The Shining (1980/1997) side-by-side comparison

[@Bijo69]

Who else didn’t know that the 1997 version existed until now? First I’ve seen it.

[@tsiboesus2880]

i didnt know

[@tiptucker9523]

bijo Right?! WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK?!?!

[@jorgesantellan3]

I didn't know it existed either.

[@sunshineangel8059]

me

[@yorktown2541]

Me neither

[@hefellfromneptune]

1997 is more book accurate but the original is a masterpiece every shot is like a work of art.

[@KelvinKlink]

many things that occur in kubrick's version is reverse of the book. genious! d=1

[@andreajasyl2655]

Kelvin Klink Kubrick only used his book as a start off for a movie, he didn’t want it to be an exact replica 🙄

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

@@andreajasyl2655 exactly, why make an adaptation or remake if you're not gonna put your own spin on it?

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

@Cee2kay 1.) I disagree that Kubrick is overrated. On a technical level, his filmmaking ability was unquestionable. His shots are studied and the structure of his films were unshakable. Technically, the flaws in his films are few and far between, disregarding subjective opinion, which is fine. But you're talking about how the films are rated. His films are rated to be among the best for a reason. And just because something is a good adaptation of the events of a story, it doesn't make the overall remake good or bad. It only means that the work copied all of the important elements. The style and how that adaptation is presented through whatever medium (in this case being cinema) is being used to tell the story. Kubrick being overrated has nothing to do with the 90's shining copying down more of the original source material.

[@xyoungdipsetx]

isaak.christopher I agree it’s weird cuz the 1997 was made by Stephen king himself

[@wyattruiz1333]

“Mom, can we have the Shining?” “No, we have the shining at home.” The shining at home- 1997 version

[@joelharber2100]

Oh God... that's even more scary than the 97 version.

[@joeydarko4354]

Lmfaooo

[@airtimehillzone]

I first got the shining at a video rental place and sure enough it was the 1997 version. I immediately returned it and get the 1980 classic

[@englishatheart]

@@airtimehillzone So you have crap taste then.

[@damienleigh9943]

@@englishatheart You misread. He said he returned the 1997 one.

[@thekrustaceox5181]

7:27 Its funny how Jack Nicholson didn't need any make up for the scenes where he went insane xD

[@axelnilsson5124]

Not weird everyone looks the same when they’re insane

[@A627-x7b]

I think in the book he looks like that

[@BloodyBay]

I don't mean to hate on Steven Weber, but even the bit at 1:10 demonstrates how superior Jack Nicholson is as an actor. Weber's Jack Torrance: "Hey, everyone! We're going to have a fun-filled time up in the mountains! Happy happy, joy joy! Hoop de day!" Nicholson's Jack Torrance: "I hate _everything_ about my life. But I'm fine! I'm sure my self-loathing won't cause any problems while we're cut off from the world for six months...."

[@shaneogallagher831]

He didn’t need any makeup because he looked insane 5 minutes into being at the hotel... Nicholson was made for that role no doubt but they could’ve atleast developed his character a bit instead of just making him a whack job right off the rip. Both have their pros and cons but kubricks was undoubtedly the better movie. king did a good job distinguishing when jack was sane and when the hotel took him over though.

[@sabinaviorela3090]

Love how the 90's version still tried to recreate that iconic breaking of the door with the axe scene, even going as far as to recreating that camera movement that followed Jack when he was banging the door with thd axe. Weber even put his head in the hole of the door, in the same way as Nicholson did lmfaooo.

[@tokinimo54]

When the 80's version looks more recent than the 90's.

[@aitakemi]

As it should. The original adaptation is a 40 million dollars film. The second adaptation is a cheap mini series made for TV - From the camera quality to artistic visionary, it's going to lack everything. You need money to work with a bunch of people that know what they're doing to create the extraordinary, the excellence. That's how you stand the test of time.

[@drewroebuck6979]

All Kubrick films look more modern than anyone else’s did at the time

[@allavasthetoon]

T. A jeez that’s a lot of money

[@cinemaavila2938]

Kubrick

[@basedbattledroid3507]

Not to mention it was a part of the 80s that came right after the 70s and 1997 was only three years until the new millennium.

[@greenthatsit1808]

1997 stuck to the book more 1980 absolute masterpiece

[@Stigmatix666]

Kubrick uses stuff from the book that's *not* in the mini series.. The mini series uses stuff from Kubrick's movie that's not in the book.. Neither are "true" adaptions! Go figure

[@englishatheart]

@@Stigmatix666 Um, you haven't read the book, have you? I have more than once and the mini series IS an accurate adaptation. And the Kuprick version isn't a masterpiece except to Kubrick ass-kissers.

[@Stigmatix666]

@@englishatheart Are you confused, perhaps? I literally just read the book a week ago and the mini-series is clearly *not* an "accurate" adaption. Jack has homicidal urges from the very beginning in the book. Not so in the mini series. Danny has seizures in the mini series and in Kubrick's movie. Not so in the book. Tony is a floating teenager in the mini series. Not so in the book. And those are just at the top of my head.

[@jcgmusic16]

@@englishatheart Are you for real? Kubrick's version is a cinematographic experience. True to the book or not is a masterpiece in every aspect, from perspective, art direction, lightning, sound, angles, framing, color palette. Just the Hotel itself without the main characters make you feel uncomfortable because of the way is architectonically made, and that can just come from a cinema mastermind.

[@damienleigh9943]

@@englishatheart Do you have any idea how good Kubrick's ass' tastes?

[@akiro7930]

Can we all agree, even though the 1980's version isn't like the book it's still one of the best horror movie classics?

[@Joe-ww8uw]

Yuuki that’s not even a question,that’s a statement

[@hckingking]

Agreed

[@_HXHfan]

Thriller

[@joegarage5569]

No, we can't.

[@hckingking]

@@joegarage5569 why?

[@rayvanwayenburg998]

Every frame in Kubrick’s is a masterpiece.

[@starwarsacademy3719]

Probably cause each scene took @least 60 takes.

[@r3se7ved18]

What about he scene where A guy in a bear costume give somebody head

[@MLai-3wh]

@@starwarsacademy3719 or 127 times

[@edoardopalumbo7327]

1980 is GOOD then the 97 honesty

[@MARRS9DEADWOOD]

have you ever seen the Stephen King version Kubrick just Ripped off Stephen King's book If you actually watch this new and king shining You'll see A big difference kubrick is not the original designer of the Stephen King is And you would know that Both films are great not just one They're great in their own ways stephen King has a miniseries As Kubrick is just one main film

[@RaffishRipoff]

I don't know. I feel like horror peaked with that CGI firehose monster.

[@anacarolinareyes8213]

Phil Gonzales same I didn’t see anything scarier than that the whole video

[@roy2177]

😂😂😂

[@ouo7398]

Lol

[@GRdirector]

i´ll never look at a fire hose the same way ever again. Who cares about fire safety, the long teeth are much worse

[@anastasiabananastasia]

😂 that was brutal

[@slim3436]

The 1980 movie feels scary the 1997 one feels like something straight out of the Goosebumps tv show

[@rococo7966]

Mortem goosebumps was way better. At least, the kids didn’t look like total retards ..

