The Overlook Hotel - The Shining prequel

[Jemble Fred]

I am so glad the Wicker Man remake exists, and the original is one of my all-time favourite films.

Same here – and ditto for The Wicker Tree. I hope Hardy gets to make his planned third movie of the trilogy too, and it couldn't be much worse than the sequel. But, by fornication, it'll make for interesting viewing if it happens.

Same goes for Ghostbusters. The first sequel was a MASSIVE step down, but it enriched the lore, and the first film remains pristine, and near-perfect. I utterly hate the idea that they may never have just one more outing.

[thecuriousorange]

But guys... this might not be a prequel to the Stanley Kubrick film The Shining.

It could be a prequel to the King-approved 1990s TV movie The Shining.

[Tiny Poster]

What tends to happen with stuff like this, is that people get worked up over how bad and sacreligious the "lore enrichment" is going to be, to the extent that when it finally appears, everyone shrugs with a "Hmm, well, it's not as bad as I expected" before fading away, only to be remembered with a "Hey, remember when they made a sequel/prequel to (beloved cultural artifact X)? No, seriously - check out the wikipedia entry! I wonder if it's on Youtube..."

[Mustow Green]

... the great thing about the Shining is all the unanswered questions, that gives the viewer a larger depth to the movie to wonder about. The end photo of Nicholson at a party back in the 20s or whenever it was - he's got what looks like a secret note hidden in his palm - I've always wondered what that was about, but I think Kubrick just got an old stock photo and put Nicholson's face on it - so the party note was just what it appears to be. But that is what was great about Kubrick, leaving these little odd details that you never know if he intended a deeper meaning to or not.

Steven, this video may answer some of the questions that may have been bothering your brain?  The end photo, the Gold Room, American Imperialism, the destruction of the native American tribes/culture, (and possibly more), are all coded into the film.  The narration may be too dry for some but some of the ideas presented are quite impressive.  I think I sat through a talk/screening by Rob, in the mid 90s; his idea's may sound a bit fanciful, but when backed up with evidence from the film is quite stunning.

Hope this video helps?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAQnfOXqiR0

My feeling towards The Shining.  I've watched it multiple times, it is one of my favourite films; depending on my mood I can find it hilariously funny or bloody scary?  The main big impression on me is that my Dad was the spitting image of Jack, (in this film), around 1980.  There are scenes, (e.g. the bedroom scene where Danny goes for his firetruck and Jack is sat on the bed), where I watch and it's not Jack, it's my Dad.  (I'm not saying my Dad was/is a psycho). 

Have you seen the, extended, US cut?  If not have you ever wondered who/where the credited actress Anne Jackson is in the UK cut?  (Not the women in the bath).  If you've never seen this cut, she plays a Doctor who examines Danny when he has his first blackout/vision of the Overlook.  There's a long conversation between her and Wendy where Jack's history of violence and drunkeness is revealed.  Apparently Kubrick was still cutting the film in the US after it's release, (e.g. after the climax we'd cut to a week later in a hospital where Wendy is recovering, this was cut a few weeks after the initial premier).

Perfect for a child.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Obviously this will be absolute shite but I love The Shining so much that almost any additional material is welcome even if it stinks to high hell.

Stop saying 'enriched the lore' though. I mean right now, forever.

[anonymous_lurker]

I think Dr Sleep will be the first King novel I've read in years, if only to see how preposterous it is. The wikipedia description is just bizarre.

With Doctor Sleep, Stephen King returns to the characters and territory of one of his previous novels, The Shining. The novel features the now middle-aged Dan Torrance (the boy protagonist of The Shining) and the twelve-year-old girl, Abra Stone, that he must save from The True Knot. The True Knot are a group of almost immortal travelers who cross the country feeding off of children with the gift of "the shining." Dan drifted for decades in an attempt to escape his father's legacy, but eventually settled in a New Hampshire town and works in a nursing home, where his remnant mental abilities provide comfort to the dying. With the aid of a cat that can foresee the future, Dan becomes "Doctor Sleep." After meeting Abra Stone, an epic war between good and evil ensues.

Does Dan Torrance go by the monicker of 'Derek'?

[Pube]

It was fine until:

With the aid of a cat that can foresee the future

This means that the cat either speaks to, or communicates telepathically with him, doesn't it? So the next time you watch The Shining, keep in mind that talking cats are a canonical part of that universe.

[Thomas]

[Tiny Poster]

Along with sentient hotels.

[acrow]

So the next time you watch The Shining, keep in mind that talking cats are a canonical part of that universe.

kubrick's the shining doesn't fit into king's the shining canon though. so unless you were talking about the miniseries one it doesn't really matter.

