DVD Talk
The Shining sequel (book) and movie prequel [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Shining sequel (book) and movie prequel


JumpCutz
08-06-12, 06:31 PM
I really don''t think The Shining needs a prequel. :sad: The sequel to The Shining just just sounds silly. :lol:

In addition to “Doctor Sleep,” Stephen King’s upcoming sequel to 1977’s “The Shining,” now Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 film adaptation is being primed for a prequel. How’s that for going back to the well?

King’s tale of the thoroughly haunted Overlook Hotel was a best-seller, and his distaste for Kubrick’s take – starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duval as a frustrated writer and his meek wife– led to a 1997 miniseries that stayed more faithful to the novel.

“Doctor Sleep” promises to relate the story of Danny Torrance, the telepathic boy whose father, the writer, goes insane at the Overlook, according to FirstShowing.net. Danny’s own “shining” – his supernatural capacities – leads him to a child with even stronger powers, and into a position as her guardian from an evil group, the True Knot, who prolong their lives by torturing the life-force out of children who shine. Sounds like classic wacko King – and the author himself promises “a return to balls-to-the-wall, keep-the-lights-on horror.”

Meanwhile, no details have emerged regarding the script workshop in progress, save that Laeta Kalogridis, Bradley Fischer and James Vanderbilt are involved. The screenwriters’ credits include “Shutter Island,” “Zodiac” and the recent “Amazing Spider-Man.”

But it doesn’t seem to us that a cash-grab prequel will serve King’s universe of supernatural terror well. He quibbled with Kubrick’s decision to imply that Nicholson’s character had been insane before arriving at the hotel; a prequel that further establishes this chain of events would seem to go wholeheartedly against that grain. As Danny's demon Tony would say, I don’t want to go there, Mrs. Torrance.


http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2012/08/shining-once-again-horror-classic-gets-book-sequel-film-prequel

Numanoid
08-06-12, 10:07 PM
A prequel could be interesting, if done right, but if King's involved it won't be. Plus, I think things are better left unexplained.

The sequel sounds horrifying, all right. :lol:

Mr. J
08-06-12, 11:27 PM
I agree that a sequel sounds really unnecessary. I'm interested on what they could do with a prequel, though. As long as the direction is correct and the right people are involved, it could be good. I would love it if they were to just show the history on the property itself, that would be really awesome. If done correctly, this could be a really creepy and cool concept. Otherwise, it will be a train wreck. I have a feeling this is going to be either great or horrible and not one of those middle of the road type films.

gp1086
08-07-12, 12:33 AM
I'm totally down for this. I think there's plenty of things they could do with the script/story that would make it interesting. If you add a solid director in there, could see this being good.

Never read King's original novel of The Shining, but Kubrick's adaptation is one of my favorite films of all-time.

Has anyone ever checked out the miniseries from the 1990s that aired on TV? Thoughts?

Michael Corvin
08-07-12, 07:03 AM
Never read King's original novel of The Shining, but Kubrick's adaptation is one of my favorite films of all-time.

Has anyone ever checked out the miniseries from the 1990s that aired on TV? Thoughts?

The original novel is still considered one of King's best.

The miniseries is faithful to the book and would have benefited from being on a cable channel with higher caliber actors.

Kubrick's "adaptation" is, well, it's a movie.

Crocker Jarmen
08-07-12, 12:05 PM
I'm totally down for this. I think there's plenty of things they could do with the script/story that would make it interesting. If you add a solid director in there, could see this being good.

Never read King's original novel of The Shining, but Kubrick's adaptation is one of my favorite films of all-time.

Has anyone ever checked out the miniseries from the 1990s that aired on TV? Thoughts?

The mini-series is embarrassingly terrible. Slow, amateurish, cheesey.

I cite it is an example of why movies cannot be "faithful" to the book. The pacing of a story in a book is different than in a movie. Keeping certain material just because it was in the book makes your movie clunky, unfocused, and boring.

I admire Stephen King like no other writer. He has written great books. He is a great writer. But as happens with many artists, the quality of his work has changed. His new Shining book may be entertaining, but it will be cartoony and goofy. No one writing a truely frightening book would describe it with the phrase "balls-to-the-wall, keep the lights on horror".