[@brownranchman4084]

rococo are you sure about that?

[@PerpleX_Plays]

That's because the 1997 one was a TV mini series on, I think, ABC. It was kinda like the It miniseries in that it was toned down to fit TV standards

[@DaddyDrummer007]

Agreed. The mini series is basically a after school special.

[@HawkinaBox]

I agree

[@IlkanAtalar]

In this example we can clearly see how important directing is.

[@ianbeach23]

Ilkan Atalar and everything else

[@peterhansen5096]

True and Kubrick's fans don't understand that. The miniseries is the better of the two :)

[@hckingking]

@@peterhansen5096 wrong. The 1997 version is boring as shit. 1980 version is interesting and scary throughout the entire movie.

[@Noahcrosby06]

1 million subscribers with no videos yeah it doesnt matter wether its faithful or not it matters that it tells a good and interesting story

[@terrortower666]

1 million subscribers with no videos exactly. The 1997 is truly terrible. The original with forever be one of my favourite horrors.

[@mayadoesntknow]

one thing i really like about the 1980 version is that they look like a normal family so it kinda implies that this could happen to literally anyone

[@2025-e4n]

Hey.....You!

[@mayadoesntknow]

@@2025-e4n … what ?

[@pitilessnightmare6879]

I think you refer to the 1997 version, right? Because 1980 version Jack seemed always violent.

[@castortroy7704]

@@pitilessnightmare6879 Yeah. Nicholson's Jack Torrance was crazy from the start and only went more insane once he went to the hotel with his family. Jack in the book (Weber's version was definitely more accurate, speaking as a Jack Nicholson fan here) was short tempered but a decent, albeit flawed guy that loved his family and went mad due to cabin fever and the supernatural influence of the hotel's evil spirits that possessed him. In the end Jack redeemed himself. Nicholson's Jack doesn't.

[@manuelnieblas6910]

It happend to me once but without the axe and we were not in the stantly my dad tried to break the door down to get in his wepon was a fist the wepon my Sister had was a knife and she hit him with it and the cops arrested my dad till he came back I'm not even joking this really happend

[@purpleshirtfish]

1997 looks more outdated than the 1980s version and it was released 17 years later...

[@beghelalphaplus]

You, my friend, are absolutely correct!

[@mkw3980]

1980's version is timeless. All groundbreaking films like this age better than 90% of other films.

[@dyltack5349]

J-Brazen it was a made for tv special

[@abramsullivan7764]

1997 Stephen King's The Shining is 23 years old and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980) is 39 years old and the book itself is 41 I believe.

[@ProdDimez]

SO TRUE

[@bluwasp3296]

You can obviously see why king didn’t like kubrick’s version here, but king isn’t very skilled at making something visually scary, whereas kubrick is a mastermind when it comes to that.

[@arserobinson7118]

The 1997 version doesn't work, despite the book being a masterpiece. Kubrick's adaption is a brilliant film.

[@leolouddd]

@@arserobinson7118 I think Kubrick's is good too but so is Stephen King's

[@hydrazineanteater9073]

Kubrick's version needs to be thrown out with E.T for the Atari 2600. You say the 1997 version? How about blood trickling down Jack's face, and his ear piercing, sadistic yelling, and the homicidal jokes he makes to mess with your head. The Kubrick version is garbage and it's sad that it's the most popular

[@manofocean]

@@hydrazineanteater9073as somebody who has read, and loved the book, i can say that, Kubricks film, is good on its own, if you dont compare it to the book. However, the book, is far superior, but because of the many differences, comparing them can be hard. They are both great entertainment, for both of their mediums.

[@antonesardo2657]

Jaden Cox I always liked to say he was the Alfred Hitchcock of writing books

[@LeonardoCavalcante]

1980 "The Shining": Directed by Stanley Kubrik 1997 "The Shining": Directed by Tommy Wiseau

[@modestalchemist]

"you're tearing me apart, Wendy!"

[@josetolentino3965]

@@modestalchemist pretty sure it would be the other way. "i had the most horrible dream. I killed you and danny. Chopped you up into little bits "

[@Joe_Kerr_9797]

"Oh hi Lloyd."

[@TheKevinKruger]

It's not over! Everyone betrayed me! I've fed up with this world!

[@TheKevinKruger]

@@Joe_Kerr_9797 It's slow tonight, ain't it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[@targaryenXoolf]

Kubrick's version looks so artistic

[@whitneydenise]

Is that the 80s version???

[@swstopmotions4390]

@@whitneydeniseyes

[@airtimehillzone]

The difference. One was made by a man who knows how to make a film

[@thedragon12]

Well King hated Kubrick's movie. He felt that his movie betrayed his story. So Stephen King produced the 1997's mini-serie.

[@Pantano63]

@@thedragon12 To everyone's disappointment.

[@thedragon12]

@@Pantano63 Well he wanted a more true to his story and I can understand that, he's just not good at potraying his own story. He can't create fear on movie like he's able to on paper.

[@holymountains8612]

But which one was it

[@ShadowPhantomGamer]

@@holymountains8612 Kubrick's version.

[@bernlin2000]

An elevator filled with blood vs. a pointy-toothed fire hose feels like the perfect metaphor for describing the differences between these films 🤣

[@tankconnors7323]

its not blood...its red wine....not thick enough to be blood.....................watch this...its amazing.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWWxhYmBipuDqNU

[@dimitreze]

@@tankconnors7323 it's blood in the movie, no one cares about your stupid trivia

[@hannahwidz3128]

when i saw this scene in 1997 version i literally started laughing

[@Stigmatix666]

@@hannahwidz3128 Yes. Lots of stuff in the 1997 version is laughable. Also, it's a chore to sit through. The 1980 version is chilling and it goes by in a flash, even if it's way longer than your usual horror movie

[@foxmccloud306]

To quote nostalgia critic. "Stephen King has a thing for taking things that are obviously not scary and....... keeping them not scary."

[@scottc4199]

Some things won't translate well into a film. Kubrick knew that and purposely made it his own... That's why it's a Masterpiece

[@Ballowax]

What doesn't translate well to film?

[@scottc4199]

@@Ballowax The hedge animals coming alive wouldn't have looked good and using film you can capture still frames and actors better than a book can obviously

[@tims.2717]

Yeah... I get the feeling that King doesn't really grasp that about films vs. novels, which I think is partly why he hates Kubrick's film.

[@Joey7Z7Horror]

@@scottc4199 there were hedge animals coming to life orginally? Holy damn what was up with the book

[@generaliroh842]

@@Joey7Z7Horrorit was actually scary in the book tho. But i just cant even imagine how that would work in a film 😂

[@jacel987]

1980: blood in an elevator 1997: hey look at the snow

[@moon-cf2vw]

Lol there’s a lot of snow in the 1980 version too.

[@ethankleinman1067]

@@moon-cf2vw So whats your point?

[@moon-cf2vw]

@@ethankleinman1067 that they both have a lot of snow

[@cr6050]

@@moon-cf2vw snowier snow

[@kit_katmck2995]

@@cr6050 lol. (Is that a minecraft reference?£

[@ramik81]

So, they replaced the elevator of blood scene with a firehose with teeth? 😚

[@bridgettebyrne6125]

Raymond Heart : well...... yes

[@thesisko8081]

It’s from the book

[@haydeng3316]

@@thesisko8081 that doesn't make it good

[@scornbass1552]

An elevator's time of the month. Vs A spiky butthole.

