Talk:The Shining (film)/Archive 2

Interesting to note that Scatman Crothers and Jack Nicholson were both in the movie: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Scatman played Orderly Turkle. Someone please add this to the article. I'm too lazy.

Missing Information "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" redirects here. There is no reference to the text anywhere on the page. What gives? 24.150.42.44 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

URGENT:

The plot that is listed here isn't at all the plot in the movie. It looks likes someone changed it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihateyourguts123 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixes

I found a few punctuation, technical, and continuity errors and decided to fix it up a bit in the plot section. Also, I noticed a major overuse of pronouns and previously indicated objects and events are also noticeably overstated throughout the plot section. I, however, have not gone over all of the section and think that there is probably more that should be done. I figured these were minor enough changes, but if I am wrong sorry about that. --iF (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed up the plot section some more, there were some unnecessary and misplaced sentences, and more punctuation and technical errors. I tried to make the flow of the section better but it is still in need of a lot of work. --iF (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonplussed

In the plot summary it says something about Jack being nonplussed when he sees the bartender, even calling him by his name, Lloyd... I think that the author of that thinks nonplussed means something else, because it means confused or bewildered, and addressing the bartender by his name doesn't sound like something a nonplussed person would do. Is there a better word we could use there?

change it so the sentence is with the word nonchalantly, probably the word meant. 84.153.255.139 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Stanley kubrick was nominated for Razzie award as worst director for this movie." I find it hard to believe that a movie from the 70s with such high regard and so many accolades as Kubrick's The Shining would receive a worst anything award, let alone a worst director award. Also seeing as the vandal didn't spell Kubrick with a capitol "k" I think it fair to assume that this is the work of a fiendish vandal. Please keep an eye out for these sorts of things on any page JayKeaton 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no, this is completely true. Check it out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/awards

Razzie Awards 

1981  Nominated Razzie Award Worst Actress
Shelley Duvall 

Worst Director
Stanley Kubrick 

They were completely wrong in nominating either Duvall or Kubrick, but hey, what can we do? (Ibaranoff24 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

If anything Jack Nicholsan should have been nominated for worst actor. I love the movie, but he showed no dynamics in his acting? He did his "Over The Cuckoo Nest Crazy" routine from the very first scene... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.160.197 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Differing from the novel?

Shouldn't there be an analyse-section here? Or, if the risk of POV-madness is too high, shouldn't there at least be a section regarding the difference between the film and the novel (both technical changes and the overall difference of ideas in the two stories)? By "ideas", I mean that Kubrick's film and King's novel are about two different things. Kubrick never intended to please King, or follow the ideas of the story in his book.

Fair use rationale for Image:Dickhall2.JPG

Image:Dickhall2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG

Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wendyshining.jpg

Image:Wendyshining.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction of contradictory statements

I changed the following passage:

At first, Jack seems to be enjoying the serenity of the hotel and the mountains, and mentions to Wendy that when he first arrived for his interview, he felt a sense of déjà vu. But soon afterwards, Jack's mental health deteriorates rapidly once the family is alone in the hotel. Winter weather arrives in the mountains, and Jack slowly begins breaking down.

to

At first, Jack seems to be enjoying the serenity of the hotel and the mountains, and mentions to Wendy that when he first arrived for his interview, he felt a sense of déjà vu. But soon afterwards, Jack's mental health deteriorates rapidly once the family is alone in the hotel. Winter weather arrives in the mountains, and Jack begins breaking down.

Jack cannot exhibit rapidly deteriorating mental health and slowly be breaking down. After watching the movie, where the events occur over a period measured in days, it seems as though the breakdown is indeed rapid. I removed the word "slowly" from the final sentence to keep the tone in line. Jamesfett 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Production section

I added a {{trivia}} tag to this section, but it was removed. I would suggest putting one there because it fits exactly. According to Wikipedia:Trivia sections a trivia section is just a list of miscellaneous facts, which is what that Production section is.--Msl5046 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hospital scene question

The cut hospital scene, is that available on the DVD? I've never seen it, only heard about it. Ebert's review makes reference to it, about how Ullman said the body was never found. That part of his review doesn't make sense if you've seen the 143-minute version as opposed to the 146-minute one. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

