A prequel to "The Shining"?

[Neil]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Prequ...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. 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?!"

[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.