[@InsidiousOne]

That's how all your favorite comic book movies will look in 20 years.

[@drfrnknstn]

Stephen King wrote The Shining without the intention of it ever becoming a movie, which is why the 1997 one didn't work. It tried too hard to be like the book, which made it less scary. The 1980 version isn't like the book, but it's by far better at creating the psychological horror

[@alexedi]

It also didn't work because: bad acting, awful and unnecessary CGI (ok, it was the 90s), awful cinematography plus the restraints of network TV at the time. Plus the irony that many shots are inspired DIRECTLY by Kubrick's version ("hated" by King) - except amateurish. It would be interesting (although by no means necessary) to see a version made now, in this new landscape of high-budget, prestige TV. Anyway, whether Kings likes it or not, the 1980 version is the DEFINITIVE (movie) Shining.

[@ChickenRieder]

It's weird to me how the second movie is the "accurate" version when, while I was reading the book it looked in my mind more like the first one.

[@manofocean]

ChickenRieder same

[@josu6854]

Ik I'm a month old to this comment but, when you read a book it's not like watching a movie. In a movie everyone sees the same thing because..well it's there. But a book let's you picture in your mind what you think everything would look like.

[@manofocean]

나는 지민을 좋아한다 I think we both know that, we were just saying we pictured something closer to the movie

[@lunabangtan7]

alvin hung ftw kristiferftl If I remember correctly, that quote was improv. Pretty sure that when they said that they moon the characters and mood/look of the setting. The first movie sets a better mood and vibe. It’s way of capturing the shots is great. The second one on the other hand...it’s kind of dull. Say you but it more accurately to the book but with same way the first movie was handled, that’s the prefect movie right there.

[@lunabangtan7]

alvin hung ftw kristiferftl Thats how improv works. There’s nothing wrong with twisting a story a bit as long as it’s good. And some changes added a a lot more character, a lot more spook.

[@modaltib880]

3:44 is my favorite part 1980: a long, steady zoom of Halloran as he realizes the horrific situation that Danny is in and that either he or Danny will definitely have to die 1997: i have heart attack at diner lol

[@heavyweaponsscout9990]

😂 this really condenses the essence of each version...

[@cinemaniak1055]

While I can appreciate the 97 version for being faithful to the book, Kubrick’s is a true work of art, one of the creepiest and most unsettling films ever made

[@luiscirca2002]

The 1980 version really gives me a sense of uneasiness while, the 1997 version feels like something I'd watch from that Hallmark channel.

[@degenhardtdrums6034]

It was such a good movie and then woahhh a teddy bear giving a BJ like wtf? But still a great movie and better than 97 version

[@markdaniels7174]

It was made-for-TV. Hard to do “horror” on commercial television.

[@johncelcius2976]

Am i the only one who, after about 20 seconds, forgot there was even another movie on the bottom?

[@mostlymo5103]

Nope.

[@very_many_days9710]

Yes

[@chesspiece8831]

Maybe

[@Patrick-nq9ij]

Nope, you not alone.

[@raterus]

Nope, because I can't ignore Rebecca De Mornay in her prime

[@classicalmusic1175]

To be fair, King's 97 version is a tv series, but even so, the difference in quality between the two is crystal clear. The camera work, lighting, colours, set design in Kubrick's version is evidently superior in every way. 2:31 Just take these scenes as an example. Kubrick's snow scene looks deep and menacing, even though the characters appear happy having a snowball fight. King's snow scene looks like something pulled straight from a tv Christmas movie. If you added Christmas music to King's scene, it would fit, but it wouldn't if you tried it with Kubrick's.

[@filmbuff2777]

@THE HOAX OF BLACK VICTIMIZATION 2ND CHANNEL Mick Garris is Stephen King's bitch. He does whatever his "master" tells him to, no matter how idiotic it is.

[@filmbuff2777]

The TV excuse doesn't cut it. This crap came a few years after Twin Peaks, which really brought the cinematic filmmaking approach to television. It was also quite boundary pushing with its violence & sexual content. There is also The X-Files which also has its moments of cinema level filmmaking, as well as its boundary pushing in what could be shown on TV. This junk was also aired around the same time as the controversial X-Files episode called Home (I'm not sure of the air date), which was a pretty brutal episode about incest inbreeding hillbillies. Stephen King's junk, which he claims is superior to Kubrick's film in every way, is so cheesy & badly made. He was too obsessed about trying to be better than Kubrick that he had zero effort put into the actual filmmaking. He couldn't have even have been bothered to try to push any boundaries in terms of content like Twin Peaks or X-Files did. This idiot thinks a faithful script automatically makes it better than the Kubrick film. This is the excuse that he & his blind sheepish cult use to explain how it is better.

[@luisramos619]

King not only had almost 2 decades of technological advantage over Kubrick, but he also had Kubricks film as a reference to help him perfect his own film. He flopped badly.

[@you-5-iver804]

@@luisramos619 King has a huge ass ego and couldn't take the fact that Kubrick turned his mediocre book into a cult classic film

[@ashesbaby266]

The snowball fight scene SHOULDN’T look menacing that early in the story.

[@PkmariO64]

1997: The Shining 1980: The Cooler Shining

[@SnowyFoxlinn]

1980: The Shining got brighter...

[@philippwissemann9420]

1997: Crap fest 1980: Kubrick's 12th Film

[@miroskordich7]

i see what you did there ... good one

[@FullchanAnon]

2019: The more action and thriller Shining

[@loop5720]

@@FullchanAnon And good actor's choices too...

[@ClintonomoBay]

The problem with the 1997 version is that everything feels either too over-the-top or dull. There's nothing impressive about the cinematography.

[@Ballowax]

@@numaisreginald3671 ok is the original Steven King novel really crap

[@estelasayeed5608]

Numais Reginald okay as someone who’s read most of his books.. I completely disagree with you

[@stickliar5934]

Exactly

[@jpegmarek]

But is it as dull as all work no fun makes Jack?

[@oddestdylan]

@@numaisreginald3671 you can have your own opinion. But honestly i got agree with a critic, that you can find on the back of my favorite book IT. You might have heard of IT. But the critic says Stephen writes like one possessed. I gotta agree with him. Just pure talent.

[@feedingfiction]

The lighting and cinematography in the 97 version is really terrible.

[@peterhansen5096]

But it's better

[@cactocrotone2645]

@@peterhansen5096 Man stop its not better i know sometimes we need to admit i like Jason x and i know that the movie is total shit the 1997 the shining ITS not shit but ITS not better than the kubricks one

[@cactocrotone2645]

@@Noahcrosby06 um not comparimg

[@bigbear5767]

@@peterhansen5096 your subjective opinion is not factual. Listen, it's ok to like something that literally no one else in the world likes. So go ahead little one. Be a contrarian all you like but leave the rest of us alone.

[@yousouljaboy2218]

@@peterhansen5096 stop replying every comments about your opinion your just being a jerk and no one cares really

[@elijahwilliamson3623]

The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror parody was much scarier than 1997 version.

