> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:16:41 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article<221020111628082580%in...@loclanet.com>,
>> Invid Fan<in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>>> In article<h4CdnTwIRNCLiz7TnZ2dnUVZ_qSdn...@mchsi.com>, trotsky
>>> <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/11 1:06 PM, Thanatos wrote:
>>>>> In article<krd5a718p2qi3klu98j2a4clcinaifl...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Mack A. Damia<mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:37:04 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <82c1f7b7-131f-435b-aa15-d13c6db81...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> tobymax43<toby...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
>>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
>>>>>> "The Shining"?
>>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
>>>>> story.
>>>> Other than the entire premise.
>>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
> beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
> the film progresses.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:22:24 -0500, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>On 10/22/11 4:21 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:16:41 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article<221020111628082580%in...@loclanet.com>,
>>> Invid Fan<in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<h4CdnTwIRNCLiz7TnZ2dnUVZ_qSdn...@mchsi.com>, trotsky
>>>> <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/11 1:06 PM, Thanatos wrote:
>>>>>> In article<krd5a718p2qi3klu98j2a4clcinaifl...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Mack A. Damia<mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:37:04 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <82c1f7b7-131f-435b-aa15-d13c6db81...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> tobymax43<toby...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>>>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
>>>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
>>>>>>> "The Shining"?
>>>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
>>>>>> story.
>>>>> Other than the entire premise.
>>>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>>>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>>>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>>> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>>> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>>> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>>> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>> That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
>> beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
>> the film progresses.
>Agreed.
I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of Jack's state of
mind.
It was the hotel and its spirits that drove him crazy.
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:22:24 -0500, trotsky<gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/11 4:21 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:16:41 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<221020111628082580%in...@loclanet.com>,
>>>> Invid Fan<in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<h4CdnTwIRNCLiz7TnZ2dnUVZ_qSdn...@mchsi.com>, trotsky
>>>>> <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/11 1:06 PM, Thanatos wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<krd5a718p2qi3klu98j2a4clcinaifl...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Mack A. Damia<mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:37:04 -0700, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>> Other than the entire premise.
>>>>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>>>>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>>>>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>>>> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>>>> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>>>> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>>>> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>>> That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
>>> beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
>>> the film progresses.
>> Agreed.
> I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of Jack's state of
> mind.
> It was the hotel and its spirits that drove him crazy.
Exactly--that's the premise of the book and the movie.
> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
> >>>>> story.
> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
> > the film progresses.
> Agreed.
I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
I like the spooky ending of the movie much better than the pat ending
of the book.
BTW, you guys really ought to see this, uh, trailer, if you haven't
already:
>> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
>> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
>> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
>> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
>> >>>>> story.
>> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
>> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
>> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
>> > the film progresses.
>> Agreed.
>I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
>first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
>I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
>and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
>those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
>goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
>shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity. Jack had plans to write a
novel, and the job at the hotel would work out well for him.
Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
means.
> >> > >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> >> > >>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
> >> > >>> Shawshank Redemption.
> >> > >> "The Shining"?
> >> > > The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
> >> > > story.
> >> > Other than the entire premise.
> >> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> >> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> >> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> >Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove > >an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> >From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's > >already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> That's simply not true.
Telling me that it's not true how I experienced the film is rather presumptuous on your part.
>> >> > >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>> >> > >>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
>> >> > >>> Shawshank Redemption.
>> >> > >> "The Shining"?
>> >> > > The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
>> >> > > story.
>> >> > Other than the entire premise.
>> >> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>> >> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>> >> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>> >Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove >> >an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>> >From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's >> >already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>> That's simply not true.
>Telling me that it's not true how I experienced the film is rather >presumptuous on your part.
You're contentious for the sake of argument. There's no question of
Jack's sanity at the beginning of the film - that's the whole fucking
story, buttercup - that the hotel and it's spirits drove him crazy.
You have no more credibility - at least with me.
