Dr Sleep ( The Shining sequel)

[Bazooka]

Trailer just dropped https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpf8p_E-I_o, wasn't even aware the book was being adapted into a film. I adored the book, one of Stephen Kings best works.

[Shaky]

Not read the book but, as expected, the trailer and presumably film itself lean heavily on references to Kubrick's movie. Not sure how I feel about that seeing as King was so against Stan's adaptation (although it is a great film). It's such lazy sequel shorthand to show so many clips from the original that's it's hard to feel anything at this point except, "Yes, we get it".

[Glebe]

Not read the book either, but yeah, all The Shining clips really put me off this. Tacky move.

[Mister Six]

Looks like King took some persuading.

[thecuriousorange]

Looks awful and that's coming from someone who was obsessed with the book and Kubrik film as a teen. I can't believe they're doing a "canon" sequel to the film we all love, is nothing sacred? I was expecting a full reboot, with a view to an expanded universe, which would flop and be quickly forgotten. Ugh.

[Mister Six]

Not read the book but, as expected, the trailer and presumably film itself lean heavily on references to Kubrick's movie. Not sure how I feel about that seeing as King was so against Stan's adaptation (although it is a great film). It's such lazy sequel shorthand to show so many clips from the original that's it's hard to feel anything at this point except, "Yes, we get it".

Were they actually clips? Looks like recreations of the first film to me.

Trailer didn't look that bad to me, to be honest, and if you're going to adapt a sequel to The Shining you might as well go full tilt, since the movie version is substantially better known than either of King's books or his shit miniseries. I don't expect this to actually be a good film, because the book was plops and Kubrick is dead, but I can't really fault the logic behind linking the two films together like that.

[riotinlagos]

Were they actually clips? Looks like recreations of the first film to me.

Recreations except for the blood in the elevator bit - https://screencrush.com/the-shining-doctor-sleep-comparison/

[St_Eddie]

I hate that they're making this a canonical sequel to Kubrick's adaptation.  The Shining a classic and like all of Kubrick's filmography, one which stands on its own.  You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of.  This film should stand on its own as yet another shitty Stephen King adaptation.  Leave the master's oeuvre out of it.  The only vampires here are the greedy Hollywood executives looking to cash in on a seminal masterpiece of cinema.

[Mister Six]

Eh, nobody is setting the original negatives of The Shining on fire and smashing all your Blu-rays. The book was a sequel to The Shining novel; it makes sense for this to be a sequel to The Shining film  Just pretend it doesn't exist if you don't like it. Kubrick was a great director but he's not some god who needs to be worshipped with ultimate fielty and this has no effect on his films or his legacy.

[Small Man Big Horse]

The AV Club review of the book in 2013 (when the site still had decent writers) was pretty damning, so hopefully it's not a very faithful adaptation at all. https://aux.avclub.com/stephen-king-doctor-sleep-1798178020

[thecuriousorange]

Eh, nobody is setting the original negatives of The Shining on fire and smashing all your Blu-rays. The book was a sequel to The Shining novel; it makes sense for this to be a sequel to The Shining film  Just pretend it doesn't exist if you don't like it. Kubrick was a great director but he's not some god who needs to be worshipped with ultimate fielty and this has no effect on his films or his legacy.

I guess. Many films have survived with their reputations after entirely different people came along and pumped out a crap sequel, not least 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Bad Ambassador]

I guess. Many films have survived with their reputations after entirely different people came along and pumped out a crap sequel, not least 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Peter Hyams approached Kubrick to get his blessing for 2010, his response was along the lines of "it's your movie, do what you want".

[St_Eddie]

Eh, nobody is setting the original negatives of The Shining on fire and smashing all your Blu-rays.

I see this straw man argument get trotted out a lot.  Nobody is suggesting that the existence of this sequel will cause Kubrick's film to cease to exist.  Finding it to be distasteful to create a sequel to a masterpiece which in no way whatsoever warrants a sequel isn't an unjustified opinion to hold.

By your logic, it would be a-okay to create sequels or continuations to pretty much anything.  How about a new series of Fawlty Towers once John Cleese and Connie Booth have passed on, with Peter Kay in the lead role as Basil Fawlty's cousin?  I mean, the existence of such a thing wouldn't undo the original two series, so would it therefore be considered churlish to react negatively to such a thing?

