spaceSuicide's Horrortastic Horrific Horror Film Thread...Of Horror!

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

And the inclusion of the Stab franchise. 2's biggest crime was offing Randy though, that was shortsighted and just plain stupid.

1>2>3>4>5

Much like the Evil Dead, this one goes in release order for me.

Ugh, that scene was gut-wrenching and not earned at all. I would have loved to see Randy at least go down fighting with his intellect on horror situations, and ultimately still getting the stab; he deserved more and was my favorite character. I'm going to watch 2 again since it's been so long, but I'm sure my rankings won't change.

It's pretty much the Scooby Doo version of Scream, but that's why I like it.

Amazing that you said this, because that is the exact feeling I get when watching it . I agree with you guys with when it was released... Guess it paled in comparison to the first 2 for the majority.

"It's some dumb ass white movie about some dumb ass white girls gettin' they white asses cut the fuck up, okay?"

Hahahaaaa, THAT I remember; I always liked the beginning of 2. I'll be watching it again over the weekend.

[Erneuert]

I posited this is Random Celebrity Headlines, but also worthwhile putting it here.

Anyone else wish Jack Nicholson would come out of retirement and do one last massively awesome horror film?

Sucks that he didn't cameo in Doctor Sleep.

[BRoswell]

Anyone else with Jack Nicholson would come out of retirement and do one last massively awesome horror film?

He seems pretty content with retirement, so I don't see it happening.

[Erneuert]

He seems pretty content with retirement, so I don't see it happening.

Just one more outing!

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Unfortunately, there have been multiple reports that Jack was diagnosed with memory loss, and that he cannot remember lines, so I'm assuming that is the main reason he stays out of the limelight.

I'd love one more outing as well, but he barely even goes to Laker games anymore...that should say a lot.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Love Jack. But I'm glad he didn't cameo in that god awful Doctor Sleep. And I like Mike Flanagan too for what it's worth. But that movie was already full of too much use of images from Kubrick's movie. The problem is that it isn't a sequel to Kubrick's movie. It is a King story that is a sequel to King's Shining, nothing more. Really disappointed they used all of Kubrick's stuff just to sell it and then did the exact opposite of what Kubrick did with it. King wrote a basic but decent story. Kubrick took it and spun it into one of the best horror films ever made. At least that's how I see it.

[r_z]

I liked the movie, it just didn't feel very "cinematic" to me (if that makes any sense). Visually it rather felt like a miniseries made for Netflix than a follow up to Kubrick's movie. But I liked the story.

[october_midnight]

Looks hot.

[elevenism]

Love Jack. But I'm glad he didn't cameo in that god awful Doctor Sleep. And I like Mike Flanagan too for what it's worth. But that movie was already full of too much use of images from Kubrick's movie. The problem is that it isn't a sequel to Kubrick's movie. It is a King story that is a sequel to King's Shining, nothing more. Really disappointed they used all of Kubrick's stuff just to sell it and then did the exact opposite of what Kubrick did with it. King wrote a basic but decent story. Kubrick took it and spun it into one of the best horror films ever made. At least that's how I see it.

Alowishus, was it really godawful, though, the Dr Sleep flick?
I thought it was a decent adaptation of a decent Stephen King book.

Now. Comparing movies to books is like comparing Animals to Birds and Fish.
But this is where the problem lies, with your post. You called Stephen King's The Shining "basic but decent," when, in objective Aristotelian reality, it's a fucking AMAZING but INCREDIBLE book.
Meanwhile, Kubrick's film is Pretty Damn Good, but suffers slightly from leaving out many of the best, most frightening, and EMOTIONAL, HUMAN parts of the book.

Dont get me wrong: I dig the flick. But give me the moving hedge animals, the mask on the floor of the elevator.

And ESPECIALLY, the EXTENSIVE alcoholism metaphors, Jack's fucked up childhood, and, more than anything, Jack as a sympathetic character who ultimately sacrifices himself and finds redemption...give me those things over Jack just being an evil axe welding, unhinged asshole, and HEEEERES JONNY, and a bunch of indecipherable bullshit, any day of the week..
The book, to me, is about alcoholism. And it's truly frightening.
The movie? It's both pure Kubrick and kind of Lynchian. And it manages to be both dumbed down AND cryptic.

[elevenism]

So.
Anyone seen Skinamarink or Skimanarink or whatever it's called, yet?

It's supposed to be a whole new kind of fucked up...like a 90 minute YouTube ARG type thing, but without answers? And it's being compared to house of leaves.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Looks hot.

GROOOOVYY. Cannot wait to see what they do with this!

[BRoswell]

Not too shabby. I wasn't a fan of the remake, so hopefully this will at least be better than that.

[bobbie solo]

Has anyone watched Cabinet Of Curiosities on Netflix? Watched all of them so far except the final one (the final one stars Andrew Lincoln and directed by The Babadook director, and stars the woman from the Babadook as well, I think @elevenism).

Saving this & Wednesday for 2023 spooky season!

[elevenism]

has anyone tried this micro budget Skinamarink flick yet?