July 4th Ball, 1921 photo on the article

The words "wish you were here" were added into the photo by a fan. That's not the original image that appears in the film. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me the importance of the picture, if the film takes place in 1980 and Jack is shows a young man in 1921, how could he look young in 1980, id appreciate it if someone could tell me the significance of the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingintherain56 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's intended to by a cryptic final shot indicating that Jack is either the reincarnation of a prior caretaker, or (minority interpretation) has been time-traveled into the past at the conclusion of the story.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg

Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot tag

I do not think that the long-plot tag is justified. This movie is over two hours long and the plot is complex. The interactions between the three family members if complex and they each have important scenes. The film has several iconic scenes that should be set up and justified. As it stands, there is no easy way to simplify the plot without having to drop the mentioning of important scenes.--Veritysense (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. You are right. In fact, I was thinking just the same, as this movie is developed at the hotel and all what occurs during more than 2 hours and 20 minutes is almost impossible to make its plot any shorter. There's a lot of things that cannot be taken off of the plot, because they reflect the meaning of the film.

If you ask me, I think the plot of the film is much better than it was some time ago, and we should keep it like that, just the way it is. I just finished reading it and it really sounds nice no matter how long it is. So, please, DO NOT make changes to make it a short plot. If anyone does that, this article will get a whole lot worse... I also think we shoul remove the note, or tag that says that the section is too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.54.76 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this is not a fansite. Wikipedia has guidelines for editing its pages. In this instance see WP:FilmPlot. This plot is excessively long for an encyclopedia. Thus the tag should remain. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is much more important that all those articles on Chinese train stations that no one reads, and again, let me repeat what was said here: there is no way you can both make the plot shorter and keep the true meaning of the film. I mean, it is a long movie; the longest movies today feature a maximum of two hours or so, this movie was appx. 2 hours, 30 min. and there's a lot of things going on which compose this movie. It's like a puzzle, if you miss a piece, no matter how small that piece is, it's not gonna make sense, so I vote to remove the tag.--Pgecaj (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, let me express my opinion on this debate too. Peronally, I think that the importance of this horror movie cannot be denied: it's by far one of the most classic ones not only of its time but of all time, so that said, it is reasonable that the plot of The Shining should be longer than those plots of average movies. Besides, it's not really that long. My vote goes to the removal of the tag.--96.239.4.18 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While the Plot section is indeed long (over 1400 words - guidelines state no longer than 900), it is not helped by a short lead-in and poor Cast section straight after. The Production and Response sections should come straight after the Plot. I think this would also help balance the weight of the Plot section. -- Nreive (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag on the plot summary as most reviewers think that for this movie in particular the slight extra-long plot is reasonable, and also more votes (including mine) are in favor of it.

Unfortuantely, wikipedia is not a democracy and this tag is properly placed due to the plot not meeting the Manual of Style requirements for a plot summary. A much larger consensus would need to be reached at the wikipedia film projects page before any final removal could occur. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote the guidelines, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." (emphasis mine). There seem to be two main opinions here, those that say the plot is complex and should be left alone, and those that say it violates the guidelines. In other words, no one is arguing that the plot is not, in fact, complex. It seems that this addendum to the guidelines was made specifically for exceptions such as this movie. Removing tag. Kryten107 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having noticed that the Manual of Style is also involved in this debate, I'll leave the removal of the tag to someone else, but my point still stands. Kryten107 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1997 TV miniseries: not a "remake"

There was one sentence in this article which read: "King finally supervised a television remake of The Shining in 1997, which received lukewarm reviews."

It wasn't a remake of Kubrick's film. It was a more faithful adaptation of King's original novel than Kubrick's film was.

