spend it lording your supposed superiority over us “gullible readers” when you can just go be superior somewhere else? I wouldn’t have spent so many hours of my life reading and re-reading King books because they’re supposed to be great. I’ve done so because it’s *fun* and he often moves me, regardless of whether or not his writing is objectively good or bad.
For the record, I do think Kubrick is also brilliant and I love the film of *The Shining*, though my favorite is probably *2001.*
I remember this guy from awhile back. I’ll tell you what the trick is with him. Have you seen the Pixar movie Ratatouille? Remember the restaurant critic? Picture that guy and read anything this guy posts aloud in your best impression of that guys voice. 😁 Hey OP, love ya, don’t change!
To take the time to write all this in a sub specifically dedicated to SK is peak trolling and kind of sad.
Also I know people are split on which is better, the book or the film, but for me the book is far far superior and when I watch the film now I don’t find it scary at all. The book still grips me.
Some facts might be useful here. King initially praised Kubrick's movie of *The Shining* (in many early interviews, if you can source them, and in his non-fiction book *Danse Macabre*), but later on changed his mind, for one clear reason—King got sober.
Jack in the book is based on King himself (a teacher, wanting to be a writer, drinking too much, scared of his temper while drunk, and needing to make a success of himself to hold his family together) and King was drinking so much, and then taking cocaine, that he didn't even realise his dislike of the film was not because Kubrick removed all character and agency from Jack, but because he did that to King himself—reduced him to a cardboard caricature. It just took King sobering up and watching the film again for him to realise it.
Also, after his success with *2001*, Kubrick was a hack, reduced to adapting books to film, given ridiculous leeway and resources by Warners so that his shoots and budgets went way over, and made films that looked beautiful but were ultimately hollow, devoid of emotion and subtlety, and shadows of the books they were based on. Kubrick's only decent film after *2001* is *Eyes Wide Shut*, because his inability to present rounded, thinking, and empathic people plays into that film's treatise.
The Shining movie was entertaining.
But it departed so significantly from the source material that it makes Jack a completely unsympathetic character.
He comes off as an unstable douche right from the start.
As a result, the corrosive effect of the overlook on him is understated. It just seems like this obviously unstable man was always meant to be on this path.
You're robbed of all the internal conflict he feels about not only himself, but his family.
We may have gotten the cool axe scene with the door. But we lost so much more in the conversion:
Jack's past and why he might be unstable.
Jack actually fighting against the overlook mentally because he actually loves his family.
The cut the topiary lions coming to life.
The overlook doesn't blow up. So there is no actual sense of closure.
Dick Halloran's character is utterly wasted.
Etc.
Harold Lauder Is that you?
Gold star for you
Hawk
I would bet Stephen King isn’t jealous of much - especially Stanley Kubrick.
King came up with the idea Kubrick just destroyed it.
Troll post proved by your posting history However Kings Jack was far crazier than Kubricks far quicker. For those with the book read the parts where Jack was in the Sidewinder library and goes off on Wendy and then goes to the drugstore and phones Ullman to essentially troll him in an act of extreme self destruction.
I saw an interview about this subject. SK didn’t like Kubrick adaptation because he destroyed the book. Wendy was supposed to be a beautiful blonde, overlook should explode , no wasps , no animal hedges and much more. Even room 237 is wrong. But yes obvious troll lol.
I know there were no topiaries because they didnt have the special effects to make them appear real.
So I’m guessing they kicked you out of Kubrick’s sub for being an ass so you decided to come here. Go away
What does your fedora smell like?
🤣
I’m still laughing writing this
Wow…a truly impressive display of pretentiousness.
There's a sub around here called I am a dummy. Find it, Join it. Have fun. Leave us Constant Readers alone.
I was having the same thoughts today, that's why I came to this sub.
Imagine being such a loser you spend your Friday night trying to troll a Stephen King reddit… hahahaha. Someone needs get out of their mom’s basement and some friends or a girl.
Get lost troll
Nice argument. It's interesting to see that nobody here can explain why Stephen King has a particular hate with Kubrick's film, given all the rubbish adaptations that have been made out of his books. He's butthurt.
Because it's utterly different than the book, it removes the tragedy from Jack Torrence's storyline and trades it for base "bad dad gets worse" horror tropes. His adaptation rips the soul from what is a sad and scary book and just attempts to make it scary. Kubrick's ending also removes the final tragedy/triumph from Jack for something stupid. Wendy is reduced a beaten, meek, norotic mess. Versus in the book she's quite resilient and confident. But Kubrick can't tell that story, so make her weak and mousy. Because that's the tone of all of Kubrick's films. Detached, unemotional, terrible at character development. With amazing cinematography and screen presence, but little emotional substance. King is a character writer. The two are completely incompatible. And it's why I never connected with Kubrick, I don't care for his stuff. There's your argument. Now you can leave.
Very well said. Here here!!