Everybody comparing it to house of leaves, and YouTube analog horror.

I know I just asked, but I really wanna know. Internet is hyping it up like crazy.

[eversonpoe]

has anyone tried this micro budget Skinamarink flick yet?

Everybody comparing it to house of leaves, and YouTube analog horror.

I know I just asked, but I really wanna know. Internet is hyping it up like crazy.

reviews from friends:

"Not since Inland Empire has a film so closely captured what a nightmare feels like"

"Maybe the scariest final minute of a horror movie I’ve ever seen. Going to be very divisive, this one."

[elevenism]

thanks @eversonpoe . That sound's fucking awesome. I got hold of it, and i wondered what you guys thought. I've not seen it yet.

What's CRAZY is that the movie hasn't been released yet, but i guess it leaked somehow. A fairly big youtuber did a review of it, a WHILE ago...i skipped spoilers...and one of the fucking FILMAKERS thanked him in the comments, for liking the movie the reviewer had pirated and suggesting others do the same.
Makes me think these cats are pure artists: not "fuck you for pirating our content," but "THANK you, we really appreciate it!"

Other things on my To Watch List..and jesus, there's actually about 150 :P
BUT, recent acquisitions include a critically acclaimed found footage movie, no shit, called Deadstream (i've loved the genre since i saw Blair Witch Project in a little art house theater and always will, as long as the movie is at least DECENT,) something called Hellbender, which was Rotten Tomaters No 1 this year, and one called Something In The Dirt that ranked pretty fucking high.

I've had We're All Going to the World's Fair for fucking EVER, but still haven't watched it. I'm highly interested, though.

Did you guys have any favorites last year?

Of what i saw, The Innocents was mine. At first it's like "oh god, ANOTHER fucking movie/show/book about kids with spoooooky powers," and i DAMN near turned it off.

but DAMN...this one is seriously fucking top notch, and puts an unusual spin on the thing.

[burnmotherfucker!]

thanks @eversonpoe . That sound's fucking awesome. I got hold of it, and i wondered what you guys thought. I've not seen it yet.

What's CRAZY is that the movie hasn't been released yet, but i guess it leaked somehow. A fairly big youtuber did a review of it, a WHILE ago...i skipped spoilers...and one of the fucking FILMAKERS thanked him in the comments, for liking the movie the reviewer had pirated and suggesting others do the same.
Makes me think these cats are pure artists: not "fuck you for pirating our content," but "THANK you, we really appreciate it!"

Other things on my To Watch List..and jesus, there's actually about 150 :P
BUT, recent acquisitions include a critically acclaimed found footage movie, no shit, called Deadstream (i've loved the genre since i saw Blair Witch Project in a little art house theater and always will, as long as the movie is at least DECENT,) something called Hellbender, which was Rotten Tomaters No 1 this year, and one called Something In The Dirt that ranked pretty fucking high.

I've had We're All Going to the World's Fair for fucking EVER, but still haven't watched it. I'm highly interested, though.

Did you guys have any favorites last year?

Of what i saw, The Innocents was mine. At first it's like "oh god, ANOTHER fucking movie/show/book about kids with spoooooky powers," and i DAMN near turned it off.

but DAMN...this one is seriously fucking top notch, and puts an unusual spin on the thing.

Hellbender is decent. Read up on how it is made by a family and you'll appreciate it more I think.

We're All Going to the World's Fair is the only other of the one's you mentioned I've seen. Be warned it is NOT a horror movie. It was mis-marketed. It IS however a pretty fucking great and compelling character study that deals with isolation in this weird social media world. It's probably the best movie out of everything you mentioned to be honest.

Also, don't think I'm letting you off the hook with The Shining post above. I'm going to come back to it when I have the time proper. For now I'll leave it at this.

Kubrick's is a timeless work of art. King's is yet another redemption story, wash rinse, repeat.

Kubrick said "hey there guy I like your toolkit you got there. but you're using your tools all wrong. this is how it's done you sappy sentimental fuck."

[Jinsai]

I'm interested to see Skinamarink, the plot sounds interesting, but the overall audience consensus is pretty mixed... then again, you can never really trust the critics, let alone IMDB armchair critics.

Also, I'm going to disagree, and say that Kubrick's version of the Shining might actually surpass the book for me. There's so many iconic scenes in it that trump living hedge creatures and stuff. I also am kinda confused how people could think it's not about alcoholism. If anything, it's got a grimmer take on it, wherein Jack isn 't redeemed and miraculously freed from his demons. I always thought the redemption arc in the book was a little half-baked. I also think the notion that "the ghosts are real, the hotel is really haunted" is more ambiguous in the movie. It has the scene that references the guy and his sex-slave that he makes wear a bear suit, but otherwise, in the movie the only indication that it is really "haunted by actual ghosts" is the fact that Wendy and her son see them... but in the movie, it feels like it's more an affirmation of the kid's psychic powers than anything else.

