Ok. I'll say it. King wrote a sequel to his own book, but for the movie you can't ignore Kubrick so it attempted to bridge the gap between the two. The Overlook from the movie still stands but burns down as it did in the book version of The Shining. Enjoyable movie. The Shining is one of my favorite movies of all time, though.
I like the mini series. I like the 6 hours of dialogue. I like how tony floated with all the other great cgi. I like how t Danny was t annoying at all. I like how doors squeakily shit hundreds of times to my horror. And that classic ending of Danny catching Jacks kiss.
@@nayetcuba I read the novel and watch Stephen King's miniseries and while I was reading the book I kept saying to myself "this is not how the movie was"
There are so many ways to interpret this film, but if Jack wasn't physically there in 1921, how do you explain the photo at the end? And Jack said he felt as though it was all a deja vu. I think in the ballroom scene that Jack was flashing to a past life when he was the caretaker, (Delbert said Jack was always the caretaker there). I think he meant that the evil spirit that had consumed Jack had always been the caretaker, because other than in 1921, and in the present time, Jack was working or living somewhere else. Or in between lifetimes. And Delbert said he'd always been there. So another evil Indian spirit was representing Charles Grady in that restroom scene. Actually, Charles and Delbert. That's why Jack mistook Delbert for Charles Grady. Charles was the one who killed his wife and kids in 1970.
The scariest part to me as a kid was the title sequence lol. It was the music! I would put my head under a pillow the moment I heard those errie chants
Spot on with the Shining, I can’t remember how many times I have seen this film, and I still see even more each time, and believe me, I have studied it. Thank you!
In the opening scene there is a Red book on the table, this is "the Red Book" by Carl Jung that was not made publicly available until 2009 and it is all about the the space between natural and supernatural and how coincidences work and all kind of crazy stuff about the collective unconsciousness like that. Kubrick had xeroxed copies of this book and created the prop version and put it in the center of the shot so I think it can be helpful in the interpretation. Another thing I think is important is the artwork on the walls, and the books and movies shown on screen. I think there are strong themes from Ancient greek myths and folklore, and the native American folklore of the people displaced by the national park. Also the pictures on the walls of the birds, if you look up what the bird is in each of those pictures there is always some kind of weird aspect to how this natural species behaves that relates to the scene. I don't think the minor continuity errors in the hotel layout are significant, if anything they are just meant to give you an uneasy feeling or to make you feel lost in the hotel. Basically Kubrick was a genius but didn't anticipate we could just google everything he did so he may have intended the paintings etc to have subliminal meanings but if you look up what each image is they lend some help to the interpretation.
That's pretty fascinating, especially that bit about the red book. I'd never heard that bit before. Or even the paintings and props etc. Makes me want to rewatch this movie very carefully... frame by frame
@@MoviesWithTheMooksthat’s not true every hotel has a book called the red book a new one comes out every year it’s basically a diary for the hotel with 2 pages for each day of the year
You guys quoted Rob Ager/ Collative Learning about the maze and the set design making no sense. He provides a lot of evidence including Kubrick and his set designer confirming that this was intentional in terms of the hotel having “impossible” areas. Rob does great work and I’m not even a Kubrick fan.
@@MoviesWithTheMooks He’s done hours of work on the shining. He also does a good job showing that Kubrick was interested in themes of abuse. Lolita, Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut are good examples. Here’s a quick introduction to his work that he put together ua-cam.com/video/NlvMXL2zNUY/v-deo.htmlsi=5WsrXKHZrdK_lgaE
@@MoviesWithTheMooks He has two channels on youtube. Rob Ager (@robag555) or his more popular channel where he has most of his videos, Collative Learning (@collativelearning).
I haven't yet watched a version of the Shining where they did the hedge animals, but the topiary creatures scared the shit out of me when I was reading the book, lol. The fact that they can move when you're not looking directly at them is super disturbing (as were those @#$%& fanged angels on Dr. Who). And having been on the wrong side of a blackberry tangle a few too many times in my life, I can't think of a lot ways to go that would be worse than being gradually mauled to death by a hedge lion. Like Death of a Thousand Cuts time, so prickly and spiteful. I'm guessing trying to effectively capture the horror of that experience on film without seeming a bit ludicrous could be rather challenging, and expensive too.
Definitely it could pose some logistical challenges, and to make it not seem too absurd or silly, but actually make it horrific. Although, I've seen similar sorts of things done well. Like the weeds in Jumanji, those were done pretty well and made to be legitimately threatening and freaky.