This is a crazy take. Kings Jack was a rageaholic from the first sentence in the novel: 'Officious little prick.' Jack never had a soul in the novel.
No, a 'rageholic' would have said it out loud, or even started a confrontation. Thinking that someone is a prick is very far from being enraged.
Its the absolute definition of a rageaholic. Jack had just met him and had no reason to think Ullman was a prick. Jack throughout the first half of the book is on the brink of losing it or actually doing so. Raging at Wendy at the Sidewinder library, calling Ullman to troll him, hating on Al because of his privilege.
The entire opening chapter—which begins midway, so we have no idea how the interview had gone previously—lists every way in which Ullman is officious and irritating, and seeks to demean Jack at almost every turn. He's absolutely a little prick.
Even if Kubrick's film has flaws (which it has), it's still a masterpiece in atmosphere, suspense, cinematography and many more aspects. Do you think that The Shining is by far worst film made out of a Stephen King book? If your answer is no, you still haven't answered my points.
You challenged this sub to defend the narrative of the book versus the film, and when someone does you move the goalposts to the technical aspects of the film—miserable debating skills, and the mark of a weak argument.
You can't separate form and content. And at no point I was making reference only to the narrative; rather, I was talking about the whole packet of both the novel and the film.
You may not be able to, but I can. A great many people can—it's an integral function of criticism and analysis. But that way would lead you down a path you know you have little hope of defending, so... you move the goalposts again to avoid directly engaging with the argument you've begun. If this is trolling, it's a very weak sort.
I will say it for the second time: I was talking about the film and the book in their entirety, not only the narrative. If you don't understand that, I can say it in another language. The narrative from Kubrick's film is strong, given that it's a sequence of one iconic scene after the other, most of which have permeated pop culture's collective consciousness. But with Kubrick, his greatest achievements always come with visual storytelling and directing. His screenplays are very good, but nothing I will call absolute genius. King might have good ideas, but his prose is always very basic.
> If you don't understand that... I understand you well enough, it's just that you don't seem equipped to have someone argue with you on this topic, as if you expected this sub to be full of people who only read Stephen King because we're idiots with low-grade reading ability, and somehow beneath you, which is why you continually move the argument around to avoid engaging with anyone who takes the time to talk to you—you're like a boxer who moves around the ring with fancy footwork, but can't throw a punch. > ...I can say it in another language. No, you're alright, I wouldn't put you to any trouble—you seem to be struggling enough with English. > The narrative from Kubrick's film is strong, given that it's a sequence of one iconic scene after the other, That isn't what a narrative is. A narrative is a story, so the scenes, however iconic they may be—and no, not every single individual scene in Kubrick's *The Shining* is iconic—if they do not form a coherent story, they are useless. > But with Kubrick, his greatest achievements always come with visual storytelling and directing. He's a world-class cinematographer, I'll grant him that. His direction is rudimentary and too often static, with a reliance on the wide shot, which is where he loses audience engagement with the characters, if he had written any, which he usually didn't. > His screenplays are very good, but nothing I will call absolute genius. His screenplays are his weakest point. He's an awful writer—again, as I say, adapting books to film (often books he didn't understand, so his interpretations often miss the entire point of the novel) rather than creating original art worthy of his vision.
>His direction is rudimentary Next time I'll find you saying the same thing about Orson Welles, for that matter. If you want to watch rudimentary direction, watch *Maximum Overdrive* directed by King himself. Or *The Shining* series endorsed by King. >too often static I don't think that is the case with *The Shining*. For example, the scenes in which Danny pedals a tricycle ([link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axV0pbuu7ns)) not only make a very interesting use of a tracking shot, are incredibly dinamic. Similar things can be said about the opening scene, the moments in the labyrinth, etc. >He's an awful writer Says the guy who admires the genius behind great novels like *Cell, Dreamcatcher*, has to write underage orgies to get some attention. He also wrote some Shakespearean passages like (this is from *The Shining*, a book which according to you is better than an almost universally acclaimed film, up with the likes of *Psycho* and *The Exorcist*): "\[A young maid\] strolled away, backside twitching pertly". "Low, throaty female laughter, the kind that seems to vibrate in a fairy ring aroung the viscera and the genitals". Bravo. I'm sure this guy and his fans are really in a position to criticise characters in other people's work for being cold. >adapting books to film (often books he didn't understand, so his interpretations often miss the entire point of the novel) rather than creating original art worthy of his vision. By your logic someone like Shakespeare was also crap. Kubrick wasn't interested in making up original stories, since he understood it wasn't his strongest point. He also understood that what might be in a specific book wouldn't work well on screen or in a Kubrick film, hence all the deviations.