[@Slop_Dog]

"No TV and no beer make Homer something, something"

[@kryptonitespider-bitedynam7305]

Marge: go crazy? Homer: DONT MIND IF I DO

[@gregoryanderson9218]

Gonna go check out that axe collection. See ya later.

[@marieladelao6921]

@James Millership D'oh

[@waltuh11121]

Also known as "that episode where Willie gets backstabbed 3 times in 3 differents stories with an axe"

[@scarface.e]

I’m surprised The 1997 version didn’t make “here’s Johnny” into “Johnny is here now”

[@kristaex]

Im surprised it wasn't *Johnny has joined the chat*

[@Dampzombieslayer]

Some random dude :/

[@mettatonneo1147]

A A Ron G. Dick Hallorann when he gets to the Overlook Don’t worry guys. I have a plan. *Dick has left the game

[@0mnicide]

“Johnny is currently present.”

[@scarface.e]

😂😂

[@Gabeghouls]

Why does ‘97 Danny look like Napoleon Dynamite

[@gandalfthegrey7146]

Gabr Flyan a mix between Napoleon Dynamite and Haley Joel Osment

[@imnotjerry2226]

👁👄👁

[@RM-xr8lq]

@@imnotjerry2226 that is too accurate

[@CHRISMED2]

that boy was in lil rascals the movie

[@sean.furlong1989]

@@CHRISMED2 He also did the voice for Gus on the Disney show Recess.

[@200_cuentos]

I like how King's version pretends not to have seen Kubrick's

[@johntumahab323]

I wouldn't say that... That's definitely what they were going for, yes, but it fell apart toward the climax. In the original book version, when Jack loses it he mostly just becomes furious and raging and doesn't waste a whole lot of time messing around or being goofy. But Nicholson's performance was so iconic and memorable that either Weber or the director or a combination of both tried channeling him. (There's no other reason they would have tried to knock off the classic "Heeeeere's Johnny!" bit...albeit far more weakly.) The problem is Nicholson has a career of playing characters who are naturally unsettling that Weber just couldn't pull off. I think he did a decent job portraying the book version of Jack, but trying to pull off Kubrick's version just didn't work out.

[@bluecat5929]

finally, someone said it. so many shots are completely copied but with much less skill.

[@maurem]

I’m sure in the DVD director’s commentary he goes something like “I didn’t copy this scene from Kubrick, not at all. I haven’t even seen his movie I swear”

[@bluecat5929]

@@maurem lol xD

[@natek4488]

King loathed the Kubrick version, which is the reason the 1997 version even exists

[@jvee1]

Damn the 1997 version looks like a parody 😂

[@pietro.295]

Simpsons parody>King's parody

[@parapoliticos52]

It fails even as parody.

[@WhisperinWinds67]

Seriously. It looks like something out of scary movie

[@hank35682]

You’re an idiot

[@generaliroh842]

​@@WhisperinWinds67 my dumbass brain just added "a" before "scary movie" 😂

[@805031]

Moral of the story : don't try to compete with Stanley Kubrick

[@La-Comics-Cave]

Yes because if you do, you will actually do a better job and produce a better adaptation 😂

[@passthewhiskey3683]

@@La-Comics-Cave A KZbin commenter didn't much care for Kubrick at first, but I, corrected him sir.

[@Nothing-of2pm]

@@La-Comics-Cave The shining 1997 TV show was below average. Stephen king is amazing. But in terms of the shining series. Kubrick takes the cake.

[@ihatesnakeuwhycuzsnakeuyougot]

Melvyn Metal Fan but luckily you’ll end up with an actually more enjoyable, cinematic, visually pleasing and just better movie overall.

[@wetalkinb0utpractice]

@@La-Comics-Cave L.

[@tsst81]

1997 looks like a shitty early 90s tv drama 1980 looks like every scene is a painting

[@joshuacalkins]

Tsst Well put! There is something authentic and magical about the first movie. I’m not an expert or a purist, but glimpsing the remake is more than enough to know that watching it would be a sad, lifeless experience.

[@elli3352]

Well Kubrick was a master of his field, just watch his other movies. he knew how to manipulate the consumers emotion, creep them out or disgust them, he knew how to pull the viewer into the story and make them feel like they are part of it.

[@jthodges4741]

Well the 97 one was a miniseries produced and directed by king himself so you're right

[@Mortal-Monk]

What's worse is that King preferred the shitty version.

[@Mortal-Monk]

@Angie Gomez yeah... I know.

[@svjtie2610]

the 1997 version looks like 1980 version’s crackhead brother who dropped out of 2nd grade.

[@juggaluggalocoroniweirdo1650]

cloroxtears lmao

[@jenniferbrewer5370]

Steven Weber is NOT scary. He's pathetic. And Rebecca De Mornay was far too strong for this role; Wendy Torrance was not heroine material, nor was she ever meant to be.

[@gusic709]

the mini series just tried to look more like the book, but they dont understand that there are some things that cant be made into an adaptation

[@Mdmd-h9y7u]

ADOPTED crackhead brother

[@KelvinKlink]

yeah. and great edition d=1

[@legatobluesummers3211]

"Many novel fans didn't care for my version of the movie at first, one of them actually stole a pack of matches and tried to burn it down, but I .. corrected them sir. And when Stephen King tried to prevent me from doing my duty .. I corrected him." - Stanley Kubrick

[@parapoliticos52]

Stevo is uncorrectable

[@parapoliticos52]

Stevo is uncorrectable

[@heavyweaponsscout9990]

😂

[@Joey7Z7Horror]

He has a great sense of humor if that's real

[@thedragon12]

I mean you can't really correct Stephen King's own creation lol

[@aliennation9984]

the 1997 version made me feel like it was older than the 1980 version

[@bmag09_65]

javier almodovar Because the book took place sometime around 81. AND IT IS CANON TO THE BOOK

[@TheGreatAlan75]

Even with the CGI evil eyes, that dude is still not creepier than Nicholson !!

[@peterhansen5096]

Yes he is. Nicholson is over the top and tiresome from the get-go

[@gianna-the-lesbian9651]

Stranger Finns well said

[@adultvirgin2429]

agreed

[@quesovadotas3050]

@@peterhansen5096 you again?? Stop sucking of Stephen's shaft man. You don't understand film, you only want accuracy.

[@JorgeGomez-hx5uu]

@@peterhansen5096 why are you so sour and bitchy? I love the book and Kubrick's version, but to discredit him is a disservice

[@muiows]

stephen king is a BOOK writer, his books are great! this just shows that Stephen King should just stick to writing books and not try to be involved with the movies (my opinion)

[@Megaproductions302]

Myles you are right about that.

[@ODoyleRulez_]

"IT" could have been the most terrifying movie remake ever if they didn't use to much CGI and stuck wit just makeup originally

[@foxmccloud306]

He make great books but pretty bad 70s-90s movies

[@ApexDestoroyah]

Anime Mula cgi was overboard still enjoyed IT though.

[@invisecy76]

Nah IT chapter 1 was very nice. I think he should stick to movies.

