Stephen King's Fiery Critique Of ‘The Shining’—Why The Master Of Horror Hates One Of the Greatest Horror Films Ever Made

When you think of classic horror movies, The Shining undoubtedly comes to mind. Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaptation of Stephen King’s novel has cemented its place in cinematic history as one of the greatest horror movies ever made.

But while moviegoers continue to sing its praises, there’s one person who isn’t joining the fan club—Stephen King himself. The master of horror has made no secret of his disdain for Kubrick’s take on his novel.

So, what exactly went wrong? How could a film that’s so revered by audiences be so despised by the person who inspired it? Luckily, King has been quite vocal about what he feels went awry, and trust me—this isn’t just a case of an author nitpicking a few details. 

In fact, he’s gone on record saying it’s the only adaptation of his novels that he outright hates. He’s been clear about the fact that Kubrick’s adaptation didn’t just tweak the story—it completely missed the point.

For King, the film strayed too far from the heart of his novel, losing the emotional depth and character arcs that made it so terrifying. Even after over four decades, King’s disapproval still lingers—and for good reason. 

Let’s break down exactly why the master of horror remains unimpressed with Kubrick’s so-called masterpiece.

King wasn't happy that Kubrick chose a scenic location rather than somewhere spooky

Warner Bros.

First off, let’s talk hotels. If there’s one thing King is passionate about, it’s the places that inspire his stories. The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was the muse behind the fictional Overlook Hotel in The Shining.

King and his wife stayed there in 1974, and the deserted corridors and unsettling atmosphere left such an impression that it sparked the idea for his novel. So, imagine his disappointment when Kubrick opted to film at the Timberline Lodge in Oregon instead. 

Not only did it lack King's personal connection with The Stanley Hotel, but Timberline’s management even asked Kubrick to change the infamous room number from 217 (as in the book) to 237 (which is a non-existent room at the hotel).

The irony? Room 217 is now the most requested at the Timberline Lodge. Looks like the original haunted room had the last laugh!

But King’s grievances didn’t stop at the hotel. He also took issue with Kubrick’s portrayal of Wendy Torrance, who was played by Shelley Duvall.

In the novel, Wendy is a strong, resilient woman who stands by her family in the face of supernatural horror. But Kubrick’s Wendy? She was more ‘damsel in distress’ than a real survivor. King didn’t mince words; he boldly declared she was just “there to scream and be stupid.” Ouch.

Many filmmakers and authors emphasize the importance of authentic representation in adaptations. For instance, Dr. Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, states, "The best adaptations honor the original while also bringing something new to the table." He emphasizes that screenwriters should engage deeply with the source material, understanding its themes and character arcs to create compelling narratives. By doing so, filmmakers can craft versions that respect the original work while appealing to contemporary audiences. This practice may lead to more cohesive and satisfying adaptations in the future.

Ultimately, honoring the essence of the original story while embracing innovative storytelling techniques can enhance the adaptation process.

King was disappointed at how Wendy and Jack Torrance were depicted

King’s grievances didn’t stop at the hotel. He also took issue with Kubrick’s portrayal of Wendy Torrance, who was played by Shelley Duvall.

In the novel, Wendy is a strong, resilient woman who stands by her family in the face of supernatural horror. But Kubrick’s Wendy was more of a ‘damsel in distress’ than a real survivor. King didn’t mince words; he boldly stated that she was just “there to scream and be stupid.” Ouch!

There have been allegations that Kubrick’s relentless directing methods drove her to exhaustion, isolation, and tears.

And then we have Jack Torrance, the story’s unraveling protagonist

Artistic Intent vs. Audience Reception

Stephen King's critique of Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of 'The Shining' highlights a fundamental tension between artistic intent and audience reception. Dr. Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, emphasizes that "the disconnect between an artist's vision and audience interpretation can lead to significant misunderstandings." King has expressed that he felt his novel was meant to convey a specific emotional journey that Kubrick's film overlooked. This discrepancy serves as a reminder that interpretations of art can vary widely, depending on individual perspectives and experiences. Dr. Adam Grant further notes, "Art is a dialogue, not a monologue; it thrives on the diverse interpretations of its audience."

In the world of adaptations, it’s crucial for creators to find a balance between their vision and what resonates with audiences, fostering a dialogue rather than a divide.

In the novel, Jack Torrance begins as a relatable, recovering alcoholic, a detail reflecting King's own life. King wanted an "everyday" actor like Christopher Reeve for the role, but Kubrick chose Jack Nicholson.

Even though Jack Nicholson delivered a brilliant performance in the movie, King wasn't impressed, as he felt Nicholson lacked the character arc he envisioned.

"I don’t like the arc that Jack Nicholson runs as Jack Torrance," he said to the New York Times. "Because it isn’t really an arc — it’s a flat line. He’s crazy from the jump." 

In addition, the movie focuses more on Jack as the antagonist rather than the supernatural forces of the Overlook Hotel. This differed significantly from the novel’s depiction.

The book and the movie are two worlds apart

In the end, the film and the book are almost two entirely different stories. Despite King’s admiration for Kubrick as a director, he just couldn’t reconcile these differences.

Even though King’s disdain for The Shining has softened over the years, he still isn’t a fan. However, the fact remains that Kubrick’s film, love it or hate it, is now a cornerstone of cinematic history.

Practical Steps for Healing

Stephen King's criticism of 'The Shining' serves as a valuable lesson in the world of adaptations. Understanding the creative intentions behind both the source material and its adaptations is crucial for achieving a harmonious interpretation. Filmmakers should aim for a balance that respects the original while utilizing the unique strengths of cinematic storytelling. As McKee emphasizes, immersive engagement with the original narrative can significantly enhance the adaptation process.

By fostering collaboration between authors and filmmakers, we can create cinematic experiences that resonate more deeply with both existing fans and new audiences alike.