I've changed the sentence to read: "King finally supervised a television adaptation of his original novel in 1997, which received lukewarm reviews." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.205.134 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Leiber

Does anybody know where I can find Fritz Leiber's excellent review of Kubrick's version of The Shining? I know it was available online at one point, but now I can't find it. Minaker (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Production note/foreign language pages

In order to make the scene when Wendy sees that Jack has simply written the same sentence over and over work in other languages, Kubrick had other versions made and filmed as inserts that could then be spliced into the prints for that particular language. Here is a source for that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/07/13/sv_stanleykubrickprops.xml 24.24.244.132 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Differences section issue

"Jack's relationship with his family is altered drastically in the film. Both Wendy and Danny love him and are loved genuinely in return, but they both seem meek and flat characters in the film; her husband is frequently abusive in one way or another, but Jack often swings back the other way to calm Wendy and assure her that he loves her. Danny would find comfort with Jack that he wouldn't find with his mother. In the film, they seem consistently wounded and Wendy comes off as ignorant instead of a woman trying to keep her marriage together but considers divorce an option if things get too bad."

Parts of this sound a lot like personal opinion, rather than factual differences between the book and the movie. --Deuxsonic (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the Differences section restored but done as a cohesive essay that is confined to fairly verifiable facts and confined to sweeping differences that affect the overall structure of the story and avoids small minutiae (unless they are confined to separate section). I plan to work on this over the next week or two. Earlier, I reorganized the Differences section into sub-categories, but this was largely a preliminary to getting it better organized as a step towards further compliance. At any rate, I plan to post a radically overhauled Differences section within the next week or so.

WickerGuy (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to consider what MOS:FILM#Adaptations says: "Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged." Take a look at Fight Club (film)#Writing to see how this can be done. The large majority of adaptations of source material will have differences for conventional and creative reasons, but it's not the editors' job to cherry-pick what they think is the most important differences, hence the need for reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point Erik. However, Kubrick tends to be more private about his writing process than many, so it is harder to talk about the motivations for changes in any Kubrick film. Even the half-hour documentary "Making of the Shining" says very little about the screen-writing process other than that it was revised several times during filming for reasons not discussed with the actors. Many of the points I have mentioned are taken from Stephen King's discussions of why he did NOT like the Kubrick version, though I did not cite these. Regrettably, I missed a one-hour live presentation by co-screenwriter Diane Johnson on the writing process of this screenplay given here in SF about 3 years ago. I have not yet listened to the audio commentary on the October 2007 DVD release of The Shining but I understand it is focused on technical aspects of the film. Since one of the commentators is the inventor of the Steadicam, this is not too surprising. However, I have listened to the DVD commentary on the 4 & 1/2 hour 1997 mini-series of The Shining on which many many of the differences between the book and the 1980 Kubrick film are discussed. The purpose of the mini-series was to make something far closer to the book than Kubrick's film. Needless to say, I have also read the novel twice.

WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentaries would definitely be helpful in writing such a section. It sounds like the mini-series DVD commentary is useful, so you could cite that. It helps because it's a source independent of the editors that's noting the differences, so we editors don't have to assume what differences are worth noting, since some adaptations can have a ton of changes. It would be great if you could replace the existing section with such cited material! To cite the commentary, you could either use {{Cite video}} or write out the reference in detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The catch here is that in most adaptations you frequently are dealing with a director/screenwriter explaining and defending the changes, whereas most available source material here is the book's author explaining why he did not like the changes. I was I think unconsciously reluctant to cite these, since I wanted to retain a neutral POV and was a little reluctant to post a paraphase of a Stephen King rant on why he did not like Kubrick's movie. Most folks think the movie works extremely well in its own frame of reference as a sort of parallel-universe story, but other than a very brief statement by Kubrick that he found the ending of the book "hackneyed", few defend it as an improvement over King's novel. [I keep wanting to use initials here, except Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick have the same initials. Sigh.] So I'll try to insert citations, but I want to keep a fairly neutral POV as well.

WickerGuy (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hope the version as of today is somewhat improved. It's easier to source the more obvious differences that King openly complained about. The later ones are more a matter of my own observation. In fact, I'm quite surprised that the shift in the motivation of the ghost's has not been more widely discussed.

