A prequel to "The Shining"?

[Neil]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Prequel-Shining-May-Its-Way-32176.html


No one at WB would even confirm the project's existence on the record, and the best news is they've involved Laeta Kalogridis, the screenwriter behind Shutter Island and a lot of uncredited work on Avatar. Kalogridis would be involved only as a producer, along with Bradley Fischer and James Vanderbilt, and it's unclear what their take would be, though the tone of Shutter Island might be a strong clue.

It's also hard to know what they mean by "prequel," since in The Shining the Torrance family was relatively happy and well-adjusted before they arrived at the Overlook. Would the film be set at the Overlook and about other creepy events that went down there in the past? Would they get Stephen King involved to craft the story? King famously disliked Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of his novel, and Kubrick's film wasn't particularly faithful to the book, The 1997 TV movie adaptation of the book was much more faithful and also pretty good-- could this be another attempt to bring a truer version of King's story to the screen?

[krisvds]

I never really understood King's problem with Kubrick's The Shining. That is one of the very best horror films ever made in a lot fans' opinion.
I still think the film is actually more frightening than the pulpy novel. I like both, but that film is a piece of art really. The changes Kubrick made worked well within his movie. Different medium, different rules. That 90ies, fathfull tv adaptation wasn't half as good.

Also; someone trying to make a direct prequel to a film by Kubrick is etting himself up for a lot trouble. better to do a new version of the source material than associating yourself with something so iconic.

[MinionZombie]

Aye, a prequel to Kubricks movie - if that is what this rumour is about - is a moronic idea. You're setting yourself up for immediate failure - it's impossible to match Kubrick's "The Shining", which remains to this day one of the creepiest movies ever made. It was on t'other day, and you can't help but find yourself watching it. Even just happening upon a random creepy scene sends shivers across my body. I've never read the book, mind you, and didn't much care for the TV adaptation when I saw it when it originally aired when I was a teen (I was much more enamoured with the Kubrick film). Perhaps I should give the TV version another spin anyway ... I saw it once back in the days of Channel 5's early days with it's crummy signal. /memory-lane.

[Neil]

You know... I've never really got into it (The Shinning). But it's a long time since I've watched it, so maybe it's time I gave it another go!

[bassman]

I could see this working if they center it around early events at the hotel and avoid most connections with Kubrick's film(other than the hotel, of course). If they use a different title(None of that 'The Shining: The Beginning' type garbage) and avoid any obvious or forced references to the original film, they could actually make several decent horror films with the setting of the hotel...

[Purge]

Oh, for the love of....

The only thing worse than the recent remake madness has been the recent prequel madness. I suppose they could tell what happened to the previous caretaker, Grady, and his family, but it would pretty much follow similar lines, wouldn't it?

And "[t]he 1997 TV movie adaptation of the book was much more faithful and also pretty good"? More faithful? Yes. Pretty good? Hell no. Mick Garris should be barred from acting in or writing for life, IMO.

[LouCipherr]

It's also hard to know what they mean by "prequel," since in The Shining the Torrance family was relatively happy and well-adjusted before they arrived at the Overlook.

"Well adjusted"? Who are they kidding? Jack was a drunk who had just recently cleaned up and I guess they forgot the fact that jack broke his own kids arm in a drunken rage. Yeah, that's "well adjusted" allright. :rolleyes:


Aye, a prequel to Kubricks movie - if that is what this rumour is about - is a moronic idea. You're setting yourself up for immediate failure - it's impossible to match Kubrick's "The Shining", which remains to this day one of the creepiest movies ever made.

This is true. Although I have to admit, Kubrick's version of The Shining, when compared to the book, really isn't that good. I'm not saying it wasn't a creepy or good film, but if you want to see the book presented correctly on-screen, you should watch the six hour miniseries that King had a hand in a few years ago starring Steven Weber. Weber is no where near as good as Jack was as Mr. Torrence, but the miniseries actually follows the book 100% more accurately than Kubrick's version ever did. I've always been pissed off the way that Krubrick ended The Shining with Torrence frozen in the hedge maze - not even close to what happened at the end of the book.

Then again, I've never seen a Kubrick movie that made any sense, so perhaps this should have been expected - but when you read the book first, then see Kubrick's version on film, the only question you end up asking yourself is, "what the f*ck was THAT?!" :lol:

[MoonSylver]

I've always been pissed off the way that Krubrick ended The Shining with Torrence frozen in the hedge maze - not even close to what happened at the end of the book.:

I always thought Kubrick's was an interesting twist. In the book you have Jack redeemed by overcoming the influience of the hotel & sacrificing himself to destroy it, save the family, etc. In the movie, he dies unredeemed in a direct confrontation/battle of wits w/ his own son.

As for prequel. Meh. King drops a lot of tantalizing hints (as usual) about the Overlook's past, but they should stay that way. Flavor fluff works so well because it's tantalizing, elusive & mysterious. Once you show it or try to explain it, the mystery is gone. Plus the version they make never matches up to the one in your head (a la the Star Wars prequels, or the prequel to The Thing.)

But, King has even threatened to do a sequel of sorts to The Shining w/ a grown up Danny Torrence & what happens to him, so nothing's shocking I suppose...:|

[Danny]

a prequel to the shining? that could be an interesting idea.

BUT it would be a film without kubrik, sorry, no dice. Again it could be a really interesting idea if its about the overlook hotel, but kubrik made it what it is on screen in a way the book doesnt properly convey. I genuinely think the closest we have today to pulling it off would be Guilliermo Del Toro, but even then i dont quite think even he can compare to kubrik, close, but still not on the level.

-- -------- Post added at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ----------


I could see this working if they center it around early events at the hotel and avoid most connections with Kubrick's film(other than the hotel, of course). If they use a different title(None of that 'The Shining: The Beginning' type garbage) and avoid any obvious or forced references to the original film, they could actually make several decent horror films with the setting of the hotel...


