The Shining Book vs Movie
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- This is one of Stephen Kings most loved novels, and it was adapted by the legendary director Stanley Kubrick. We all know that the two differ greatly, and here I share some things from the book that really stood out to me, what I identified with, and what I love about. the movie!
Get a free audiobook when you sign up for audible!
www.audibletrial.com/whythebo...
The Ink to Film podcast I talk about in the video / inktofilm
Since recording this, I also found the Cover to Credits podcast which also has a great episode on The Shining
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Instagram: / whythebookwins
Website: whythebookwins.com/
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5cMmi9g...
Apple podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
00:00 Intro to Why the Book Wins
01:47 Introducing The Shining
02:43 Thoughts on the book
04:58 Wendy with Jack’s addiction
09:30 Movie overview and acting
17:26 Danny’s shining
23:10 Tony
27:05 Jack’s alcoholism
32:18 Overlook using Jack’s addiction
38:30 Jack’s dad
41:16 Movie Jack
44:06 The Overlook
48:29 Book ending
51:37 Movie ending
53:36 book vs movie
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
I finished the book a couple days ago (finally accomplished my goal of reading a stephen king book in my life) and what struck me most and stuck with me was how sad it was. The supernatural parts of the book didnt scare me (not to say that its not not scary if i imagine myself in those situations) but the cruelty of the family members toward one another because of generatinal trauma was quite painful. And how the hotel used their painful past and personal struggles against them was the real horror. And because the movie is so huge of course i knew what ending to expect but i like that even to the very end the novel focuses on the love that the 3 characters had for one another even though the overlook forced them into hurting themselves. Also, as with any book to movie adaptation its a shame that many key characters and events were left out. But the movie is great a stand alone
As always, good video!
I read The Shining in 1979 and is still the only book to scare me. So I was so disappointed with the movie, I could not divorce it from the book. Also, with the disrespect Kubrick blatantly showed King, by banning him from the set because the rights were his and not King's? So, since I love the book so much I judge the movie very, very harshly.
So yes, I hate the movie and the book wins, in a landslide.
The only pluses I will give the movie are the tone, the soundtrack and the cinematography. All in all, the movie 'looks' good.
But now, the bad:
For one (and again, I am judging them side by side, and not separating them as King and Kubrick creations), I hated Jack Nicholson's performance/Kubrick's direction. As soon as you see his first closeup in the movie he already looks evil, so there is no room for the character to grow from loving family man, who will do anything for his family, to becoming so weak that he is finally able to be 'possessed' by the hotel. You automatically know he is the villain/killer. In no scene does Jack show any love or affection to his family. He seems so bitter and tied down that you can never sympathize with him. In now way do you blame the hotel for possessing him, you just end up hating Jack for his actions. As you stated, King is great with bringing characters to life, but Kubrick and Nicholson failed to capitalize onbringing this flawed and tragic character to life.
Second, the only actor in the movie that shows any amount of range is Shelly Duvall. All the other actors are stiff and superficial - including Danny, who should be very emotional. I guess, as Kubrick protected him by making him think this was a family drama that he divorced Danny from the immense role he actually played in the story. After all, The Shining is Danny's power that the Overlook wants. It does not just want Jack, as the movie makes it seem, with that last picture of Jack with all the guests at the New Year's ball, dated 1921. Kubrick just misplaced the focus.
Speaking of Danny, Kubrick directing Danny to use his finger to say 'redrum' just was ridiculous.
I could go on and on, but I won't waste your time. Suffice to say, for my money the movie version of The Shining is just pretty to look at, and has a wonderful mood of dread, but the horror absolutely misses the mark.
King does horror well because he has said that real horror comes from caring, and he writes characters you care about. If you don't feel for a character there is no way you will be affected by their circumstances. We are scared for what a character goes through only if you care what happens to them. And I didn't care what happened to the characters in the movie.
Another great comparison, thank you!
Thanks for sharing! Yeah I think had I read the book when it came out and then seen the movie I would have been very disappointed! But since I saw the movie first, and decades later when it was considered so iconic I think that changes things for me.
I agree with everything you say though. I really see them as two different stories and for that reason I wouldn't say it is not a good adaption but it is a great movie.
I was SO BEYOND DISAPPOINTED that George Hatfield wasn't even mentioned in the movie. He was such a crucial part of the novel (between this and 'It', I wonder if Stephen King either had a stutter himself when he was younger, or knew someone who did). I also couldn't believe that they left out the resurrected wasps- that was the first part that really creeped me out.
Sorry to hear about the struggles with your husband’s alcoholism. Completely agree about SK writing from such a deeply personal place, it lends a lot of power to the book. Appreciate the personal tangent, btw, no need to apologize for it 😊
And thank you so much for shouting out our long-winded analysis! 😅
Love all the quote analysis, btw. Great way to highlight the strength of SK's writing.
