they already did...

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/106035-the-shining

@CaseyJones said:

they already did...

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/106035-the-shining

I did not know this was every done. Have you seen it? Was it good?

Hmmm, that last question is tough to answer. Why? Because it may be closer to King's original vision, and it's not impossible that King's original vision sucked (he is human, not everything he writes is gold).

However, given Kubrick took the 1980 version in a direction beyond what King actually had in his book, if this '97 version is closer to King's vision, I guess the better question is, was this story more enjoyable or engaging or interesting than what was done to it in the 1980 version?

Either way, it's still now 20 yrs ago, with a B-list cast and a relatively paltry $25M budget - for comparison, I've got some twenty-three 1997-released movies in my ROI Database with an average budget of $68M, including

• Howard Stern's Private Parts , $28M
• Liar Liar, $45M
• Con Air, $75M
• Amistad, $36M
• Alien: Resurrection, $70M
• Air Force One, $85M
• Donnie Brasco, $35M
• The Game, $50M
• The Jackal, $60M (I did not include Titanic's $200M budget in this list, just to show that even the movies with little special effects still cost more than The Shining (1997), so it's hard for me to see the effort in bringing "King's original vision" to the screen properly, or that there might be much expectation from such a low budget. Having said that, The Shawshank Redemption (1994), another King adaptation (and a successful one, at that) had a $25M budget as well, and had A-List stars...but that was three years before The Shining '97, inflation alone should have driven the price tag north even to keep pace.

Kubrick's is better

Can I bug you guys @Renovatio and @Satch_the_man to be a little clearer for me? Is Kubrick's better in terms of production, screenplay (the technical aspects of the film), or in terms of what he did to the story itself, veering away from King's original?

Would the 1997 closer-to-King version be better with more budget and a glossier screenplay, or was King's original story itself simply not as engaging/compelling, in which case no amount of lipstick ("production budget", in this case) will make that pig any prettier?

Kubrick's film is a classic... Shot better, better acted, better mood, but more importantly it moves you more and stays with you longer...

I can't remember the other one...

@Satch_the_man said:

I have to be honest with you, DRD. I cheated. I didn't see the 1997 film; I'm just being authoritative and imposing my view that Stanley Kubrick's version of King's story is the best. Maybe you should pay me no mind. Ha, ha

:-) thank you for providing my chuckle of the day.

It probably wouldn't surprise me if The Shining got remade again, after all Carrie got remade twice now. As for The Shining, Kubrick's film is a classic while the 1997 version wasn't nearly as good.

There are so many layers to this film (1980) that I suspect few people could possibly gather on first viewing. Anyone familiar with the "Shone report" idea (explained in detail in this youtube video https://youtu.be/c1v9EKLQD_g).

For example, "the shining "is what little Danny had. What Mr. Hallorann had. Seems the story is about them...yet, everyone talks about Jack Torrance as the main character. But he was not "shining". So, WTF is going on?

Could a remake help make some of these ideas clearer?

Hmm...I think I'll start a new thread on these particular topics...

The TV movie remake is an abomination. The kid they use is annoying and goofy looking.

@movie_nazi said:

The TV movie remake is an abomination. The kid they use is annoying and goofy looking.

Definitely, that kid takes annoying to a whole new level.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@CaseyJones said:

they already did...

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/106035-the-shining

I did not know this was every done. Have you seen it? Was it good?

Hmmm, that last question is tough to answer. Why? Because it may be closer to King's original vision, and it's not impossible that King's original vision sucked (he is human, not everything he writes is gold).

However, given Kubrick took the 1980 version in a direction beyond what King actually had in his book, if this '97 version is closer to King's vision, I guess the better question is, was this story more enjoyable or engaging or interesting than what was done to it in the 1980 version?

Either way, it's still now 20 yrs ago, with a B-list cast and a relatively paltry $25M budget - for comparison, I've got some twenty-three 1997-released movies in my ROI Database with an average budget of $68M, including

• Howard Stern's Private Parts , $28M
• Liar Liar, $45M
• Con Air, $75M
• Amistad, $36M
• Alien: Resurrection, $70M
• Air Force One, $85M
• Donnie Brasco, $35M
• The Game, $50M
• The Jackal, $60M (I did not include Titanic's $200M budget in this list, just to show that even the movies with little special effects still cost more than The Shining (1997), so it's hard for me to see the effort in bringing "King's original vision" to the screen properly, or that there might be much expectation from such a low budget. Having said that, The Shawshank Redemption (1994), another King adaptation (and a successful one, at that) had a $25M budget as well, and had A-List stars...but that was three years before The Shining '97, inflation alone should have driven the price tag north even to keep pace.

I’m in the minority here: I prefer the remake. I’m one of those people who are quite tired of remakes. Yet I liked the remake a LOT more. I haven’t read the book, so I’m not making that comparison.

@Tresix said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@CaseyJones said:

they already did...

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/106035-the-shining

I did not know this was every done. Have you seen it? Was it good?

Hmmm, that last question is tough to answer. Why? Because it may be closer to King's original vision, and it's not impossible that King's original vision sucked (he is human, not everything he writes is gold).

However, given Kubrick took the 1980 version in a direction beyond what King actually had in his book, if this '97 version is closer to King's vision, I guess the better question is, was this story more enjoyable or engaging or interesting than what was done to it in the 1980 version?

Either way, it's still now 20 yrs ago, with a B-list cast and a relatively paltry $25M budget - for comparison, I've got some twenty-three 1997-released movies in my ROI Database with an average budget of $68M, including

• Howard Stern's Private Parts , $28M
• Liar Liar, $45M
• Con Air, $75M
• Amistad, $36M
• Alien: Resurrection, $70M
• Air Force One, $85M
• Donnie Brasco, $35M
• The Game, $50M
• The Jackal, $60M (I did not include Titanic's $200M budget in this list, just to show that even the movies with little special effects still cost more than The Shining (1997), so it's hard for me to see the effort in bringing "King's original vision" to the screen properly, or that there might be much expectation from such a low budget. Having said that, The Shawshank Redemption (1994), another King adaptation (and a successful one, at that) had a $25M budget as well, and had A-List stars...but that was three years before The Shining '97, inflation alone should have driven the price tag north even to keep pace.

I’m in the minority here: I prefer the remake. I’m one of those people who are quite tired of remakes. Yet I liked the remake a LOT more. I haven’t read the book, so I’m not making that comparison.

I actually did read the book (a long time ago) and the TV version is indeed much closer to the book. But the atmosphere and the acting in the Kubrick is far superior.

Once again, I respectfully disagree. Even though the miniseries is longer than the movie, I thought it moved at a faster pace. I also prefer Steven Weber’s portrayal of Jack to Jack Nicholson’s and I am a HUGE Nicholson fan.

I feel like The Shining scene in Spielberg's Ready Player One is pretty good at capturing the creepy feeling of the original, along with some pretty good modern special effects and even some funny moments. While not really a full-blown "remake", I would say overall Spielberg gave a very good homage to Kubrick.

@acontributor said:

They shouldn't reboot old movies unless somehow the original wasn't done properly. Like it was done in a foreign language or it was only 15 minutes or on a shoestring budget.

I don't think a foreign language constitutes an excuse for a remake.