Yeah the only way i could get up on this was if it was sold as like "THE OVERLOOK" and its the same hotel, earlier, and it delves more into the sheer 'wrongness' of the place with no other connection to the former film than the location and never once uses the word shining. THEN it might be an interesting movie.

though id be lying if i said that they couldnt do that with the shining theme and give me chills still.

[LouCipherr]

I always thought Kubrick's was an interesting twist. In the book you have Jack redeemed by overcoming the influience of the hotel & sacrificing himself to destroy it, save the family, etc. In the movie, he dies unredeemed in a direct confrontation/battle of wits w/ his own son.

It's 'different' (in multiple senses of the word) for sure, but not what I expected nor what I wanted. Of course, I should have expected the unexpected w/Kubrick at the helm, but I always get pissed off when a Stephen King book is transferred to film because the only one who seems to get the translation right is Frank Darabont (unless we want to count the ending of The Mist as a "swing and a miss" - I hold a minority opinion on that one, so I digress...)

BTW: King hasn't just "threatened" the follow-up to the Shining, he's currently working on it (so he says)! Not sure if that's good or bad, but I'll check it out regardless.

[AcesandEights]

I could see something like this done really well if handled respectfully and artistically in a grassroots fashion, but no...the potential for disaster and shame in the all-too-likely Hollywood mangling is just too great to contemplate.

Let's seal this idea up behind a brick wall and forget about it.

-- -------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------



Yeah the only way i could get up on this was if it was sold as like "THE OVERLOOK" and its the same hotel, earlier, and it delves more into the sheer 'wrongness' of the place with no other connection to the former film than the location and never once uses the word shining. THEN it might be an interesting movie.

This is what I had thought might work, and it could...it really could, but it's a longshot it would be handled and executed very well, I feel.

[Mike70]

I always thought Kubrick's was an interesting twist. In the book you have Jack redeemed by overcoming the influience of the hotel & sacrificing himself to destroy it, save the family, etc. In the movie, he dies unredeemed in a direct confrontation/battle of wits w/ his own son.



I don't see why people go ga-ga over Kubrick's version. King has stated publicly that he believes Kubrick completely and totally misunderstood the entire story.

here is a full quote from King on why he thinks Kubrick got it all wrong:


Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should.

I'm with King on this one. I have always found Kubrick's version very sterile and not very interesting. The evil in King's work is often inherent in a place or thing. it is the place that warps the person. the characters don't bring evil with them, it's already there waiting for them. Christine, Salem's Lot, Pet Semetary, and The Shining are just a few examples of that.

and thankfully, the asinine epilogue that was originally attached to the movie was axed prior to release. it would have destroyed the film entirely by opening the possibility that all of the events in the film were simply figments of either Wendy or Danny's imagination.

on a "shining" note: King has announced that he is writing a sequel to "the shining" called "dr. sleep". the story revolves around Danny, now in his 40s.

a bit of a synopsis:


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 RV traveler's 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.


a cat that can see the future?

[krisvds]

Strange. I never felt the supernatural tone of Kubrick's film was vague. Danny 'shines', the hotel 'frees' Jack Nicholson's character from that food storage etc ... No rational explanation in those parts of the film ... It still creeps me out.

I like King a lot, but in this case I never understood him.

[LouCipherr]

Ok, that synopsis just sounds... for lack of a better term... weird. Weird and to be honest, uninteresting. I'll probably read it since I'm a sucker for all things SK (books that is, most of the movies don't hold up).

I'm worried about this, even in book form. Ugh.

[Mike70]

Ok, that synopsis just sounds... for lack of a better term... weird. Weird and to be honest, uninteresting. I'll probably read it since I'm a sucker for all things SK (books that is, most of the movies don't hold up).

I'm worried about this, even in book form. Ugh.

i did take that from wikipedia, so there is about a 55% chance that 65% of it is bullshit.

i have no doubts that King has tooled around with the idea of a "shining" sequel for years because he's talked about it in several interviews. now, whether it will be anything like that synopsis is another matter entirely. i mean a fooking cat that can see the future? a group of vampires traveling the country in an RV (where have i heard that one before? hmmm) he already stretched my animal credulity with that damn dog in "the stand."

who knows. i will admit that i haven't read much of his new work 'cause it seems like he's just rehasing old ideas or recycling other peoples. for example: "kingdom hospital." stick with the Danish original "Riget", it's much better and werid in ways that only lars von trier can pull off.

[LouCipherr]

i did take that from wikipedia, so there is about a 55% chance that 65% of it is bullshit.

Thanks for clarifying. Even that being said, I'm not so sure about this. Sometimes things are just better off left the hell alone. This might be one of those cases.



i will admit that i haven't read much of his new work 'cause it seems like he's just rehasing old ideas or recycling other peoples.

I don't know, after Lisey's Story, I felt he kinda lost his way, but recently, Just After Sunset had some decent stories in it ("A Very Tight Place" being the highlight for me), as well as Under The Dome was pretty awesome in an almost "The Stand" kind of way. It was long, but a great cast of people (unfortunately, the ending was kinda "meh" to say the least, but any SK fan knows the endings aren't what to look forward to).

I have to admit, though, I have not read Duma Key. I'd like to, but I don't have time for a novel that big right now. I'll get to it eventually. I mean, "everything's eventual" right? :elol:



for example: "kingdom hospital." stick with the Danish original "Riget", it's much better and werid in ways that only lars von trier can pull off.

Oh dear jesus, I am one of the biggest SK fans on the planet, but that Kingdom Hospital thing was one of the biggest pieces of shit ever put on television, period. :rolleyes:

[Mike70]

Oh dear jesus, I am one of the biggest SK fans on the planet, but that Kingdom Hospital thing was one of the biggest pieces of shit ever put on television, period. :rolleyes:

the original is quite interesting and like i said, weird as fook.

[MinionZombie]

Strange. I never felt the supernatural tone of Kubrick's film was vague. Danny 'shines', the hotel 'frees' Jack Nicholson's character from that food storage etc ... No rational explanation in those parts of the film ... It still creeps me out.


