The Shining (movie and book) (may contain spoilers)

[Brettus]

Anyone familiar with both?
I read the book a couple of months ago and decided I should get round to seeing the film as "everyone" raves about it. Whilst I thought it was a good film with some impressive acting I didn't enjoy it as I'd read the book. This isn't one of the typical the book is better than the film rants, I understand films inherently HAVE to be different from the book, purely on time constraints and such but this differs in some BIG ways, fundamentally so I think.

Anyone else agree?

If you have seen the movie but NOT read the book I urge, nay implore you to go get the e-book, analog book or the audiobook, whatever you prefer as I think you will enjoy it and there is SO much more to it.

Things I missed in the movie, The hedge animals, the boiler, the overlook history, Jack Torrance's alcoholism, the roque mallet sequences, the lift, the end!

Glad I've seen the film now though and whilst I knew it was going to be someone's interpretation of the book I knew I wasn't expecting it to be interpreted quite the way it was, almost as if it was lifted from a synopsis of the book.

[andrewsmith]

http://www.vote29.com/newmyblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Shining2_008Pyxurz.jpg

[maviczap]

I read this back in 1982 I think, much better book than the film, but the film is good.

Difficult to capture the atmosphere that you mind conjures up when reading a book as opposed to watching a movie I think.

I read it in a dimly lit room, listening to the Human League, whilst sipping some Glenfiddch!

[Spank86]

Its a stephen king movie.

I've never seen a film adaption that came close to the book except possibly "the stand" (tv miniseries really) or storm of the century but then I haven't read that book.

[Brettus]

I've never seen a film adaption that came close to the book

two stand out examples are The Shawshank Redemption ( I loved the film and eventually got round to reading the short story and it is practically identical, obviously helped by the fact it is a short story) and The Mist, both directed by Frank Darabont incidentally and oddly The Mist seems to go further than the book, adding what I felt to be a very SK ending which the book didn't have (perhaps an earlier draft did?)


I liked the stand miniseries too, just about to watch IT today after reading it in the summer.

Under the Dome TV series seems to be pretty true to the book and is enjoyable to watch, I'm 3-4 episodes in and enjoying it a lot, I thought the book was pretty epic, akin to The Stand, certainly standout from the norm anyway.

[The Basket]

Read the book but cant remember much. Film is a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece.

My best was Misery which I read and enjoyed. I was like how they make that a film when mostly abstract and in his head?

[Fallout]

It's a cracking film. I've not read the book as I can't read, but some directors try their best to do an accurate screenplay of a book and others take and adapt the elements. It's up to the director/writer to do what they think will work best for an audience who has not read the book and sometimes that's simplifying it, often removing characters. It's probably easier to take in a complex story while reading than it is in 2 hours of film.

[Spank86]

two stand out examples are The Shawshank Redemption ( I loved the film and eventually got round to reading the short story and it is practically identical, obviously helped by the fact it is a short story) and The Mist, both directed by Frank Darabont incidentally and oddly The Mist seems to go further than the book, adding what I felt to be a very SK ending which the book didn't have (perhaps an earlier draft did?)

I forgot about his non horror stuff, Of course shawshank redemption and green mile are both great films. I amend my comments to horror only.


I liked the stand miniseries too, just about to watch IT today after reading it in the summer.


IT falls down at the end, but if you've read the book I'm sure you'll understand why it was bound to.

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

I watched an interview with Stephen King the other day and he said he didn't like the film

Interview (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fentertainm ent-arts-24151957&ei=LpZvUrGgJKyT0QWcooDACA&usg=AFQjCNHF2HEumnwwQYg722GmxX_zHeJF0A&bvm=bv.55123115,d.d2k)

But, I accept that books and movies have to be different, a lot of the time just for logistical reasons.

[Brettus]

But, I accept that books and movies have to be different, a lot of the time just for logistical reasons.

Yeah same here, thats why I didn't want this to sound like a typical "the book is better than the film" diatribe, I was just surprised by HOW different it was.

Still a good film but now I wish I'd seen the film first and then read the book, mostly I try to do it the other way around as otherwise reading the book seems more arduous as you are waiting for every event you've seen to pop up and you read over the new parts waiting for the familiar.

[Mauler]

two stand out examples are The Shawshank Redemption ( I loved the film and eventually got round to reading the short story and it is practically identical, obviously helped by the fact it is a short story) and The Mist, both directed by Frank Darabont incidentally and oddly The Mist seems to go further than the book, adding what I felt to be a very SK ending which the book didn't have (perhaps an earlier draft did?)


I liked the stand miniseries too, just about to watch IT today after reading it in the summer.

Under the Dome TV series seems to be pretty true to the book and is enjoyable to watch, I'm 3-4 episodes in and enjoying it a lot, I thought the book was pretty epic, akin to The Stand, certainly standout from the norm anyway.

Oh lord no, don't watch IT, just don't! It's a dire, dire film of one of my fav teenage books.

I didn't like The Shining much either, there's something about Kubrick films that rub me up the wrong way. The book was great though.
The only Stephen Kings films that I thought were any good were The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile & The Mist. Generally films based on his work disappoint :(

[Sir Trev]

I often don't read the books of films for this reason. Worst for me was Dune - read the books as a student and found the films only made sense if you'd read the book. And what a shame Rik Mayall annoyed the director of Harry Potter 1 so much the Peeves character was taken out of the films entirely...

Rather like the Kubrick Shining, as a cinematic standalone entity. Mainly for Jack Nicholson's part. My wife has read the book and laments on the missing pieces but she also loves the film version. Likes it so much she bought herself an extended version that is only available on BluRay, so now I have to get a BluRay player.

[andrewsmith]

I agree with Trev, its a brilliant film as a film (not an adaptation).
Kubrick's films are good, Clockwork orange suffered the same (granted half of what the book depicts couldn't be shown in cinemas- even now).

The best film that is adapted from a book has to be 1984. Anyone who can sleep after watching that a nighttime is brave

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

Yeah same here, thats why I didn't want this to sound like a typical "the book is better than the film" diatribe, I was just surprised by HOW different it was.

Still a good film but now I wish I'd seen the film first and then read the book, mostly I try to do it the other way around as otherwise reading the book seems more arduous as you are waiting for every event you've seen to pop up and you read over the new parts waiting for the familiar.

Usually reading the book first is "right," but, I have just finished reading Lord of the Rings, now, with that there is loads "missing" from the films.

I love the films as a stand alone and understand why they cut so much out.

Same for the Harry Potter films and anything else that goes from book to film, generally they have to cut stuff out but can still be good.

Except Twilight, that was all ****

[Bibio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yGJGTjV2WE

[Spank86]

I prefer to watch the films first because the books are usually better and ruin the film unless I can appreciate it on its own merits.