The Shining Remake- Should It Happen?

[danoyse]

Cromwell is great in anything, but I hated what they did with his character in the miniseries.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Twice, and they got it wrong both times. That's a movie that needs a good remake, and with the whole vampire craze I'm surprised there's no remake in the works. My favorite Stephen King book.

Agreed, but my favorite book by king was IT, which I'm glad is getting a remake, because after reading the book, and seeing the TV movie, all I can say is that the music, the kid's portions & tim curry / pennywise are the only parts I really really like now.

 

[danoyse]

Tim Curry was the only good part of IT. The rest of the movie was a mess compared to the book.

My only problem with the book is the ending, even if they keep the ending of the book intact, it's too trippy to really work. Although I do want to see the destruction of Derry on screen.

 

[Sawyer]

Cromwell is great in anything, but I hated what they did with his character in the miniseries.

Yeah, me too. The whole sequence in the book [blackout]after he drank Barlow's blood and tried to go to his church but is refused entrance and finally leaves town[/blackout] is just so perfect, I have no clue why they would want to change it.

It's been a while since I've seen either of the adaptations, did either of them include the scene where [blackout]Susan's mother goes to the hospital to kill Ben?[/blackout]

 

[:eek:]

The big problem I had with Kubrick's movie is Jack Nicholson. He is a great actor, but everytime he plays crazy it's always a little over the top for me, turning the movie into "Jack Nicholson Show". More entertaining than scary. And another problem is that in The Shining he looks crazy from the beginning. He's not very belivable as an ordinary family father and when see the movie I find myself thinking: "who would want to spend an entire winter at an isolated hotel with that guy?".

Still, making yet another version is probably not a good idea. For most people Kubrick's movie is a classic, and any possible new version will likely be considered an inferior movie.

 

[danoyse]

Yeah, me too. The whole sequence in the book [blackout]after he drank Barlow's blood and tried to go to his church but is refused entrance and finally leaves town[/blackout] is just so perfect, I have no clue why they would want to change it.

That scene was great. And for once, can they get the Ralphie thing right? He wasn't a vampire, he was sacrificed. Danny was the first vampire.

And one of the scariest parts of the book was when [BLACKOUT]they come to the Marsten house in the daylight to kill Barlow, find him gone, but he left a letter showing that he knows who they all are and that he's planning to come after them that night. He also leaves them Susan, who Ben now has to kill.[/BLACKOUT]

How could that not be in a movie? It's great stuff.

It's been a while since I've seen either of the adaptations, did either of them include the scene where [blackout]Susan's mother goes to the hospital to kill Ben?[/blackout]

Nope, it wasn't in either version.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Tim Curry was the only good part of IT. The rest of the movie was a mess compared to the book.

My only problem with the book is the ending, even if they keep the ending of the book intact, it's too trippy to really work. Although I do want to see the destruction of Derry on screen.

Agreed, but the kids were better than the adults IMO. I also liked the music, even for a tv movie It was good. t:

 

[Sawyer]

And one of the scariest parts of the book was when [BLACKOUT]they come to the Marsten house in the daylight to kill Barlow, find him gone, but he left a letter showing that he knows who they all are and that he's planning to come after them that night. He also leaves them Susan, who Ben now has to kill.[/BLACKOUT]

The letter he left them saying (I cant remember the exact phrasing) that Mark would join his choir castratum or something like that scared the crap out of me.

And, yeah, I want the whole Danny/Ralphie Glick story done faithfully. That whole thing gave me chills.

And, please guys, no It spoilers. I'm still in the midst of reading that.

 

[danoyse]

The big problem I had with Kubrick's movie is Jack Nicholson. He is a great actor, but everytime he plays crazy it's always a little over the top for me, turning the movie into "Jack Nicholson Show". More entertaining than scary. And another problem is that in The Shining he looks crazy from the beginning. He's not very belivable as an ordinary family father and when see the movie I find myself thinking: "who would want to spend an entire winter at an isolated hotel with that guy?".

That was a problem with the movie, at least as far as an adaptation. In the movie it seemed he was always crazy, but his weakness was the alcoholism and the guilt that came from it in the book. In the end of the book, Danny managed to bring him back and he sacrificed himself to save them.