I'm with you here. Plus the whole bit with photograph at the end (with that music playing, with the camera creeping through the empty hotel) - man alive, that's some chilling imagery right there. :shifty:

[bassman]

the hotel 'frees' Jack Nicholson's character from that food storage etc ... No rational explanation in those parts of the film ... It still creeps me out.

The hotel does a lot more things that now creep me out thanks to what Danny pointed out in a thread a while back: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?19406-Stanley-Kubrick-s-impossible-hotel&highlight=shining

0sUIxXCCFWw

IfJ8rK7eJeQ

I haven't been able to see the film the same ever since. Some of them seem as though they could be goofs, but most of it seems intentional.

[MoonSylver]

Meh. I'm not "gaga" over Kubrick's version, but I do like it. Is the book better? Yes. But maybe not by a whole lot for me.

I too never found the supernatural elements in the film version "vague". It seems pretty obvious too me.

Sure he doesn't really overstate how "evil" the Overlook is, but that's really more of a limitation of the medium (film) than of the director "not getting it" IMO. A lot of how King fleshes out the true nature of the hotel is through back story, exposition, etc. Elements that don't always translate well to film. :|

And as for "Dr. Sleep": that sounds terrible. But I haven't read much King for awhile now. :|

[MinionZombie]

Excellent finds Danny, and thanks for reposting Bassman (I never saw the original thread).

Like you, I'll never be able to see The Shining the same way again - but in this instance, it might not necessarily be a bad thing. The Overlook Hotel always had a strange sense to it - and clearly this is part of the reason why - but I think, for me at least, Kubrick's hypnotically controlled style managed to hide these intentional set design choices from my conscious mind. Subconsciously I've spotted them, and have become disorientated by them, but consciously I'm focused on the dialogue, the characters, and the general style and feel of the film.

Fascinating stuff!

[krisvds]

Those Youtube vids are fascinating indeed! Given what a total control freak Kubrick was most of this must be intentional. I once went to an exhibition on the director that ran as a part of the Ghent filmfestival and saw some of his notes on the shining, some storyboards as well. He planned out every movie he did in great detail ...

Also:I'm with Mike on this: Von Trier's Riget is really, really good. It also has some quirky humour long lost in recent Von Trier offerings but at the same time can be very frightening and tense. Great stuff!

[shootemindehead]

Strangely, Kubrick's 'The Shining' has grown on me over the years, while King's work has faded. I've always sort of thought of him as a better short story writer anyway. His collections are now the only stuff that I can get through these days and his new work has been getting generally bad press.

Although, I remember seeing 'The Shining' as a kid and was left in a wonder at why exactly everyone was mad about it. It's certainly one of those films that gets better with repeated viewings.

[LouCipherr]

The hotel does a lot more things that now creep me out thanks to what Danny pointed out in a thread a while back: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?19406-Stanley-Kubrick-s-impossible-hotel&highlight=shining

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Mind-Blown.jpg

:eek:

MIND=BLOWN

[bassman]

MIND=BLOWN

:lol:

Yeah....that's how I felt when I first saw those videos. And as MZ pointed out, Kubrick always paid serious attention to detail, so it almost certainly has to be intended. An extra layer of awesomeness to an already awesome movie, imo.

[LouCipherr]

Holy shit, man - I used to think Kubrick was just a mental case :lol: but now I've found a whole new layer of genius to the man. I had no idea he was putting that kind of detail into his flicks.

I sat down and watched this last night and I could not believe what I was seeing. There is no way all of that was not done intentionally. Like you said, there's one or two things that might have been "oops" moments, but overall, that had to be completely intentional and I can't believe I've been watching that film for over 30 years and never noticed ANY of this.

My mind is indeed freakin' blown. :D

[MinionZombie]

Holy shit, man - I used to think Kubrick was just a mental case :lol: but now I've found a whole new layer of genius to the man. I had no idea he was putting that kind of detail into his flicks.

I sat down and watched this last night and I could not believe what I was seeing. There is no way all of that was not done intentionally. Like you said, there's one or two things that might have been "oops" moments, but overall, that had to be completely intentional and I can't believe I've been watching that film for over 30 years and never noticed ANY of this.

My mind is indeed freakin' blown. :D

I think that video has been blowing minds from here to Timbuktu, Lou. :D

I do recall thinking once or twice, that when Danny enters room 237 (217 in the book), and we see how far it extends, "what about the space for the rooms next door?" but quickly didn't think too much of it consciously (even I'd been subconsciously twigging on to these deliberate set design quirks) as the film continued with it's strange and unsettled creepiness. Going to have to give it another spin.

This just sprang to mind, something disconnected, but here in the UK, TCM frequently show the movie (as do other channels), but TCM cut this really cool advert together for the film to a Radiohead song, but I can't remember which one (one of their most recognisable tracks, because I knew who it was even though I don't listen to Radiohead) ... anyway, it was a really cool advert and that song mixed well with the footage that they showed which focused more on the calm before the storm, rather than, IIRC, showing off all the best shocks. Any fellow Brits know of the advertisement on TCM that I'm talking about?

I'd really like to see the 23 minutes (or however much it is) that is in the US version, but not the international version. They have showed it on Sky Movies at least once, but they almost always show our version rather than the extended version. I'd love to see that footage (which wasn't even included on our home video releases as deleted scenes or anything like that).

[LouCipherr]

I think that video has been blowing minds from here to Timbuktu, Lou. :D

Well, that was the ultimate mindfuck for me, 'cause I never noticed any of that shit going on over the past 30 years of viewing it. :eek:


I'd really like to see the 23 minutes (or however much it is) that is in the US version, but not the international version.

I was wondering about that when the guy narrating said he got a hold of the US version with "23 more minutes" - wtf could they have possibly cut out in the UK version? and 23 minutes? Of what?!?!

That one had me scratching my head.

[MinionZombie]

I was wondering about that when the guy narrating said he got a hold of the US version with "23 more minutes" - wtf could they have possibly cut out in the UK version? and 23 minutes? Of what?!?!

That one had me scratching my head.

