Talk: The Shining (book)

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Is the last para. serious ? Ericd 23:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote it, will put the disputed para. here until sources are found:

King reported that he was unhappy with the filming of his work, in large part because Jack Nicholson had just finished One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and he suspected that audiences would assume him crazy to begin with. He wrote another screenplay of the novel and had it refilmed in the late 90s. Kubrick´s version only used the concept of the King´s novel to experiment with the genre and many allegorical possibilities of the plot. One of his main aims was to describe in metaphor the background of genocide, but also some social consequences of mechanisation.

The part about Cuckoo's Nest is especially dubious. The release dates were 5 years apart. (Please sign your edits, so we can follow who's who--Thanx :) )

When I first saw Kubrick's Shining I also had to impression that Nicholson looked more like a crazy man returning to type than flawed individual descending into madness (or possession), and I hadn't read anything about it or seen Cuckoo's Nest in getting that impression. However, I'm unhappy with King's remake—He seems to have gone out of his way to (sometimes badly) rewrite his own novel to make it is unlike Kubrick's Shining as possible. Cecropia 16:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have heard that one of the conditions for King to re-acquire the adaptation rights was that he would not publicly criticize the Kubrick film (any more)...anyone got a source on that? 209.149.235.254 18:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Split

I propose the page be split perhaps so one can deal with the book and films seperately. Any objections? Dysprosia 03:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me; certainly the Kubrick film deserves an in-depth article on its own. Whether the Garris thing needs a separate article, or should be mentioned in a Kubrick film article, or should be mentioned in the article on the book, I don't know. Jgm 12:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree that would be a good idea, since there are enough differences in concept, emphasis and plot and the movie is famous in its own right. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the split. It's almost impossible to discuss the book or either film without comparing them to one another, and although the plots of the Kubrick version and the Kin versions differ, the plots aren't so divergent that they can't both be broadly described together. Better to note the differences between the versions in one article than in two articles, or three. -Sean Curtin 04:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

It's possible to compare the two in both articles, though.

However, as Cecropia has mentioned, there are enough differences between the two for the movie to deserve it's own article. There are certain elements of the movie that deserve mention which have nothing to do with the book (eg the Indian-massacre-theme that was described in the Family of Man article at the bottom of the film article) that I think is not featured as strongly in the book. Dysprosia 05:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Miniseries

Is the series described on the book page the same as listed on the disam page? I'm not sure, so I'd like to get confirmation before I move it. Dysprosia 03:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)