Supermallet
08-07-12, 01:12 PM
I don't think King is a great writer. He's able to write page turners, but nothing that ever stuck with me. His Dark Tower stuff is the best, IMO. As for this, it's nonsense. There's no need for a prequel or sequel. And Kubrick's film is masterful.

inri222
08-07-12, 01:33 PM
And Kubrick's film is masterful.

I Agree!

http://hewholaughs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bear_shining_costume.jpg?w=500&h=338

Larry C.
08-07-12, 01:46 PM
Kubrick's adaptation > King's Novel

atrium
08-07-12, 02:03 PM
I don't think King is a great writer. He's able to write page turners, but nothing that ever stuck with me. His Dark Tower stuff is the best, IMO. As for this, it's nonsense. There's no need for a prequel or sequel. And Kubrick's film is masterful.
I agree with everything you just said. King is a good storyteller, but a poor writer IMO.

As for The Shining, I neither want a sequel nor a prequel, and certainly not one that doesn't have Kubrick at the helm. King was too focused on implementing his own issues into his work (alcoholism, namely) and making his character a heroic figure in the end, while Kubrick took more of a supernatural approach that placed more of an emphasis on the hotel. I think Kubrick's approach worked far better in the genre of horror.

Also, in the book Jack Torrance goes on a rampage with a croquet mallet. Enough said. :lol:

Crocker Jarmen
08-07-12, 02:38 PM
I don't think King is a great writer. He's able to write page turners

This is the popular rap against King. It becomes difficult to defend him as the years go on. The sheer number of crummy books he's published diminish his better work. You could point to many writers and say they've got five good books and two crummy ones. For King's 5 or so great books there's probably an insane 15 or 20 bad ones.

King's best work contain insight into human nature, he is a fantastic developer of character, imagery is strong, the prose is neither dull nor too simplistic.

King has been writing a long time, and in a lot of different styles. He isn't afraid to experiment. I learned a lot about different writing techniques from his work.

The book of his hold the highest, the one I expect to outlive us all is PET SEMETARY. I re-read it every couple of years and find the older I get, the more horrible the story becomes. I think soon the terror of what that story says about death and grief will be unbearable.

Supermallet
08-07-12, 03:10 PM
I just think that of the popular authors out there, he's not one who commands my attention. His writing isn't bad, but it's also not exceptional. If I want great horror and a boundless imagination, I turn to Clive Barker.

Numanoid
08-07-12, 04:27 PM
Since I was such a fan of the movie, I once tried to read The Shining. Gave up 3/4 of the way through out of sheer boredom.

Supermallet
08-07-12, 04:45 PM
I could never make it all the way through The Stand. So uninteresting.

Josh-da-man
08-07-12, 05:16 PM
Prequel: Rise of the Shining

Sequel: Shine Again

Numanoid
08-07-12, 05:24 PM
Sequel: Shine AgainI can think of a much worse title.
Doctor Sleep

Jules Winfield
08-08-12, 11:50 AM
I'm looking forward to the movie that is not a sequel, prequel or remake. So, I'll wait five years then.:(

kd5
08-08-12, 12:02 PM
I don't care that King didn't particularly care for Kubrick's rendition of The Shining, it beat the pants off the miniseries.

I honestly don't think The Shining needs a prequel ~or~ a sequel, it did just fine on its own. -kd5-

golden_rod
08-08-12, 01:13 PM
I just think that of the popular authors out there, he's not one who commands my attention. His writing isn't bad, but it's also not exceptional. If I want great horror and a boundless imagination, I turn to Clive Barker.

Barker is my favorite author (if only his output wasn't so sporadic these days), but I love King, too. Duma Key and Bag of Bones are beautifully written & I think it's criminal how much The Tommyknockers is looked down upon; some stretches read like Saul Bellow trying his hand at mass-market horror.

Supermallet
08-08-12, 04:47 PM
Neil Gaiman is my favorite living author.

mickey65
08-08-12, 08:13 PM
Stephen King's books are a torture to read, he just goes on, and on and on. Yawn...

inri222
10-01-13, 12:36 PM
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/09/stephen-king-still-wont-accept-kubricks-genius

Stephen King still won't accept Kubrick's genius
What is it that particularly irks King about a film that was so universally acclaimed?

Stephen King's new novel Doctor Sleep, which is a sequel to his horror classic The Shining, seems to have reopened an old wound, namely his utter contempt for Stanley Kubrick's screen adaptation of his original book.