You sought answers, and ye shall receive them...

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1215

The bulk seems to be early on (before they get to the hotel, then being introduced to the hotel), but there are numerous scenes throughout. Some connecting tissue (like with Hallorann on the plane, then getting the snowcat) ... however there seem to be some scenes I wish had been in our version of the flick (e.g. Wendy's vision of the skeletons), but also some other little moments (like Jack speaking about his feelings for the hotel, culminating in a little joke - which would have provided, for we international folks, a little more of a glimpse into the nice side of the Torrence family life).

By the way, Movie-Censorship.com is an excellent website for comparing the different cuts of movies - full details, timecodes, and pictorial representations. :thumbsup:

Now, having read the differences, I'd like to know what you think of that Lou - and indeed any of our American chums - what do you make of the scenes that were cut out for international audiences? Anything that you'd not miss, anything that you would really miss, and anything that you think should never have been removed from the flick at all?

[LouCipherr]

The bulk seems to be early on (before they get to the hotel, then being introduced to the hotel), but there are numerous scenes throughout. Some connecting tissue (like with Hallorann on the plane, then getting the snowcat) ... however there seem to be some scenes I wish had been in our version of the flick (e.g. Wendy's vision of the skeletons), but also some other little moments (like Jack speaking about his feelings for the hotel, culminating in a little joke - which would have provided, for we international folks, a little more of a glimpse into the nice side of the Torrence family life).

It makes no sense to me whatsoever that any of this was cut out for the UK version.

I'll take a peek at that website (thanks for that!) and see exactly the parts cut and get back to your question. ;)

[Mike70]

Also:I'm with Mike on this: Von Trier's Riget is really, really good. It also has some quirky humour long lost in recent Von Trier offerings but at the same time can be very frightening and tense. Great stuff!


all i can say is: you'll never look at Udo Kier the same way again. i use Von Trier's older stuff along with films like "flammen & Citronen" to stay up on the language. Danish & Norwegian are my other languages (other than French which i've been speaking since i was in kindergarten, so it doesn't really count as a second language to me). self taught so i could read Henrik Ibsen (2nd greatest writer ever) in the original (that's being a geek), since Ibsen wrote in a dialect called Dano-Norwegian, it's a two for one special.

back to "Riget": fooks me up though when that damn dr. helmer starts jabbering on in Swedish.

like Von Trier says anyone who decides to watch "Riget", "so vaer vel beredt på at tage det gode med det onde."

[Danny]

You sought answers, and ye shall receive them...

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1215

The bulk seems to be early on (before they get to the hotel, then being introduced to the hotel), but there are numerous scenes throughout. Some connecting tissue (like with Hallorann on the plane, then getting the snowcat) ... however there seem to be some scenes I wish had been in our version of the flick (e.g. Wendy's vision of the skeletons), but also some other little moments (like Jack speaking about his feelings for the hotel, culminating in a little joke - which would have provided, for we international folks, a little more of a glimpse into the nice side of the Torrence family life).

By the way, Movie-Censorship.com is an excellent website for comparing the different cuts of movies - full details, timecodes, and pictorial representations. :thumbsup:

Now, having read the differences, I'd like to know what you think of that Lou - and indeed any of our American chums - what do you make of the scenes that were cut out for international audiences? Anything that you'd not miss, anything that you would really miss, and anything that you think should never have been removed from the flick at all?

not one to recommend piracy (openly) but theres a HD-DVD rip of both the shining and the exorcists uncut american versions and they are incredible.

[LouCipherr]

Now, having read the differences, I'd like to know what you think of that Lou - and indeed any of our American chums - what do you make of the scenes that were cut out for international audiences? Anything that you'd not miss, anything that you would really miss, and anything that you think should never have been removed from the flick at all?


Ok MZ, you asked for it, let’s go through one step at a time:

05:03
The conversation between Wendy Torrance and her son continues. She tells him in a lovely way that their vacations in the Overlook Hotel are going to be great fun and he must not be afraid. Cut back to Jack Torrance who managed to successfully apply for taking care of the, during the winter season, abandoned hotel. Mr. Ullman introduces him to his employee Bill Watson who should show Jack the hotel. Jeck tells him that he used to be a teacher and that he is now trying to become an author and that he is looking for changes in his life. The three men are talking about the hotel and about why it is closed during winter season, though the fantastic chances of skiing.

Lou’s opinion: this is a scene that should’ve been left alone. Why would this be cut? The conversation w/Jack and the Hotel people is interesting enough, and the scene with Wendy telling Danny about the overlook – while not “important to the story” per-se, it does set up kinda what’s coming. That, and this gives Jack's motivation for wanting to be at the Overlook in the first place.


12:07
After the brilliantly filmed vision of Danny in the bathroom, the whole scene of the doctor examining Danny is missing. She looks into his eyes and asks him about what has happened, what he did while he was brushing his teeth, if there was anything unpleasant. Despite the astonishing vision Danny denies all questions and does not uncover anything. Later Danny mentions his imaginary friend and the doctor asks if Tony asks him to do something for him. Danny answers that he does not want to talk about Tony. The doctor grabs her stuff and gives Danny the advice to stay in bed the whole day and leaves his room together with Wendy. Both women take a seat in the living room and are talking about Danny’s frame of mind. The doctor insures her that everything would be fine and that she does not have to worry about anything. Both are talking about the moment when Danny talked to Tony for the first time and Wendy mentions Danny’s injury at his arm which was inflicted by Jack. Wendy excuses the injury as a former accident and parental measure which got out of control due to the alcoholic abuse of Jack. Since then, she emphasizes, Jack has never again touched a bottle of alcohol.

Lou’s opinion: Ok, so this scene should’ve never been cut. This is where Wendy explains how Danny’s arm was broke, and to me, this gives us a glimpse of the ‘darker’ inner working of Jack, as well as some of the demons he has to tame and keep at bay (his alcoholism). Since Jack starts drinking in the Overlook’s bar later, this scene sets up why that’s an important turn in the movie. No idea why this would’ve been cut out. I realize Jack later explains Danny’s injuries, but that’s long after this scene, and this scene “preps” you for what’s to come.