Creating a followup to work of art which doesn't warrant one doesn't undo the original but what it does do is undo the purity of a standalone classic by association, or at least it does in my mind.  The world does not need a Citizen Kane cinematic universe, just as it does not need a sequel to Kubrick's The Shining.  It's not crazy to just want some classics to be allowed to stand alone, as their own thing, untainted by an association to a sequel created decades later by less talented filmmakers.

Having said that, ultimately this is simply a case of personal opinion.  If you don't mind sequels to films being made, regardless of whether a sequel is justified or not, then that's your own personal opinion and I'm certainly not going to tell you that you're wrong but equally, am I not allowed to find it distasteful?  Am I expected to be content with it, despite not feeling that way?  Should I just shut up and keep my own personal feelings on the matter to myself?  My comment merely reflected my own thoughts.  I wasn't speaking for you or anyone else.

The book was a sequel to The Shining novel; it makes sense for this to be a sequel to The Shining film

Considering that Stephen King's Doctor Sleep was a sequel to his own novel and not Kubrick's adaptation, it would make more sense for this to be a sequel to the more faithful (and dire) TV mini-series but of course, if they did that, the studio wouldn't be able to cash in on the audience's goodwill towards Kubrick's adaptation, which is preciously why Doctor Sleep is being made into a canonical sequel and why the trailer is full of imagery and music from Kubrick's film.  It's piggybacking on a classic to sell more tickets.  I don't care for great art being used in a cynically motivated act of commercialism.

[thecuriousorange]

So which one is this a sequel to? The Overlook Hotel exploded at the end of the book, but not in the classic film referenced in that trailer. I haven't read Dr Sleep but I assume they haven't unexploded the hotel in Stephen King's world.

[bgmnts]

Is Dr Sleep a real doctor or does he have a pointless PhD?

[Old Gold Tooth]

The AV Club review of the book in 2013 (when the site still had decent writers) was pretty damning, so hopefully it's not a very faithful adaptation at all. https://aux.avclub.com/stephen-king-doctor-sleep-1798178020

As a book it's definitely nowhere near The Shining but I remember enjoying it when I read it (in 2013 was it? Christ). It's got a very different tone and is a supernatural thriller rather than an out-and-out 'orror, which may have put off fans of the original. But on its own it's a decent page-turner. And I'm glad King chose to focus on Danny's character rather than the more predictable route of another family staying at a rebuilt Overlook.

As for the film, Mike Flanagan's stuff is always worth a watch.

[Mister Six]

So which one is this a sequel to? The Overlook Hotel exploded at the end of the book, but not in the classic film referenced in that trailer. I haven't read Dr Sleep but I assume they haven't unexploded the hotel in Stephen King's world.

It's a sequel to film Shining using the book as a basis. Or an adaptation of the book using the film Shining as a basis.

I see this straw man argument get trotted out a lot

It's not a straw man, it's some exaggerated examples in response to your underlying argument, which is:

Creating a followup to work of art which doesn't warrant one doesn't undo the original but what it does do is undo the purity of a standalone classic by association

Which is bollocks, because - as you acknowledge - it's

in my mind.

There is no intrinsic value to a film being standalone that is lost when a sequel or remake or reboot or spin-off or adaptation or tangentially related property is created. Those other things have no bearing on the original, even if they contradict, rewrite or otherwise go back on the plot or contents of the original. That only happens if - George Lucas-style - the originals are edited and replaced with a new version. When 2001 was reissued nobody gave a flying fuck about the mediocre sequel, which is largely forgotten.

Even the two artists whose opinions actually matter in this don't/wouldn't care. King gave the film his blessing without putting up too much of a fight, as outlined in the interview above, and Kubrick shrugged when a sequel to 2001 was raised with him.

So when you write something like

You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of.

It comes across as petulant, childish and silly.

Considering that Stephen King's Doctor Sleep was a sequel to his own novel and not Kubrick's adaptation, it would make more sense for this to be a sequel to the more faithful (and dire) TV mini-series

That would make no sense at all. The people this film is being made for likely didn't see, or have forgotten (and didn't like at the time) King's adaptation. There's not one iota of sense in making this adaptation a sequel to the miniseries, except for the "nobody should make a sequel to The Shining" principle, which - as outlined - exists only inside your head.

Meanwhile:

By your logic, it would be a-okay to create sequels or continuations to pretty much anything.  How about a new series of Fawlty Towers once John Cleese and Connie Booth have passed on, with Peter Kay in the lead role as Basil Fawlty's cousin?

Yes.

