MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1997) Discussion > Why compare this to the original?

Why compare this to the original?

posted 10 years ago by timothyroseland
4 replies | jump to latest

I'm assuming King just wanted to give the fans of the book, myself included, a better representation of what happened in the novel. I don't know if I could say it can stand on its own merit, really, but when I saw this at age 10 it terrified me. The 1980 version stands on its own for sure. It's wonderfully done and very frightening. Jack Nicholson is one of my favorite actors.

I do have to admit, though, that Shelly Duvall irritated me. Her personality was nearly nonexistent and her character just seemed rather pathetic. Also, the scene with Jack and the woman in the tub just seemed ridiculous. In this version, there are many scenes where Courtland Mead (Danny) was irritating as well. But, he definitely had more of a personality than the actor from the 1980 version, who also bothered me.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that this version was simply a nod to the fans of the book. It was definitely not perfect and a lot of the fearful and gritty horror that the book provided (all the descriptions of the Overlook's whispers and screams gave me such chills) wasn't there, but I enjoyed there being more detail. I like that King has many mini-series since they have more time for detail development, yet they could always be done better.

I enjoy both for different reasons and believe comparing the two to the point of bashing others' opinions seems like the whole Comparing Apples to Oranges cliché. Comparing it solely to the book seems like a better deal.

[–] Scipii 9 years ago

How can't you? This was made because King didn't like Kubrick's version. Now it's funny because Kubrick's is very clearly the superior film by a mile.

[–] mgreen9715 8 years ago

Kubrick was nothing but a pretentious *beep* which gave King good enough reason to make this.

[–] krycek19 8 years ago

First of all Steven Weber is no Jack Nicholson. He's not even a very good actor. And the kid in the this mini series suck. Danny LLoyd was excellent in the original. I don't know how you can seriously think the kid in this horrible remake has more personality than the one in the original. I think he's horrible. Danny in the original seemed like a real kid who had a gift that showed him frightening things.

And dont get me started on the pathetic Hallorann in the remake.

The tv version is not scary ever. The hotel itself seems very small and not scary compared to the enormous frightening hotel in the original.

And it wasn't made for fans of the book. Nobody asked for this boring remake. It was only made because Stephen King didn't like Kubricks movie.

[–] MissMargoChanning 7 years ago

I agree with you timothy....

There really is no need to compare the two films. People have their opinions. There is no need to rip people to shreds for not agreeing that this one or that one is far superior.

Personally, I have grown fond of both. I loved the book when it came out.
I was a bit surprised at how different the 80's version was when that came out. It wasn't the story I had read about a recovering alcoholic who wanted to do right by his family, but was struggling. It took me a few years to appreciate the fact that the 80's version was still a very fine horror tale and visually stunning.

I like the mini series as well because it does tell the tale I had read. It also takes place in the very hotel that was King's inspiration for his story.
I'm not fond of some of the actors. I prefer Scatman as Halloran, although while reading the book, I always pictured Ozzie Davis.
Neither of the two little actors who played Danny in either version would be my first choice but you can't have everything.

I agree with you. It isn't worth arguing over what film is best. We have both.
No need to compare. It's a shame that the people above didn't seem to understand what your thread was about.

"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night"