[@Ocrilat]

King: I hate the first movie because the Kubrick film is misogynistic. Kubrick version: Wendy is a mousy, weak person married to an abusive alcoholic. She rises above her fear and defeats Jack and the Hotel. King version: Wendy is a strong, intelligent bombshell married to an abusive alcoholic. She accomplishes nothing and gets rescued in the end by a man.

[@zufgh]

THANK YOU! I've always said much the same. Kubrick's Wendy is a woman who doesn't know she's strong until the chips are down and she's got no choice but to defend herself.

[@orangewedges]

Bold of King to cry misogyny when he took many an opportunity throughout the book to remind the reader that Wendy was a hot blond and was leered at by nearly every male character she encountered. Guess he's never heard of the male gaze.

[@SammieMousie]

While I love the small amount of novels that read from King, I believe he's really terrible at writing strong women characters.

[@Ocrilat]

@Sir Quacc You should look up the source of those stories...the 'behind the scenes' documentary filmed by Kubrick's daughter. It's on KZbin...just find the one with the original sound, not the commentary one. I think you may be surprised at how those stories were exaggerated into this 'Kubrick abused Shelly' myth/urban legend.

[@jordantomblin2302]

King was probably on enough cocaine, alcohol, and other booze that he didn't remember writing The Shining. Druggie King was probably misogynistic.

[@scottstudios5430]

Sometimes it's better to have a movie that isn't faithful to the book but still good, than a shitty, faithful adaptation.

[@salh3326]

Benjamin Bush amen

[@dontdiscriminatehateeveryo9263]

Some things just can't be adapted without seeming out of place or silly. It's hard to make a water hose scary and frankly it doesn't work. With the books you can use imagination and it can be as scary as you want it to be but live action it seems silly.

[@tigonshakur6934]

Benjamin Bush facts

[@SnowyFoxlinn]

IT

[@michaelsong1465]

But then you've got films like maze runner who try to change things and end up messing it up badly

[@ChubbyChecker182]

1980... The Shining 1997... The Shitting

[@PlAyEr-qk6uj]

🤣🤣🤣

[@willdabeast8509]

I died

[@Moonlight-qo5hw]

Book: Manga 1980 movie: Anime 1997 mini-series: Live-action film adaptation.

[@thecassandraeffectvsperilo6754]

The one redone in '97 was based on the novel King wrote..Kubrick took some aspects from the book but then created his own story..he did a really good job with it *HOWEVER* it was far from the book King wrote..I really liked the one in '97 because it was based on the book..alot of those crazy elements Kubrick just ignored..but if you read the book and THEN watch Kubrick's the shining, you will not be happy..but because the vast amount of people in 1980 hadn't read the book it was based on (good call on their part), they really enjoyed it (or most)..and I like Kubrick's version but I reeeeaally wanted one made based on the events in the book..I loved the one from '97 because it was so in sync with Kings vision..seriously the one from '97 is good..and especially since it ties into aspects of "Dr Sleep", which is about to come out, I'd highly recommend giving it a try 👾

[@martyschriver]

Other way around, bud

[@BloodyArmourKnight]

I prefer 80's version by far, i didn't like the book too much, but i love Doctor Sleep novel. Kubrick's version looks so modern even for 2019

[@aurumthebrave3427]

That's Kubrick for ya. His works are pretty timeless.

[@ReturnTheSlab932]

@@jibblejabble4599 someone is a little contrarian! Isn't he?

[@The_Algae]

@@jibblejabble4599 Like you?

[@Ballowax]

That's the beaty of TechnaColor restoration

[@pjrs78]

1980: psychological thriller 1997: soap opera

[@peterhansen5096]

The "soap opera" is still better :)

[@slesingr7659]

@@peterhansen5096 I don't think So... Book was greatest one, but in movie adaptation was better 1980 Shining. 1997 Shining was closer to book, but I must say it was shit 😣

[@terrortower666]

Peter Hansen explain. In what way is that cheap, crappy series better than the Kubrick masterpiece?

[@TheKennethECarper]

@@terrortower666 It isn't. He just thinks it's better because it's more faithful to the novel. He sets a really low bar. Fuck acting. Fuck cinematography. Fuck building tension and suspense. He wants himself some copy and paste and he doesn't care how shoddy the final product is!

[@domfernandus]

Yes ... agree

[@thebatman4279]

Stanley Kubrick: Just made a masterpiece breh u mad? Stephen King: nEEdS mOaR FirEHOsE tEETh

[@AeroInspire]

@d d 410 people would disagree with you

[@ArmandoRodriguez-wx4xm]

d d ok?

[@TheDiddlyWiddly]

@d d SHUT UP FURRY

[@jonathangonzalez9673]

@d d welcome to youtube you stupid twat.

[@getter8294]

d d ok nerd

[@veteranbill1822]

1980's The Shining is alot more haunted more than typical horror. It has that sense of insecurity. 1997's The Shining horror is way more like the goonies and it's not scary i must say. It has no sense of insecurity and just wants to be a cheap horror scare other than true terrific horror. But it is faithful to the book.

[@hydrazineanteater9073]

"Cheap horror scare" huh? Well it ran on an EXTRMELY low budget, and still managed to be better than Kubrick's. I think you're insane. You should actually use your eyes to watch it, not your judgemental mouth

[@the_snoo_muffin9028]

Michael its his opinion dude chill

[@HawkinaBox]

I laughed so hard when I watched the 1997 version

[@Stigmatix666]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 You can't be serious..

[@OnlineHipHopTV]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 You must be from another planet

[@TheBestCommenterEVER]

Remember, directors: the less Stephen King likes your adaptation, the better the movie.

[@MisterAlexWill]

TEA !

[@Stigmatix666]

Hm, well.. King approved of the adaption of Doctor Sleep being a sequel to Kubrick's movie. And the doctor sleep movie is all the better for it. It would make zero sense for that movie not to acknowledge the 1980 movie.. Did King finally warm up to it??

[@TheBestCommenterEVER]

@@Stigmatix666 nobody would have wanted to see it if it wasnt a sequel to kubrick's film. I think king accepted that. And dr. Sleep is decent... but it's also really dumb.

[@Stigmatix666]

@@TheBestCommenterEVER True. But I don't think anyone *really* wanted a Shining sequel anyway, book or movie..

[@turinturambar9846]

Stigma the reason why king even wrote the novel back in 2013 was bc plenty of people kept asking/wondering what happened to danny torrance after the events of the shining so

[@asudead]

the elevator full of blood scene is the one of the best shots in the history to me. kubricks way of expressing things is beautifully made. only that scene and the shot of the sisters dead bodies can even single-handedly beat 97 one

[@ShiksaWithChutzpah1]

1980: Jack quietly removes the radio parts. 1997: Jack bashes the bloody hell out of the radio. I feel like that's a metaphor for most film-making after 1996.

[@aghost9456]

That's what he did in the book.. that was a very big part of his character arc in the book..

[@BaileySchoelen]

Danny in 1997 version looks more like Shelly Duvall, I'll tell you that much.

[@jameshakun6449]

Literally lol'd

[@TheHandymenShow]

Billy Blues Hahah!!!

[@HeavyMetalSonicRM]

The kid has a very punchable face.