All of that could be symbolic though. The ghosts that Danny sees could be premonitions that his father is falling apart and relapsing. I also don't really agree with King that Nicholson's performance was kooky and over-the-top from the beginning. It isn't until the isolation sets in and the ghosts get him to start drinking again. If anything, Nicholson's descent into madness is more believable than the nice guy in the book suddenly falling apart... maybe due to the fact that he comes across as a really intense person from the start.

Kubrick also did all these really unfortunate things to Shelly Duvall during the filming that are hard to "forgive." I believe he did them in service of the film, for the same reason that he spared the actor who played Danny of any of the R-rated stuff and didn't alert him to the fact that he was in a horror movie. Still, he really tormented Duvall to get that performance out of her. And then she quit acting, but delivered one of the most iconic horror film characters.

And really, can we think of too many other horror movies with a scene as iconic as the blood spilling out of the elevator? That's at least in the top five or so. Also, let's just admit that Stephen King's taste in cinema is... questionable. One of his favorite movies is Final Destination. When it comes to adaptations of his stuff, he's generally thrilled with all of it, even the ones that totally suck. Didn't he think Dreamcatcher was a good flick? He also though IT part II ended in a great way, and originally he was hesitant to talk shit about that Dark Tower adaptation, but at least he came around later. Still, at first, he applauded the director and said that he "hadn't forgotten the face of his father." Barf.

Though, apparently his favorite film of all time is William Friedkin's "Sorcerer," so his taste in films can't be ALL that bad. I guess I could also reread The Shining again. I think the last time I sat down and read the whole thing was a while back, around when they were about to release that (fucking terrible) tv adaptation that King was all thrilled about.

[elevenism]

Hellbender is decent. Read up on how it is made by a family and you'll appreciate it more I think.

We're All Going to the World's Fair is the only other of the one's you mentioned I've seen. Be warned it is NOT a horror movie. It was mis-marketed. It IS however a pretty fucking great and compelling character study that deals with isolation in this weird social media world. It's probably the best movie out of everything you mentioned to be honest.

Also, don't think I'm letting you off the hook with The Shining post above. I'm going to come back to it when I have the time proper. For now I'll leave it at this.

Kubrick's is a timeless work of art. King's is yet another redemption story, wash rinse, repeat.

Kubrick said "hey there guy I like your toolkit you got there. but you're using your tools all wrong. this is how it's done you sappy sentimental fuck."

Alwoishus. Have you READ The Shining?

First.off, comparing movies to books is like, idk...comparing a zeppelin album to.a.picture of Jimmy Page, and vice versa...ESPECIALLY when the film is.SO.far.removed from the source material. These are pointless arguments, honestly.

But in this case, to the disgust of Mr. King, the movie was changed from a deep character study about alcoholism and generational trauma, to a puzzling story about a spooooky hotel and a scaaaary slasher style.axe murderer.

The book is a caring look at the plight of the suicidal alcoholic, who, despite his demons, WANTS to be good,.and literally sacrifices himself for his family,.despite his fate of symbolically burning in hell.
It's an extensive character study about, again the demons of addiction, a child's fear of divorce, and his understanding of what's really going on with his parents, .through The Shining.
It's about an ANGRY, not.frightened, woman who is ready to leave her.husband for harming their son in a blackout. It's about the fact that Jack was abused as a child.
It's also about Jack and Wendy's fears of fucking their kid up: I specifically.remember a quite explicit passage about them fucking, and forgetting about the kid.

Kubrick is one of my favorite directors of all time, and the Shining is an INCREDIBLE film.
The book was PRETTY fucking unadaptable, due to the ABSURD amount of internal monologue and such.

But Kubrick had NO.intention of.capturing the book, and made.that VERY clear.

In the Kubrick film, Danny can barely fucking talk. Wendy is fucking oblivious to like, EVERYTHING, and damn near reduced to.a non character. Jack is a selfish piece of shit and an axe murderer with no chance for redemption.

In the book...well, you know...I HOPE: Jack isn't the villain the HOTEL is the villain, with the hotel being a metaphor for evil shit that drives people to addiction.
Wendy repeatedly speaks of divorcing jack for breaking Danny's arm, while he was drunk. Wendy isn't TERRIFIED of Jack. She fucking LITERALLY stabs him in the back.
Jack lost his teaching job for harming a student.
Danny's speech and internal monologue is kind of the most important piece of the whole thing.

Asid from changing the entire essence of the main characters, Kubrick changed SO many other things that were INSANELY important to the source material. Remember how jack.beat up.the kid when he was a college professor?. Remember how THAT'S part of what he can't shake?
This also includes PETTY ass things, like the room number.being changed, the crashed Volkswagen, Dick Halloran lives and helps save the day in the book: a character who is SO fucking important to.the story, but he's killed fairly quickly by Jack...who goes insane way, WAY too fast. But I mean, black guy dies first, right?
These seemed to be actual straight up "fuck you" moments.

So, yeah. Don't get me wrong. The Kubrick film is unreal. I fucking love it. It's full of Kubrick style mysteries, the meanings of which are debated to this day, and incredible eye candy.
BUT, it drastically alters the characters, and leaves 2/3 of the main three PRETTY fucking flat, while changing the other 1/3 into, well, NOTHING like the sympathetic man in the book.