> > >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> > >>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
> > >>> Shawshank Redemption.
> > >> "The Shining"?
> > > The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with King's
> > > story.
> > Other than the entire premise.
> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
But that's why I liked the movie. Nicholson's fucked up from the
beginning, never having found any fulfillment or happiness, any sense
of belonging, but then he lands this job at the Overlook Hotel and he
loves it. It might drive him all the way into homicidal mania but at
last he's found a job he likes and a place he can call home. On that
grimly comic level, it's a great film. It wasn't the adaptation that
King wanted but so what, it's still one of Kubrick's best films.
> >>> >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> >>> >>>Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
> >>> >>>Shawshank Redemption.
> >>> >>"The Shining"?
> >>> >"The Shining" is a great movie. But I understand it's not true to the
> >>> >book. As someone who has read a few other King books before I wised
> >>> >up, I think that was a very good decision.
> >>> Wasn't King in on the filming of the first and best version? Yes, I
> >>> heard it wasn't absolutely true to King's novel, and initially, he
> >>> wasn't too happy wish the results.
> >>> However, the film has become a classic, and King changed his mind.
> >>Success will do that to you.
> >>The closest adaptation to a King book I can think of right now was
> >>Firestarter.
> > The TV movie of The Langoliers was fairly close to the original
> > novella, although the giant pacmen eating the airport and chasing the
> > plane looked a lot sillier on screen than my mind's eye version from
> > the original reading.
> > --
> > Jerry Brown
> > A cat may look at a king
> > (but probably won't bother)
> I wonder if any of you feel about Pet Cemetary as I do.
> I used to read all of King's book and saw all the movies but after I read
> Pet Cemetary, I lost interest in him completely.
> I have not read or watched anymore of his issue.
> Wull- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I'm reading Pet Sematary right now and all I can say so far is "what
the hell was up with that film adaptation?!?" I didn't think it was
that terrible until I started reading the book. It needs a remake.
> >> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> >> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and
> >> >>>>>>> The
> >> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
> >> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
> >> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with
> >> >>>>> King's
> >> >>>>> story.
> >> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
> >> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> >> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> >> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> >> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
> >> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> >> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
> >> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> >> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
> >> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
> >> > the film progresses.
> >> Agreed.
> >I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
> >first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
> >I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
> >and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
> >those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
> >goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
> >shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
> Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity.
It's certainly not a sign of mental stability, and this particular
symptom was not isolated.
> Jack had plans to write a novel, and the job at the hotel would work
> out well for him.
It seems more likely that Jack used his writing as an excuse to cover
his ... odd ... desire to separate himself and his family from society
for five months. He wound up not writing a thing, of course.
> Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
One of the reasons people become drunks is to avoid dealing with their
demons. Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all and, in fact, it adds to
them.
> At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
> alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
> no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
> means.
Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
what's already there, inside him.
>> >> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>> >> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and
>> >> >>>>>>> The
>> >> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
>> >> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
>> >> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with
>> >> >>>>> King's
>> >> >>>>> story.
>> >> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
>> >> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>> >> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>> >> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>> >> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>> >> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>> >> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>> >> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>> >> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
>> >> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
>> >> > the film progresses.
>> >> Agreed.
>> >I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
>> >first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
>> >I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
>> >and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
>> >those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
>> >goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
>> >shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
>> Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity.
>It's certainly not a sign of mental stability, and this particular
>symptom was not isolated.
>> Jack had plans to write a novel, and the job at the hotel would work
>> out well for him.
>It seems more likely that Jack used his writing as an excuse to cover
>his ... odd ... desire to separate himself and his family from society
>for five months. He wound up not writing a thing, of course.
>> Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
>One of the reasons people become drunks is to avoid dealing with their
>demons. Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all and, in fact, it adds to
>them.
>> At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
>> alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
>> no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
>> means.
>Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
>in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
>except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
>death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
>his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
>what's already there, inside him.
