- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[video=youtube;2msJTFvhkU4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=160&v=2msJTFvhkU4[/video]
There really wasnt much of steven king in the movie. It was a lose interupation of his book by kubrick. There is actually a famous scene in the movie where they show a VW crashed on the side of the road up to the overlook. Its thought by many to be a jab by Kubrick at King as a way of saying he ditched and wrecked Kings version for his own.Nope, for two reasons.
1) I'm the biggest wimp when it comes to scary movies. I can't believe I actually watched the first one - glad I did, it was awesome, but it was super scary (I would have been 12).
2) Because I did see the first one, the second one wouldn't be able to compete. Even the book was a pale comparison. (Can't do scary movies, but am addicted to scary novels...go figure...I'm a huge King fan, but I can't watch Goosebumps with my kid...lol)
There really wasnt much of steven king in the movie. It was a lose interupation of his book by kubrick. There is actually a famous scene in the movie where they show a VW crashed on the side of the road up to the overlook. Its thought by many to be a jab by Kubrick at King as a way of saying he ditched and wrecked Kings version for his own.
Regardless of if you believe that or not it was a Kubrick masterpiece. His influence is what made his version as scary as it was. There are so many subtle subliminal things he did in that movie designed to scare the pants off of you that its absolutely mindboggling how much of a cinematic genuis he was.
I could literally discuss the things he hid in that movie for years.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk