Hey guys, I’m Mike and I get why ‘The Dark Tower’ might be the most controversial Stephen King adaptation ever.
No, I’m not talking about the casting.
Who cares about Roland Deschain’s skin color with a badass like Idris Elba playing him?
And without getting into spoilers, changes to the story are kind of baked into the ‘Dark Tower’ concept.
I’m more alarmed by the fact that they’re taking bits and pieces from seven huge books and mixing them into one movie.
But hey, sometimes a perfect adaptation isn’t always the best idea.
Especially when it comes to Stephen King.
In fact, we’ve already got the perfect comparison.
Most people know Stanley Kubrick’s classic adaptation of ‘The Shining.’
But what about the 1997 TV miniseries written by the author himself?
Boo!
At four-and-a-half hours, it’s got a lot more room for all of the themes and details from the novel that Kubrick left out.
But at the end of the the day, one version of ‘The Shining’ is going to be taught in film classes for centuries.
And the other one is damned to the bottom of the DVD bin at Wal-Mart.
Read between the lines, pal!
So what separates these two adaptations?
And what lessons could we learn going into ‘The Dark Tower?’
Or ‘IT’ for that matter?
Let’s take a look at A Tale of Two 'Shinings.'
Here's Johnny!
It’s no secret that King hated Kubrick’s adaptation, he's really outspoken about it.
With Kubrick's 'Shining,' I felt it was very cold. I'm not a cold guy.
It was a deeply personal book for the author, who dealt with drug and alcohol problems for most of his early career.
At the time, Jack Torrance represented King’s fear of his addictions hurting his family.
I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry!
But in Kubrick’s film, Jack is basically nuts from the get-go.
Part of that comes from the script, but it’s also a big consequence of the casting.
Little pig, little pig, let me come in!
Jack Nicholson is not an actor you hire for a calm, reserved performance.
Even in his first scene with Ullman, Jack looks like he’s about three seconds from gnawing his face off.
In King’s mind, Jack Torrance was a loving, perfectly sane father when he’s off the sauce.
And you definitely buy sitcom star Steven Weber as just a normal guy with some anger issues.
Shut up! Shut up! Shut up, daddy!
Problem is, he’s a little too normal.
Jack Nicholson might chew some scenery, but you can’t look away when he’s on screen.
You chopped your wife and daughter up into little bits. And, uh, then you blew your brains out.
Weber does a decent job, but compared to Nicholson’s iconic performance...
Let’s just say he’s no Heath Ledger.
Hiii.
Most of the cast seems like cheap Malt-O-Meal versions of the Kubrick characters.
It’s cool that they got Melvin Van Peebles to play Halloran.
I’m always happy to see Sweet Sweetback getting work.
But he doesn’t come close to the charm of Scatman Crothers.
What's up, Doc?
Now, Rebecca De Mornay is actually kind of an improvement over Shelly Duvall.
Kubrick’s portrayal of Wendy Torrance was another reason King hated the 1980 film so much.
Shelly Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever seen on film.
She's basically there to scream and be stupid.
But in the novel and miniseries, Wendy is a much stronger character.
You know, Jack, you're not drinking anymore but all your old drinking habits are back.
If that's what this place is doing to you then I think coming here was a really bad idea!
And honestly? It kind of hurts the story.
You don’t really buy that De Mornay would put up with Jack’s bullshit.
She’d be gone the second he broke Danny’s arm.
Speaking of Danny, this kid they got to play him might be one of the worst child actors I’ve ever seen.
Shut up! Do you hear me? Just shut up!
After four hours I wanted to grab a mallet and bash his brains in.
Right the f*ck in!
Seriously, it’s a looong time to spend with a small group of characters.
Speaking of things that wear out their welcome, let’s talk about the Overlook.
King came up with ‘The Shining’ during a stay at the Stanley Hotel in Colorado.
And he shot his miniseries in the same place that inspired the book.
Big mistake.
The colonial decor and floral wallpaper doesn’t exactly instill an ominous sense of lingering dread.
One of the coolest things about Kubrick’s ‘Shining’ is the way he turns the Overlook into the scariest character in the film.
But he couldn’t do that by filming in an actual hotel.
Instead, he basically built his own at Elstree Studios in England.
Kubrick’s Overlook is one of the most subtly disturbing locations in movie history.
Come play with us, Danny.
Everything from the patterns on the carpets to the huge, spacious rooms are there to remind you how isolated the characters really are.
On top of that, the layout of the hotel literally doesn’t make sense.
Like how Ullman’s office has this big window.
When there should be nothing but hallways behind it.
Or how Danny rides his tricycle in a circle.
But ends up in a completely different place from where he started.
It’s not something you notice the first time you watch, but it gives us a sense that something is deeply wrong with the Overlook.
The miniseries hotel might be more authentic to King’s vision, but nothing about it suggests the horrors lurking within its walls.
That kind of thing takes subtlety.
Which isn’t exactly King’s strong suit.
Are you crazy?!
I was... But I'm better now.
And it’s not director Mick Garris’s either.
He’s the man behind a ton of mediocre made-for-TV King adaptations
Like ‘The Stand,’ ‘Desperation,’ and ‘Bag of Bones.’
None of them are very good.
Part of that is due to budget and network restrictions, but a lot of it comes from Garris’s ham-handed directing.
Like, remember Danny’s invisible friend Tony?
In the movie, he’s just a creepy little voice that lives in his finger.
But in the miniseries, Danny actually sees him as a grown-ass man in chinos who floats in periodically to drop exposition bombs.
It's dangerous! You oughta stay away from there.
And in the tacked-on coda, we learn he’s a vision of Danny’s future self, something only hinted at in the book.
Compare that to the subtlety of Kubrick’s ending.
A simple photograph, which leaves you with so many questions.
Was Jack a reincarnation of the old caretaker?
Or did he somehow become absorbed into the Overlook after his death?
The miniseries doesn’t bother with nuance and mystery.
Like the book, it ends with our heroes escaping in the nick of time as the Overlook explodes behind them.
Then Jack’s ghost shows up at Danny’s graduation and blows him a kiss.
I love you.
That's what I've been missin'.
I forgot that...
I love you Dad! I love you, son!
Why don't you blow a kiss to the nice people?
As far as King endings go, it's actually pretty restrained, but Kubrick’s film is much less overt.
Every time something supernatural happens there’s a mirror somewhere in the scene.
It forces you to wonder if everything is in Jack’s head.
In the miniseries, the ghosts are all over the place, cackling and barking orders like they’re James Bond villains.
They're not even that scary, they just look like ghosts from 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'
Kubrick's ghosts are like, frightening.
That's like, nuts.
With a shorter running time and technology limitations, Kubrick had to cut a lot of the book’s crazier ideas, like the living hedge animals.
Kubrick knew they wouldn’t work on screen, so he replaced them with the iconic hedge maze.
It was a brilliantly elegant solution.
But I guess Garris figured “it’s in the book, gotta get ‘em in there.”
They look terrible, and they’re not even the worst CGI in the miniseries.
There’s the firehose, the wasp nest, the giant scorpion monster with Dwayne Johnson’s torso...
And none of it is as scary as Kubrick’s simple snowy labyrinth.
DANNY!!!
King has always had a weird relationship with his adaptations.
He disowned a masterpiece like ‘The Shining’ but he loves ‘Dreamcatcher,’ shit-weasels and all.
Oh my god!
And he seems totally fine with the ‘Dark Tower’ movie, too.
Maybe he’s finally starting to realize that film and literature are two very different mediums.
You want some words of wisdom?
When it comes to adaptations, it’s best to keep an open mind.