[@hankhill2254]

HeavyMetalSonicRM no offense to the actual actor but he sounds like a little pussy bitch

[@smallfryjaz3091]

I didn’t even know the 1997 version existed and The Shining (1980) is my favorite movie of all time lol

[@benemlaw6428]

Unfaithful masterpiece vs faithful garbage.

[@christophermoore6110]

What does that say about the book then?

[@austinrevo5159]

@@christophermoore6110 the book is fire, definitely one of my favorites

[@mr.b9613]

@@christophermoore6110 the book was garbage too

[@blooperss]

@@mr.b9613 what are you talking about? The book was great.

[@phoenixreavis9503]

@@blooperss the book was good great even but I like the movie a little bit better (Kubricks)

[@TheGreekPianist]

I’m a huge Stephen King fan, I even met him in person at his “Revival” lecture in 2014, but I don’t think anything can redo the eeriness and creepiness of the original. It really has that scary 1920s ghost feel.

[@chloemarsh612]

You can't beat the 1980 classic and can't beat Jack Nicholson

[@66billygunn]

My favourite joker! :D

[@jibblejabble4599]

The only good part of that shit show.

[@clydenolet736]

I met him in San Antonio at a chillis in the parking lot. I beat the hell out of that old fool.

[@diamondheath2760]

He made the 80s movie great back in the day, and a true horror classic now. He's truly a horror genius as well as comical genius. He knows how to skillfully mix it up and make it a success at the same time. #Loving my Jack

[@elstumpzz_5823]

In the 1997 version, the actor who plays Danny has a very punchable face

[@marysutton434]

🤣

[@rubyivy2779]

OMG 😂

[@subjectdelta4758]

Agree, at least the 1980 Danny doesn’t look like a character from Children of The Corn.

[@tembodiaz]

Dude, I just want that kid to close his lips. What is that?!?!

[@scanlon69r]

Haha that kids in the movie the little rascals

[@very_many_days9710]

1980: actually scary 1997: fire hose jumpscare

[@TheAskTrixieChannel]

The fire hose is directly from the book.

[@very_many_days9710]

@@TheAskTrixieChannel still, fire hose

[@placeintheworldfadesaway5800]

Oh no, the spooky fire hose!

[@starmonesko]

oh mygod i would shit my pants if i see a silly funny fire hose jumpscare

[@JenniferPoole.33272]

Lol it’s the opposite for me. The movie made me laugh. It didn’t scare me. I love it. The mini series scared me when I first saw it back in middle school. In mid 2000’s. I love both versions. Love the book too. I’ve watched the whole mini series and one of the things that scared me was the lady in the tub. She’s more scarier than the movie version, in my opinion.

[@maxmusic5380]

1980= Iconic masterpiece 1997= Vapid trash

[@andersonrobertodorosario10]

Kubrick Ever, and Ever and Ever

[@ProlificThreadworm]

Holy shit there's a 1997 version?! Since when?

[@MrCuloncio]

@@ProlificThreadworm since 1997...

[@Starry_Skye22]

What's crazy about that statement tho is the 1997 verison is more accurate to Kings actual book .. and 1980 verison Kubrick changed Alot, !!I I obviously love the 1980 Kubrick flim..

[@spooder_jockey]

Nicholson + Kubrick = Perfection

[@cortezmauricio5654]

Yup yea

[@hydrazineanteater9073]

Nicholson - A great horror actor Kubrick - An idiot who ruined the movie completely by not adding several details from the book

[@MASACRE666]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 Is one of the best directors ever...that is not a good adaptation does not mean that it is not a masterpiece of cinema

[@dementedvinny2451]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 Do you just go around the comment section of all Shining related material and sputter out your hate for Kubrick's interpretation on the book?

[@Stigmatix666]

@@dementedvinny2451 Yes, seems like it

[@shutupzach5759]

Why is Danny's mouth in 1997 like {}

[@knurdyob]

it was a bold stylistic choice by the director meant to make us emphatize more with jack's goals in the third act

[@TheKennethECarper]

Because Jack broke his jaw right before the movie started, and they didn't take him to a dentist to get it wired up.

[@lofi.retrochill]

Kubrik Version: The best performance of Nicholson and Duvall. A horror Classic. 97 Version... Well...No blood... No maze... No axe... No swinging bat... A fire... A lion bush who's just there... No knife... No typewriter... No Kubrk, Nicholson or Duvall... I know the mini series is more loyal to the book... but that what makes the Kubrik history a masterpiece, he told the story that is good, and made it better. Lesson... Do not remake a Kubrik film, Ever.

[@bmag09_65]

Alan Webster Thank you for sharing your opinion in a kind way

[@mommylandbilingualacademy3397]

1980 The shining has an axe But in 1997, He has an hammer

[@rifkyindarfi6648]

No twin ghost also

[@random_commenter6904]

Wait I’m confused when was kubrik’s version

[@metaknight4230]

There was a knife.

[@God-ve6qr]

1980: The SHINING 1997: The SHITTING

[@Gngoat34]

d d Chill out he is just making a joke goah

[@SnowyFoxlinn]

@@Gngoat34 Right?

[@PRoTECTTHECoVEN]

LMAO

[@DaddyDrummer007]

So true.

[@spotty4849]

d d second time now I’ve seen you ruining people’s jokes

[@omoraram]

The twins scene of Kubrick is one of the most scariest take ever...

[@dan_hitchman007]

Come play with us, Danny! For ever and ever and...

[@omoraram]

@@dan_hitchman007 terryfying bro

[@ManMan-ko7ll]

The movie wasn’t even scary.

[@omoraram]

@@ManMan-ko7ll try watch all the entire movie with headphones, no lights, alone and at 01:00 am, after this u came back here If u dont scare better find Anabelle...

[@Stigmatix666]

@@dan_hitchman007 "Come play with us, Danny! For ever and ever and..." *is* in the book but not in the mini-series

[@GodWeenSatan]

Funny how king hated Kubrick's version but straight up steals scenes and camera work. TV version was comical

[@hamhockbeans]

Kubrick's version I remember it to this day. The mini-series forgotten. It did not have everything from the book either. For one the lady in the tube was not a young zombie babe. She died a older women who dated young men. Kubrick at least got that one right.

[@salmanfarsitamjid6217]

King did admit the cinematography of The shining is "striking"

[@juggaluggalocoroniweirdo1650]

Eastwood Unforgiven original forever!

[@salmanfarsitamjid6217]

@@juggaluggalocoroniweirdo1650 that movie was amazing the buildup was amazing, great characters,I loved the somber first act, the second act for me was a bit dragging, the film loses its momentum, but it picks up and gives one of the best finale I have ever seen.

[@kafkaesk_]

King did not steal scenes, it is in the King's book. King wanted to follow the story in his book. In the same logic, we can claim that Kubrick stole the scenes from King's book.

[@Fievelavie]

The Kubrick version is a piece of Art.