@@InktoFilm Thanks! I am wanting to use my channel as a way to open up more dialogue about addiction because it tends to be something people feel like they have to keep secret.
Since making this video I've listened to the rest of your episodes on The Shining and it was amazing as always! I love how detailed you guys are! And you are able to be detailed without being boring haha which isn't always easy to do.
@@WhytheBookWins Love that message! And thanks so much :D
It's no surprise that "It" and "The Shining" are set in the same universe. There are so many similarities, it's not even funny.
And all of King’s work connects back to the Dark Tower
Thank you for always replying! I appreciate your perspective in your thoughtful responses. You make your channel so interactive, which sets you apart from the rest.
Thank you so much! ☺️☺️
The movie coming out 3 years after the film is kinda crazy, doesn't feel like that's enough time to fall in love with the source material, so you know the movie wasn't made cause Kubrick loved the book so much.
It’s funny you say that you couldn’t put this book down. I’d seen the film long before, but I’d always had this feeling that if the movie scared me like it did, the book was going to be intense. This wasn’t helped by a version on my parents bookshelves when I was a kid that was shiny metallic with a spooky, blank child’s face on the spine. When I finally got to it as an adult at my gf’s beach house, I literally couldn’t put it down and read it to its conclusion at 5am.
Edit: I think Kubrick’s adaptation when compared to the 90’s miniseries shows how something directly ripped from the page may not be as effective as something changed to create something timeless.
Definitely! Some of of favorite adaptations are the ones that have been changed to some extent.
I've seen that metallic edition and plan to add it to my book collection at and point! Definitely a great, eerie cover. It's been just a few months since reading it but I'm already tempted to do a reread because of how great it was.
@@WhytheBookWins - You know what? That’s a great idea! I haven’t had a proper “Stephen King” weekend with one of his books in some time, though I tend to reread The Stand every two years or so. I also liked the first few of the Gunslinger series, but it sort-of lost my interest after awhile, just being so complicated. But the Shining is a nice, single novel not overcomplicated with Pennywise being in there somehow or that Danny is somehow “Dudditz” as he likes to weave his books together nowadays.
What I need more than anything is to find some printing thats not in micro-font! I don’t need to scowl for three days at a 450 page book that should be 700! So yeah, great idea and I’m looking forward to checking out more of your work - I really enjoyed this!
Edit: subscribed, too. :)
@@b.w.22 thanks! And I do a lot of my reading on my kindle and you can adjust the font! I know some people really dislike e-readers though
I thought that instead of the overlook wanting danny for more power incruement. It was more because it was hungry. Which to me felt more horrific than the overlook being just another mustache twirling villain. Its a beast, or monster. Simply looking for a meal. The book felt less believable not because of the overt supernatural events, but because of the reactions of the characters paired with thier actions. Jacks a great comparison in terms of the book vs the movie. In the book he has an inner monologue, an almost constant narrative strung together with his thoughts in almost prose or overly desconstructive veiw. But people aren't like that, jack isnt just a alcoholic abusive wannabe writer, hes just a bad guy. The book seems to characterize him as a good man being changed or possessed, while also being an alcoholic abuser. It feels conflicted and uncanny. I get that you feel the book to 'feel to real' while as someone who was raised in that kind of household it doesn't feel real. Feels empty in its description of the abuse and trauma. In my opinion, the movie potrays a more honest view on the character of jack. He is an alcoholic, he is an abusive wannabe writer. The books jack is a cliche at best. Its funny you describe that the movie portrays jack as unlikable. I agree you shouldnt like jack. He doesn't deserve it. The book is at odds with its past, while the movie feels consistent in its characterization. E.g. wendy in the book is characerized as 'strong and smart'. If that were the case why is she with jack, why didnt she leave the hotel with danny when she realized the hotel was haunted? Why? Danny in the book is also odd, since he seems at times smarter than a child his age and dumber. Some of his written lines are hilarious. Wendy in the movie is portrayed as someone who is in an abusive relationship, and would be the kind of person who'd stay in that kind of relationship. The movie is perfect in terms of horror. Reading the book for the first time in the tenth grade I couldn't feel the horror, mostly because of the hammed up lines and inhuman interactions between the characters. While watching the movie for the first time in my final year of college, i felt a sense of terror i hadnt in any modern movie. The book is ok, the movie will be studied in film classes forever. A measure between the two is not clear though since they exist in different mediums. Although you could compare the King version of the shining that he made in 1997. Carte Blanche. Kubricks original release was wildy panned but in my opinion is way better of a horror movie
I had a battered old copy of the book that I read every once in a while, and when I watched the movie it didn’t even occur to me that they were the same story. I think they’re both classics, but can see why Steven King didn’t like it as an adaptation.