The character also seemed stiff in the movie. They never seemed like a real family, where in the book they definitely were. Danny was a typical 5-year-old, and they did have moments where things seemed fine, although beneath it all it would never be all right. Jack had ruined everything, he was an utter failure, and they knew it, even if they didn't speak about it.

It was a great moment in the book when Wendy had accused Jack of hitting Danny after he'd gotten attacked by the ghost in the room. He'd been catatonic, but he suddenly snapped out of it and ran to Jack yelling "Daddy, it was her! It was her!" And Jack picked him up, gave this malicous grin to Wendy and said "Wendy, what did you do to him?"

It would have been an even better scene in the movie.

 

[bullets]

I never watched the abc miniseries because I liked Kubrick's version alot . It depends now on who is involved and seeing more from the book would be interesting.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

I bet if King had a word in edge wise in the new film when (if) it's being made and the right actors were chose (I STILL SAY ROCKWELL FOR JACK ) it could be good.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I have no interest in a remake, but for a hypothetical one...

Jack - Jeremy Renner
Wendy - Maggie Gyllenhaal
Dick - Don Cheadle

 

[Thundarr]

Nope. I like the original. No need for a remake.

 

[Bim]

I think this is one of those movies that should be left alone. I vote no for a remake.

 

[Sawyer]

You know, after fully reading the novel from start to finish, I have to say I really wouldn't mind a new adaptation of the novel (not a remake, that should be clear). Now, I'm sure that if it was ever announced, plenty would come out of the woodwork saying "Oh, Stanley Kubrick would be spinning in his grave." My response? **** that, it wasn't his to begin with. He took the story and went in his own direction with it, and we ended up with a pretty great film, but for the most part it was nothing like what King imagined, and I can understand why he would not have cared for the results. I wouldn't mind at all for a new film that would honor King's work, but prefferably with better production values, direction and acting talent than the miniseries.

 

[Sawyer]

And, I must agree with Aesop, Sam Rockwell would be a fantastic choice for Jack Torrance.

 

[DACrowe]

I am in the camp that prefers a great film to just a faithful one. The ABC miniseries was very faithful to the book. But only an average TV movie. The Stanley Kubrick film changed almost everything about the book beyond the basic premise and character names...and it was one of the best horror films ever made.

So, I'll take Stanley Kubrick's The Shining to any remake, most likely. I simply doubt it could ever be as good. But if someone is willing to try a real cinematic adaptation of the book, I would still watch the movie and then decide. Rockwell is a good choice for the role, by the way.

 

[Octoberist]

I'd say leave it alone.

 

[danoyse]

I am in the camp that prefers a great film to just a faithful one. The ABC miniseries was very faithful to the book. But only an average TV movie. The Stanley Kubrick film changed almost everything about the book beyond the basic premise and character names...and it was one of the best horror films ever made.

So, I'll take Stanley Kubrick's The Shining to any remake, most likely. I simply doubt it could ever be as good. But if someone is willing to try a real cinematic adaptation of the book, I would still watch the movie and then decide. Rockwell is a good choice for the role, by the way.

I completely agree. If the original movie had been bad, I would say a remake is due. While the Kubrick version isn't a great adaptation, it's a great horror film. I love the book, but I'm fine with leaving the film version as it is.

 

[Ghostvirus]

All remakes & no originality makes this poster a sad panda.

 

[Bunker]

Oh look, another Aesep Rocks casting with Sam Rockwell.

 

[Octoberist]

I am in the camp that prefers a great film to just a faithful one. The ABC miniseries was very faithful to the book. But only an average TV movie. The Stanley Kubrick film changed almost everything about the book beyond the basic premise and character names...and it was one of the best horror films ever made.

So, I'll take Stanley Kubrick's The Shining to any remake, most likely. I simply doubt it could ever be as good. But if someone is willing to try a real cinematic adaptation of the book, I would still watch the movie and then decide. Rockwell is a good choice for the role, by the way.

Totally agree.

 

[Sawyer]

All remakes & no originality makes this poster a sad panda.

Not a remake.

 

[Justkidding]

Never read the book, or watched the mini series. I wouldn't want to see another one. The orginal I find too dramatic, making a lot of it come off as comedy. At least, myself and a few friends find it to be one of the best dark comedies ever made unintentally.

 

[Ghostvirus]

Not a remake.

Remake, reboot, reimagineing, readaptation. Whatever you want to call it.