[@somefunnyusername8943]

1980: a elevator on its period 1997: a hungry fire hose

[@RiceWitch-dingus-400]

Lol

[@RiceWitch-dingus-400]

An elevator on its period 😂

[@magnusvir117]

That's on the book stupid

[@weaponsofwarfare9537]

@@magnusvir117 and it's dumb in the book

[@pianodude6510]

Ángel Villalobos lmao 6ix9ine lookin ass “STOOPID”

[@plainbagel9192]

When doctor sleep chooses to take Kubrick's version that stephen king hated

[@unfunny-penguin]

I think Doctor Sleep did an amazing job at patching the holes between the book and the movie

[@ReddFlameFilms]

Which is funny because king was heavily involved in that movie

[@jeeedel2491]

Nobody wants the ‘holes’ patched though, not everything needs to be explained literally and all tie up in a neat package, the original Shining movie was a great example of that. It wasnt just random, but if you tried to literally explain it you suck the mystery out of it

[@1232-w6v]

Doctor sleep is a great sequel

[@amt8965]

@@1232-w6v Nah, Dr Sleep was just dumb and stupid garbage

[@brentage5000]

Really, my favorite is the 1994 version, "The Shinning" starring Homer Jay Simpson and Dr. William MacDougal

[@JamesGilbert_]

You wanna get sued!?

[@Scamptomylu]

Brent Dreher no tv and no beer make homer something something.

[@Flaming_Hot_Ice]

Go crazy?

[@joemorris1282]

Don't mind if I do!

[@wolfzeru5745]

I just wonder how hard did Stanley Kubrick laugh when he saw the shining tv serie

[@teencritik5512]

The worst is that Kubrick didn’t even appreciate the book because it wasn’t scary, right from the beginning, he didn’t understand what was the purpose of the book, he simply take a story that was already written because he can’t write an entire script by himself

[@filmbuff2777]

@@teencritik5512 If you know ANYTHING about filmmaking, adapting a book to screen isn't easy, especially when the source material has a lot of crap that wasn't going to work visually, which The Shining book has. What is so scary about fire hoses coming to life, stupid hedge animals coming to life, or other obnoxious crap like some idiot keeps saying "unmask unmask"? The book had good ideas, but it had a lot of cheesy crap in it. The ending is completely manipulative, with Jack "becoming good" & "sacrificing" himself by letting the hotel blow up. The book wasn't scary, but the basic plot had potential to be. King had a lot of cheesy crap.

[@animekid2979]

If i was Kubrick, i would be laughing so damn hard at the 97 version because of how awful it is

[@ldhproductions112]

Danny Lloyd is WAY better than that 90s kid portrayal of danny

[@jurassicpedia9081]

LDH Productions it’s kinda creepy how the actors in the 1980 version had the same first name in the movie as in real life!

[@ldhproductions112]

Jurassic Pedia agreed

[@Megaproductions302]

LDH Productions also had way better teeth.

[@greenman1200]

Yeah,that new kid just has those teeth,WHY CANT HE HIDE HIS TEETH,i prefer the 80's version

[@greenman1200]

@Luna Yeah thats true,hes adorable!

[@alventuradelacruz522]

1980 looks better and I don't care if it's not book accurate

[@lapelcelery42]

Yes. I can't put my finger on what it is but given the choice, something makes me like good movies over faithful ones.

[@Jamesharveycomics]

@@lapelcelery42 I think you put your finger on it with the word "good"

[@natedog9452]

It's not book accurate

[@jibblejabble4599]

Non accuracy to the book ruins any film or tv adaptation.

[@jibblejabble4599]

The Rue Morgue But it’s not great, it’s a mess. Very minor changes are where the line SHOULD be drawn but this goes over that and then some, making it awful.

[@downrodeo2112]

I understand te intentions of the 97 one but Kubrick is just a master of shot composition

[@ZukoHalliwell]

The intention of the 97 one was to be more faithful to the novel, which Kubrick butchered.

[@th3gps223]

Yeah he left out way too many crucial details. What could’ve possibly motivated one of the greatest directors of all time, if not the greatest, to leave out some dumbass, completely ridiculous elements such as hedge animals? It’s an outrage.

[@resonantJayZon]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 I'll tell you more, he read it inside and out, hired writer Diane Johnson and wrote the script with her, changing weak elements to what worked in the film. Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it will look good in a movie. For example, a scene with a river of blood from an elevator or a fire hose with teeth.

[@jacksoncoleman3066]

I think a lot of people came here just to see the 1997 versions “here’s Johnny!”

[@axelnilsson5124]

And that one didn’t even have the iconic line

[@vrushankrrao879]

@@axelnilsson5124 It had him saying 'boo' 😂😂

[@KevinStriker]

The fact that you have such similar shot compositions (like the thumbnail) just goes to show that even if Stephen King hated Kubrick's adaptation, Kubrick's movie made its way into his approved adaptation. I don't think "Boo!" existed in the book either, but the Kubrick film had a quip from Jack there, so

[@CountTechula]

I'm thinking that King secretly enjoys the 80's version but he will never publicly admit it.

[@amarevanhook7453]

He said it was a great movie he just didn’t like how Kubrick treated his writing

[@IFMstudio]

Every shot in 80's movie is a masterpiece!

[@ImranDota]

факт

[@luisramos619]

I remember going to a movie rental place back in the day thinking I was renting Kubrick's masterpiece and I get King's version instead. I was so fuc#$*% pissed 🤣

[@static4448]

You know what they say. If it ain't broke Break it

[@MrJNEW82]

1997 Shining: *exists* Me: Since when?!

[@breakernerd5438]

Since 1997

[@jasseey]

Hahahah

[@emptyspaces7564]

The Kubrick version is obviously better, and i dont give a shit if it isn't like the book

[@alosim1541]

Agreed. People seem to think that just because the 1997 version is more faithful that automatically makes it better, which is certainly not the case.

[@Colette1972UK]

Kubrick's take on it is more or less scene by scene perfection. Never seen the other version. Looks like a made for tv thing. Although King didn't like what Kubrick had changed he can't dismiss the pure talent of the man.

[@robertpolanco1973]

@@Colette1972UK - And Kubrick and others like him CANNOT dismiss the talent of Stephen King and others like him, too.

[@Colette1972UK]

@@robertpolanco1973 agree

[@robertpolanco1973]

@@stevewilson9778 - Oh, knock it off, you pathetic fool! Kubrick may be a "genius" but he was also a demented visionary who has managed to nearly ruin and perhaps disrespected the vision of others whose works were changed in order to make something acceptable to an audience. After all, NOT EVERYBODY agrees with people like you on Kubrick's take on "The Shining."

[@longbeachwoman]

The hotel in the 1997 version looks small and cramp while 1980 has these awesome wide halls to give out the impression of a labyrinth. Stanly Kubrick really new how to utilize space and visually a genius.

[@tickledonions9483]

everything in the 1980 movie looks massive. Even in normal scenes. It must be the apperture or something...? Or the size of the lens?

[@ΕλισάβετΑ-ε9γ]

You are right. I also like moee the Overlook in 1980 adaption for how massive it was. I read somewhere Overlook represented Wendy's unconscious mind.

[@sylvia1797]

The hotel in the 1997 version is actually where Stephen King stayed in the 1970s and got the inspiration for the book, which is why he wanted it for the location of the film. Kubrick visited at King's request when scouting locations for the 1980 film, but rejected it because he thought it seemed too bright and cheerful for what he had in mind (I personally agree with Kubrick).

