MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1980) Discussion > Stephen King is an idiot

Stephen King is an idiot

posted 8 years ago by lazarillo
103 replies | jump to latest

He was apparently initially really excited for Kubrick to adapt his book, but he then later complained that the movie had "no heart". Even in 1980 you had to know that Kubrick films are not exactly known for their touchy-feely, warm-hearted human interest. It's like expecting Terence Malick to do a film that is really fast-paced with hyper-kinetic editing. It's like having Picasso do your portrait and expecting it to be photographic realism.

What always annoyed me is the tales he told out of school of the set he was undoubtedly barred from. For instance, the claim that Kubrick and Jack Nicholson were bullying and making fun of Shelley Duvall. If there is any truth to this at all, it could have simply been a method acting thing. But that is something for Shelley Duvall to complain about and I don't think she ever has.

It has also doesn't help that he and Mick Garris did that vastly inferior version in 1997. What works in a novel doesn't always work in cinema. And King isn't even nearly as good of WRITER as Kubric is a filmmaker. If he were a filmmaker, King would be somewhere between James Cameron and Michael Bay, whereas if he were a writer, Kubric would be up there with James Joyce, Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] somesunnyday (2078) 4 years ago

I like King's writing, but his sensibility when it comes to film leaves a lot to be desired. I think the man should be grateful that a master such as Kubrick, who made a relatively small number of films, chose his book, outta millions of others, as his inspiration.

[–] TheArgentinian (6468) 4 years ago

It's a two way street.

[–] somesunnyday (2078) 4 years ago

I agree. I'm sure Kubrick was appreciative of the inspiration he derived from King's writing. Pity that all King could do was piss and moan that it didn't follow his book verbatim.

[–] Heisenberg (6365) 4 years ago

Right on! You nailed it, good comments.

[–] TheArgentinian (6468) 4 years ago

It's within his right to be disappointed with an adaptation of a very personal book. The points he makes are not invalid.

A bad adaptation is not a bad movie, though.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes. Stephen King thinks too much of himself. When I saw that he had written a book called, "On Writing", I thought, "That's like Yoko One writing a book called, "On Singing"...

He's merely a reasonably competent writer of mass sensationalist fiction. But he fancies himself another Hemingway.

[–] TheArgentinian (6468) 4 years ago

On Writing is one of the most influential books written about writing. Lots of writers quote it like the Bible. Look it up.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well, I looked up a different bible, and this bible knows all about the vanity of writers: "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets".

If new writers are counting on Stephen King to train them, that's a horror story in itself.

[–] db20db (16229) 4 years ago

So you want to quote the Bible as a more authoritative source and yet lack the respect (which at least The Argentinian displayed) and demonstrate complete intellectual laziness by not capitalizing it. And this is all about critiquing good writing no less. I'm still seeing a lot of inconsistency with you, corny.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Come on, DB, you're starting to sound a bit silly now. Going about, looming over everyone here to see if they live up to your standards. Cut it out.

[–] db20db (16229) 4 years ago

I stumbled onto this just by browsing here out of boredom. I seem to remember you knowing something about being motivated by boredom. My standards? How ludicrous is that when you're the one sanctimoniously quoting the Bible as a confessed apostate? Speaking of which, that scripture you cherry picked is actually about hypocrisy, not writing.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes, I can believe you were bored! So bored, that you felt the need for a bit of argy bargy, to brighten up your day.

But I'm not playing this time, DB. I learned my lesson, and I expect you should have, too.

[–] db20db (16229) 4 years ago

I don't know what "argy bargy" means but I'm simply disagreeing with some of your comments, like many other posters here have as well.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It means "Argument".

But it takes two...

[–] db20db (16229) 4 years ago

Since you're critiquing writing here, which is what caught my eye, argument doesn't require capitalization but Bible does.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Signing Off.

[–] db20db (16229) 4 years ago

LOL! The unnecessary bold type here looks really silly after you accused me of that very thing earlier in this argy bargy.

[–] alpha68omega (21) 4 years ago

If he were a filmmaker, King would be somewhere between James Cameron and Michael Bay, whereas if he were a writer, Kubric would be up there with James Joyce, Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov.

You're giving King too much credit. Not even Cameron or Bay would direct something as bad as "Maximum Overdrive." Don't forget he also thought Mick Garris was doing a stellar job of adapting his stories into movies.

[–] Rocky15 (490) 4 years ago

What a pretentious post, King felt it was a poor adaptation of a story he created, and he’s right, I thought the book was much better and more unsettling, idiots like you would worship Kubrick squeezing out a shit and call it “great art”

[–] Todge (23) 4 years ago

King is far from an idiot, he is, in my opinion, one of, if not the, best horror author out there, and although Kubrick's movie is a decent movie, he did pretty much massacre King's original story.

I like the movie, but much prefer the book, I also like (and I know I'll get ridiculed for this) the mini-series, simply because it follows the original story.

I also think that your opinion of the movie largely follows in which order you read/watched them, people usually prefer the first that they see/read, and from the discussions I've had largely follows that, the fact that 'King fans' prefer Kings book is not so much as them being a King fan, but often because the book is the first version they encounted.

I also don't think that Kubrick's movie ties in so well with Dr Sleep as the book does, but I guess that understandable.

[–] BourbonKing (5642) 4 years ago

I'm not really a fan of Stephen King overall. The guy can shell out novels though, so his main gift is his productivity.

I do agree that he's not a filmmaker of any measure and his attempts at adapting his own stories to film illustrate his financial power to satisfy his ego rather than explore the genre of filmmaking.

[–] drrclavan (667) 3 years ago

stephen king is indeed an idiot, but mostly for being a raving mad President Donald J. Trump-hater.