Again, a few comments:
I never said you didn’t say what you meant. What I said was that you had no idea what you were talking about, and the fact that you are debating me is further proof of this.
Maybe Kubrick altered or cut out a some of the plot and excessive details to improve pacing, but on the whole, I’d say it was pretty true to the novel. More so than many adaptations anyway. Some things must be taken out in order to make a successful and powerful film. Take the Silence of the Lambs for example. They kept the tone and a majority of the plot, while taking out some side stories and most notably the background of Jame Gumb. They did this to improve the pacing and make a film that never lets up in terms of thrills. They did just about the same thing “The Shining.” Both films are universally considered classics.
If you think The Shining sucked, I’m cool with that. Its your deal. But don’t ever try to make it into something it isn’t, such as a hack-job of a movie. Love it or hate it, it is a great movie. You have seen both of the movies and read the novel, right? I mean, you aren’t basing this all on the words of King or someone else. Because if you have read and seen them, you should at least understand how it isn’t “being raped” by Kubrick. Your opinions can suck, and I’m fine with that, but don’t try to share them with others if you are backing them up with fallacies.
Also, I never accused you of “talking shit.” That usually requires and insight that you do not appear to possess.
And finally, I don’t think my English is all that bad, I’ll admit I have some errors in my posts, but come on.
Please don’t make me expound anymore, just let this one go. I’d hate to have to embarrass you further.
I must agree with Holiday completely here.I’ve read the Shining and seen the movie and miniseries many times.
Kubrick wisely altered the script from the book,but I still feel the essence is kept.And what is most important,he made a great movie from a great book.
Actually King himself altered things from the book for the miniseries,probably to be different from the movie.
King’s version is good,but can’t compare to Kubrick’s in any way.
I feel that Oliver Stone did fantastic work with NKB,and loved the added scenes with Rodney Dangerfield.
The only sad thing is that he didn’t keep the great courtroom scene.
[quote]
- As far as movies go, NBK is awesome.
- As far as Tarantino movies go, NBK is trash and Stone should be shot.
- I prefer to think of this film as an Oliver Stone masterpiece as opposed to a Tarantino film.
- Tarantino shouldn’t have sold the script, but if I were Tarantino, I’d get pissed to.
- Tommy Lee Jones is awesome in this movie.
- Acting and directing is superb and original.
- Tarantino’s hating of this film should be exclusive to Tarantino. As film fans, I think we should we should give this film an equal oppertunity. If you hate the film, I’m cool with that, but don’t hate it because Stone screwed up a perfectly good Tarantino script…wait…that didn’t make much sense…oh well.
- The film would’ve been much better as a strait forward Tarantino film, but Stones turing of the film into a Media Satire is both ingenious and worthy of praise.
- If it bothers Tarantino all that much, he should shoot Stone.
- All in all, don’t hate on NBK.[/quote]
i pretty much agree on that.
you have to take a look at them seperately, if you critizise NBK in the tarantino-context your results will be negative.
but look at NBK without even thinking about the entire Tarantino thing, and you come across a great media-satire film.
[quote]
- As far as movies go, NBK is awesome.
- As far as Tarantino movies go, NBK is trash and Stone should be shot.
- I prefer to think of this film as an Oliver Stone masterpiece as opposed to a Tarantino film.
- Tarantino shouldn’t have sold the script, but if I were Tarantino, I’d get pissed to.
- Tommy Lee Jones is awesome in this movie.
- Acting and directing is superb and original.
- Tarantino’s hating of this film should be exclusive to Tarantino. As film fans, I think we should we should give this film an equal oppertunity. If you hate the film, I’m cool with that, but don’t hate it because Stone screwed up a perfectly good Tarantino script…wait…that didn’t make much sense…oh well.
- The film would’ve been much better as a strait forward Tarantino film, but Stones turing of the film into a Media Satire is both ingenious and worthy of praise.
- If it bothers Tarantino all that much, he should shoot Stone.
