Which version of the Shining is best?
 

I know there are threads out there, but I wanted this as a poll since now the dvd is out and people are now able to compare.
I'll watch both versions this weekend.

I enjoy them all, but I'm not going to cop out and vote for that. The book is very interesting, and King's telefilm is obviously much more faithful to that, but Kubrick's film is just in another league IMO. He took what could have been just another cheesy King film (of which there are many) and turned it into something much more. It's not exactly faithful to the book, but it's a damn good movie.

das

Well since you put the book as an option, I voted for it.

But on the film side, I pick Kubrick's version.

Why?

I don't like Stephen King being anywhere near a movie set, I did not like any of the actors in the tv version, and I thought it was horribly boring.

Kubrick's is a classic, even though it strays from the novel. Nicholson overacts to greatness and Duvall is excellent (even though she gets a lot of flack). The kid also is excellent. Way better than the stuffy nose kid.

Just as a friendly reminder, I'm talking about which one is the better MOVIE. Don't pick King's version if you like the fact that its more faithfull to the book, but like Kubricks version. (I hope that makes sense)
Pick the book if you didn't like either version of the movie.

Then you should have as your thread title:

"Which movie version of The Shining is best?".

And then it would have made enough sense.

I'm a big SK fan, but the Kubrick version is the better movie by a mile, although the croquet mallet in the TV version is so much more menacing than Jack's axe.

I stopped watching the TV movie. It was that bad.

And I really liked the book, even with all the differences between it and Kubrick's version.

Stephen King is an enormously talented writer, and I respect him, but he should never be allowed anywhere NEAR a screenwriting program or position.

whoops, i accidentally voted for king's version. i meant to vote for kubricks. the book was creepy, but kubrick's version left a bigger imprint on my mind.

"Which movie version is best?" and "the book" is an option? Huh? That's no movie. Come to think of it, the mini-series ain't no movie either. And "All of the them" and "They all suck" pretty much equal the same thing.

Anyway, I voted for Kubrick.

The book was scary as hell, I only saw the Kubrick and I liked it. But it doesn't compare to the book.

I will vote for Kubrick's version - don't read Stephen King and didn't see the other one.

"Heeeeeeeeere's Johnnnnnnnnny!"

Did you ever see the Simpsons spoof of this scene
Homer: "Daaaaaaaaaavvvviiiiiddddddd Leterman"
Grandpa: "Hi ya Dave"
rotfl

I think Kubrick's version proves that ground beef tastes much better as a hamburger then it does as a steak.

Kubrick took what he had to work with and made an excellent movie, even though he had to add a bun and some lettus and tomatoe... maybe some pickels that weren't in the original.

King just took the beef and flatened it out and shoved it on a plate.

True, the King version is closer to the original animal, but the Kubrick version is way more appitizing.

Did that make any sense?

the Kubrick version is a lot better in my opinion.

kubrick over king's movie, but i won't vote since i haven't read the book.

Actually, it should be "Which movie version of The Shining is better?", since you are comparing only two items. "Best" is correctly used only when comparing three or more. :)


That being said, the clear winner is Kubrick's film. I use the TV version as a sleeping aid.

The movie version was great - with terrific actors (including the unknown Danny Lloyd as "Danny Torrance") and fantastic cinematography and direction. A stunningly beautiful horror movie.

Kubrick's film lacked the depth of characters that King had developed in his novel, but I rarely ever try to compare the two (although I sometimes fail) because if I think of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" as a film and not as a film adaption, I enjoy it much better than comparing it to the feature-rich novel that Stephen King wrote.

The TV mini-series, however, wasn't too good. The worse part of it all was that ugly, hare-lipped kid! He was a horror to watch, and if that was the intention because it was a Horror Film, then they cast the perfect kid! Cruel, and I would never say such things, but this film was something I really wanted to sink my teeth into, but that kid...boy, I really didn't like that kid. Even his acting was whiny. I'd have liked to have seen that mallet go right through his face!

<b>Actually</b> see the Rypro dude about that one. I did not want to wholeheartedly change his grammar. I just wanted to give my thoughts with as little sarcasm as possible.

So take your grammar police to someone who cares.

As you can see, Rypro came up with the whole bit (check the subject of his first post.)

Kubrick's film is light years ahead of the TV miniseries. Granted, it's not faithful to the novel, but this is a classic case of what works on paper doesn't always work on screen. The menagerie scene in the novel is truly creepy. On TV, it looks cheesy, cheap and just ridiculous.

Kubricks version. Great movie

Kubrick's version gets on my nerves because I had no sympathy for Jack Torrance. Right from the beginning, Nicholson plays the role like an ass, and overall it took away from watching the downward spiral of his character. Its a decent movie, but I'd much rather watch Kubrick's other work.

The television version is very dim in my mind, but I do recall being annoyed with the boy.

All of these result in my vote going towards the book.

I'd be curious to find out, of those who say they preferred the Kubrick version, how many actually read the book.

How many sat alone in a quiet, dark house late at night with only enough light for reading while late-night noises became harbingers of strange unworldly entities entering the space we call reality; where lurking, looming shadows moved disturbingly just at the border of peripheral vison.

For the growing darkness in John's mind, for the true horror of the maze, for more character development and so many more details, the book just buries any movie version, just as any of King's earlier books remain untranslatable and ultimately unsatisfying as movies. REDRUM!!
J

I picked all, which IS a slight cop-out.

I LOVE the Kubrick film, which I view as an INTERPRETATION(sp?) of the book I read twice a year.

Two DIFFERENT animals.....

On the one hand, the valid point CAN be made that in the Kubrick version, seeing Jack being told about the murders and that LOOK and cocky 'You can rest assured that won't happen to me..."

Even at 9, I figured he'd use toothpicks to whack his family at that point....Overlook...didn't matter..this dude was CRAZY!

The more I watch the Kubrick version, and see the character BEFORE he goes to the overlook, I am looking at these guys on the news that off thier families.

Now, to add salt to the wound, that wife....that kid with the croaking finger.....I think I'd be grabbing an ax when I ran out of Valium.

The TV version?
Books are NOT movies.....
I like the cast, I like the film, but for some reason it cannot conjure up the absolute LOVE I have of Kubrick's 'Take'.

I'm just happy to have them both.
The character of Jack was truer...but that ending at the school......no spoilers, but that sucked.

Also, the DVD packaging sucks...One flipper and one pic disc? Huh?

My TRUE vote is for the Kubrick, or 'Book' if you force me....but again, as a Shining fan, I'm happy to have the two and the book (ALL) to compare/contrast..and kinda wonder what David Lynch would do with a go at it.

I had seen Kubrick's film long before reading King's novel - age factor, as I was just seven when "The Shining" was first published, and ten when the film came out in 1980. I remember seeing the film for the first time on my father's Time Warner Manhattan cable box (around 1982) - he came home from working the night shift and saw me watching it (it was around 2 a.m.), and I was at the scene where Jack was taunting Wendy up the grand staircase while Wendy was swinging the bat. My father said, "Turn that off." I said, "But I've seen this already, it's okay." (A lie.)

Anyway (ramble, ramble) --- I got around to reading the novel in 1985, and it was my first Stephen King book to have read.

If I had read the book before seeing the movie, I may never have liked the movie. But since I saw the movie first, I can't dismiss it for two reasons: I'm a big fan of Jack Nicholson, and I liked the film despite its departure from the novel.

Buttmunker makes a good point.

A better question would be wondering who read the book before seeing the movie. Once you've seen it, a lot of the suspense is wiped out because you've seen the mother of all spoilers, unless of course the book diverges wildly from the movie.
J