They're both great. But the book had a bigger impact on me, personally, because it's about sympathetic, realistic PEOPLE, at its core.

Don't get me wrong, though: The Shining is one of the greatest films of all time.

In this case, though, it isn't like comparing apples and oranges, as I'd usually say about movie adaptation. "The book was SOOOO much better than the movie," or the other way around, is kind of absurd to me. It's liek "the photohraph was SOOOO much better than reality bro!"

And in this case, it's beyond that. It's like "dude! The zoo is SO much better than the Drum and Bass show!" Or like, "the Mona Lisa is SO much better than Grapes of Wrath!'

I'll tell you ONE thing, though, and perhaps my problem was reading the book, first: the book is genuinely frightening for me, in a way that few books are.

The film? It's more well, incredible filmaking and camera work, with endless interpretations. And that's cool, too. But there isn't a second of the movie that like...frightened Mex or whatever.

[elevenism]

@Jinsai I actually dug the tv adaptation... Not more than the film, but, in that it actually followed the book.

[BRoswell]

Kubrick's film is not a great adaptation of the book, but that was always his style. He was never interested in doing straight adaptations. He always used books as a catalyst to explore other ideas.

[Jinsai]

well, the movie definitely did have some "hey, fuck you Stephen King" moments. Like the scene where the car causes the accident that Halloran gets stuck behind was intentionally modeled after King's car that he was driving at the time.

But the movie does address the fact that Jack beat up his kid while he was drunk. It's during the part where Wendy is talking to the psychiatrist after Danny has an episode talking to Tony. She admits that her husband hurt Danny. Then, later in the movie, while Jack is talking to the bartender Lloyd, he starts bitching about the time he beat up his kid. It is in the movie.

Regarding the TV adaptation, I was actually looking into trying to watch it again recently, but it's not available anywhere outside of torrenting, and I just don't care enough to fire all that up again.

EDIT: I'd also say that to call Wendy a non-character misses something there. She's different than the book's Wendy, but she's powerful and she should have won an Oscar for that role. The way that she juggles her trauma and fear while protecting her child... the outrage she projects when she thinks Jack beat him up again... the crazy terror when she's swinging the bat at him on the stairs... all of that is incredible. She doesn't need to have a personality beyond that, any more than Danny does. It's part of what makes it all work, and you'd think King would get that aspect, considering that he really insists on separating the book from the adaptation. Kubrick told the same story with a different medium, and Kubrick was pretty much THE master of that medium.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Disclaimer: This is probably going to be overly long and wordy and pretentious. Please look away if you don't give a shit about The Shining. Also, art is subjective and these are just my opinions after all.

Alowishus, was it really godawful, though, the Dr Sleep flick?

I thought it was a decent adaptation of a decent Stephen King book.

As an adaptation of a King book? No, I found it to be just fine. As a sequel to the Kubrick film? Yes, it was absolutely Godawful! Tonally all over the place. It smacked of cheap corporate cash grab the way they used Kubrick's brilliant imagery in a story Kubrick had NOTHING to do with. Thanks Warner Bros.! They did that to try and sell tickets, make no mistake. The way they used Kubrick's "ghosts" (more on that later) was absurd. It was akin to, I don't know, making them evil Marvel characters coming after the girl with the magic powers. Total. Fucking. Bullshit.

It SHOULD have been a straight up adaptation of King's book. I would have been able to respect it so much more if they had not stooped to using Kubrick's work. I expect it of Warner, I just thought Mike Flannagan had more integrity is all. Oh, I like Flannagan's work too. Midnight Mass is one of the best written series I've seen in these here 2020s. But come on guy. You're a director for christ sake, stand up for the work of your predecessors, don't water it down.

But this is where the problem lies, with your post. You called Stephen King's The Shining "basic but decent," when, in objective Aristotelian reality, it's a fucking AMAZING but INCREDIBLE book.
Meanwhile, Kubrick's film is Pretty Damn Good, but suffers slightly from leaving out many of the best, most frightening, and EMOTIONAL, HUMAN parts of the book.

Dont get me wrong: I dig the flick. But give me the moving hedge animals, the mask on the floor of the elevator.

My beef isn't with the book itself. But I do find it to have less merit than the film. If someone feels the opposite, they are entitled to. I just found King's story to be yet another "hero's journey" type ordeal. For the love of god I do not understand why the entire film industry continues to believe it is the only type story worth telling. "A character needs to change to be compelling" they say. Bullshit. Why? I reject the premise. Anything can be interesting in the right hands. There are no fucking rules.

But before I go off on a rabbit trail, in my initial post I said Kubrick's was the better HORROR story. I stand by that. There's nothing horrific about a man sacrificing himself for his family as an act of redemption. Is it tragic? Sure. Is it emotional? sure. Is it the way to conclude a HORROR story? Fuck no. Pet Semetary. That's the one time King figured out how to end a horror story.

But here's where I'm really going to make you mad. Kubrick's film is MORE human than King's story. Not a typo. Let me explain.