[Pube]

It does. It does matter. In my pocket, I keep a list of the four things that matter to me in life, and now I've added fifth one, which is that. From now on, I'll refer to The Shining as "the film with the (offscreen) talking cats", and I will argue until I'm blue in the face that they're out there, unseen, sending psychic advice to Danny at all times, influencing events from the shadows, and so they're probably the most important characters in the film.

It's sad, because my copy of The Shining on Blu-Ray arrived only three days ago, and now it must go in the bin before I've even watched it.

[acrow]

good one.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I fucking love that fella. If it's in The Shining sequel it'll make my day, perhaps even year.

[Thomas]

To bring cats back to CookdandBombd, I'll just mention that one of my cats looks just like him. Not just as in 'he's black,' but he genuinely jitters and wobbles and looks artificial. I'll let you know if the casting agency get in touch.

[Noodle Lizard]

As long as they're not trying to link it to Kubrick's version, I couldn't give a toss.  But they probably will, since that's more popular and iconic than the book ever was.  That's what pisses in my lunchbox.

[Pube]

It probably wouldn't ever be considered if the film didn't exist, so it's already linked in that way.

The TV miniseries might have happened anyway though, seeing as there are plenty of Stephen King TV adaptations. But because of the film, I reckon a lot more people have seen that miniseries than, say, The Langoliers.

Just to go on a tangent: I don't know if this is common knowledge around these parts, but I only found this out a couple of weeks ago when I was reading another site. When Jack Nicholson is talking to the attendant in the toilets, he's facing the bathroom mirrors the whole time. I never noticed it before. It's a nice touch, because in lesser films they would have spelled it out by having a shot of Jack, alone in the bathroom, standing talking to himself.

[Noodle Lizard]

The TV miniseries might have happened anyway though, seeing as there are plenty of Stephen King TV adaptations.

I would have been less critical about the TV series had he just gone and done it, but the fact that he did it under the shadow of his astonishingly stupid criticisms of Kubrick's film just made it a prime target.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's a nice touch, because in lesser films they would have spelled it out by having a shot of Jack, alone in the bathroom, standing talking to himself.

Yeah, towards the end in an expositional montage - that would have helped!

He's also facing the mirror in the Room 237 scene with the sexy lady.  I think there's a mirror behind the bar when he's talking to that chap there too.

[Thomas]

I think it's the case that there's always a reflective surface when he's nattering to a ghost/spooky person/whatever they are.

[Noodle Lizard]

I think it's the case that there's always a reflective surface when he's nattering to a ghost/spooky person/whatever they are.

Not when Danny does it, though, that's the weird thing.  So I guess we are meant to assume that there's something supernatural going on as well as old Jack having a touch of the cabin fever.

This guy knows

[Thomas]

Well, hopefully this prequel will clear it all up for us. Clear it right up.

[chocky909]

http://youtu.be/fNoA5nlyw-4

Everybody's got The Shining.

[Pube]

Not when Danny does it, though, that's the weird thing.  So I guess we are meant to assume that there's something supernatural going on as well as old Jack having a touch of the cabin fever.

That's what I was thinking about. To have Jack looking in the mirror in all those scenes is to imply that it's all in his head. But Danny can see the two little girls and Wendy can see that river of blood. You could debate whether they literally see these things or they're just visual metaphors for their fears. But then Wendy sees the blowjob bear, which is oddly specific, and Danny is able to send a psychic distress call to Scatman Cruthers, and there's nothing ambiguous about that.

Then there's the fact that there's a dead ringer for Jack in the old photo, which I've never fully understood. It either means that he's the reincarnation of the old caretaker, or that he appeared in the photo after he'd died and joined the ghosts.

There has to be a real supernatural phenomenon taking place, so why have Jack talking to his reflection when there really are ghosts in the hotel? Maybe the idea is that even if they are there, you have to be a bit mad to fully become a part of their world, and they can only appear as private visions/hallucinations.

[Mister Six]

I'll get drunk and watch it. Even if it's total shit I'll get enjoyment out of it cause I love The Shining and a crap version of it would make me laugh. It doesn't effect the original.

A prequel can do just that, though. The prequel to John Carpenter's 'The Thing', for example, merely replicates Carpenter's film with shit CGI, but in doing so drains away all the tension from the original if watched first. You just spend the first 20 minutes of Carpenter's flick waiting for tendrils to burst out of someone's head. Killed it for my flatmates, who watched the prequel first.

Likewise, a Shining prequel that explains who the dog/blow job couple are, or who the woman in the bath was, takes away all of the chilling mystery and ambiguity and gives nothing in return but unneeded trivia.

