
Really, the line here should have been INCOMING HAM!
I’m a film nerd, I’ve got the certificate that costs as much as a Lexus and everything to prove it. And there are certain filmmakers and movies that you’re required to like while you’re in graduate school, because they are Serious Artists. They can do no wrong.
Oh? Wanna bet? Here are four classic science fiction, fantasy, and horror books, and the undisputed geniuses who made a total hash out of them.
The Shining
Horror movies are, at root, emotional experiences. A good horror movie is a good character drama with a metaphor laid over it. At root, to make a good horror movie you have to care, a lot, about everyday people and their everyday problems, because that’s the only way your movie will actually be scary. This is why The Shining, as a book, works: Jack Torrance wants to be a good father. He wants to be a good husband. But ultimately, he fails, which is where the horror comes in.
So, in adapting a book that requires profound emotional subtlety, careful performances, and above all, somebody who’s great with actors, the job goes to Stanley freaking Kubrick, undeniably a genius but also one of the emotionally coldest, least actor-friendly directors in film history. This is a guy who should have made The Long Walk.
The resulting movie fails to make you care about the characters, mostly because Kubrick didn’t direct his cast so much as abuse them until they made the take he wanted, plowing under anything resembling subtlety from his actors. Jack Torrance, for example, never seems like anything more or less than a crazy person, and Shelley Duvall hands in a performance that have most people rooting for the axe murderer. Kubrick’s refusal to use anything that wasn’t abstract classical on the score really doesn’t help matters, either; half the time the music barely fits the intended tone of the shot.
It’s worth noting that this isn’t entirely Kubrick’s fault: when Stephen King went back with Mick Garris and a script he personally wrote, mostly out of a desire to stick it to Kubrick, the resulting miniseries wasn’t any better and in a lot of ways substantially worse. Still, take out the twins, the elevator scene and “Here’s Johnny” and basically what you have left is the first mainstream acknowledgement of furries.
Solaris
Hey, speaking of cold, actor-hostile, and basically borderline autistic, how about a nice shot of Andrei Tarkovsky?
Tarkovsky is one of those names you never hear outside of film nerd circles, mostly because his movies are in Russian, three hours was a short running time for him, and as you may have guessed “depressing” does not begin to cover it.
Solaris, on the other hand, is Tarkovsky trying to stuff his personal obsessions into Stanislaw Lem’s novel about how humans and aliens fundamentally can’t communicate. Not helping matters was that this was a paycheck gig. Soviet audiences were no more interested in complex and profound metaphysical meditations than Western audiences were. They wanted big stupid sci-fi movies. So Tarkovsky wrote a sci-fi movie about how much he hated his dad. It’s also a science fiction movie that turns the genre’s tendency towards unease at scientific progress into outright hostility for anybody rational.
Worst of all, none of it makes much sense unless you’ve read several books about Tarkovsky’s personal life. Plenty of people will tell you this is a great science fiction movie: Mostly they are people who have no great love of or interest in the genre. It’s science fiction for people who think science fiction just has spaceships in it.
Solaris would go on to be remade as an equally terrible Steven Soderbergh movie in 2002. Tarkovsky would go on to make Stalker, a way better science fiction movie, which if no less long and slow, at least had a point and that you don’t need to read a thousand pages to understand.
Fahrenheit 451
To this day, one of the most baffling riddles of Hollywood is why Kubrick didn’t get to adapt this book, and why Francois Truffaut wasn’t given a crack at The Shining. Ray Bradbury has suffered some fairly serious abuse at the hands of Hollywood, but this was by far the worst.
To be fair, Truffaut was screwed from the start. Julie Christie plays two roles in the movie not for any profound reason, but because they couldn’t find somebody to fill the role of Clarisse. Truffaut spoke no English, which is kind of a problem for a movie in English, and he fought constantly with Oskar Werner, who believed he was a big movie star and phones this one in.
That said, Truffant never should have taken the job, because he didn’t want to make a science fiction movie. At all. While he does try pretty hard to put the best face on it, and has a lot of fun with the theme of narcissism, he also tried to cut out anything that smacked of science fiction in favor of making a Hitchcock movie. Except set in the future. Kinda.
The resulting movie was wishy-washy, as you may have guessed, and it also doesn’t do justice to the book. The book’s message becomes ham-fisted and a lot of what made it genuinely sad and troubling is lost in translation.
At least we were spared Mel Gibson’s version.
Dune
Hey, you know what totally makes sense and is completely logical when you’ve got a big, less-than-subtle political allegory about oil with lots of spaceships in it? Hiring the guy who made Eraserhead to direct it!