King's story is about himself. I agree with everything you say about it. It's about an alcoholic coming to terms and trying to make amends. This is great, I'm not here to criticize the book, I'm here to point out what I think people miss in the film.

Kubrick read the story and decided the alcoholic father wasn't the most interesting thing to explore. Abuse was. And that is what he did. His film is cold, lifeless, unnerving, and relentless. King said there was no love in it. Exactly! But does this mean that we are to assume Kubrick wanted to endorse this dread? Absolutely not! His film is an intuitive glance at the horror of abuse and how it destroys a family. There are no fucking ghosts. Or maybe there are. It doesn't even fucking matter really. It is about the emptiness that must dwell in man to be able to make him commit physical abuse against an innocent child. Kubrick is rejecting the notion of redemption. Jack is frozen. His family will never be ok.

And ESPECIALLY, the EXTENSIVE alcoholism metaphors, Jack's fucked up childhood, and, more than anything, Jack as a sympathetic character who ultimately sacrifices himself and finds redemption...give me those things over Jack just being an evil axe welding, unhinged asshole, and HEEEERES JONNY, and a bunch of indecipherable bullshit, any day of the week..
The book, to me, is about alcoholism. And it's truly frightening.
The movie? It's both pure Kubrick and kind of Lynchian. And it manages to be both dumbed down AND cryptic.

See, and some of this comes down to interpretation. But film is much more intuitive than literature. Some people have intuition and others sense only the surface, only the literal. There's nothing wrong with either of those. We don't choose the software we are born with. But for me, Kubrick is using those images as depictions of internal emotional states.

I completely disagree that it is dumbed down. If anything I think it is far superior on an intellectual level. And cryptic? Interpretive maybe, but not cryptic for the sake of it. There is intention behind all of it.

Funny you should mention Lynch. Both him and Kubrick are in my top 5. I also do not find Lynch to be dumbed down or cryptic. In fact, I think he has an enlightened view of what the human subconscious is really like. He explores the kind of shit that people don't even want to accept about themselves. Language is programming. It is not all we are. This is the limitation of literature. Film, when it is great, tries to move beyond that. It goes to the dark night of the soul and tries to display it. I think that is what these directors were doing. I wish more were out there trying.

Alwoishus. Have you READ The Shining?

First.off, comparing movies to books is like, idk...comparing a zeppelin album to.a.picture of Jimmy Page, and vice versa...ESPECIALLY when the film is.SO.far.removed from the source material. These are pointless arguments, honestly.

Yes, I used to have a copy of it but I lent it out in college and I don't think I ever got it back. I've still got my Pet Sematary copy though.

The old apples and oranges argument? I reject it. Oranges are better, they're more nutritious. A Zeppelin Album is better than a photo of Paige.

But in this case, to the disgust of Mr. King, the movie was changed from a deep character study about alcoholism and generational trauma, to a puzzling story about a spooooky hotel and a scaaaary slasher style.axe murderer.

The book is a caring look at the plight of the suicidal alcoholic, who, despite his demons, WANTS to be good,.and literally sacrifices himself for his family,.despite his fate of symbolically burning in hell.
It's an extensive character study about, again the demons of addiction, a child's fear of divorce, and his understanding of what's really going on with his parents, .through The Shining.
It's about an ANGRY, not.frightened, woman who is ready to leave her.husband for harming their son in a blackout. It's about the fact that Jack was abused as a child.
It's also about Jack and Wendy's fears of fucking their kid up: I specifically.remember a quite explicit passage about them fucking, and forgetting about the kid.

Some of this I already touched on above so I won't retread. But again, I don't disagree with your assessment of King's book. But if you think the film is about a spooky hotel and nothing else then I really don't think we are even watching the same movie. Look below the surface. Better yet, feel below it.

I've also never been on board with the idea Wendy is better in the book. Why is is bad for her character to be afraid? She goddamn well should have been afraid. Her family was torn apart. Fear is an intelligent response. Why is anger and fighting back somehow better? Because of our current political climate? Fuck that. I'd argue the film is more empathetic to the true horror of what dealing with abuse must be like. There is no shame in fear. It is a survival instinct.

Kubrick is one of my favorite directors of all time, and the Shining is an INCREDIBLE film.
The book was PRETTY fucking unadaptable, due to the ABSURD amount of internal monologue and such.

But Kubrick had NO.intention of.capturing the book, and made.that VERY clear.

In the Kubrick film, Danny can barely fucking talk. Wendy is fucking oblivious to like, EVERYTHING, and damn near reduced to.a non character. Jack is a selfish piece of shit and an axe murderer with no chance for redemption.

In the book...well, you know...I HOPE: Jack isn't the villain the HOTEL is the villain, with the hotel being a metaphor for evil shit that drives people to addiction.
Wendy repeatedly speaks of divorcing jack for breaking Danny's arm, while he was drunk. Wendy isn't TERRIFIED of Jack. She fucking LITERALLY stabs him in the back.
Jack lost his teaching job for harming a student.
Danny's speech and internal monologue is kind of the most important piece of the whole thing.