20:46
Mr. Ullman leads the Torrances through the Colorado Lounge, followed by Wendy’s joyful comments that this is the most beautiful hotel she has ever seen. Ullman explains that the Overlook Hotel was the central station for the jetset before this term actually existed. Four American presidents and a lot of movie stars would have spend a night in the hotel.

Lou’s opinion: After watching that “spatial awareness and set design” of the Overlook (Thanks Danny, you mindfucked me on that one!), this is a very important scene too as it shows some of these anomalies in this scene. We could probably do without it, but I see no reason why it’s not left in there.



22:46
Wendy and Jack look around their future rooms while Ullman explains that they also have the chance to use any hotel room if their rooms would be too small for them. Jack is excited about the domestic room. Blind in to the hedge labyrinth where Ullman shows them the outdoor areas. He says that the labyrinth is very tricky and he would not even try to get through it without his background knowledge.

Lou’s opinion: Umm, this sets up the hedge maze scene later in the movie. Foreshadowing. It should’ve been left in, considering they only cut 42 seconds. Dumb cut, to be honest.


23:56
Instead blending in to the kitchen a scene with Ullman, who leads Wendy and Jack to the Golden Room, follows. He explains that the ballroom could contain 300 people and that all alcoholic drinks have been removed due to the winter break. Jack tells him that they do not drink. Ullman introduces them to Dick Hallorann, the chef. Danny joins them and they decide that Wendy is introduced into the kitchen by Dick while Ullman keeps on showing Jack the rest of the hotel. On their way to the kitchen Dick mentions Wendy’s strange nickname ‘Winniefred’ and asks if she is a Wendy or Freddie. She explains that she is a Wendy.

Lou’s opinion: ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED SCENE. This sets up “there’s no alcohol in the overlook” – yet we have the bar scene w/Jack and Grady later - not to mention Jack is a recovering alcoholic. This should’ve been left in there.


34:19
One can see Wendy how she pushes a coffee wagon through the hotel.

Lou’s opinion: I originally would’ve thought this would have not been a necessary scene – yet, after watching that thing Danny posted on the Overlook set design, this shows one of those anomalies and a big one, too (ie: where the kitchen is located in relation to the rest of the overlook). Should’ve left this 42 seconds in. Besides, it adds ambiance to the movie. Her, moving around in this massive hotel all alone. Sets a good tone/mood.

36:45
The conversation at the bed, while Jack is having breakfest, continues. Wendy admits that she firstly thought the hotel was scary, but she likes it now. The strong contrast to Jack who firstly loves it. He says that he has the strange feeling that he was here before and that this is not only a simple deja-vu but strong and intense emotions. Wendy tries to scare him away with ghostly sounds – more a lovely joke that a serious interpretation of ghosts.


Lou’s opinion: Should’ve been left in. Shows how Wendy hated it there, but now is getting comfortable, while the exact opposite is happening w/Jack. Seems like an important fact to point out considering what happens later, right?

37:53
A take is missing in which Jack, with the back to the audience, pushes a ball onto the wall and the following fade to the outdoor area. Wendy and Danny walk out of the hotel and Wendy shows Danny the trash bin.

Lou’s opinion: Not sure this is a necessary scene, but it shows jack is slowly “slipping” out of his mind. :D


40:35
While Wendy works with the huge can opener, the TV is on and shows the actual news reports that shows the weather as well as the news about Susan Roberts, who is missing for about 10 days.

Lou: Ok, this I could deal with. No issues with this cut. It does foreshadow weather, but so does the scenes with Hallorann, so I don't see this as "required"


45:52
Jack again starts tapping the typewriter. Then one can see the title ’Thursday’. The movie is cut to Wendy and Danny how they have fun in the snow.

Lou: I’m ok with this one, too.

51:18
Wendy and Danny are watching TV in the hall. Danny asks if he can go and get his fire engine but Wendy does not allow it because Jack went upstairs for taking a nap. Because he wants to wants to have his peace Danny should not wake him up. Danny continues begging and promises to be quiet.

Lou: Meh, I could go either way with this one. Basically, it’s all about Wendy telling Danny, “don’t disturb your father” – considering Danny and Jack’s issues in the past, this reaffirms their relationship, but I think it’s been covered elsewhere in the movie.


66:04
Jack looks at a bourbon glass and mumbles that having a drink would end 5 months of abstinence. Lloyd, the bartender, asks Jack how things are working and Jack responds that there are just some unimportant issues with his wife. Lloyd agrees while refilling Jack’s glass and says what bartenders often use to say: women – one can not live with them, but also not without them.

Lou’s opinion: ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. All of the scenes w/Grady are not only fun to watch, but let’s you in on Jack’s mind which is slowly slipping away from him without him really noticing until later. Grady rocks, and this scene should’ve been left in.


78:55
Jack reminds Wendy on Danny’s attack in the bathroom before they went to the Overlook Hotel to make the most recent happenings more plausible.

Lou: Meh. Not sure this would matter in the movie. I could go either way.



91:40
Giving her thoughts a voice, Wendy moves around the room. She thinks about leaving the Overlook Hotel immediately, if necessary via the snowcat. She is also aware that Jack would stay in the hotel. Her thoughts are interrupted when she notices the words ‘Redrum’ from Danny’s room. Worried she goes into Danny’s room and finds him sitting in his bed. She tries to talk with him but he answers with Tony’s voice and says that Danny went away. Wendy hugs her son.

Lou: Umm, this is foreshadowing (snowcat) in a major way. Should’ve been left in. How could they cut out one of the most iconic scenes in the movie? "REDRUM"! I mean, c'mon! :rolleyes:


94:56
Jack removes two other relays from the radio and moves on. Fade to Hallorann, who tries to contact the family Torrance for the third time. The attempt fails again and he can be seen in a thinking position. Cut to the title ‘8 a.m.’.