Obviously, you don't understand "insanity" - or you just like to
argue.
> > >> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> > >> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and
> > >> >>>>>>> The
> > >> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
> > >> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
> > >> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with
> > >> >>>>> King's
> > >> >>>>> story.
> > >> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
> > >> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> > >> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> > >> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> > >> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
> > >> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> > >> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
> > >> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> > >> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
> > >> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
> > >> > the film progresses.
> > >> Agreed.
> > >I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
> > >first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
> > >I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
> > >and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
> > >those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
> > >goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
> > >shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
> > Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity.
> It's certainly not a sign of mental stability, and this particular
> symptom was not isolated.
> > Jack had plans to write a novel, and the job at the hotel would work
> > out well for him.
> It seems more likely that Jack used his writing as an excuse to cover
> his ... odd ... desire to separate himself and his family from society
> for five months. He wound up not writing a thing, of course.
> > Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
> One of the reasons people become drunks is to avoid dealing with their
> demons. Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all and, in fact, it adds to
> them.
> > At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
> > alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
> > no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
> > means.
> Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
> in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
> except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
> death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
> his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
> what's already there, inside him.
If you recall, the last shot of the movie is a slow close-up of a
picture on the wall of the hotel of a New Year's Eve's party from 1927
that shows the Nicholson character. In the Kubrick version the
Nicholson character keeps on being reincarnated as a killer spirit
linked to the hotel. He was the previous caretaker, Grady, who killed
himself and his family, and unless the hotel is demolished, will
probably show up again sometime in the future as another winter
caretaker.
So, his character was doomed from the start in the movie, unlike in
the book. If you dig out the TV mini-series it's pretty clear how
different the two Jacks are.
As to The Stand, leave it alone. The mini-series is as close as you
can get to such a long book. Not everybody's favorite minor character
could make it into the mini-series and the show did mold some of the
characters more to the personalities of the actors playing them. The
mini-series misses the potential for a sequel that the book has and
some purists have dissed the final confrontation in Las Vegas. For a
close read of the book if you don't want to slog through it, see the
current comic book series by Marvel.
>> > >> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
>> > >> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and
>> > >> >>>>>>> The
>> > >> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
>> > >> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
>> > >> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with
>> > >> >>>>> King's
>> > >> >>>>> story.
>> > >> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
>> > >> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
>> > >> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
>> > >> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
>> > >> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove
>> > >> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
>> > >> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
>> > >> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
>> > >> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
>> > >> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
>> > >> > the film progresses.
>> > >> Agreed.
>> > >I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
>> > >first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
>> > >I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
>> > >and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
>> > >those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
>> > >goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
>> > >shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
>> > Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity.
>> It's certainly not a sign of mental stability, and this particular
>> symptom was not isolated.
>> > Jack had plans to write a novel, and the job at the hotel would work
>> > out well for him.
>> It seems more likely that Jack used his writing as an excuse to cover
>> his ... odd ... desire to separate himself and his family from society
>> for five months. He wound up not writing a thing, of course.
>> > Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
>> One of the reasons people become drunks is to avoid dealing with their
>> demons. Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all and, in fact, it adds to
>> them.
>> > At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
>> > alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
>> > no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
>> > means.
>> Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
>> in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
>> except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
>> death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
>> his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
>> what's already there, inside him.
>If you recall, the last shot of the movie is a slow close-up of a
>picture on the wall of the hotel of a New Year's Eve's party from 1927
>that shows the Nicholson character. In the Kubrick version the
>Nicholson character keeps on being reincarnated as a killer spirit
>linked to the hotel. He was the previous caretaker, Grady, who killed
>himself and his family, and unless the hotel is demolished, will
>probably show up again sometime in the future as another winter
>caretaker.
>So, his character was doomed from the start in the movie, unlike in
>the book. If you dig out the TV mini-series it's pretty clear how
>different the two Jacks are.