Asid from changing the entire essence of the main characters, Kubrick changed SO many other things that were INSANELY important to the source material. Remember how jack.beat up.the kid when he was a college professor?. Remember how THAT'S part of what he can't shake?
This also includes PETTY ass things, like the room number.being changed, the crashed Volkswagen, Dick Halloran lives and helps save the day in the book: a character who is SO fucking important to.the story, but he's killed fairly quickly by Jack...who goes insane way, WAY too fast. But I mean, black guy dies first, right?
These seemed to be actual straight up "fuck you" moments.

Some of this is retread but I'll touch on a few of these.

As Jinsai mentioned, Wendy did know about Jack's abuse. I do not this she is completely oblivious. I think her character flaw is that she had hope their family would go back to normal. The "all work, no play" scene is a visual depiction of her realizing he is beyond help. She does everything she can to protect Danny after this, she is heroic.

You think they killed Hallorann because he was black? Bullshit. He was the one bit of light in the film. His character represented hope. He had to be killed, he represented hope that the family would be saved. Jack killed all hope. Also, how good is Scatman in that movie? Top notch.

But you are 100% right about Kubrick changing the source material. That was VERY intentional. He did not like King's story. He found it shallow. But like I said above, he liked the toolkit and he knew how he wanted to use it.

Those petty changes? They were not petty. They were his way of saying, this is my work and it's different than the book. I'm not doing the book, I'm doing something different. If you want the book then go read it. He did not give one fuck about staying true to the book.

This is not new to film. Another great example of a director who used this method is Tarkovsky. Look at Stalker, or Solaris for that matter. He took science fiction novels, cut out all the unnecessary bullshit, and used their toolkits to deeply explore the human psyche, memory, time, love, the failure of science, etc. He may have even surpassed Kubrick in this skill. It is amazing what he was able to accomplish. Not everyone can see it though, because intuition plays such a large role with these type of films.

Some people are always going to be out there saying "but in the book the spaceship was green." Well I'm trying to say that details don't always matter. Kubrick wasn't making the book. He merely used King's paintbrushes.

So, yeah. Don't get me wrong. The Kubrick film is unreal. I fucking love it. It's full of Kubrick style mysteries, the meanings of which are debated to this day, and incredible eye candy.
BUT, it drastically alters the characters, and leaves 2/3 of the main three PRETTY fucking flat, while changing the other 1/3 into, well, NOTHING like the sympathetic man in the book.

They're both great. But the book had a bigger impact on me, personally, because it's about sympathetic, realistic PEOPLE, at its core.

Don't get me wrong, though: The Shining is one of the greatest films of all time.

In this case, though, it isn't like comparing apples and oranges, as I'd usually say about movie adaptation. "The book was SOOOO much better than the movie," or the other way around, is kind of absurd to me. It's liek "the photohraph was SOOOO much better than reality bro!"

And in this case, it's beyond that. It's like "dude! The zoo is SO much better than the Drum and Bass show!" Or like, "the Mona Lisa is SO much better than Grapes of Wrath!'

I'll tell you ONE thing, though, and perhaps my problem was reading the book, first: the book is genuinely frightening for me, in a way that few books are.

The film? It's more well, incredible filmaking and camera work, with endless interpretations. And that's cool, too. But there isn't a second of the movie that like...frightened Mex or whatever.

Oranges over apples. Reality to photographs. Drum and bass over the zoo, but only by a hair. Grapes of Wrath over the Mona Lisa. See? Easy. Any two things can be compared. I will concede however that there is no reason whatsoever that our preferences should be the same. And that's probably the best place to end this self indulgent post of mine.

You connect with the book in a way I don't and that's great. But I feel like you might be missing out on some of what the film offers, so maybe next time you catch it it'll be fresh.

For me, it's the opposite. The book is not scary in the least. Whereas the film scares me on an existential level. Not a "jump scare, ghosts!" way but rather in a "we all have the capacity to be a Jack and if you think you don't you probably haven't looked deep enough" kind of way. The film is horrifying to me in the same way something like Mulholland Drive is. A trip into the shadow self.

Also, I know you are like the biggest book fan on this board whereas I'm probably the most annoying film snob around here. So in a way, we are the perfect people here to hash this out. I don't know if we settled anything but I think I've said my piece.

Oh, and NEVER be Jack. ALWAYS be Hallorann.

[Jinsai]

I just watched The Black Phone, and WHAT am I missing here?! How is this movie so loved? That was absolutely terrible, incoherent, pretentious, obnoxious... some of the acting was astonishingly bad, especially from the lead child actors. Even when I don't like a movie, I at least feel like I understand the appeal, but here I just do not get it, and horror movies are my thing. I forgive them for stuff that I don't forgive movies from other cinema.

But what is the appeal here with The Black Phone? I almost want to try to watch it again just to see what I must be missing, but I don't want to subject myself to that banal, bullshit, meandering, confused experience again.