Yeah very different! I love the movie but try and separate from the source. (aside from when I made this video where the whole point was to compare them lol)
Kubrick's simplification works great for me. Sometimes simpler is better. Leaves room for the viewier to speculate and fill things in how they'd like. If it werent for the movie's streamlining of the story we wouldnt have as much discussion about it. Theres a certain intrigue about mystery and keeping things more mysterious can be better. The book explains too much for me. Takes the mystique out and this some of the fun of speculation. Just my take.
Thank you so much for your thoughts and work in putting together this video. I suggest checking out the video under the name Malmrose Projects, The Shining. In this video the themes Kubrick was trying to explore are explained. It is very well done and in it, he explains why some of the changes from the book to film were made. I think you will enjoy it. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
Thanks! I'll check that out!
We all have our struggles in life! Tell him that he can make it without alcool it's not easy but with Jesus all things are possible! This book The Shining is one of my favorite and Jack in the movie is wonderful!
Thank you 😊 And agreed! Love this book so much!
Shelly Duvall was great in the film but i didn't like how wendy was made into a weakling danny lloyd was also brilliant i was surprised that he retired from acting i also read the book version i did like it i do agree why king didn't like this version of the shining
I don’t believe Kubrick didn’t like King’s book or writing, he’s publicly complemented it. I think the alleged insults come from King and the press tour he went on to trash the film.
Kubrick didn’t write The Shining script alone, he hired novelist Diane Johnson to co-write it with him and in interviews she’s done, it sounds like it was a great partnership, I think Kubrick didn’t want to use King’s script or work with King on it because it would eventually become an issue when they had to trim the story down to a feature film length.
I think Kubrick’s method of adaptation is sound, to decide the story you’re going to tell and focus on that, when other adaptations try to include everything and nothing gets the screen time it needs to be successful.
Having listen to Diane Johnson interviews it sounds like the 1st draft included nearly all of the book and they slowly had to woodshed it down to feature film length.
I like this process, because most things in the book you can still imagine happened in the film, we just didn’t see it as an audience.
Even when they began filming, they shot a scene of Jack finding and going through the scrap book from the Overlook.
For whatever reason, Kubrick removed this scene and destroyed it, so no one has ever seen it, although the scrapbook prop can be seen sitting on Jack’s writing desk, so even though the scene was removed, it still happened in the continuity of Kubrick’s story.
It is my suspicion, that many things shown at the the film, that come out of nowhere, if you haven’t read the book we’re actually introduced in the scrapbook scene, the woman in the tub, the man in the bear(dog) suit, etc.
Kubrick never commented about why he removed the scene, did he not think it worked, or did he believe it made those appearances more unsettling if they weren’t explained, because your brain is trying to find the meaning, in something disturbing or confusing?
The other changes Kubrick made are completely understandable for a film, hedge maze not animals, Axe instead of a Roque mallet(which King even changed to an oversized croquet mallet in his adaptation), and while no one wanted to see Dick die, it does raise the stakes and removes anyone who read the book comfort that they know what will happen, it becomes an “all bets are off moment”, no one is going to save Wendy and Danny, they have to save themselves, although Dick in a non-direct way did save them, distracting Jack and providing a means of escape.
Also, the film is kinda clever, they show Wendy checking the boilers as part of the maintenance routine, so you could believe the hotel does eventually blow up, if you want.
What I find odd is, for me, it’s very easy to reconcile much of the book with Kubrick’s film, I’m not sure why people view events in the film, like if they didn’t show it it didn’t happen?
With Jack, Dick & Danny I can reconcile their characters from the book and the film pretty easily.
We don’t hear their inner-monologues in the film, that’s where King put a ton of their character development.
Nothing they do in the film contradicts this.
Wendy is quite different, and I prefer the film version, she seems more believable as someone who would stay with Jack, which doesn’t mean she’s not strong, but it’s a different kind of strength, her family and keeping it together is so important to her, she puts up with Jack’s nonsense and dedicates a lot of her life to managing his moods, she does all of his caretaking work, because someone has to, and when she has to physically protect herself and her son, she does.
She’s extremely selfless, which is somehow a quality people refuse to see as strong, when often it takes a lot more strength than simply standing up for yourself?
To summarize, the film isn’t really that different from the book, we are just being shown a very narrow view of events, that Kubrick had time to show us and thought it would make a cohesive story to someone who has never read the book, however in the timeline of the film, most events from the book still happened or could have happened.
The only stark differences are, Dick died and no hedges came to life, like I said, the hotel may have blown up.
I don’t think the problem is reconciling the book and the film. I watched the film (several times) decades before reading the book. I had a close friend who was a big Kubrick fan. We would occasionally watch the film. I never told him but I wasn’t impressed. Things just didn’t make sense and I didn’t feel invested in the characters. To be on record: I believe both the book and the movie are overrated but the book does make more sense, build the tension better and make me care about the characters more. Neither are very scary but both have a few scary scenes.
