good story and idea but ruined by the director? (1 Viewer)

[Dome Vongvises]

Mikael Soderholm said:

Quote:

I have a friend or two who are really big Stephen King fans that say the exact same thing. However, they fail to elaborate on the why. How was The Shining version by Kubrick different from Stephen King's?

 

[Dave Gilbert]

While I haven't seen Open Your Eyes, I thought Vanilla Sky could have been better done by someone other than Cameron Crowe.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I have a friend or two who are really big Stephen King fans that say the exact same thing. However, they fail to elaborate on the why. How was The Shining version by Kubrick different from Stephen King's?

Well, I haven't read the book, but I do have a friend who is NOT a Stephen King fan but likes The Shining, and according to her the main problem with Kubrick's movie is that he never got the metaphor or central theme of the story in the book. I'm blanking now on what she said it was but it had something to do with alcoholism as I recall...I'll try to ask her about it next time I talk to her

 

[Chad R]

This is true of all fiction storytelling, and the very language of film itself. Deciding where to put a camera, eit a scene even write a piece of dialogue is dictating in some small way how the audience should react.

You might say some filmmaker's are more obvious about their manipulation, but all filmmakers manipulate to some extent.

Spielberg has always been more guilty of sentimentality, rather than manipulation. But since I'm a sentimental person it doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Holadem]

I read the book 8 years ago, so I mighgt be wrong on some aspects. This ia what I remember the story being:
Background:
Jack's family has been through some hard time, financially, emotionally. Marriage is on the brink. Jack does not have a job. Jack drinks. Jack accidentaly broke danny's arm once out of anger.
Jack lucks out with a job at the Overlock, in the winter, away from the world, only the family. It has second chance writen all over it.
Danny has some powers. He can see things. He can stir things. So does Dick Halloran, the black guy (was he a cook?)
Story:
They get to the Hotel. The Hotel, under its glamorous appearance, is an evil place. The Hotel does not like Danny. The Hotel wants to get rid of Danny. The Hotel uses the most vulnarable character, Jack, to accomplish its goal. Jack descent is portrayed much more realistically. The Hotel gnawned at his insecurities (things don't work right etc...) and used his weaknesses (booze appears out of the blue at the most stressfull moment) before it completely takes over.
Jack's woman is a normal mother who would stop at nothing to protect her soon, not the whining retard featured in the movie.
Some great moments in the book: the animal shaped hays, the child in that whole in the garden, of course room 217 etc... Really creepy stuff. King is very good at blurring the line between reality and illusions/hallucinations/delusions.
The main characters in the book were the Hotel and Danny. The book is not about Jack's descent into hell, like the movie shows.
[EDIT]Jack and Danny's strong love for each other is another big theme in the book, leading to an act of sacrifice at the end. That is the ultimate reason Danny was able to make it out of there AFAIK.
Dick Halloran had a very significant role in the book. What the heck was the point of his character in the movie?
Last, the ending of course is very different.
That is what I remember. I need to read it again.
I watched this movie twice, I have never been able to appreciate it on it's own merrits. I know no movie can exactly match the book. this one didn't even try. Why call it the Shining then? It is a totally different work, totally different focus (the whole thing is about Jack in the movie). A different name would have invited different expectations.
I might try again some day, eh... perhaps as memories of the book fades, the movie will become better . But NOTHING will ever take away my extreme contempt toward the dumbass that plays Jack's wife.
--
Holadem

 

[streeter]

While I haven't seen Open Your Eyes, I thought Vanilla Sky could have been better done by someone other than Cameron Crowe.

I had the same reaction when I saw this movie. Crowe shouldn't do thrillers and his 'pop culture' spin on it was pointless and irrelevant.

 

[Holadem]

A lot of people feel the same way about Starship Troopers, a movie I absolutely adore, but fans of the book seem to hate, for familiar reasons.
--
Holadem

 

[George See]

Most recently The New version of The Time Machine comes to mind.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Holadem, having said that, what do you think of the television series version? I might not recall directly, but it seems that Steven King approves of it. And not surprisingly enough, film fans of The Shining hate the television version.

 

[Lyle_JP]

Spielberg helming "The Color Purple". Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?

Also, I always felt that the movie "The Big Hit" had tremendous potential in terms of a great concept and interesting story, but it's simply the most muddled piss-poor execution (no pun intended) of a movie in recent memory.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Holadem]

Dome,

I never watched the TV version (it's on SciFi this week) and contrarly to what you might think, I don't expect to like it much. What I have read seems to indicate that while it is definitely more faithful to the book, it aslo use a very heavy handed approach, with bad cheesy CGI. There seems to be little in the way of suggestion.

At least that is what I read. I will definitely check it out for myself on DVD, if available.

--
Holadem

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Dick Halloran had a very significant role in the book. What the heck was the point of his character in the movie?

To distract Jack long enough so that he doesn't kill Wendy and to bring Wendy and Danny the Snow Cat so they can get out alive, perhaps?

 

[Rich Malloy]

"The Shining" miniseries, unfortunately, cannot even be enjoyed for the cheese factor. Though it's laugh-out-loud bad on more than a few occasions, enduring the whole dreadful experience is quite enough to destroy even your ability to snicker, much less chuckle while rolling your eyes. It is, quite simply, one of the lamest things I've seen in my entire life.