Lou: Umm, yeah. If this scene isn’t shown, most people would think, “why doesn’t she just use the radio to call for help?” Again, foreshadowing has been cut out, for no good reason.


96:12
In the plane Hallorann asks a stewardess when they are going to land in Denver. Fade to the Overlook Hotel with a long camera panning on Jack who sits with his back to the audience and continues tapping. Again a fade. Now one can see Halloranns plane which is landing, then the movie cuts to ‘Durkin’s Garage’. The owner Larry Durkin enters his shop where his phone is ringing. He takes the phone and Hallorann is on the other line. Hallorann explains that he urgently need to get to the Overlook Hotel this night to look after the Torrances. Because of the weather conditions he asks for a snowcat to get through the hotel. Durkin agrees.

Lou: More foreshadowing left out to dry. While it’s not an exciting scene, it does set up the conditions that Hallorann is going to have to face to get to the Overlook.


99:29
While the TV offers sounds from a Roadrunner cartoon, Wendy explains her son that she will be going to the floor shortly to talk to daddy. Danny is still speaking with Tony’s voice and keeps on concentrating on the cartoon. Wendy sneaks out of the room but takes a baseball bat, which was standing in a corner, with her.

Lou: While this establishes that “Danny isn’t here, Mrs. Torrence” still, I’m not sure the movie would suffer without this scene. This cut doesn’t bother me as much as the others.

133:27
Wendy is still stumbling through the house. She looks into the Golden Room where she can find some skeletons.

Lou: Yeah, I don’t think it’s a “necessary” scene, but there is certainly no reason why it should be cut for the UK’ers out there.


So there you have it. This is strictly my opinion, and I don’t expect others to agree, but those are my thoughts. It seems they cut out a lot of the foreshadowing in the film – which, to me, hurts it. If foreshadowing is done correctly, there’s nothing like watching the movie then saying, “Awww shit, I should’ve saw this coming! Earlier he said…….” I like that kind thing if it’s done correctly, say, like Edgar Wright did in Shaun. Rememeber when Ed and Shaun are in the Winchester and Ed pretty much lays out the ENTIRE movie in one sentence (have a bloody mary, take a bit of the king's head, save the princesses, etc.) – which you’d never know until you watched it a few times? Yeah, that kinda stuff I like if it’s done in a smart, interesting way.



Anyone else care to chime in on these cuts? :)

[MinionZombie]

Thanks for the in-depth response, Lou - interesting to see your perspective, particularly as these scenes have always been in the movie for you.

Okay, I'll have a spin through these from the perspective of someone who has never seen any of these scenes, and is quite familiar with the UK/International version of the flick.

05:03
The conversation between Wendy Torrance and her son continues. She tells him in a lovely way that their vacations in the Overlook Hotel are going to be great fun and he must not be afraid. Cut back to Jack Torrance who managed to successfully apply for taking care of the, during the winter season, abandoned hotel. Mr. Ullman introduces him to his employee Bill Watson who should show Jack the hotel. Jeck tells him that he used to be a teacher and that he is now trying to become an author and that he is looking for changes in his life. The three men are talking about the hotel and about why it is closed during winter season, though the fantastic chances of skiing.

MZ The Brit: I'd be interested in seeing all of these scenes sometime, however I've never felt anything was really missing from this area personally. It still worked for me, all these times I've seen it, without this bit.


12:07
After the brilliantly filmed vision of Danny in the bathroom, the whole scene of the doctor examining Danny is missing. She looks into his eyes and asks him about what has happened, what he did while he was brushing his teeth, if there was anything unpleasant. Despite the astonishing vision Danny denies all questions and does not uncover anything. Later Danny mentions his imaginary friend and the doctor asks if Tony asks him to do something for him. Danny answers that he does not want to talk about Tony. The doctor grabs her stuff and gives Danny the advice to stay in bed the whole day and leaves his room together with Wendy. Both women take a seat in the living room and are talking about Danny’s frame of mind. The doctor insures her that everything would be fine and that she does not have to worry about anything. Both are talking about the moment when Danny talked to Tony for the first time and Wendy mentions Danny’s injury at his arm which was inflicted by Jack. Wendy excuses the injury as a former accident and parental measure which got out of control due to the alcoholic abuse of Jack. Since then, she emphasizes, Jack has never again touched a bottle of alcohol.


MZ The Brit: True, we would have had more info here - Danny's arm, and Danny's bathroom incident. The latter would have added more credence later on, however it still worked in our version too (it's crazy anyway to be seeing a dead woman in a bath tub in an empty hotel, right?) ... as for Danny's arm, we find out elsewhere in the movie, and I kind of dig that that element is relatively 'buried' within the movie. A later reveal of this works better in my view, but I can see why it'd also work in advance too.


20:46
Mr. Ullman leads the Torrances through the Colorado Lounge, followed by Wendy’s joyful comments that this is the most beautiful hotel she has ever seen. Ullman explains that the Overlook Hotel was the central station for the jetset before this term actually existed. Four American presidents and a lot of movie stars would have spend a night in the hotel.

MZ The Brit: Sounds like some nice additional back story and exploration, but we get a lot in the movie as-is, so there never felt like there was a gap anywhere here.



22:46
Wendy and Jack look around their future rooms while Ullman explains that they also have the chance to use any hotel room if their rooms would be too small for them. Jack is excited about the domestic room. Blind in to the hedge labyrinth where Ullman shows them the outdoor areas. He says that the labyrinth is very tricky and he would not even try to get through it without his background knowledge.

MZ The Brit: There's a little bit about their room anyway in our version when they're shown around, and they discover the maze soon afterwards anyway, so it doesn't sound like anything major personally.


23:56
Instead blending in to the kitchen a scene with Ullman, who leads Wendy and Jack to the Golden Room, follows. He explains that the ballroom could contain 300 people and that all alcoholic drinks have been removed due to the winter break. Jack tells him that they do not drink. Ullman introduces them to Dick Hallorann, the chef. Danny joins them and they decide that Wendy is introduced into the kitchen by Dick while Ullman keeps on showing Jack the rest of the hotel. On their way to the kitchen Dick mentions Wendy’s strange nickname ‘Winniefred’ and asks if she is a Wendy or Freddie. She explains that she is a Wendy.