As one of America's most successful and prolific authors, King is well-versed in the business of screen adaptations. Indeed, studios and television networks often secure the rights to his books before a single word has been written.

But what makes King's criticisms of Kubrick's The Shining (1980) unpalatable is the fact that so many of his horror and fantasy stories are routinely butchered on screen.

In an interview with the BBC's Will Gompertz, King highlighted the apparent failing within Kubrick's film.

He said: “I am not a cold guy. And with Kubrick's The Shining I thought that it was very cold.

“Shelley Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film. She's basically just there to scream and be stupid. And that's not the woman I wrote about.”

He added: “I met him [Kubrick] on the set and just on that one meeting, I thought he was a very compulsive man.”

Despite these criticisms flying in the face of popular opinion, King is not being deliberately contrary. In fact, his assertions prove that his connection with these particular characters have rendered him incapable of appreciating a terrific piece of cinema.

In the film, actress Duvall plays a scared and protective mother whose fragility only serves to amplify the terror of Jack Nicholson's crazed antagonist. Also, to accuse cinema's most famous obsessive of being compulsive is just flat-out ridiculous.

A successful screen adaptation needs to manifest a style which is distinct from the original source in order to flourish independently. This is where Stanley Kubrick was a genius. Every single one of his films, from his auteur period (1962-1999), was adapted from either a book, short story or novella.

Kubrick understood the importance of taking a story and meticulously reworking it for an entirely different medium. The director was a master of genre cinema, stripping it down and blowing it up in its purest form. In fact two other successful King adaptations, Stand By Me (The Body) and The Shawshank Redemption (Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption) are both riddled with inconsistencies between book and film - although not quite as fundamental as The Shining. King has highlighted these two films, along with Misery (1990), as his favourite cinematic interpretations.

Interestingly, both The Body and Shawshank were not major King works, unlike The Shining, but merely short dalliances away from the horror genre.

The author once again admitted that The Shining's Jack Torrance is probably the most autobiographical character he has created. Evidently, the book and the characters mean more to him than any other he has ever written.

While King insists that he is not a cold person, his own disastrous attempt at film directing, which resulted in the cocaine-fuelled Maximum Overdrive (1986), has done nothing to thaw his hatred towards Kubrick's masterpiece.

It is also testament to Kubrick's brilliance, and of course the power of the moving picture, that his film has usurped the book within pop culture. That rare achievement is perhaps something which irks King the most.

PhantomStranger
10-01-13, 12:44 PM
I love both Kubrick and King's works, but King is largely correct in his criticisms of Kubrick's The Shining. If Jack Nicholson doesn't give a bravura performance in it, I doubt it's so fondly remembered today. I think The Shining is possibly Kubrick's worst movie, though given his oeuvre that does not make it a bad movie.

TomOpus
10-01-13, 01:13 PM
The movie is great, except as an adaption of King's book. I've always agreed with King that Nicholson was miscast. Jack Torrance was supposed to slowly go mad and turn into the monster. Nicholson looks crazy from the get-go. Maybe that's what Kubrick wanted. I also was very disappointed with the limp ending of the film vs the book.

Crocker Jarmen
10-01-13, 01:16 PM
Audio isn't the best (and it's VERTICAL!) but here is a clip of King talking a bit about Kubrick and the movie.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5Idiy5vCEPE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

stvn1974
10-01-13, 03:57 PM
Stephen King's novel = masterpiece

Stanley Kubrick's film = pretentious garbage

DeputyDave
10-01-13, 07:35 PM
Stephen King's novel = masterpiece

Stanley Kubrick's film = pretentious garbage

I have to agree. There have been several threads where I pointed out how overrated this movie was.

That said, I am half way through Dr. Sleep and I really enjoy it so far. This, Joyland, and the JFK novel have proven to me that classic King is mostly back (after a long string of mostly disappointing books).

I love the fact that King's books all seem to take place in the same universe (with unique places like Derry mentioned and characters making cameos) and he has also included a nod towards his son's books with Joe Hill's NOS4A2 referenced.

inri222
10-01-13, 08:30 PM
Stanley Kubrick's film = pretentious garbage

rotfl

PhantomStranger
10-01-13, 08:38 PM
It's definitely pretentious for a horror movie, though it's not garbage.