[@jamesmoseley5428]

You know. I have a greater appreciation for the music in Kubrick’s version. Watching that mini-series was painfully boring, but it feels 300 percent scarier with that music playing. Has Stephen King ever gotten his head out of his ass and admitted that Kubrick made a great film?

[@TheKennethECarper]

He never has. When Dr. Sleep (the movie) came out his exact words were: “I read the script to this one very, very carefully,” and I said to myself, ‘Everything that I ever disliked about the Kubrick version of ‘The Shining’ is redeemed for me here.” It seems Stephen King will never forgive Stanley Kubrick for making a classic, critically lauded, and beloved, cinematic masterpiece out of his novel.

[@dylanwatt7461]

@@TheKennethECarper well, Kubrick gets a lot of credit for taking his idea and changing it in the film adaptation. I always thought that The Shining was a great, scary movie, but the book is utter mastery of writing.

[@DantesPerineum]

is over it all these days and uses that energy bitching about Trump.

[@boxybob6976]

​@@TheKennethECarper an important note here is that dr sleep sucks dick. King is just chronically wrong about movies, it seems.

[@aghost9456]

The reason for king hating the movie wasn't just him being "narcissistic", it was because the movie took away almost all of Jack's development (which king wrote alot from his personal experiences from alcoholism) and replaced it with "this guy was always just fucking bonkers lol" I love the movie too but kings hatred for it isn't unfounded or even unjustified

[@TheBluRayCritic]

I prefer Kubrick’s version. Absolute masterpiece.

[@brolicragelikebroly]

Guys its jack nicholson.. clearly Jack for the Win. An amazing performance. Plus every Kubrick shot is before its time and obviously alluring to the eye. In comparison its Amazing for an 80’s film. True art.

[@kratos2505]

It’s clear as sun: Stephen King has no style with movies, compared with Kubrick.

[@caseyplooy1696]

Kratos 25 No comma needed.

[@DorianYarg]

Fucking right!

[@Ballowax]

@@DorianYarg wait really steven king's books are lack luster

[@skullgarden2417]

@Anna333 can you write better though??

[@Ballowax]

@@skeletalsounds_ yeah but like any good artist. You're first jab at a medium will always be a peice of shit, and I see that alot with good content creators on youtube.

[@Klegratteur]

The 1980 is so older but let's face it: the camera shots are so insane !! It makes the 1997 look like an amateur version.

[@TheVengefulSquid]

1997 was 21 years ago compared to the 17 year difference of the two films. Feel old yet??? P.s. 1980 one is obvs better.

[@bananamontana6812]

Yes and acting in 1980 actors basically own the role

[@hydrazineanteater9073]

You are such an idiot. When you say the 1980 version is better, you're looking at Wendy the wimp, Danny the quiet little guy who literally does nothing, and Jack, who isnt tha bad in the movie, but if Kubrick didnt direct it, it would be so much better. Kubrick didnt even pay attention to the book! He left out the topiary animals, the roque mallet, the boiler (for the most part), made Hallorann die for some reason, and made the ending COMPLETELY different. It shouldn't even be CALLED The Shining. It sucks so bad it makes me want to rip my eyes out whenever I watch it

[@MrDryqula]

@@hydrazineanteater9073 Honestly, if you're going to call something horror, it should horrify you. Kubrick left out all that you mentioned because he wanted to create a terrifying experience, and he succeded in that. King's version not only failed to make me feel any terror whatsoever, but even caused me to laugh reflexively on multiple occasions due to how campy it was. At the very least, fire axe > croquet mallet any way you look at it. There's a reason you're fighting a losing battle here, and that's because King could write a decent novel, but he was shit at making movies.

[@Stigmatix666]

@@MrDryqula Spot on

[@novandaghifarie]

i like how bright the colors are in the 80's. The 90's ver. looked cold. Like, it feels cold, rather than the 80's ver. which was warmer.

[@DrJones20]

Isn't it the other way around?

[@out-of-pocket-podcast987]

“Can I copy your homework?” “Sure, but change the answers a bit”

[@resolutesupport3874]

Nobody that I know of can top Kubrick, 2001 a space odyssey is so incredible for its time and The Shining is one of the if not the best psychological thrillers ever created.

[@dannyboydeluxfromthebigitybay]

Copolla is better. Tcchh. Loser

[@lewliteki]

The boy in Stephen King’s version actually looks related to the mother in the original movie.

[@markdaniels7174]

You mean, they’re both butt ugly. One improvement of the 1997 version over Kubrick’s version: Rebecca DeMornay is SMOKIN’ hot. (And the Wendy in the book is supposed to be a beautiful blonde, not homely and sexless Shelly Duvall.)

[@micahwyatt3495]

Mark Daniels yeah but that’s kinda what’s more unsettling about the 1980 version, they aren’t a picture perfect family

[@moon-cf2vw]

Mark Daniels sex appeal isn’t everything, especially in a horror movie.

[@Sherry-xf9li]

So I'm the only one who find Shelley Duvall cute, like she gave me that sweet vibe

[@moon-cf2vw]

4869 Sherry yes she was very sweet, especially her interactions with Danny

[@noahh.munn28]

1980: one of my favourite movies ever a masterpiece 1997: terrible. Like fr so bad

[@hamhockbeans]

Absolute masterpiece. This was a horror thriller not based.on jumpscares. It made you feel traumatically scared. Made you not want to be in a house or building alone at night.

[@crystalturner911]

The '97 version was more like the book

[@jpmacc94]

@@crystalturner911 true ....I thought same ...loved original but 97 version was creepy too

[@crystalturner911]

@@jpmacc94 yes the original one was more creepy but I like the '97 version better cause I love the book.

[@crystalturner911]

@audie vapes the reason why I thought the original was creepy was mostly on Jack Nicholson's performance but over all the '97 version was better.

[@dante340]

Goes to show you how "More accurate to the source material" does not automatically mean better... Kubrick understood how to make it more suitable & effective for the medium of film.

[@vinnyjune75]

1980: a dope ass axe 1997: a big croquet mallet

[@chelseaheineman4620]

In the book Jack uses the mallet, but I agree with the axe 100%

[@ItsToXxy]

Yup, nothing scary about a croquet mallet. Has no where the same vibe as the axe.

[@scottylewis8124]

My fan version I did in 2003: a baseball bat.

[@justinreed8538]

It’s funny that they had 17 years to think about how re-make this movie and it’s still not even half as good as the original.

[@mightycirus]

The snow looks in the Kubrick one like they are being buried brilliant

[@mightycirus]

allmighty30011 amazing

[@JasonCravesAttention]

I understand why King wanted to make another Shining, because while Kubrick's film is a masterpiece, it is not a very faithful adaptation, which I know definitely hurt King, since The Shining is a very personal book for him. But King just isn't good at writing screenplays or being involved with making a film or a mini-series. So many scenes in the mini-series go nowhere or come of as silly instead of scary. Kubrick knew what elements to change, like getting rid of the hedge monsters and creating a massive hedge maze, whereas King just didn't understand that not everything translates well from a novel, to the screen. In the end, King wanted to make a more faithful adaptation to his personal story, whereas Kubrick, set out to make a horror movie.