>As to The Stand, leave it alone. The mini-series is as close as you
>can get to such a long book. Not everybody's favorite minor character
>could make it into the mini-series and the show did mold some of the
>characters more to the personalities of the actors playing them. The
>mini-series misses the potential for a sequel that the book has and
>some purists have dissed the final confrontation in Las Vegas. For a
>close read of the book if you don't want to slog through it, see the
>current comic book series by Marvel.
Roger Ebert wrote:
"If Jack did indeed freeze to death in the labyrinth, of course his
body was found—and sooner rather than later, since Dick Hallorann
alerted the forest rangers to serious trouble at the hotel. If Jack's
body was not found, what happened to it? Was it never there? Was it
absorbed into the past and does that explain Jack's presence in that
final photograph of a group of hotel party-goers in 1921? Did Jack's
violent pursuit of his wife and child exist entirely in Wendy's
imagination, or Danny's, or theirs?... Kubrick was wise to remove that
epilogue. It pulled one rug too many out from under the story. At some
level, it is necessary for us to believe the three members of the
Torrance family are actually residents in the hotel during that
winter, whatever happens or whatever they think happens."
The "Heeeeeere's Johnny" exclamation was Nicholson's ad lib. Kubrick
lived in London and had no idea of Ed McMahon's famous introduction.
He almost didn't use that take in the final version.
<mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:58:25 -0400, Professor Bubba
> <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >> At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
> >> alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
> >> no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
> >> means.
> >Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
> >in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
> >except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
> >death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
> >his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
> >what's already there, inside him.
> Obviously, you don't understand "insanity" - or you just like to
> argue.
No, I was trying to discuss the nature of a film I've seen a bunch of
times. You had no response except to make a weak insult.
> > >>> >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King story.
> > >>> >>>Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and The
> > >>> >>>Shawshank Redemption.
> > >>> >>"The Shining"?
> > >>> >"The Shining" is a great movie. But I understand it's not true to the
> > >>> >book. As someone who has read a few other King books before I wised
> > >>> >up, I think that was a very good decision.
> > >>> Wasn't King in on the filming of the first and best version? Yes, I
> > >>> heard it wasn't absolutely true to King's novel, and initially, he
> > >>> wasn't too happy wish the results.
> > >>> However, the film has become a classic, and King changed his mind.
> > >>Success will do that to you.
> > >>The closest adaptation to a King book I can think of right now was
> > >>Firestarter.
> > > The TV movie of The Langoliers was fairly close to the original
> > > novella, although the giant pacmen eating the airport and chasing the
> > > plane looked a lot sillier on screen than my mind's eye version from
> > > the original reading.
> > > --
> > > Jerry Brown
> > > A cat may look at a king
> > > (but probably won't bother)
> > I wonder if any of you feel about Pet Cemetary as I do.
> > I used to read all of King's book and saw all the movies but after I read
> > Pet Cemetary, I lost interest in him completely.
> > I have not read or watched anymore of his issue.
> I'm reading Pet Sematary right now and all I can say so far is "what
> the hell was up with that film adaptation?!?" I didn't think it was
> that terrible until I started reading the book. It needs a remake.
I thought PS was one of the better Kings (albeit a ripoff), and I'm
surprised the godawful movie left you able to read it. The film
seemed to me a director trying to make her mark with Kubrick-style
art, rather than simply serving up one of literature's great, reliable
horror tales. (Meanwhile, I don't know what Ben Affleck hopes to
accomplish with THE STAND, but I'll bet young director Clint Eastwood
would've turned it down flat.)
Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <lvs5a7pil1m4g25uiiet1np8pvqs6et...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:46:00 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>> <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wasn't King in on the filming of the first and best version? Yes, I
>>> heard it wasn't absolutely true to King's novel, and initially, he
>>> wasn't too happy wish the results.
>> King was producer and wrote the screenplay. He also made a cameo as
>> one of the residents of the Boulder Free Zone when Stu and Tom return.