[elevenism]

@Jinsai yeah, the film mentions Jack's abuse, but in the book, it's REPEATED. It's part of the theme. Also, the fact that JACK was abused is absent. And I'm in NO way suggesting the King miniseries is BETTER than Kubrick's film. But if you ever wanted to see an attempt at adapting the book, well...I fucking loved it. The finale was my at home Valentine's day date in 99, I think. This chickenhead broke up with me shortly thereafter.
@burnmotherfucker! PLEASE don't misunderstand. The Shining is one of my favorite films of all time.
Lynch is my ABSOLUTE favorite director...you haven't known me long enough...and Kubrick isn't far behind.

And I'm GODDAMN sure not "missing" anything in the film, especially at THIS point, I HOPE...although I may be misinterpreting some things. But those interpretations have been decades in the making, and only Kubrick could tell me I was wrong.

You said "the film scares me on an existential level. Not a "jump scare, ghosts!" way but rather in a "we all have the capacity to be a Jack and if you think you don't you probably haven't looked deep enough" kind of way."

See, for ME, the BOOK expressed the exact sentiment you're ascribing to the movie,.and is more frightening in that precise manner, AND the spoooooky ghosts in the book are also more frightening to me, than anything in the movie.

The MOVIE is...you're telling me to WATCH it? I've seen it looks liek..good god, 12 times? Fifteen?I've been trying to break down the ENTIRE meaning of the flick since about 1991.
Hell, I've seen the DOCUMENTARY about various people's understanding of the deeper meanings of the film like, three or four times.

The MOVIE has SO many fucking undertones and SO much symbolism. It's Kubrick, for fuck's sake. Every single bit of EVERYTHING has meaning.
What's kind of ruff in the jungle about Kubrick is that I feel like he's always asking us to understand all these little things: the twin and the nature and meaning of duality, and why it leads to a literal blood...ummmm...I guess BATH isn't the word. Tsunami?.The fucking pattern on the carpet reversing. The.branding on the food.cans in the pantry: those.weren't accidentally turned to.where we could.see.the front of the packaging.
And, holy fuck, that final image. (Tell me what everything in 2001 means, too. I'll wait).

I'VE got a personal idea of what a lot.of that stuff means, and I think it's bigger than "we all have a capacity to be a Jack." That's CERTAINLY there.
And ok, fuck it...I'll go out on this limb. I think the movie is a deep.criticism of the American Experiment.

I just watched the motherfucker for the xteenth time in '22 and I'm pretty comfortable with my assessment.

I still don't think comparing mediums is really valid. I mean, which is better: the last top you caught, or the Mona Lisa? I mean, I guess it depends on the artistic skill of the fellatrix in this scenario, but I'm sure you get my point. And don't try to.read more into.that than what's there. I'm not trying to disparage either work, in this case.

So, ok. You ARE for comparison across media...even though we're talking about a book, made of language, that takes a LOT of hours to.read, and an orgasmic burst of story and amazing visual work, including deep symbolism, that takes movie runtime amount of time to play experience... unless you're insane, like.me, and watch it repeatedly.
STILL, I'll play ball.

I'd argue that, at least in my little subjective experience, the book and the movie AREN'T telling the same story...like, at all. I feel like the film is more macrocosmic and uses the alcohol trope to explore a Much BIGGER ting: namely, the flaws of.the US as a whole, while the book is a microcosmic character study regarding generational trauma and abuse, and alcoholism.

And, with MY life experience, as a victim of generational abuse/trauma who turned to alcohol and heroin and fentanyl WAY before 99% of you cats knew what that was, as a PURPOSEFUL response to that shit, well, the book falls on the side of terrifying, while.the film falls on the side of a fascinating endless riddle.that's, you know, pretty fucking creepy.
The book...i KIND of got it at eight. But it was some other shit /some mothership, at 14, and more so at 18, and good god, FUCK ME, at 38.
The movie is a hell of a lot more FUN, as far as decoding it and such, and it's one of the best of all time. It's a triumph of cinema, and it, too, is wrought with deep meaning.

I, personally, again...I don't think they're exactly about the same thing.

Edit: I WILL grant you that, sometimes, if a book/series is great (cough cough dark tower), and the movie is horrible, then, yeah, we can compare airplane rides to elephant rides. Or, if a good movie SERIOUSLY attempts to capture a book, but doesn't quite pull it off (the new It, Catch 22 with Clooney), then yeah.
But if it's Burgess vs Kubrick with A Clockwork Orange, or Trumbo vs...Trumbo, I think, with Johnny Got His Gun, these comparisons are fool's errands.

I mean the Shining vs the Shining...why is the cinematography in the film better than the camera work in the book?

[elevenism]

sorry erbody, for the length of the above post: aside from the note to jinsai, it was meant to be a private conversation with @burnmotherfucker! , but I keep getting 403s when I send a PM, and Alowishus refuses to tell me his email address, even though I know his damn NAME is Alowishus Devadander Abercrombie.

It's okay, though. I have my pride. I drink my wine.

[burnmotherfucker!]

sorry erbody, for the length of the above post: aside from the note to jinsai, it was meant to be a private conversation with @burnmotherfucker! , but I keep getting 403s when I send a PM, and Alowishus refuses to tell me his email address, even though I know his damn NAME is Alowishus Devadander Abercrombie.