MZ The Brit: Again, we know there's no booze in the joint, and of Jack's troubles with booze, but a little more backstory about the Golden Room would have been nice. The nickname thing isn't required.


34:19
One can see Wendy how she pushes a coffee wagon through the hotel.

MZ The Brit: Like Lou said, a nice mood piece, not required, but it would have been nice to see.

36:45
The conversation at the bed, while Jack is having breakfest, continues. Wendy admits that she firstly thought the hotel was scary, but she likes it now. The strong contrast to Jack who firstly loves it. He says that he has the strange feeling that he was here before and that this is not only a simple deja-vu but strong and intense emotions. Wendy tries to scare him away with ghostly sounds – more a lovely joke that a serious interpretation of ghosts.


MZ The Brit: Now this I would have liked to have been in the movie. Saw a bit of it in that spatial anomalies video that our Danny found, hehe. A little more interaction between Jack and Wendy that shows not only the shift in perspectives of the hotel between them, but also of their relationship in general. I would have rather liked to have seen this in the movie.

37:53
A take is missing in which Jack, with the back to the audience, pushes a ball onto the wall and the following fade to the outdoor area. Wendy and Danny walk out of the hotel and Wendy shows Danny the trash bin.

MZ The Brit: Yeah, not necessary ... we've got him throwing the ball around the Colorado Lounge already, and he seemed a bit weirded out already, hehe.


40:35
While Wendy works with the huge can opener, the TV is on and shows the actual news reports that shows the weather as well as the news about Susan Roberts, who is missing for about 10 days.

MZ The Brit: Who the fudge is Susan Roberts? Not needed.


45:52
Jack again starts tapping the typewriter. Then one can see the title ’Thursday’. The movie is cut to Wendy and Danny how they have fun in the snow.

MZ The Brit: We've already got this stuff covered. Not needed.

51:18
Wendy and Danny are watching TV in the hall. Danny asks if he can go and get his fire engine but Wendy does not allow it because Jack went upstairs for taking a nap. Because he wants to wants to have his peace Danny should not wake him up. Danny continues begging and promises to be quiet.

MZ The Brit: Yeah, I think this stuff has been covered elsewhere - not wanting to disturb Jack etc.


66:04
Jack looks at a bourbon glass and mumbles that having a drink would end 5 months of abstinence. Lloyd, the bartender, asks Jack how things are working and Jack responds that there are just some unimportant issues with his wife. Lloyd agrees while refilling Jack’s glass and says what bartenders often use to say: women – one can not live with them, but also not without them.

MZ The Brit: More of Lloyd and Jack would have been nice as their scenes were great. I never felt there was a gap here though.


78:55
Jack reminds Wendy on Danny’s attack in the bathroom before they went to the Overlook Hotel to make the most recent happenings more plausible.

MZ The Brit: I've covered this at the top of my response.



91:40
Giving her thoughts a voice, Wendy moves around the room. She thinks about leaving the Overlook Hotel immediately, if necessary via the snowcat. She is also aware that Jack would stay in the hotel. Her thoughts are interrupted when she notices the words ‘Redrum’ from Danny’s room. Worried she goes into Danny’s room and finds him sitting in his bed. She tries to talk with him but he answers with Tony’s voice and says that Danny went away. Wendy hugs her son.

MZ The Brit: Worked fine for me in our version. In a way some of these scenes seem to be setting up ideas that will come around anyway later on, so it feels a tad wasteful perhaps to be mapping out this stuff, which isn't ground-breaking thought processes anyway.


94:56
Jack removes two other relays from the radio and moves on. Fade to Hallorann, who tries to contact the family Torrance for the third time. The attempt fails again and he can be seen in a thinking position. Cut to the title ‘8 a.m.’.

MZ The Brit: I seem to remember this being covered in our version ... unless I'm mistaken, but I could have sworn this was already covered in our version too. :confused:


96:12
In the plane Hallorann asks a stewardess when they are going to land in Denver. Fade to the Overlook Hotel with a long camera panning on Jack who sits with his back to the audience and continues tapping. Again a fade. Now one can see Halloranns plane which is landing, then the movie cuts to ‘Durkin’s Garage’. The owner Larry Durkin enters his shop where his phone is ringing. He takes the phone and Hallorann is on the other line. Hallorann explains that he urgently need to get to the Overlook Hotel this night to look after the Torrances. Because of the weather conditions he asks for a snowcat to get through the hotel. Durkin agrees.

MZ The Brit: Again, never felt there was a gap here - or not really anyway - you just assume this stuff happened. Perhaps it would have been a nice little addition just to fill a sort-of-plot-hole (as in, how he got to the hotel), but I never really felt there was a huge gap here either. Understood proceedings just fine.


99:29
While the TV offers sounds from a Roadrunner cartoon, Wendy explains her son that she will be going to the floor shortly to talk to daddy. Danny is still speaking with Tony’s voice and keeps on concentrating on the cartoon. Wendy sneaks out of the room but takes a baseball bat, which was standing in a corner, with her.

Her backing out with a baseball bat just after she's talked to her son would have been a creepy addition, but again, it's telling us something that she will do/is about to do, rather than in our version where we just see it happen without the prior explanation that it will happen, and then seeing it happen.

133:27
Wendy is still stumbling through the house. She looks into the Golden Room where she can find some skeletons.

MZ The Brit: I really would have liked to have seen this scene. An added bit of creepiness at the crazy climax of the movie. I never missed it, having not known it was there originally, but yeah - I would have really liked that cool moment to be in our version.

So some are legitimate cuts, others are neither here nor there, while there are some additions which would have been nice too. Interesting that it seems like these cuts might make the movie make less sense to the Americans (or at least Lou anyway), whereas from a British stand point, I never had any problem with most of these elements that were cut as they're covered elsewhere.

