|jangbones - 2011-11-26 |
1) Kubrick did like a hundred takes of every shot, he never would have made mistakes like this unless it was intentional
2) I hope those people who argue the merits of the King novel and are all hurt that Kubrick dared change things for the movie show up again in this forum
Stephen King was prolific, and in a sea of shit he managed to write a few worthwhile books here and there, but he can't smell Kubrick's feet, and any comparisons between their respective takes on The Shining bear that out
Billy the Poet
Perhaps, but I think the cheats have a lot more to do with shot composition than making the hotel seem like a crazy funhouse.
Kubrick probably noticed the inconsistencies, but in all likelihood most of them were probably accidents and set conservation (studio sets rarely are prefect in their size and geometry) and Kubrick probably just thought they were cool and disorienting and left them in.
The novel isn't terrible, but it wouldn't make a very good movie because of King's penchant for much more literal, specific horror. In Kubrick's film, the evil is somewhat nebulous and there's no one character that really functions as a reliable narrator, so the whole story takes place in its own universe away from established storytelling conventions. In the book, though, King goes out of his way to constantly remind you that the hotel itself is the malevolent entity and the "villain" of the story. Because of the popularity of the Kubrick movie, most people assume the original novel is supposed to be read with Jack as the villain, and when the TV movie was made, that's the route they took and it just doesn't quite work without the changes Kubrick made to the story.
I used to really, really like Stephen King and I think he wrote some brilliant books (not brilliant in the literary sense but just damn good stories with superb characters), but man did he take some weird turns. You know, his next book is a "sequel" to The Shining where Danny is an adult who uses his powers to help dying people.
|cognitivedissonance - 2011-11-26 |
This Youtube guy's entire output is equally obsessive and weird. I've been watching him for years.
|kingofthenothing - 2011-11-26 |
Wow. This is impressive. It's like if Ulillillia watched movies.
I can't believe I'm saying this but the guy who made this video missed the most obvious detail. The outside of the Overlook Hotel is Timberline Lodge in Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timberline_Lodge). The inside of the Overlook Hotel is the Ahwahnee Hotel in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahwahnee_Hotel). Because of the shape of the lodges and roof, there's no way the interior rooms can fit in the exterior building. The outside of the Overlook is too small for the inside and roof is steeply sloping for alpine conditions while the supposed inside has tall rectangular rooms that wouldn't fit in the triangular building.
He made a part two after reading my comment? This guy's fast.
|memedumpster - 2011-11-26 |
Five for not being able to make up my mind. This video certainly removes any middle ground between "cinematic genius" and "the most incompetently edited movie possible."
I don't care about the novel, incidentally.
|deadpan - 2011-11-26 |
There is so much going on in this movie it's ridiculous. Kubrick took King's overwritten bundle of jump scares and made it into art.
|Gojira1000 - 2011-11-26 |
Or, kubrick didn't give an autistic shit about door continuity on a huge set? Occam's sez choose "B"
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2011-11-26 |
Occam never heard of Stanley Kubrick. I remember reading accounts in Newsweek of Shelly Duvall trying to look terrified through 30-40 takes. He was the only director who refused to use stand-ins for actors during lighting tests. The actors would actually have to stand still in full costume and makeup while the lighting was adjusted.
The novel is worth reading, if you are interested in that kind of novel. Back before Stephen King became a brand name, his books were actually EDITED!
I once had like a thirty minute conversation with Malcolm McDowell.
He laughed and cringed when I asked him about Kubrick. I will never forget him going "take after take after take oh my gawd".
Occam said that, all explanatory value being equal, test first the hypothesis that uses the fewest unevidenced assumptions that still need to be tested.
He had jack-squat to say about nutty directors we have tons of stories about.
|sosage - 2011-11-26 |
I only made it five minutes in. Kubrick was obsessive about everything, but it was concentrated towards the final visual composition...not whether the hotel's layout made sense. Two people faking a hallway existing is to the benefit of the shot. The Exit sign in the background leading to a room on the floor plans is there to create a line of interest where there would be an empty space in the shot.
As for King vs. Kubrick: Kubrick is a grand master of his medium. If film is still relevant 100 years from now, they will still study or at least mention his work. There is no way in hell King is anywhere near that status in literature.
|THA SUGAH RAIN - 2011-11-26 |
Hey guys, its a fake place on a stage and the point was to make it big and spooky, not follow some geometric gates of continuity.
|Riskbreaker - 2011-11-27 |
Asspergers tag maybe?
|moral sex - 2011-11-27 |
Personally, I'd like to think this was all intentional. The hotel itself was basically supposed to be some eldritch abomination, right? It makes it even more terrifying if you subconsciously notice that there are doorways that don't even lead anywhere and windows where there should be interior walls.
|oswaldtheluckyrabbit - 2011-11-27 |
Nothing that happens in this movie really makes any sense, but it's one of the few films that uses that fact to its advantage.
|Sanest Man Alive - 2011-11-27 |
Can we get a "non-Euclidean geometry" tag?
|Syd Midnight - 2011-11-28 |
The scene where the horney ghost woman suddenly turns into a bloated corpse also stretched realism a tad.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|