Current Events > In 1981, the Razzies nominated Stanley Kubrick "Worst Director"

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Shining got nominated for both Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actress.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000040/awards

Something tells me the Razzie people have a much easier job picking nominees nowadays.

so you're saying that there's still hope that The Room might one day be acknowledged for what it truly is - an all time classic
---

That didnt age well
---

I lost all respect for the Oscars when Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare in Love. I thought the Razzies could be trusted. I guess all awards shows are bullshit.

:'(

It might have to do with Stephen King himself hating the Shining movie at the time.
---

^ I feel the unfaithful adaptation was the driving force to its reception at the time. I thought King still doesn't like the movie or see how it is scary today.

Kerred posted...

I feel the unfaithful adaptation was the driving force.

This.

It's a beautiful film but a truly awful adaptation.
---

boxington posted...

so you're saying that there's still hope that The Room might one day be acknowledged for what it truly is - an all time classic

Ha. Other movies that were panned at the time were The Thing and Clue. So may there is hope for the Room........ cough...

IloveJesus posted...

Kerred posted...

I feel the unfaithful adaptation was the driving force.

This.

It's a beautiful film but a truly awful adaptation.

I prefer Kubricks vision in so far as Jack has evil in him and the Hotel preys on his weakness. In the novel is more like he is directly controlled by the hotel and it isnt him doing it.
---

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

I doubt it, the movie was not well received when it came out.
---

The Thing was also nominated for a Razzie

Stephen King is weird. He hates The Shining adaptation that is superior to his book, but then praises The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.
---

Irony posted...

The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.

Wrong

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

IloveJesus posted...

Kerred posted...

I feel the unfaithful adaptation was the driving force.

This.

It's a beautiful film but a truly awful adaptation.

I prefer Kubricks vision in so far as Jack has evil in him and the Hotel preys on his weakness. In the novel is more like he is directly controlled by the hotel and it isnt him doing it.

I feel like in the book the hotel very much preys on what was already there. It made it 10x worse, but it existed before the Overlook. I guess it all depends on your reading of the book.

I've found with a few early King novels that my reading of them changes significantly as I get older. Pet Sematary is a really notable example. I first read it as 16 year old and didn't get what all the fuss was about. Reading it in my 30s was like reading a totally different book.
---

Irregardless posted...

Irony posted...

The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.

Wrong

Sigless regular user shitpost
---

Irony posted...

Stephen King is weird. He hates The Shining adaptation that is superior to his book, but then praises The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.

The Mist adaptation is great. One of the best (I know there are plenty of awful ones). I'd probably only put it behind The Green Mile.
---

Kerred posted...

boxington posted...

so you're saying that there's still hope that The Room might one day be acknowledged for what it truly is - an all time classic

Ha. Other movies that were panned at the time were The Thing and Clue. So may there is hope for the Room........ cough...

Maybe, cinema taste changes over time.
---

Irony posted...

Stephen King is weird. He hates The Shining adaptation that is superior to his book, but then praises The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.

The only problem with the movie was the ending.
---

creativerealms posted...

The only problem with the movie was the ending.

"The only problem with the movie was literally the best part"

Irregardless posted...

creativerealms posted...

The only problem with the movie was the ending.

"The only problem with the movie was literally the best part"

I had no problem with the ending.
---

The Razzies are weird. Sandra Bullock once was nominated for worst actress in All About Steve and she was going to attend the ceremony. The voters all voted for her to win just to have her do a speech. Sandra said she knew that would happen and gave everyone a copy of her movie knowing the voters didn't watch the film.

The next night she won an Academy Award.
---

Irony posted...

Stephen King is weird. He hates The Shining adaptation that is superior to his book, but then praises The Mist adaptation that was fucking horseshit.

Stephen King was worried that he was becoming an abusive father, so he channeled his fears into a story about a father who gave in to malevolent impulses. Given the personal nature of the story, I can see how creative liberties would be entirely unwelcome on his end.

stephen kings issues with the film were that they turned jack into an outright monster with non of his redeeming qualities from the book
and felt that wendy was portrayed a rather misogynistic way taking away all the strength the character had from his novel and turning her into a pathetic woman who just screams non stop
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

Probably wise advice. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not how well it stacks up against the source material.
---

Firewerx posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

Probably wise advice. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not how well it stacks up against the source material.

It depends on whether you can acknowledge that a bad adaptation can be a good film.
---

IloveJesus posted...

Firewerx posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

Probably wise advice. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not how well it stacks up against the source material.

It depends on whether you can acknowledge that a bad adaptation can be a good film.

I don't consider that fidelity to the original story (if that's what you mean by a "good" or "bad" adaptation) is an essential criterion on which to judge a movie as a movie.
---

Firewerx posted...

IloveJesus posted...

Firewerx posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Oh, so the Razzie committee read the book before seeing the movie. Don't ever do that.

Probably wise advice. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not how well it stacks up against the source material.

It depends on whether you can acknowledge that a bad adaptation can be a good film.

I don't consider that fidelity to the original story (if that's what you mean by a "good" or "bad" adaptation) is an essential criterion on which to judge a movie as a movie.

I agree. That's why I separate the two.
---

IloveJesus posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

IloveJesus posted...

Kerred posted...

I feel the unfaithful adaptation was the driving force.

This.

It's a beautiful film but a truly awful adaptation.

I prefer Kubricks vision in so far as Jack has evil in him and the Hotel preys on his weakness. In the novel is more like he is directly controlled by the hotel and it isnt him doing it.

I feel like in the book the hotel very much preys on what was already there. It made it 10x worse, but it existed before the Overlook. I guess it all depends on your reading of the book.

I've found with a few early King novels that my reading of them changes significantly as I get older. Pet Sematary is a really notable example. I first read it as 16 year old and didn't get what all the fuss was about. Reading it in my 30s was like reading a totally different book.

A lot of his stuff changes drastically once you have children.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

A lot of his stuff changes drastically once you have children

I don't, but I think I understand people who do a lot better now.
---