Stephen King's The Shining (1997 mini-series, not the movie)

G

Guestx

Guest
Shining_Screenshot_001.jpg


I know a lot of you saw my Storm of the Century thread a few days ago. Well I decided to continue my journey through 90s-era Stephen King mini-series, and over the last few nights I watched the 1997 adaptation of The Shining.

Immediately I'll go ahead and say that comparisons to Kubrick's film are inevitable. And it cannot stand up to that version, at all. In fact, it's not even especially good. But with that said, I also didn't that it was completely without merit.

One interesting thing to note is that Stephen King himself wrote the screenplay and he wanted to have this version made specifically because of the issues he had with Kubrick's film. As I'm sure many of you know, he hated Kubrick's film.

According to Wikipedia:

The creation of this miniseries is attributed to Stephen King's dissatisfaction with director Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film of the same name. In order to receive Kubrick's approval to re-adapt The Shining into a program closer to the original story, King had to agree in writing to eschew his frequent public criticism of Kubrick's film, save for the sole commentary that he was disappointed with Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance as though he had been insane before his arrival at the Overlook Hotel.


webercrzy.jpg


Having read about half of the book, one thing I can definitely confirm is that the mini-series stays MUCH closer to the book than Kubrick's version did. Much closer.

On the upside, I thought that Steven Weber did a pretty good job as Jack. While the sets for the Overlook do in fact look like sets, they look like nice sets. And Rebecca De Mornay is obviously WAY more good looking than Shelly Duvall.


tumblr_otbz65rToX1rf1yd3o1_500.jpg


On the downside, the film moves at a pretty slow pace, when the supernatural shit finally kicks into gear it's not actually very frightening, and the kid who plays Danny is barely even passable in the role. I don't like to be too hard to child actors--they're just children, after all--but there was a lot about his performance to NOT like unfortunately.

The bottom line is that The Shining is no Storm of the Century. Whereas I found Storm of the Century to be a hell of a lot of fun, I found The Shining to be only decent entertainment but never anything more than that.

6/10

Anyone else seen it? Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read the book at all. That said, I preferred the miniseries in terms of characters and performances. But it drags hard, and even though Kubrick's film is easier to watch it's also more complex
 
Only thing I remember about the mini series is that they used a mallet instead of an axe.
 
I haven't read the book at all. That said, I preferred the miniseries in terms of characters and performances. But it drags hard, and even though Kubrick's film is easier to watch it's also more complex

I think that one huge difference is that the mini-series tells a very straightforward, understandable story. Kubrick's film, on the other hand, is a lot more opaque and puts a lot more responsibility on the viewer to try to understand and interpret the events of the film.

Rebecca De Mornay's Wendy was also a very different character from Shelly Duvall's. Shelly Duvall's version of Wendy was very weak and fragile; Mornay's version is a much stronger and more capable person.

I can see why Kubrick disregarded a lot of what he did from the book. I'm not sure that a lot of what's in the book translates well to the screen. But for better or worse, the mini-series IS by far the more faithful adaptation.
 
@shadow_priest_x have you seen The Night Flier? It's a low budget 90's Stephen King adaptation but I think it's a proper gem and worth checking out. Got Miguel Ferrer in dat leading role

Cover_of_The_Night_Flier.jpg
 
@shadow_priest_x have you seen The Night Flier? It's a low budget 90's Stephen King adaptation but I think it's a proper gem and worth checking out. Got Miguel Ferrer in dat leading role

Cover_of_The_Night_Flier.jpg

No, I've seen it mentioned a few times, but I never did catch it. Maybe I'll have to give it a look.

I think maybe I saw @jeicex recommend it once? Or maybe it was @Bullitt68?
 
No, I've seen it mentioned a few times, but I never did catch it. Maybe I'll have to give it a look.

I think maybe I saw @jeicex recommend it once? Or maybe it was @Bullitt68?

I didn't recommend it, but I did second That209's recommendation. We talked about it in that NCIS thread.

OT, but Miguel Ferrer is in it and I was wondering if you've ever seen The Nightflier? I'm guessing you have since you're basically the movie man 'round here, lol. It's extremely underrated and definitely one of the best vampire movies ever IMO. The vampires' speech near the end is just so epic (hate using that word when describing something), it's coo'.

It's one of Stephen King's most underrated film adaptions or whatever. It doesn't get the credit it deserves. The scene I'm talking alone was just so damn perfect that it warrants a watch IMO.
5VY8agT.gif


When I saw that this thread was bumping again, a discussion of The Night Flier was literally the last thing that I was expecting to find. Kudos ;)
One of my favourite horrors, that's for sure. It's so underrated. Great movie and nice to see somebody else here also gives it the credit I believe it deserves.
There was a period of time when I was watching it like once a week. I taped it on Cinemax when I was like 14. Had it on a VHS tape along with Angel Heart and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Definitely one of the most underrated horror movies out there.