I mean, the existence of such a thing wouldn't undo the original two series, so would it therefore be considered churlish to react negatively to such a thing?

Yes, at least until the thing comes out. By all means be cynical and sceptical about its eventual quality, even complain online, but don't pre-judge the thing or state outright that it should never have been made until you see it. If it turns out to be a bag of wank - which, to be fair, it probably would be - then fair enough, slag it off on its own terms and as an unworthy follow-up. But saying IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN is just daft. It might be great. Somehow.

If you don't mind sequels to films being made, regardless of whether a sequel is justified or not, then that's your own personal opinion and I'm certainly not going to tell you that you're wrong but equally, am I not allowed to find it distasteful?  Am I expected to be content with it, despite not feeling that way?  Should I just shut up and keep my own personal feelings on the matter to myself?  My comment merely reflected my own thoughts.  I wasn't speaking for you or anyone else.

And I was speaking for me about your thoughts. But yeah, when you say stuff like "You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of." then you do rather pre-judge any positive feelings someone might have about it.

Oh, and it's not entirely dissimilar to this:

I'd rather you chose not to contribute to an increasing problem within the industry, spoiling the hobby for the rest of us in the process, quite frankly.  Quit supporting anti-consumer practices.

You can't go around being all strident and argumentative all over this site and then curl up in the foetal position when someone disagrees with you.

[Small Man Big Horse]

The world does not need a Citizen Kane cinematic universe

Well you say that but then you never did see the Kane sequel I made in my twenties.

[St_Eddie]

Which is bollocks, because - as you acknowledge

in my mind.

It's not bollocks to me, which is preciously why I put in the caveat of "or at least it does in my mind".  That was me trying to make it clear that I was speaking only for myself and myself alone.

There is no intrinsic value to a film being standalone that is lost when a sequel or remake or reboot or spin-off or adaptation or tangentially related property is created. Those other things have no bearing on the original, even if they contradict, rewrite or otherwise go back on the plot or contents of the original. That only happens if - George Lucas-style - the originals are edited and replaced with a new version. When 2001 was reissued nobody gave a flying fuck about the mediocre sequel, which is largely forgotten.

You're largely correct.  That particular aspect of my argument was weak.  However, I personally find it to be objectionable to create unnecessary sequels to films, just as I find the vast majority of remakes to be objectionable on principle alone.

Even the two artists whose opinions actually matter in this don't/wouldn't care. King gave the film his blessing without putting up too much of a fight, as outlined in the interview above, and Kubrick shrugged when a sequel to 2001 was raised with him.

That's a fair point.

So when you write something like...

You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of.

It comes across as petulant, childish and silly.

I don't agree that it was a "petulant" and "childish" thing to have said.  However, I will concede that it was "silly", in as much that it was a blanket statement and poorly worded.  The point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of Kubrick's films do not feel as though they warrant sequels.  In most cases, sequels are, by their very nature, a commercial enterprise and Tinseltown commercialism isn't something which I particularly associate with the works of Stanley Kubrick.  I wouldn't care to see a belated sequel to A Clockwork Orange go into production, just as I don't care to see a belated sequel to The Shining being made.  It just rubs me up the wrong way, at a fundamental level.

Yes, at least until the thing comes out. By all means be cynical and sceptical about its eventual quality, even complain online, but don't pre-judge the thing or state outright that it should never have been made until you see it. If it turns out to be a bag of wank - which, to be fair, it probably would be - then fair enough, slag it off on its own terms and as an unworthy follow-up. But saying IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN is just daft. It might be great. Somehow.

As you yourself say, the chances of this film being good are remote and I'd argue that the chances of this film being anywhere near the level of Kubrick's film are nigh on astronomical.  I reserved any kind of judgement until viewing the trailer.  Upon viewing the trailer, I don't consider this film to be a worthwhile endeavour.  However, I'm not necessarily writing it off wholesale.  I'm simply giving my view as it stands at this moment in time.

It's not as though I've written a review for a film which I haven't yet seen.  I'm just mostly convinced that it'll be a disappointment and ultimately a folly to have ever attempted to tie this production into Kubrick's adaptation.  If this were a cinematic sequel to Stephen King's original novel, then I would have absolutely zero issues with its existence.  After all, that's what the novel this film is based upon was; a sequel to Stephen King's novel The Shining.  Retroactively turning it into a sequel to Kubrick's film is what I find to be objectionable.