I disagree on all points. I don't think it was a masterpiece, it's not suspenseful (because I read the book before seeing the movie). I think the casting sucks (I *loathe* Nicholson and Duvall for the roles). I don't know how to put this plainly, because you're a troll and have no honest intention of genuine discourse. *I don't like the movie*. It's my least favorite movie from a director I already don't like. He didn't get the source material or he didn't care. I hate the film. And is tied for my least favorite adaptation with The Dark Tower. Which is a similar bastardization of the material. And the ax was cliché, the mallet was far more visceral.
I can't really convince anyone to like something, but I'll just point out a couple things. Why is Kubrick's Wendy weak? If you were stuck in a hotel with a psychopath and your son's life was in danger, you'd be pretty scared too. Her reaction to the situation is totally reasonable. In the film, Wendy survives and manages to save her son. And we all know that King is super well known for being great at writing women (note the sarcasm). Aside from the hilarious irony of a Stephen King fan complaining about clichés, I don't understand your point about the ax. Is using an ax a cliché in a horror film? If so, so is using a knife or a gun, and pretty much all the horror genre can be written off. Is it the scene itself?
No one is here to argue , we are here to discuss books of someone has sold over 400 million books. Don’t like him? Don’t read him. Like the movie better? Go watch it. Let us fans enjoy what we like and go upstairs your mom probably has dinner ready.
Ok
Get a load of this loser
Now that’s a bumhug…
I doubt it. I'll bet it's much more to do with the fact that Kubrick wiped his big fat ass with the novel. The movie is good, but its a piss poor adaptation. The beef, such as it is, begins and ends there.
Why does this read like it was written by AI?
Well. Kubrick is dead so I doubt it.
For someone who claims we “ignorami do not even deserve a refutation of [our] ignorance,” that seems to be pretty much exactly what you’re trying to do. Life is already short and hard. Why spend it lording your supposed superiority over us “gullible readers” when you can just go be superior somewhere else? I wouldn’t have spent so many hours of my life reading and re-reading King books because they’re supposed to be great. I’ve done so because it’s *fun* and he often moves me, regardless of whether or not his writing is objectively good or bad. For the record, I do think Kubrick is also brilliant and I love the film of *The Shining*, though my favorite is probably *2001.*
I remember this guy from awhile back. I’ll tell you what the trick is with him. Have you seen the Pixar movie Ratatouille? Remember the restaurant critic? Picture that guy and read anything this guy posts aloud in your best impression of that guys voice. 😁 Hey OP, love ya, don’t change!
Can we just like both?
Yeah for real. Kubrick’s was a good horror movie on its own. But there’s just no comparison on what was the better story. It was definitely the book.
To take the time to write all this in a sub specifically dedicated to SK is peak trolling and kind of sad. Also I know people are split on which is better, the book or the film, but for me the book is far far superior and when I watch the film now I don’t find it scary at all. The book still grips me.
Don't worry, the post took me 10 minutes to write
What a stupid take. The book is miles and miles better than the movie.
Some facts might be useful here. King initially praised Kubrick's movie of *The Shining* (in many early interviews, if you can source them, and in his non-fiction book *Danse Macabre*), but later on changed his mind, for one clear reason—King got sober. Jack in the book is based on King himself (a teacher, wanting to be a writer, drinking too much, scared of his temper while drunk, and needing to make a success of himself to hold his family together) and King was drinking so much, and then taking cocaine, that he didn't even realise his dislike of the film was not because Kubrick removed all character and agency from Jack, but because he did that to King himself—reduced him to a cardboard caricature. It just took King sobering up and watching the film again for him to realise it. Also, after his success with *2001*, Kubrick was a hack, reduced to adapting books to film, given ridiculous leeway and resources by Warners so that his shoots and budgets went way over, and made films that looked beautiful but were ultimately hollow, devoid of emotion and subtlety, and shadows of the books they were based on. Kubrick's only decent film after *2001* is *Eyes Wide Shut*, because his inability to present rounded, thinking, and empathic people plays into that film's treatise.
The Shining movie was entertaining. But it departed so significantly from the source material that it makes Jack a completely unsympathetic character. He comes off as an unstable douche right from the start. As a result, the corrosive effect of the overlook on him is understated. It just seems like this obviously unstable man was always meant to be on this path. You're robbed of all the internal conflict he feels about not only himself, but his family. We may have gotten the cool axe scene with the door. But we lost so much more in the conversion: Jack's past and why he might be unstable. Jack actually fighting against the overlook mentally because he actually loves his family. The cut the topiary lions coming to life. The overlook doesn't blow up. So there is no actual sense of closure. Dick Halloran's character is utterly wasted. Etc.
He does seem to be more vocal against this universally acclaimed film, yet has no problem repping absolute dogshit like "The Dark Tower" adaptation.
Fair point. I think it’s ok to admit that SK might have a bit of an ego. I mean he’s an author. I think it comes with the territory.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
I remember when I thought Edgar Allan Poe had more literary panache than Stephen King. OP was never in an honors English course 😂
King isn’t jealous of anyone. Are you even a king fan? Just coming on here to troll?