MY comparisons....
Yes the 1997 miniseries did stick far more closely to the book, but just because something stays faithful to the source material, that doesn't mean it remains faithful to its intended genre. Such is the best case with this movie. That's why my loyalty doesn't necessarily lie with one or the other on this one. The miniseries told the story basically as it was written, yet there was no real "horror" feel to it. A couple of jump scares, a little good makeup, and a sparse element of the "creep factor" was all we are given, and for a horror fan, that doesn't really classify it as horror - at least not in the opinion of THIS viewer. On the other hand, 1980's Kubrick version was only remotely faithful to the source writing, yet it's horror/creep factor was off the charts.
As for casting, the actors in each version brought something to the table that kept me on the fence - with the exception of two characters. Danny and Hallorhan. And both characters were far superior (in MY opinion) in Kubrick's version, played by Danny Lloyd and Scatman Crothers. As for Courtland Mead, all I wanted was to knock the doe-eyes and duck face right off his head. From the start. As for Melvin Van Peebles, I just don't know what it was, but his very performance compared to Crothers' was entirely lacking. In what, I don't know, but I didn't like him in the part.
Other comparisons like the hotel itself, or the topiaries vs. the hedge maze were no brainers for me. The 1980 hotel interiors may have been shot on film sets, but the over all feeling still came across to me as a creepy a$$ place to be. The 1997 hotel was quaint and homey. Now maybe that was all in hopes of contrasting it from the evil it contained, but there again, we lost the creep factor to achieve it. The hedge maze to me seems a lot more terrifying, especially if you're being chased by a psycho trying to kill you. The hedge animals looked very much like the dangers you would face in a Disney film. They were merely minor elements of suspense at three different places in the series.
Finally, there were "characters" present in the Kubrick film that weren't fleshed out like they were in the later version. But what did we really get from knowing who they were? In my opinion, not much. The woman in the bath tub, the bartender, the man with the cracked head and the gay furries, they were all good shocking WTF moments for the Kubrick film, and I think they were more effective as such. But to learn their history still leaves them irrelevant and much less effective.
In a nutshell, I like them both, but for different reasons. One, a great psychological horror film, and the other, an entertaining weekend Syfy Channel movie.