@@MoviesWithTheMooks Just mentally flashed to Alien, to the face hugger tightening up it's tail on John Hurt's neck when they tried to remove it. So simple a gesture, and so horribly intimate in it's devotion to it's singularly unpleasant job. Ugh. A basic but masterful effect, thoroughly etched into my memory.
When you sign away your IP rights for a film studio to make an adaptation of your work, the studio is under no obligation to adapt it the way you want it adapted. There's no law about "the first adaptation" needing to be the most accurate. That's silly. And yeah, part of King's deal with Kubrick/Warners to get the rights back to "The Shining" was that he was obliged to stop bad-mouthing their film. Which he did. It is funny that King says it's a "poor adaptation" - so, it's better? lol
Actually there are very strict laws about the first adaptation of a novel. Kubrick spent 4 months in house arrest after the films premiere and received 5 lashings with a croquet mallet administered by King. Kubrick, being the perfectionist that he was, criticized King's posture and demanded he continue until he got it right. After 43 more whacks the two collapsed in exhaustion. Barely able to catch his breath, Kubrick mentioned his interest in adapting Cujo with Anthony Michael Hall and a Scottish Terrier. King mustered up 10 more lashings and they never spoke again.
this is fucking weird ive been watching analysis videos on the shining for like two weeks but they’re mostly old and now someone makes a brand new video about shining analyses and it has like no views but shows up on my tl and little did i know was being made during my shining mania
It might be in the movie, but in the book I know it’s a gay couple who was into animal kink, and the sub costume looked more like a dog with a collar and leash. Very weird stuff but the book doesn’t elaborate too much on those two ghosts, just that that was part of their haunting of the hotel.
Funny how Stephen King was very critical about the movie but Dr Sleep is a sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining rather than his.
Ok. I'll say it. King wrote a sequel to his own book, but for the movie you can't ignore Kubrick so it attempted to bridge the gap between the two. The Overlook from the movie still stands but burns down as it did in the book version of The Shining. Enjoyable movie. The Shining is one of my favorite movies of all time, though.
did u see his? its wack
Kubrick didn’t even read King’s screenplay draft for this film
I like the mini series. I like the 6 hours of dialogue. I like how tony floated with all the other great cgi.
I like how t Danny was t annoying at all.
I like how doors squeakily shit hundreds of times to my horror.
And that classic ending of Danny catching Jacks kiss.
@@nayetcuba I read the novel and watch Stephen King's miniseries and while I was reading the book I kept saying to myself "this is not how the movie was"
There are so many ways to interpret this film, but if Jack wasn't physically there in 1921, how do you explain the photo at the end? And Jack said he felt as though it was all a deja vu. I think in the ballroom scene that Jack was flashing to a past life when he was the caretaker, (Delbert said Jack was always the caretaker there). I think he meant that the evil spirit that had consumed Jack had always been the caretaker, because other than in 1921, and in the present time, Jack was working or living somewhere else. Or in between lifetimes. And Delbert said he'd always been there. So another evil Indian spirit was representing Charles Grady in that restroom scene. Actually, Charles and Delbert. That's why Jack mistook Delbert for Charles Grady. Charles was the one who killed his wife and kids in 1970.
The scariest part to me as a kid was the title sequence lol. It was the music! I would put my head under a pillow the moment I heard those errie chants
Spot on with the Shining, I can’t remember how many times I have seen this film, and I still see even more each time, and believe me, I have studied it. Thank you!
It's not a scooter, it's a big wheel, get your toys, right🤣🤣🤣
I had scooter on the brain because i was making this at the time of the recording. ua-cam.com/video/koXPOLVBEkI/v-deo.html
In the opening scene there is a Red book on the table, this is "the Red Book" by Carl Jung that was not made publicly available until 2009 and it is all about the the space between natural and supernatural and how coincidences work and all kind of crazy stuff about the collective unconsciousness like that. Kubrick had xeroxed copies of this book and created the prop version and put it in the center of the shot so I think it can be helpful in the interpretation. Another thing I think is important is the artwork on the walls, and the books and movies shown on screen. I think there are strong themes from Ancient greek myths and folklore, and the native American folklore of the people displaced by the national park. Also the pictures on the walls of the birds, if you look up what the bird is in each of those pictures there is always some kind of weird aspect to how this natural species behaves that relates to the scene. I don't think the minor continuity errors in the hotel layout are significant, if anything they are just meant to give you an uneasy feeling or to make you feel lost in the hotel. Basically Kubrick was a genius but didn't anticipate we could just google everything he did so he may have intended the paintings etc to have subliminal meanings but if you look up what each image is they lend some help to the interpretation.