 

[Carlo_M]

I liked The Shining (book) but it's been a long time since I read it so I won't attempt an argument as to why I didn't like Kubrick's adaptation. It did have a lot to do with Kubrick's film not really addressing the "haunted house as an allegory to Jack's addiction" theme that was so prevalent in King's novel.

As for the TV series, although it is "closer" to the book, that damned kid had me wanting slap him because of his look (open-mouthed all the time, seemingly) and his acting. I couldn't get passed my extreme dislike to even give the miniseries a chance.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Jack's woman is a normal mother who would stop at nothing to protect her soon, not the whining retard featured in the movie.

"Jack's woman"... that's fairly revealing!

The character of Jack's Woman (ahem... Wendy) is one who's rationalized her husband's drinking and violence, excused his abusive behavior, and stayed with him even after he's severely injured their son. The way she was portrayed in Kubrick's film is a very accurate model of self-deception, and one of many ways in which Kubrick took the pulp of King's dimestore fiction and turned it into a film that actually explores the mysteries of human behavior.

Shelly Duvall's/Wendy's conversation with the nurse (the one who comes to the home after Danny's spell in the bathroom) is pitch-perfect brilliant in this regard.

And the point of the Dick Halloran character in King's novel is yet another example of King's obsession with Christ-like black figures bearing the whole, slightly racist noble savage tinge (you know, as in "they is dumb but righteous"). But instead of having Halloran riding in to save the day, Kubrick decides to kill him off instantly - the effect of which is to completely overturn our expectations and considerably amp up our sense of dread and utter hopelessness. When Halloran takes the axe in the chest, the effect is rather shocking IMO.

Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is nothing less than a prime example of a filmmaker creating a greater work from a far lessor source.

 

[Holadem]

Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is nothing less than an example of a filmmaker creating a greater work from a far lessor source.

I will simply voice my strong disagreement and live it at that. Fact is, Kubrick's work bears little resemblance to the source. Having read the book, I can expect a reasonably faithful movie, or at least one with the same feel.

[EDIT]I should perhaps add that the movie never even worked for me on a suspense or horror level. You know what I think of the story. There is therefore little in it for me - Technical achievement alone do not hold my interest for long.

--
Holadem

 

[John Gates]

Well, I'm not the most astute movie critic out there, so here goes:
Planet of the Apes (new version) This had such great potential, but the ending really botched the film, IMO.
There was also a recent adaptation of Noah's Ark starring John Voight that absolutely stunk. Of course, I'm not sure if the fault lies with the script or the director, but IMO biblical history should at least be true to the source material.
The Rookie, on the other hand, was excellent! A true story that was accurately and compellingly portrayed. If you haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend. A great example of things going right.

 

[Holadem]

Planet of the Apes (new version) This had such great potential, but the ending really botched the film, IMO.

The old version, while significantly departing from the book at some point, IS definitely worthy of it. The ending in the movie is quite different from the book, and just as shocking!

--
Holadem

 

[Vickie_M]

. Interesting story, but the leaden pacing kills it. I know Wender's films are usually not in a hurry to get anywhere, but he really drew this one out.

Words cannot express how much I disagree with you. It's one of my favorite films and my husband and I loved it the very first time we saw it in the theater. The widescreen Until the End of the World laserdisc was mainly responsible for us getting a laserdisc player. Not only do I think the pace for THAT version is perfect, I'd also love to see the longer versions. There's a 3 hour European cut, and a 5 hour "Director's Cut" that I would give anything to see. I don't know much about the background of it all, but I do know that the American studio imposed the time limit on Wenders and it was not the movie he wanted it to be. I love it anyway, but I want to see what more Wenders tells us about Clair, Sam, Eugene, Edith and Henry Farber, and the other characters. The extra footage sounds fantastic and I hope the DVD version becomes a reality.
Besides, a shorter version would mean less music, and it has some of the very best music in a movie, EVER.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'm with Rich on The Shining.

In fact, so far in this thread I'd say the STRENGTH of the films "The Shining", "Starship Troopers", and even "Vanilla Sky" was the direction.

I think VSky is a lot less pap than people credit it as being, simply because it's more accessible than the original. I still enjoy Crowe's own touch on things quite a bit.


But many recent films have been wiped out by the direction versus the SCRIPT/STORY (not like The Shining where Kubrick's script changes seem to be the real problem people have, and is therefore really a different question).

Visual style and storytelling of the SAME SCRIPT would be the director's difference (in terms of his direction input, not scriptwriting).

Films that had potential but were told rather lifelessly or cheap/hokey - Resident Evil, Pearl Harbor, Imposter, Collateral Damage, Ghosts of Mars, Original Sin

Just some recent ones that come to mind. I thought each had a good story there, some even had the actors and perhaps production design/art direction, but the actual method for telling the visual tale was just a big, flat "blah".

Most dissappointing, of course, is to see Carpenter missing so badly when this was always his strength. Well, production design at times was rather stupid, but he used to hide that very well, now it seemed a focal point. Example, showing far too many (one might have been too many) air-trampoline (whatever those things are that shoot stuntmen up) "explosion" shots of actors flying through the air. I think he should have shot to hide this effect, but instead it looks like simple TV movie crap.