I'd imagine our version therefore has a bit more of a pacier speed to it (well, it is 23 minutes of cuts after all). I'd still like to see the American version sometime though for comparison's sakes. Next time it's on TV here I'll have to record it and see (apparently we air the American version sometimes, but I've only known of it airing once, but apparently not so - more than once).

[LouCipherr]

Good responses, MZ. It's interesting how we have different perspectives based on the cut we've been seeing for years.

I can totally understand how a lot of that missing footage wouldn't make too much of a difference to someone who hadn't seen them. I still see zero reason for ANY of that material to be cut out - I mean, it's not like there's controversial topics brought up in those scenes or over-the-top gore or blood or anything. It just seems weird they'd cut your version by that much - and what they cut, seems not to have affected your viewing of the film, which is great.

On the flip side, from someone who has seen the original cut of this for, omg, 3 decades? (I'm showing my age here.. ugh), trying to watch the movie with all those scenes missing is... jarring for lack of a better word. It's not like it would destroy the film, but I feel there's important foreshadowing going on that might be missed in the cut version (at least with a single viewing).

Either way, it's all good if none of that really changes your enjoyment of the film. I am just still scratching my head wondering why those scenes in particular are cut for the UK. You have any idea why that might be?? Is your censorship a bit more over-the-top than here in the US?

[MinionZombie]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with censorship. Once upon a time we did have rather strict censorship issues decades ago, and particular during the video nasties debacle of the 1980s - and running up until 1999 (when the BBFC gained a new leadership which began un-banning flicks like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, and many more). There's still the odd issue these days, but it always comes down to sexual violence - that's still a sticking point with the BBFC, so flicks like I Spit On Your Grave still had 7 minutes chopped out post-1999, but I think it's somewhat less severe than that recently (same again with Cannibal Holocaust, which is nearly uncut now in the UK I believe).

Anyway - as for The Shining, I don't think there was any censorship issues at all with that flick, plus it's a "quality" film from a "quality" filmmaker (the quotation marks aren't sarcastic by the way, I'm a great respector of Kubrick and his work), but the target for censorship was usually lower budget movies which weren't exactly prestigious. For example, The Evil Dead was taken to court for being obscene, but it was also the number one selling videotape of its release year. It was cut by a few minutes, but was finally released uncut in 2001 IIRC.

Methinks the trims were perhaps more to do with Kubrick himself, but I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind having an American version and an International version. Perhaps Warner Brothers had some say in it?

[LouCipherr]

Methinks the trims were perhaps more to do with Kubrick himself, but I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind having an American version and an International version. Perhaps Warner Brothers had some say in it?

Yeah, I guess that's possible. Just seems.. I don't know, odd.

As Vinnie Barbarino would say... "It's so weird!" :D

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, I guess that's possible. Just seems.. I don't know, odd.

As Vinnie Barbarino would say... "It's so weird!" :D

*Travolta Ghost mode on*

Boo!

*Travolta Ghost mode off*

:lol:

In terms of censorship these days in the UK, most of the time it boils down to this:

1) Trims agreed by the distributor to attain a lower rating for the theatrical release - e.g. The Woman In Black was trimmed to get a 12A and therefore bring in the potty-for-Potter fans, or The Expendables which had two seconds of a knife twisting in a neck to attain a 15 rather than an 18. In both instances the cuts were re-instated for home releases (in the latter only on Blu-Ray IIRC).

2) Sexual Violence - the aforementioned bug-bear that remains at the BBFC. If they perceive a scene to be 'sexualising' a rape scene, for instance, then it'll get cut down or excised.

3) Porn - thanks to MelonFarmers (who post various BBFC-related stats), they show how many R18's (the rating given to legally sold hardcore porn) get cut. Quite a lot of them get cut, and it's mostly to do with things like choking, certain fluids, certain dialogue.

4) The occasional ban (e.g. gorno movie Grotesque), or heavy cuts/temporary ban on the likes of Human Centipede 2 or A Serbian Film (the latter which had a few minutes chopped out due to pervasive sexual violence).

Pre-1999 it was pretty ridiculous. The BBFC have come a really long way since then.

[LouCipherr]

*Travolta Ghost mode on*

Boo!

*Travolta Ghost mode off*


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I was wondering if you'd catch onto that. I should've known better. :D "What? Where? ....Boo!"

That's interesting stuff. I can now see one or two scenes from the The Shining that might fit with your explanation above, but some of the cuts don't even fall into those categories. Then again, like you said, that could've been a Kubrick thing.

Interesting none the less. :D

[MinionZombie]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I was wondering if you'd catch onto that. I should've known better. :D "What? Where? ....Boo!"

:lol::lol::lol:

Oh you know it, Sir - I'd be on that reference like Donkey Kong on a sidetracked princess. :D

[shootemindehead]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with censorship. Once upon a time we did have rather strict censorship issues decades ago, and particular during the video nasties debacle of the 1980s - and running up until 1999 (when the BBFC gained a new leadership which began un-banning flicks like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, and many more). There's still the odd issue these days, but it always comes down to sexual violence - that's still a sticking point with the BBFC, so flicks like I Spit On Your Grave still had 7 minutes chopped out post-1999, but I think it's somewhat less severe than that recently (same again with Cannibal Holocaust, which is nearly uncut now in the UK I believe).

Anyway - as for The Shining, I don't think there was any censorship issues at all with that flick, plus it's a "quality" film from a "quality" filmmaker (the quotation marks aren't sarcastic by the way, I'm a great respector of Kubrick and his work), but the target for censorship was usually lower budget movies which weren't exactly prestigious. For example, The Evil Dead was taken to court for being obscene, but it was also the number one selling videotape of its release year. It was cut by a few minutes, but was finally released uncut in 2001 IIRC.

Methinks the trims were perhaps more to do with Kubrick himself, but I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind having an American version and an International version. Perhaps Warner Brothers had some say in it?

Yep, kubrick definitely made the European cut himself. Why he chose to cut so much material is beyond me, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.