David Lynch has admitted that he’s never had an interest in science fiction and, oh brother, does it ever show. Dune is a book for a natural showman, somebody who wanted to tell a story, blow some stuff up, and maybe work a message into it, like Ridley Scott, who was supposed to make this and then dropped out.
Lynch’s cut is by all accounts not bad for what it is, but it was also nearly four hours long. So Dino De Laurentiis cut it down to two hours, adding those infamous voiceovers and terrible reshoots, and pretty much driving Lynch away from huge Hollywood budgets in favor of making classics Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks.
Maybe we should make weird directors try to adapt Dune more often.




The Shining is more like Jaws in that the movie elevates the material to heights the author couldn’t bring it.
Personally, I’ve got to disagree. I’ve never been to a screening of ‘Jaws’ where people were laughing at the ending. Also, Peter Benchley is not Stephen King, to put it mildly.
Unless we’re talking about screenwriting, in which case… well, let’s just say that The Shining miniseries was screwed from the start in some respects.
Are you high? That movie was a flaming trainwreck, inferior to the book in pretty much every way.
I’ll caution you now against arguing with Kubrick fans. It’s easier to get fundamentalist Christians to acknowledge Christ isn’t the Messiah.
I dont think its fair to compare the movie to the book. I mean after having read the book after I’ve seen the movie a few times I remember wondering how Kubrick thought he could actually make the movie like the book. He knew he couldnt so he just made the best movie you can with a 2 hour run time. 2 hours could have just been spent on Jack closing the hotel up for the winter.
I agree with Fadeproof in that it’s damn near impossible to turn most of King’s books into respectable movies, there’s just too much going on.
With The Shining though, it seems like Kubrick just took the setting, characters, and bare bones of the plot and said “**** it, I’m Stanley Kubrick…I’m going to make the movie I want out of this.”
Hey! I’m a Kubrick fan and thinks “The Shinning” stank. The book is probably the only book that has generally *scared* me while reading it – to the point I’d stare at the bathtub curtain wondering if I really wanted to pull it back. I was a bigger King than Kubrick fan back in the day, but haven’t read much from him lately because…well, it seems he’s been spinning his tires the last 20 years. And that hurts me to say more than Kubrick’s “Shinning” was crap. I like Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” better than Soder-pop’s one, but the chief failing of both movies is ignoring the character of Solaris itself. Love that book, but it seems filmmakers have as hard a time as understanding the point of the damned thing as Lem’s characters do aliens.
@Walker – Jaws? Novel > Movie. Although the movie was incredibly successful at the time and the actors were great, the shark sucked penguin dick. Special effects? Not so special. The shark I imagined as I read the book was realistic and WAY scarier.
@Fade/Daisy/Bob – I think we have consensus. In general, Book > Movie. Offhand, I can’t think of an exception.
I’ll always have a soft spot for Dune, no matter how batshit it is. Or maybe because of how batshit it is.
Fahrenheit 451 is balls, though. It’s like they wasted all their creativity on coming up with the voiceover opening credits.
I kinda love Dune, too, but it is a MESS, no two ways about it.
Oh, no doubt. My love for Dune is based on nostalgia and my dad’s fondness for quoting it, not actual quality.
Lynch was born 20 years too early. Today, he could have made a trilogy out of that book with extended dvd versions for each movie.
When you stay with your parents and you wake up in the morning do you yell, “Father! The sleeper has awoken!”
I’m the same Patty. I originally liked the movie unironically as a kid. Later in life when I actually read the books I continued liking it -because- it was so terrible.
I MUST NOT FEAR. FEAR IS THE MIND KILLER.
I enjoy the Shining in both book and movie form, but I just view them as two separate entities entirely.
This is my exact feelings. I’m not an insane Kubrick fan but I do enjoy most of his work, mainly in the sense of how uneasy they make me feel using a visual and atmosphere combination that just creeps to me. I felt like the book had a different sense to it than the movie, but made it no less great or took away from how the movie made me view the overall story.
Can’t we have another blog post entitled “Things that are awesome in book and movie form as long as you don’t compare them.” I will add FIght Club to that list
@Jarret Yeah, Palahniuk books don’t translate to the screen so well. I think they pretty much gave up on adapting his books after the turd that was Choke.
Yes, boss, but I can’t write it, because we’d get to Fight Club and it’d just be me chanting KILL for a solid ten pages.
Sam Rockwell was the only thing that I enjoyed about Choke. As for the Shining, check out the recent documentary Room 237 and you’ll get an idea of how deep Kubrick’s rabbit hole goes in that film.
