I really don''t think The Shining needs a prequel. The sequel to The Shining just just sounds silly.

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/pag...l-film-prequel

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.

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.

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 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.

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".

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!

Kubrick's adaptation > King's Novel

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.

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.

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.

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.

I could never make it all the way through The Stand. So uninteresting.

Prequel: Rise of the Shining

Sequel: Shine Again

I can think of a much worse title.

I'm looking forward to the movie that is not a sequel, prequel or remake. So, I'll wait five years then.

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-

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.

Neil Gaiman is my favorite living author.

Stephen King's books are a torture to read, he just goes on, and on and on. Yawn...

I feel sad when I read things like this. So the only project Mazzara can get going is one that borrows all its interest from another persons work? Talk about creative bankruptcy.

Fuck everyone involved with this. Totally unnecessary.

This...does not sound like a good idea.