I'm around halfway into this video - I'm enjoying it very much btw (It always annoyed me that Halloran died in the film - it felt anti-climactic to me after the build up of him journeying back to the hotel - just for him to die as soon as he arrived there. I never liked it.) and you're talking about alcoholism and addiction - and a book has just popped into my head that I want to mention/recommend to you - The Outrun by Amy Liptrot. It is on the surface a memoir about addiction & recovery - but it's done in such a singular, unique and literary way. She's from the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland - an extremely isolated, remote community - and the book is as much a description of the natural landscape and wildlife of Orkney as it is about her recovery from addiction. It's a fabulous book, and if you're ever looking for a book that deals with these subjects then I absolutely recommend it. Right, back to your video...
Yeah I was sad he died too. And I'll see if my library has that book!
Thank you for your videos, have been binging them lately.
I’d like to add that Stephen King did write and produce an adaptation of his own, a mini series which is very close to the book and generally considered… not great. So, maybe a great book doesn’t necessarily translate well onto screen without considerable changes.
Here, two masters of their craft have produced two different versions of a story. I can’t be mad at Kubrick for running with his own vision of a book that obviously inspired him. I even kind of wish that King would be able to embrace a master piece that he has inspired - even as it diverges from his personal vision. That said, I understand it can be hard to see your “baby” completely overhauled and Kubrick doesn’t appear to have been very nice about it.
I bought a later printing of The Shining, and in the introduction he talks about Kubricks movie in a positive way. So it seems he has at least somewhat embraced the film.
Glad you like the channel and thanks for commenting! 😁
Great Video.😀
"SimPaTiCo"
You're a cutie pie. I ruined my curly hair!
My suggestion for “the book _loses”_ would be THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. The movie is an iconic masterpiece and an important historical landmark which (together with DR. STRANGELOVE) conveys most clearly what the Cold War felt like for ordinary Americans. The book, in contrast, is barely coherent and reads like a first draft, with poorly realized characters; it’s also partly plagiarized.
I literally just got this from the library to start reading! I have seen the original movie and loved it!
@@WhytheBookWins Oh! Sorry to be a downer, but I was very disappointed by the book. Maybe you'll find something good in it which I missed.
Other movies which are better (IMHO) than the books they are based on include: "Strangers on a Train", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Kind Hearts and Coronets".
Kubrick’s films were never about adapting source material into accurate adaptions, since most of what he was adapting didn’t fit his vision.
King’s Jack doesn’t fit Kubrick’s vision. Neither does Wendy or Danny.
Kubrick’s films had a glint of unrealism, actively exaggerating for either comedic or satirical, or metaphorical effect. Just watch Dr. Strangelove or Lolita as evidence.
Jack in Kubrick’s film behavior is practically all over the place.He breeds a mixture of normality and slight annoyance and apathy. As the film progresses, it turns into derangement and bitterness with a hint of goofiness. It’s even extends to subtle things. For example, he a adult with responsibilities, but prefers playing ball like a child. He’s a grown adult capable of controlling his emotions, yet throws tantrums like a child when he doesn’t get his way or when he’s upset. He says he has work too do, yet oversleeps. He’s a married man, yet looks at play girl magazines and cheats on his wife inside the bathroom with the dead woman. This all collimates when Jack enters the Hedge Maze, a literal representation of his psychic, as he gets more lost and lost and lost inside the Hedge maze, he’s left to freeze in the cold, and his own insanity.
The hotel itself isn’t alive, or so we believe. The Hotel’s spiritual element being so hidden and subtle, yet all over the place is mirrored in Jack’s degrading psyche being all over the place. Jack is The Overlook by some extent.
Jack is a representation of our minds turning against itself. A hidden element we’ve never come across finally starting to show its colors.
Wendy and Danny in Kubrick’s film, represents the banality of abusiveness in family relations. It’s so common, it actually goes hidden in the background so often.
Kubrick isn’t going to hold the audiences’ hand and spoon-feed them, which is what most King fans wanted him to do while watching this film.
The film was undeniably better. Everything that Kubric changed was an improvement. The film was a cinematic masterpiece, the book was mediocre and not scary.
The Shining is a generic typical pulpy horror novel, with its only remotely interesting factor being its alcoholism with Jack Torrance. Everything afterwards is just banal, dull, and uninspiring stuff. Not bad by any means, just nothing I’d call special.
Kubrick took the book and turned it into a multi-facet story with symbolism and metaphoric imagery, too lengths where people are still finding something new about it. All the themes of the film tie into everything. The Torrances, the multiple sprits hunting the hotel, the multiple paintings and background art, and even subtle things like sound mixing and the films’ soundtrack. It has more artistic merit and something to engage beyond other themes, while the book only has one element and factor.
The movie is visually well done but horribly paced, acted, plotted, etc. It's not good story telling.