> He was asking whether King was involved with Kubrick's version of The > Shining.
King says that Kubrick would call him and ask stuff like "do you believe in
ghosts?" - King did, Kubrick didn't, which is why the movie is
schizophrenic on whether the Overlook is haunted or Jack is just having a
mental breakdown.
On Oct 22, 11:10 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I thought PS was one of the better Kings (albeit a ripoff), and I'm
> surprised the godawful movie left you able to read it. The film
> seemed to me a director trying to make her mark with Kubrick-style
> art, rather than simply serving up one of literature's great, reliable
> horror tales. (Meanwhile, I don't know what Ben Affleck hopes to
> accomplish with THE STAND, but I'll bet young director Clint Eastwood
> would've turned it down flat.)
That may be -- about Mary Lambert -- but her debut film -- "Siesta" --
was an extremely interesting, if somewhat flawed outing. Haven't seen
or don't remember Pet Semetary -- her second film -- so I can't
compare them. Things haven't gone well for her as she just directed
"Mega Python vs. Gatoroid." At least she's working.
> >> >> > >>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King > >> >> > >>>> story.
> >> >> > >>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, and > >> >> > >>> The
> >> >> > >>> Shawshank Redemption.
> >> >> > >> "The Shining"?
> >> >> > > The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with > >> >> > > King's
> >> >> > > story.
> >> >> > Other than the entire premise.
> >> >> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think Jack
> >> >> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's actually a
> >> >> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> >> >Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel drove > >> >an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> >> >From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's > >> >already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> >> That's simply not true.
> >Telling me that it's not true how I experienced the film is rather > >presumptuous on your part.
> You're contentious for the sake of argument.
Yes, heaven forfend I should do anything other than just concede that you must be right in that I didn't think Nicholson's character was crazy from his first scene onward. I guess I must just be misremembering, because otherwise you'd be wrong and we know that can't possibly be the case, right?
> You have no more credibility - at least with me.
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Why mess with the absolute best filmed version of any King > >> >> >>>>>>>> story.
> >> >> >>>>>>> Actually, that's a three-way tie between Misery, Stand By Me, > >> >> >>>>>>> and
> >> >> >>>>>>> The
> >> >> >>>>>>> Shawshank Redemption.
> >> >> >>>>>> "The Shining"?
> >> >> >>>>> The Shining was a good movie, but it had very little to do with
> >> >> >>>>> King's
> >> >> >>>>> story.
> >> >> >>>> Other than the entire premise.
> >> >> >>> It follows the plot, but not the story. At no time do you think > >> >> >>> Jack
> >> >> >>> Nicholson's character isn't crazy, where as in the book he's > >> >> >>> actually a
> >> >> >>> good guy with a drinking problem he's trying to overcome.
> >> >> >> Yep. The entire point of the story was to chronicle how the hotel > >> >> >> drove
> >> >> >> an ordinary man to insanity and murder.
> >> >> >> From the moment Jack Nicholson appears on screen, it's obvious he's
> >> >> >> already completely insane. The hotel was incidental.
> >> >> > That's simply not true. He shows no signs of madness during the
> >> >> > beginning and the job interview but slowly descends into insanity as
> >> >> > the film progresses.
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >I don't think so, as his desire to isolate himself at the hotel in the
> >> >first place suggests. As for his drinking, Jack admits (to the valet,
> >> >I think) that he got drunk and broke Danny's arm while punishing him,
> >> >and blows it off as "an extra ounce of pressure" or something along
> >> >those lines. (It's been a while.) Also note that Wendy immediately
> >> >goes to Jack's history of abusing Danny (and, presumably, herself) by
> >> >shrieking at him when Danny goes missing.
> >> Abusing children isn't a sign of insanity.
> >It's certainly not a sign of mental stability, and this particular
> >symptom was not isolated.
> >> Jack had plans to write a novel, and the job at the hotel would work
> >> out well for him.