It's okay, though. I have my pride. I drink my wine.

I need to find a way to go ahead and edit my username to Alowishus.

[burnmotherfucker!]

@elevenism

I don't think you are missing anything in the film necessarily. I just think with film, it's more interactive. Meanings aren't explained. Details don't always matter. It's more about the intuition. Here, let the master explain.



You want to know what 2001 means? Always seemed pretty straight forward to me. Human evolution is a constant progression and it is completely random and out of our control. And the ending. Well, Kubrick made that clear enough...



Side note. I found out about Tarkovsky's distaste and criticism of 2001 and how Solaris was an answer to it in a way. I've spent the last few years thinking about this. And I have come to the conclusion that Tarkovsky is right. Progress, space, science. They occur and they change us, but not really. They are arbitrary and don't really matter. At the end of the day we are more defined by our inner lives, our dreams, our memories, our relationships, and everything else that is underneath the surface than we ever will be by what's out there. That Tarkovsky was a fucking genius if you ask me.

Comparing mediums. I mean no art is quantifiable in an objective way, it comes down to the interaction. But for me I see no reason why any two things can't be compared from a subjective viewpoint. Or just as a means of interesting discussion.

But The Shining, book vs movie?

Maybe we should consider that almost all serious film scholars regard The Shining as a classic and one of the best horror films ever made.

Whereas literature scholars I think would be much more hesitant to put the book in the discussion of all time excellence. Maybe I'm wrong about this? I don't know.

[Jinsai]

another fundamental difference when adapting a long novel into a film is that pacing is a completely different beast. You have less time to hammer home the concepts, and if you repeat them too much, the audience feels pandered to. You're right that it's a completely different medium, but it's still a storytelling medium if it chooses to be, and imo The Shining tells pretty much the exact same story as the book, so I never got the notion that it was so completely different. It's actually "closer" to a faithful adaptation than most... and I've read a ton of books. It used to really be my thing.

I mean, really, how can we take King seriously here when he bashes The Shining movie for primarily "missing the point," but he comes out the gate praising The Dark Tower movie, which had almost NOTHING to do with the books or even the comics. While we're at it, let's not bring up that one time that King tried to direct a movie. Whew.

Don't get me wrong though. Stephen King is maybe my favorite living fiction author. I think in a lot of literary circles he's dismissed unfairly, but his obvious strengths are in writing and world building. I really suspect that the big problem for him when it came to Kubrick, who was notorious for being a control freak visionary... and he held to his vision. He didn't let anyone mess with it, not even the author. This happened when Stephen King was at the height of his popularity. We forget nowadays how powerful authors were then; and King was maybe the biggest.... and Kubrick didn't give a shit. To him, King was another useful tool, and he didn't care for his input.

Kubrick did this all the time. He terrified Shelly Duvall. He ordered Jack Nicholson to stop being kind to her on the set, and then encouraged him to basically psychologically abuse her. Malcolm McDowell said that working with Kubrick was like making a very good friend, and as soon as the bond had been solidified, Kubrick slid off and never returned his calls again. Because the movie was done. Kubrick was probably a sociopath, but that was probably part of what made him an incredible filmmaker... he didn't give a fuck about anyone's feelings except his audience, and I suspect that really bothered Stephen King.

That, or there might have been some back room showdown, where King tried to assert his power and inform Kubrick what the "story was really all about," and I imagine Kubrick responding with something like "yes, I get it, you're a fucking drunk and you can't shut up about it. Now let me take over and give me the keys, you wasted overrated loser." That's kind of how he rolled.

[Khrz]

While we're at it, let's not bring up that one time that King tried to direct a movie. Whew.

Let's not. King was at the top of the world, Emperor of Horror, and producers had the brilliant idea to give him the keys to the studio because, holy shit imagine the billboard : "A movie from From King, by King".

And honestly, for a young author who never ever touched a camera in his life ? I've seen way, way worse. The movie is daring, he does things that were big No Nos in horror movies, killing kids and dogs, there's loads of fun ideas, an iconic truck... It's not a good movie, sure, there's plotholes everywhere and the pacing is shit, the movie drags where it should pick up and characterization is shit (which is a bit sad coming from King but whatever).

But more than anything, that movie is gleeful. It's having a blast, King"s having the time of his life not trying to be Kubrick. The guy's not a sophisticated man with complex tastes, and he's always been upfront with that. He's a fan of AC/DC, nasty horror comics and joint burgers. He did exactly what he wanted to do, a big fuck-you stupid horror movie with lots of nasty stuff and silly jokes. A guy gets killed by being blasted in the balls by a drink dispenser. An ATM tells another (King) to fuck off.

All of this to say, just because King wasn't Kubrick doesn't mean he's not entitled to a strong opinion about what he thought was wrong with Shining, even though it's a hard disagree from me.

Also, everything @burnmotherfucker! said.

In the context of their respectives mediums, ShiningBook isn't nearly as brilliant and groundbreaking as ShiningFilm is.