@Erectus – Hell yes.
I’d still like to see them make Survivor. It’s a great Pahlaniuk book.
Except for Jurassic Park (Which was still better as a novel) all of Michael Crichton’s novels were made into mediocre to horrible movies. And personally I really liked all his novels. 13th Warrior/Eaters of the Dead was a decent movie too.
I didn’t think anyone saw Eaters of the Dead but me! I’ve never met another person who watched the film. Granted, I stopped asking a few years ago, but still. Nice to meet you, Carbine.
The 13th Warrior was quite good, I thought. Banderas did a great job of it.
13th Warrior has the best hand wavy “he’s learning their language” ever put to film. It made sense visually and saved the film from the trope of “everyone just speaks English, deal with it”. Also, bad ass viking warriors.
Just made me think of Pathfinder and I got sad. What a waste that film was.
13th Warrior still holds up and I totally liked the language switch, it was wayyy more organic than most of those kinds of scenes (looking at you Hunt for Red October).
Speaking of which, you could make an entire separate article about how badly Tom Clancy’s novels have been hacked up by Hollywood.
Yeah it was a good film. I didn’t know it cost 100 million though
@Carbine – You are SO right. I still can’t believe how bad “Congo” was. It was like an SNL satire of Crichton’s book.
Crichton was a screenwriter and wrote almost all his novels with an eye toward the movie version.
I know I may be only one of 4 or 5 people in the world that felt this way, but I loved the Soderbergh Solaris. I didn’t see it in the theatre because of how bad I heard it was. I didn’t read the book or see the previous movie. But for some reason that is one of my all time favorite movies to go back and watch. Something about it. As for the others, I totally agree. Never liked the Shining movie. Liked Dune as a kid, but tried to watch it as an adult and couldn’t do it. I heard the later mini-series of Dune was much better and followed the book more closely. Did anyone who was a fan see that one?
Hey, you can’t help the movies you love.
Yeah, I liked it too, I have a softspot for sci-fi that is unhurried, I think it communicates space a lot better, like the the almost silence of space battles in BSG.
Moon springs to mind and of course Kubricks 2001 also I saw film a couple of weeks ago called Cargo which was pretty good.
I attempted to read The Shining recently and couldn’t get past a few chapters, essentially because of the same reason that a number of King’s works fail: religious overtone gobbledygook. Make a movie about “The Sun Dog” and we can move on from there.
Kubrick got the alcoholism right in that movie. I feel like PTSD flashbacks from my childhood when I watch that movie.
Kubrick got the twins right. Damn, they gave me nightmares.
I really liked Dune, flaws and all. Part of it is probably just my love for the source material but visually I really dug the Lynch’s interpretation. Also what ever happened to the remake? Did the rights revert since production never started?
So what “Director’s Cut” of Dune are you talking about? A quick look only shows the original theatrical release and an extended edition that Lynch had his name removed from because of all the changes made by a second director. I can’t find anything about a 4 hour release by Lynch at all.
There is, in fact, a copy of Lynch’s first cut floating around, if you know where to look and are willing to accept shitty bootleg quality (Lynch’s original cut has never been officially released). I saw it and, well, it’s kind of like Robert Wise getting to recut “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”: It sucks, but it sucks LESS.
Color me crazy, but I swear Lunch’s cut was released on laser disc. Or maybe it was the theatrical cut with a few more scenes spliced in.
My investigation went as far as IMDB and Wikipedia, so my sources are suspect, but there was never any mention of a 4 hour post-production cut. There were various European versions and TV versions cut from both the theatrical and extended editions though.
@DevilDino–Haha…laserdisc. Good one.
I did find something mentioning a cut without any post-production effects. Is that the one you are referring to?
Dune is certainly terrible, but also terribly fun and an awesome hot mess. I dunno how much of my love for the film is nostalgia, but I rewatch it every few years or so.
Though, when my GF read the book and was excited to see the movie, I strongly cautioned her to just leave it be…
Shai Hulud approves.
Yeah, I’m all for keeping movies and books apart in terms of comparison. That being said, I think the only movie that has ever surprassed the book it was based on was Killer Elite. And the topic of Shining reminds me of how much I loved the novel IT and how godawful the miniseries was. Wasn’t a huge fan of The Stand series either.
You bash the hell out of Kubrick but go easy on Lynch? Where am I?
Oh wait. Uproxx loved (and well you should) Lynch’s appearance on Louie.
Well, I don’t know about great director but One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Net was a great book with a completely retarded movie version. I don’t think they even read the book.