And I was speaking for me about your thoughts. But yeah, when you say stuff like "You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of." then you do rather pre-judge any positive feelings someone might have about it.

Again; that was a poor choice of words on my part.  I wasn't attempting to speak for anyone else, nor state a fact.  I was merely making a (poor) attempt to put forth my own view on the matter.

Oh, and it's not entirely dissimilar to this:

I'd rather you chose not to contribute to an increasing problem within the industry, spoiling the hobby for the rest of us in the process, quite frankly.  Quit supporting anti-consumer practices.

You can't go around being all strident and argumentative all over this site and then curl up in the foetal position when someone disagrees with you.

That's a completely separate issue and one which affects the gaming industry as a whole.  You cannot equate my stance on that to this particular discussion.  I have no problem with people expressing an opposing viewpoint to my own, generally speaking.  You tried to use that post from a separate thread to paint a picture of someone who has no tolerance for opposing views.  Whereas, I could literally cite hundreds of my own posts where I actively encourage the expression of opposing views.  Heck, in that very thread which you pulled that quote from, I said this only a few posts later, on the very same page...

It's fine if people would care to refute me; I welcome it.  However, actually put forth counter-arguments, as opposed to attacking my character.  You're not helping me to sway my opinion in the opposite direction here.  If you can't put forth a coherent counter-argument, then I'll have to presume that I'm correct and you're wrong.  You wouldn't want me to presume that, surely?

Take me down.  Tell me exactly why I am wrong.  I'm absolutely open to discussion and having my mind swayed.  Come at me, I beg of you.  Let's not resort to character assignation.  I would have hoped that we're above such dirty tactics.  In fact, I know that you're better than that, so please; tell me why I'm wrong.

Are those the words of someone who cares not for opposing viewpoints, or are those the words of someone who is actively encouraging debate?  Please don't try to make out that I'm some kind of ego-centric arsehole who denies others their own opinion because it's simply not the case.  Also...

You can't go around being all strident and argumentative all over this site and then curl up in the foetal position when someone disagrees with you.

At what point within this thread have I metaphorically curled up into the fetal position, like some kind of wilting flower?  You're being grossly hyperbolic with that statement.

[St_Eddie]

Well you say that but then you never did see the Kane sequel I made in my twenties.

I take it all back.  If this is the result of belated sequels to classics, then I'm all for it.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I take it all back.  If this is the result of belated sequels to classics, then I'm all for it.

Thank you! (And also thank you for not mocking my shitty choice of white socks back then).

[St_Eddie]

(And also thank you for not mocking my shitty choice of white socks back then).

I just took it as a wardrobe choice for your portrayal of an elderly Charles Foster Kane.  He definitely would wear white socks.  He's a total white sock wearer.

[mjwilson]

So which one is this a sequel to? The Overlook Hotel exploded at the end of the book, but not in the classic film referenced in that trailer. I haven't read Dr Sleep but I assume they haven't unexploded the hotel in Stephen King's world.

It's a sequel to those Shining parts in Ready Player One.

[Bazooka]

The AV Club review of the book in 2013 (when the site still had decent writers) was pretty damning, so hopefully it's not a very faithful adaptation at all. https://aux.avclub.com/stephen-king-doctor-sleep-1798178020

Nope they wrong.

[QDRPHNC]

I hate that they're making this a canonical sequel to Kubrick's adaptation.  The Shining a classic and like all of Kubrick's filmography, one which stands on its own.  You do not sequelize Kubrick's work.  End of.  This film should stand on its own as yet another shitty Stephen King adaptation.  Leave the master's oeuvre out of it.  The only vampires here are the greedy Hollywood executives looking to cash in on a seminal masterpiece of cinema.

The Shining is safe and sound, pressed onto millions and millions of plastic discs and stored for infinity on servers the world over. My advice to you is to simply not watch the new one.

Edit: What Mister Six said, basically.

[St_Eddie]

My advice to you is to simply not watch the new one.

Considering that The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time, do you really think it's as simple as choosing not to watch an official canonical sequel?

[bgmnts]

Considering that The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time, do you really think it's as simple as choosing not to watch an official canonical sequel?

Yeah.

[St_Eddie]

Yeah.

Well, you'd be wrong then.

[madhair60]

Just don't watch it Ed

[chveik]

Considering that The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time, do you really think it's as simple as choosing not to watch an official canonical sequel?

who cares about canon. don't watch a thing if you are already certain that it will be shite and that it'll make you angry.