> >It seems more likely that Jack used his writing as an excuse to cover
> >his ... odd ... desire to separate himself and his family from society
> >for five months. He wound up not writing a thing, of course.
> >> Alcoholism isn't a sign of insanity, either.
> >One of the reasons people become drunks is to avoid dealing with their
> >demons. Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all and, in fact, it adds to
> >them.
> >> At the beginning of the film, Jack may have been a recovering
> >> alcoholic who abused his son on one or more occasions, but he was by
> >> no means insane - either that, or you don't understand what insanity
> >> means.
> >Jack packs his family off to what amounts to Antarctica for five months
> >in what he refers to as a fresh start, and then he doesn't do anything
> >except not-write and, eventually, terrorize his family and freeze to
> >death. Further, we don't see any incident in the film that triggers
> >his insanity. Everything that happens to Jack at the hotel feeds
> >what's already there, inside him.
> Obviously, you don't understand "insanity" - or you just like to
> argue.
<classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> by Adam B. Vary
> Ben Affleck’s transition from an actor-who-directs to a director-who-
> acts just took another interesting step today. With Oscar-bait The
> Town and Gone Baby Gone under his belt — and the period thriller Argo
> currently underway — Deadline is reporting that Warner Bros. is keen
> on hiring Affleck to direct its feature film adaptation of Stephen
> King’s epic tome The Stand.
> That could honestly mean anything. But the fact that Affleck is even
> under consideration to helm The Stand is a good sign for fans eager to
> see King’s book make it to theaters. Warner Bros. announced its co-
> production with CBS Films last January, but mum’s pretty much been the
> word on any major developments since then.
> In the meantime, King’s oeuvre has been very much a hot potato in
> Hollywood: Universal famously scuttled its wildly ambitious TV-and-
> movie adaptation of King’s The Dark Tower; MGM hired a screenwriter to
> adapt a new version of Carrie; Showtime is developing Under the Dome
> as a possible series with Steven Spielberg exec producing; and Silence
> of the Lambs filmmaker Jonathan Demme snapped up the rights to King’s
> impending novel 11/22/63 (an excerpt from which you can read in this
> week’s issue of EW).
<nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>I'm reading Pet Sematary right now and all I can say so far is "what
>the hell was up with that film adaptation?!?" I didn't think it was
>that terrible until I started reading the book. It needs a remake.
I disagree. I think Hollywood needs to do more original and
unusual instead of remakes and re imaginings.
On Oct 22, 11:26 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 11:10 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > I thought PS was one of the better Kings (albeit a ripoff), and I'm
> > surprised the godawful movie left you able to read it. The film
> > seemed to me a director trying to make her mark with Kubrick-style
> > art, rather than simply serving up one of literature's great, reliable
> > horror tales. (Meanwhile, I don't know what Ben Affleck hopes to
> > accomplish with THE STAND, but I'll bet young director Clint Eastwood
> > would've turned it down flat.)
> That may be -- about Mary Lambert -- but her debut film -- "Siesta" --
> was an extremely interesting, if somewhat flawed outing. Haven't seen
> or don't remember Pet Semetary -- her second film -- so I can't
> compare them. Things haven't gone well for her as she just directed
> "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid." At least she's working.
Yes, I'd surely call that work.
Seems SIESTA isn't library/Netflix available. Probably just as well
for me, as I'm not sure I could unburden my impartiality of resentment
still lingering from 'Pet Sematary'...
On Oct 23, 10:25 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Seems SIESTA isn't library/Netflix available. Probably just as well
> for me, as I'm not sure I could unburden my impartiality of resentment
> still lingering from 'Pet Sematary'...
It probably is just as well. It's one of those "what the hell just
happened" films. I saw it because Ellen Barkin is in it. And Gabriel
Byrne, Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen, Isabella Rossellini, Grace Jones,
Julian Sands and Alexei Sayle. If you bump into it, see it. But you
could probably live a full life without it.