That's pretty fascinating, especially that bit about the red book. I'd never heard that bit before. Or even the paintings and props etc. Makes me want to rewatch this movie very carefully... frame by frame
@@MoviesWithTheMooksthat’s not true every hotel has a book called the red book a new one comes out every year it’s basically a diary for the hotel with 2 pages for each day of the year
I believe that contemporary cinema has so demeaned our sense of experience that it has diminished our living.
You guys quoted Rob Ager/ Collative Learning about the maze and the set design making no sense. He provides a lot of evidence including Kubrick and his set designer confirming that this was intentional in terms of the hotel having “impossible” areas. Rob does great work and I’m not even a Kubrick fan.
Oh good to know, thanks for the info. Can you link us to his work? I'd be curious to check more into that.
@@MoviesWithTheMooks He’s done hours of work on the shining. He also does a good job showing that Kubrick was interested in themes of abuse. Lolita, Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut are good examples. Here’s a quick introduction to his work that he put together ua-cam.com/video/NlvMXL2zNUY/v-deo.htmlsi=5WsrXKHZrdK_lgaE
@@MoviesWithTheMooks He has two channels on youtube. Rob Ager (@robag555) or his more popular channel where he has most of his videos, Collative Learning (@collativelearning).
Kubrick could’ve used some sounds from space. Like what a supernova “sounds” like. Very creepy.
Bevis and Butthead Do the Shining.
Lol
I haven't yet watched a version of the Shining where they did the hedge animals, but the topiary creatures scared the shit out of me when I was reading the book, lol. The fact that they can move when you're not looking directly at them is super disturbing (as were those @#$%& fanged angels on Dr. Who). And having been on the wrong side of a blackberry tangle a few too many times in my life, I can't think of a lot ways to go that would be worse than being gradually mauled to death by a hedge lion. Like Death of a Thousand Cuts time, so prickly and spiteful. I'm guessing trying to effectively capture the horror of that experience on film without seeming a bit ludicrous could be rather challenging, and expensive too.
Definitely it could pose some logistical challenges, and to make it not seem too absurd or silly, but actually make it horrific. Although, I've seen similar sorts of things done well. Like the weeds in Jumanji, those were done pretty well and made to be legitimately threatening and freaky.
@@MoviesWithTheMooks Just mentally flashed to Alien, to the face hugger tightening up it's tail on John Hurt's neck when they tried to remove it. So simple a gesture, and so horribly intimate in it's devotion to it's singularly unpleasant job. Ugh. A basic but masterful effect, thoroughly etched into my memory.
When you sign away your IP rights for a film studio to make an adaptation of your work, the studio is under no obligation to adapt it the way you want it adapted. There's no law about "the first adaptation" needing to be the most accurate. That's silly. And yeah, part of King's deal with Kubrick/Warners to get the rights back to "The Shining" was that he was obliged to stop bad-mouthing their film. Which he did. It is funny that King says it's a "poor adaptation" - so, it's better? lol
Actually there are very strict laws about the first adaptation of a novel. Kubrick spent 4 months in house arrest after the films premiere and received 5 lashings with a croquet mallet administered by King. Kubrick, being the perfectionist that he was, criticized King's posture and demanded he continue until he got it right. After 43 more whacks the two collapsed in exhaustion. Barely able to catch his breath, Kubrick mentioned his interest in adapting Cujo with Anthony Michael Hall and a Scottish Terrier. King mustered up 10 more lashings and they never spoke again.
I read the book in the book is fabulous
So many deviations from the novel
this is fucking weird ive been watching analysis videos on the shining for like two weeks but they’re mostly old and now someone makes a brand new video about shining analyses and it has like no views but shows up on my tl and little did i know was being made during my shining mania
I sense that algorithmic voodoo at work
I think it's a woman in the bear costume.
It might be in the movie, but in the book I know it’s a gay couple who was into animal kink, and the sub costume looked more like a dog with a collar and leash. Very weird stuff but the book doesn’t elaborate too much on those two ghosts, just that that was part of their haunting of the hotel.
@@tamiwatchesstuffLooked like a man to me in the movie too. Always assumed it was