Was "The Shining" a made for TV movie?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Reginald Trent, Feb 2, 2003.

  1. Reginald Trent

    Reginald Trent Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just rented it because I have not seen it before. I ask because it fades to black between scenes as if for a commercial break. Anybody know?
     
  2. StephenA

    StephenA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is the 1980 Kubrick version starring Jack Nicholson, which was shown in movie theaters, and the TV movie version made a few years ago. Sounds like you rented the TV movie one, because I don't remember the other fading between scenes, though I could be wrong since I haven't seen it in years.
     
  3. Reginald Trent

    Reginald Trent Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duuhhhh...I just realized Jack Nicholson is not in this one, so it must be the made for TV movie. Yuk....
     
  4. Ike

    Ike Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Shining (1980) does have fade to black titles with the day of the week, but if you got the TV version...
     
  5. Rob Lutter

    Rob Lutter Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    1
    Burn it! Kubrick would have wanted you to! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. James Miranda

    James Miranda Auditioning

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard that even with the success of Kubrick's version, Stephen King was not satisfied with that representation. This was especially the case with Nicholson's over the top portrayal hence the made for TV miniseries. I haven't seen the TV version in its entirety yet, but what I did see of it, it wasn't too bad.
     
  7. DavidAC

    DavidAC Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah Stephen King was not to happy with Kubrick's version hence the Mini-series. The Mini-series is more faithful to the book and wasn't that bad but still I gotta go with the Kubrick version simply because of Jack.
     
  8. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Screenwriter
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    236
    Both versions have their fans and detractors. Hardcore King fans tend to like the TV version better because of it's closeness to the source material, whereas most film buffs love the Kubrick version because...well...IT'S STANLEY KUBRICK FER CHRISSAKES!!!!

    Sorry about that. The man was a miracle. I miss him. *sniff*
     
  9. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    You're not the only one, Brian.
     
  10. Joshua_Y

    Joshua_Y Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    I liked the TV version and all, but Kubrick's is a better movie.
     
  11. Patrick Larkin

    Patrick Larkin Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stephen King had nothing to do with the Kubrick version. In fact, Kubrick thought parts of King's novel were so poor he just jettisoned them. For instance, the choice of the axe over the mallet thing. And the ending...oh the ending. [​IMG]

    I thought Nicholson's performance was awesome. Check out the Making of the Shining on the DVD. I respect Jack as an actor 10x more after seeing that.
     
  12. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
    I'm not a fan of either film, though I prefer the Kubrick version. I didn't feel the miniseries was particularly well-acted (Steven Weber just wasn't up to the challenge, I'm sorry), plus it was just downright corny at times.

    The Kubrick version... well... I know a lot of people love it, but I have a few problems with it. It has moments of real brilliance. My problem is that, for me, it's not even remotely scary. Not even suspenseful. And he for some reason used some really cliched horror movie devices -- the skeletons at the dining room table, all covered with cobwebs, is a good example. I think he showed us the identical shot of the blood coming out of the elevator three times, maybe four. Is that really going to unnerve us after the third time?

    I remember hearing Scorcese say he intially didn't like The Shining, because he found it so over the top that he couldn't get involved in the picture, but after about his sixth viewing he was able to get over that and appreciate what Kubrick was trying to do. In my opinion, if you have to watch a movie six times before it engages you, the problem is the movie, not you.

    But, then, I'm someone who loved Eyes Wide Shut, and I seem to be in the minority on that one, too.
     
  13. Todd Terwilliger

    Todd Terwilliger Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,745
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Groundskeeper Willie in it? If so, it could be "The Shinning". [​IMG]
     
  14. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Screenwriter
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    236
    Kubrick's flim was more about atmosphere. There are shocking parts, but I think he was going more for a growing sense of dread and unease, rather than shock. I like the original novel quite a bit, but filmed as-is, it makes a rather dull movie. Kubrick took what he felt worked about the original novel and translated it to something more akin to his sensibilities. I love the film.
     
  16. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    I like the book very much -- it's probably King's best work. But there is a central problem with the story as set up, and I think each of the movies tackled it differently, with different results.

    The problem is Jack's madness, which takes a lot of the sting out of the real horror. Is he really seeing these people, or are they in his mind? Kubrick's version suggested that they were in his mind, for the most part, but then there he was in the photo at the end, so that suggests the hotel was really haunted. This kind of ambiguity can ruin a horror film, which needs to painted in larger strokes of black, white, and red.

    The TV version suggested the opposite, which diminishes the psychological depth of the writing.

    Neither version was scary at all. Maybe Hitchcock could have made this better?

    I like Kubrick's version best, for the typical Kubrickian effects. But as a horror film, well, it doesn't really measure up.
     
  17. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
     
  18. Bruce Hedtke

    Bruce Hedtke Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page