- All in all, don’t hate on NBK.[/quote]
i pretty much agree on that.
you have to take a look at them seperately, if you critizise NBK in the tarantino-context your results will be negative.
but look at NBK without even thinking about the entire Tarantino thing, and you come across a great media-satire film.
I can honestly say, without the QT connection part, that I did not like NBK when I first saw it. I havent watched it in years, but I’ll probably see it again sometime.
To me it was just an over the top rehash of Bonnie and Clyde. I know its a satire on the media and how they portray violence, etc. I just didnt dig it. It wasnt my thing at all.
If you wanna see a great lovers on the run film, watch BADLANDS or TRUE ROMANCE. Those films rock. 
I agree here. Badlands and True Romance rock!
I liked The Shining.
I really didn’t like NBK the first time I saw it, but I happened to catch it a second time and now I love it. I understand QT’s disgust but as an audience, I loved the movie. I even like the crazy camera angles now. It gives you a vibe of seeing things in a crazy Knox-like manner.
Life isn’t always fair.
Ya I agree with holiday… PPl should look at things from a different point of view. If you look at NBK as a Tarantino fan, you’ll wanna hunt down Stone. However, if you look at it as a movie which has nuthn to do with QT, its an excellent film. As simple as that.
I liked NBk but I had a problem about the point that Oliver Stone gave it but I do agree with Holiday about the different points of view most people have on Natural Born Killers but most people look at it as a Oliver Stone film but I wish they stuck with the original script of NBK.
Yeah, the original the the real deal. I wasn’t all that impressed with the killing of the warden in Stone’s film, as he was my favorite character, but, oh well.
Does anyone know what Stone has said about Tarantino’s response ? I’ve been looking for a while now.
you gotta look at that stuff from the real side:
Tarantino sold this script BEFORE 1992! Back then, he was a nothing in the industry, anyone would fuck up his script and dont give a fuck, I mean, even when in 1993 they changed the script, they didn’t care, because: HE SOLD IT!! I mean, he sold it… where’s the fucking point, its not like they acquired the rights or something, he sold it. point finale.
if QT didn’t want anyone to fuck around with his script, well damn me, dont sell it!!!
as much as i like QT to make NBK himself, he sold it. thats his problem.
and really, back in 1992/93 noone gave a fuck, why should they?
[quote]you gotta look at that stuff from the real side:
as much as i like QT to make NBK himself, he sold it. thats his problem.
and really, back in 1992/93 noone gave a fuck, why should they?[/quote]
Tony Scott consulted QT when he made True Romance, I still think Stone shouldve shown some respect to QT as a fellow writer and done the same. If he was planning on not staying true to QTs original ideas, he shouldve changed the title of the film at least.
I like most of Stones movies, but I still think NBK is a piece of shit.
Did you know that QT has NEVER seen NBK? Check out this cool interview:
http://www.monkeypeaches.com/020717B.html
He even speaks about OS “stealing” his script. As much as I love QT, I’m not sure if this is a totally fair statement regarding Stone…
[quote]Did you know that QT has NEVER seen NBK? Check out this cool interview:
http://www.monkeypeaches.com/020717B.html
[/quote]
No offense Scar, but that has to be one of the worst interviews I’ve ever read. You can hardly understand what the Chinese guy is saying. lol.
that’s because its a bad re-translation
No offense taken Vic, I do agree that the dude’s english is somewhat fucked up ;D. What I can’t understand is how the fuck did QT know that NBK was a piece of crap without even seeing it?! Doesn’t make sense to me.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Either that or a shitty translation.
I got to ask you people a question and I do am not trying to a fucking ass whipe but remember without Larrence Bender ans the selling of NBK and TR he would not have enough money for Reservoir Dogs.
and please do not tell me to go smeg my self
[quote]I
and please do not tell me to go smeg my self
[/quote]
GO smeg yourself.
NBK, TR and Reservoir Dogs have NOTHING to do with each other.
QT got to make Reservoir Dogs because he had Lawrence Bender, Harvey Keitel, Monte Hellman and Richard Gladstein at Live Entertainment behind him after they read his script and all loved it.
And I still think NBK is a pile of stinky horse dung.