Since that thread, I actually rewatched it myself. Everybody other than Miguel Ferrer is pretty weak and there's some dull and cliche-ridden writing that you'll have to get through, but the idea of the Night Flier, the investigation angle, and the legitimately awesome last act all make it worth it.

If you're already checking out '90s-era Stephen King stuff, I'd definitely recommend adding The Night Flier to your list. And, while you're at it, you could also throw in Sleepwalkers and Thinner if you haven't seen them or if you're in the mood for a rewatch. When I was a kid, all three were on HBO/Cinemax like every other day.

I forgot how much Stephen King I was watching in the '90s :D
 
Shining_Screenshot_001.jpg


I know a lot of you saw my Storm of the Century thread a few days ago. Well I decided to continue my journey through 90s-era Stephen King mini-series, and over the last few nights I watched the 1997 adaptation of The Shining.

Immediately I'll go ahead and say that comparisons to Kubrick's film are inevitable. And it cannot stand up to that version, at all. In fact, it's not even especially good. But with that said, I also didn't that it was completely without merit.

One interesting thing to note is that Stephen King himself wrote the screenplay and he wanted to have this version made specifically because of the issues he had with Kubrick's film. As I'm sure many of you know, he hated Kubrick's film.

According to Wikipedia:




webercrzy.jpg


Having read about half of the book, one thing I can definitely confirm is that the mini-series stays MUCH closer to the book than Kubrick's version did. Much closer.

On the upside, I thought that Steven Weber did a pretty good job as Jack. While the sets for the Overlook do in fact look like sets, they look like nice sets. And Rebecca De Mornay is obviously WAY more good looking than Shelly Duvall.


tumblr_otbz65rToX1rf1yd3o1_500.jpg


On the downside, the film moves at a pretty slow pace, when the supernatural shit finally kicks into gear it's not actually very frightening, and the kid who plays Danny is barely even passable in the role. I don't like to be too hard to child actors--they're just children, after all--but there was a lot about his performance to NOT like unfortunately.

The bottom line is that The Shining is no Storm of the Century. Whereas I found Storm of the Century to be a hell of a lot of fun, I found The Shining to be only decent entertainment but never anything more than that.

6/10

Anyone else seen it? Thoughts?

I thought it was a pretty weak production, which I guess you should expect from the Sci-Fi (now Scyfy) channel in 1997. I am not sure why you would make this kind of attempt at remaking a film that is widely regarded as a classic.
 
I thought it was a pretty weak production, which I guess you should expect from the Sci-Fi (now Scyfy) channel in 1997. I am not sure why you would make this kind of attempt at remaking a film that is widely regarded as a classic.
I think because king hated the original....the remake was much closer to the book.
 
The kid in the remake was unbearable. Closer to the book story wise but lacked the scares and horror of the original. I know King didn't like the Kubrick version, and it was different, but I thought better than the mini series.
 
I remember thinking it was good as a kid. I think it was on fox over a couple night when it premiered. Rewatching it, it's a very cheap production, but maybe a little less jarring having the guy from Wings as the star. TV movies were more of a thing back then, I can't remember the last big TV movie by one of the broadcast networks. They just do musicals now.
 
I didn't care for it a whole lot, but I do give it credit for improving on the way Jack Torrance was handled and Rebecca DeMornay >>>>> Shelley Duvall. Couldn't stand that kid and the faces he kept making, though, as unfair as it is to dump on a kid actor.

@shadow_priest_x have you seen The Night Flier? It's a low budget 90's Stephen King adaptation but I think it's a proper gem and worth checking out. Got Miguel Ferrer in dat leading role

Cover_of_The_Night_Flier.jpg

This on the other hand, I dug the hell out of-- probably in large part due to Miguel Ferrer.
 
improving on the way Jack Torrance was handled

Since I never have and probably never will watch this miniseries - for the same reason I've never been able to actually watch 2010 or Adrian Lyne's version of Lolita or Spielberg's A.I., because I can't bear to watch someone else handle something that has Kubrick's fingerprints anywhere near it - I'd be curious to hear what you thought was wrong with Kubrick's characterization of and/or Nicholson's performance as Jack and how the miniseries marked an improvement.
 
I pretty much agree with your synopsis of the mini series, from what I can remember, having watched it a year or two ago after reading the book again. I may be incorrect but I think the hotel in the series was the actual one that inspired the book in the first place.
 
Straight up garbage.

The only thing I remember from this TV waste is the scene in which Bryan from wings "goes insane" and begins laughing maniacally into the mirror for like fifteen minutes.
 
Back
Top