[chocky909]

A prequel can do just that, though. The prequel to John Carpenter's 'The Thing', for example, merely replicates Carpenter's film with shit CGI, but in doing so drains away all the tension from the original if watched first. You just spend the first 20 minutes of Carpenter's flick waiting for tendrils to burst out of someone's head. Killed it for my flatmates, who watched the prequel first.

Yeah but you simply don't watch a prequel first if you haven't seen the original same as you don't watch a sequel if you intend to watch the original at some point. A prequel is a sequel set before the first film chronologically but storywise is meant to be experienced after the previous film. Usually.

I heard someone on here saying they'd never seen any of the Star Wars films and they were going to start with Episode I. Now maybe George Lucas would like you to do that but any sane person knows the only way to do it is in order of production. I mean, is it even possible to make a prequel that doesn't use the audience's knowledge of the previous film(s) in some way?

[Mustow Green]

I think it's the case that there's always a reflective surface when he's nattering to a ghost/spooky person/whatever they are.

Correct.  It's worth noting that when Jack wanders down the corridor to the Gold Room remonstrating and throwing his arms around, he reacts every time he passes a mirror.  Glass mirrors and reflective surfaces are just the start, there's a lot of body mirroring and holding hands.

There's also a lot of spatial anomolies, the Overlook set is full of impossible doors and corridors and there are a lot of moving furniture and massive continuity errors, (this can't be bad filming ir an oversight, this is Kubrick).

There's more, sometimes you don't even see or hear, but it's there, e.g. the mystery object that falls out of the elevator with the blood and the same sound fx/word littered throughout the film, (like a ghost in the soundtrack).
Also, watch where Jack throws the baseball on the floor, look at the toy figure on the floor.  Who does it represent and what does it foreshadow later on in the film?

It's a great film and a great film to deconstruct, to have fun with.  Some of the idea's can be far-fetched, some dismissed, (there's a idea that Kubrick himself was behind the main lounge set fire during production and this is mentioned in passing in the toilet scene).  Like the remake, I can't see how this prequel would have any effect on how the first film is viewed.  (I have this idea with all prequel, sequel, remakes), no matter the quality of the new films they do not effect the original feelings I got. 

[Jemble Fred]

Yeah but you simply don't watch a prequel first if you haven't seen the original same as you don't watch a sequel if you intend to watch the original at some point. A prequel is a sequel set before the first film chronologically but storywise is meant to be experienced after the previous film. Usually.

I heard someone on here saying they'd never seen any of the Star Wars films and they were going to start with Episode I. Now maybe George Lucas would like you to do that but any sane person knows the only way to do it is in order of production. I mean, is it even possible to make a prequel that doesn't use the audience's knowledge of the previous film(s) in some way?

Well exactly, a narratively chronological marathon is the kind of thing you'd only undertake if you'd seen the original a zillion times, there aren't many prequels that would actually be a good starting point for any fiction, they tend to be packed with sly references and meaningful foreshadowings and all that jizz. It can be great fun letting an epic tale unfold chronologically if you're already a fan, but you'd have to be careful using it as an introduction to something.

[Mister Six]

Yeah but you simply don't watch a prequel first if you haven't seen the original

You don't. Quite a lot of other people do, however, either because they aren't aware of the full relationship between the two works, or because they (misguidedly) think it will work as an introduction to the original, or because they weren't aware that the original existed when they encountered it.

I'm not dissing all prequels ever, of course, but in the specific instances of The Shining (where much of the atmosphere and terror is based around the unknowable nature of many of the things the characters see, which may be explained in the new film) and The Thing (which is undermined by a prequel that basically does the exact same thing, but worse) they do actively damage the existing films if watched in the wrong order. And, in the case of The Shining, may retroactively ruin what came before by explaining away the most intriguing and confounding elements of the film.

[Jemble Fred]

Quite a lot of people drink red wine with white meat and put the milk in before the tea[nb]No, I don't care about either of these things either.[/nb], but you can't be responsible for them all, Mr 6.

[The Roofdog]

Just to go on a tangent: I don't know if this is common knowledge around these parts, but I only found this out a couple of weeks ago when I was reading another site. When Jack Nicholson is talking to the attendant in the toilets, he's facing the bathroom mirrors the whole time. I never noticed it before. It's a nice touch, because in lesser films they would have spelled it out by having a shot of Jack, alone in the bathroom, standing talking to himself.

Dude gets his own name wrong as well, the manager tells him that Charles Grady killed himself but in the bathroom scene he introduces himself as Delbert.