DVD Pickup Thread v2

[ololmarcus]

[acp35]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Kubrick's vision>>>>>>>>>King's vision.

Not in a million years.

The average film snob might say that but Kubrick, though a genius, knew next to nothing about the horror genre. And his take on the book is questionable at best. as genius as Kubrick is he never really got the book or just didnt care. As for the casting. Yes Nicholson is awesome but there is no depth of character at all there. You see Torrance at the beginning and its absolutely no leap at all to see him as being bat shit crazy.

King wrote the Shining. It's King's vision and King's story you do not beat the author at your attempted vision of his original project.

The shining was a horrible adaption and also Barry lyndon was a horribly boring film and this comes from someone who likes kubrick.

[Cebonation04]

Originally Posted by travisbickle

So I assume all the Salem's Lot grabs i've been seeing are all from Big Lots?

Dammit, I bought it used for $10 bucks a while back thinking it was a great deal...And of course a week after I buy it, Big Lots has it New for $3....

I got mine used from Moviestop.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by acp35

Not in a million years.

The average film snob might say that but Kubrick, though a genius, knew next to nothing about the horror genre.

And book snobs can make moronic comments on Kubrick knowing nothing about horror, even though The Shining is on nearly every "Top Ten Horror" list out there, and has the status of being a timeless classic, with iconic performances. Good, thoughtful comment you made right there....

And his take on the book is questionable at best. as genius as Kubrick is he never really got the book or just didnt care. As for the casting. Yes Nicholson is awesome but there is no depth of character at all there. You see Torrance at the beginning and its absolutely no leap at all to see him as being bat shit crazy.

King wrote the Shining. It's King's vision and King's story you do not beat the author at your attempted vision of his original project.

No, but you can make it better. Which Kubrick did.

The shining was a horrible adaption and also Barry lyndon was a horribly boring film and this comes from someone who likes kubrick.

Barry Lyndon was boring. I'll give you that. Not sure what it has to do with The Shining, but alright....

Kubrick was a visionary, and the fact that he took so many liberties with the original source material, made it his own, and still made a great/successful film that divides audiences of both the book and the movie to this day, should tell you he did something right.

There is a difference between "bad", and "different".

[el terror]

[morts vivants]

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[CJ_01976]

Originally Posted by acp35

Not in a million years.

The average film snob might say that but Kubrick, though a genius, knew next to nothing about the horror genre. And his take on the book is questionable at best. as genius as Kubrick is he never really got the book or just didnt care. As for the casting. Yes Nicholson is awesome but there is no depth of character at all there. You see Torrance at the beginning and its absolutely no leap at all to see him as being bat shit crazy.

King wrote the Shining. It's King's vision and King's story you do not beat the author at your attempted vision of his original project.

The shining was a horrible adaption and also Barry lyndon was a horribly boring film and this comes from someone who likes kubrick.

And Stephen King is a boring writer whose work only shines when others put their own spin on it. King's tv version of The Shining was an extremely overlong, wordy, dull, and tedious affair that was as laughable as it was lame. It had zero tension and zero suspense, two things the film version had in spades. Kubrick has had a few misfires as a filmmaker, but all filmmakers do eventually. King snobs can fuck of. He is not worth the praise. And it pisses me of that King's version of The Shining is on DVD and the tv version of Intensity is not when that one deserves to be.

[acp35]

Originally Posted by CJ_01976

And Stephen King is a boring writer whose work only shines when others put their own spin on it. King's tv version of The Shining was an extremely overlong, wordy, dull, and tedious affair that was as laughable as it was lame. It had zero tension and zero suspense, two things the film version had in spades. Kubrick has had a few misfires as a filmmaker, but all filmmakers do eventually. King snobs can fuck of. He is not worth the praise. And it pisses me of that King's version of The Shining is on DVD and the tv version of Intensity is not when that one deserves to be.

And pretentious artsy film and literary snobs can shove it. But name calling doesn't get you anywhere.

Kubricks film was well shot but it was still horribly written, badly cast, and completely devoid of any characterization. His attempts at horror were shockingly low grade for such a director. And as for King I don't care if you like him or not. He didnt write for the elite he wrote for the masses and a lot of the more snobby fans didn't like the fact that it wasn't elitist. There are always the people out there that basically hate something because its popular. For no actual real reason but that.

I didn't like Carrie at all as a novel but when DePalma directed the film he followed along and added to the source material.

Kubricks film worked in SPITE of the source material, inspite of the casting, in spite of the script not because of it.

Theres no way you can straight faced look at me and say that novels like The Shining, Christine, The Stand, and Salem's Lot do not have a valid place in literary horror history because thats bull.

[CANADARULES]

Originally Posted by CJ_01976

Love that one.

I really hope the sequel that comes out this year will also be just as good or better.

[Jinx]