WickerGuy (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added more references. My first batch of references was to sources regarding King's feelings about the film focused on the characterization of Jack. My current (second) batch regarding later stuff references passages in the novel (only by chapter not by direct quotation) as establishing the later differences. In the final paragraph on "iconic images" I added footnoted links to those images on other web-sites. The images don't show in this page (in net-speak they are not embedded)- you have to click on the link to see it on the other web-site. Hopefully, this is an acceptable work-around of fair-use issues. If not, please say so here.

WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally added a reference re Kubrick's motivation for the hedge maze re limitations of special effects

WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a citation and link to a review that differs from King's opinion thus helping to maintain more overtly a NPOV.

WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While the differences section documents minor differences like the weapon used by Jack Torrance, it's surprising that a change, as major as the eventual fate of 'The Overlook Hotel' is ignored. The hotel goes up in flames in the novel it remains standing in the movie. I'm adding the following lines to the Differences section:

Another significant deviation from the novel concerns the eventual fate of 'The Overlook Hotel'. While in the novel it is completely destroyed by a fire caused by an exploding boiler(which incidentally is another significant bit in the novel which is left out of the movie), the movie ends with the hotel continuing to stand. Complexvanilla (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved Ebert quote

I moved the Ebert quote down the page to the Alternate Versions section, since that is what he is commenting on. It was quite confusing in its pervious location, since the reader doesn't yet know what was removed that is being commented on, or whether that represents a change from the book or an earilier version of the film.

Stevecudmore (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-did plot synopsis from top to bottom

I just completely rewrote the plot synopsis, but regret I was unable to make it notably shorter. However, the existing synopsis seemed to not catch the overall arc of events and often focused on moderately unnecessary details (albeit memorable scenes), while omitting other details that seemed significant.

Broadly speaking, it seems that a plot synopsis should not be a "string of memorable moments" or an anthology/montage of "great scenes", but give a sense of the overall arc, flow, and structure of the story. I felt the prior summary played too much like a YouTube tribute.

Also redid intro summary

I also rewrote the intro summary in order to clarify a few points that were vague. (The hotel isn't just secluded. It's snowbound in the winter.) I also clarified the supernatural aspects.

WickerGuy (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Differences Section Redux

Today I removed the No Original Research tag from the "differences between book and film" section, and it was put back by User:Arichnad (sic- not Arachnid). Reviewing the policies of Wikipedia more carefully than I had previously, I see that Wikipedia puts a high premium on the use of secondary sources in order to avoid violation of the NOR policy. After putting a lot of citations in the "Differences" section, I see that my citations are about 40% secondary sources and about 60% primary sources (i.e. the text of Stephen King's novel). (Novels are absolutely considered primary sources by Wikipedia.) The official policy of Wikipedia is

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• [1a]only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, [1b]the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• [2] make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

(Numbers inserted by me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources)

In the middle third (see below), I've probably strayed in the area of "analytic, synthetic...explanatory or evaluative claims" about info in the primary source, though the policy is a tad qualified by later stating

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

I do think that all the claims made in the "differences" section as it stands would be non-controversial and universally agreed upon by all King fans (fulfilling condition 1b) but they do indeed go beyond "descriptive". Some of my points about Ullmann and Wendy Torrance are discussed very briefly in the DVD commentary to the mini-series remake, but I fleshed these points out and went beyond their assertions. However, in order to fully establish my points, it is clear that I will have to dig up some kind of semi-scholarly discussion of the book/film differences in a film journal of some kind such as "Jump Cut".

As it stands, I would say the early parts in the "Differences" section about the motivation of the main character (Jack Torrance) are OK, since this has been heavily discussed by Stephen King on multiple occasions in print. The problematic part is that middle section that deals with character motivation of the supporting characters as this veers into "explanatory...claims" about info in the primary source (see paragraph above about DVD of mini-series). Finally, from the point where the hedge maze is discussed to the end, I think this section is on firm ground re wikipedia guidelines as from hereon the discussion becomes purely descriptive rather than interpretive, which is considered by wikipedia to be an OK use of primary source material. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources)
Agree? Disagree? Please feel free to chime in.

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my sign name is arichnad (sic). "in the film he mainly finds her concerns irritating and hysterical.<ref>An example is the way he echoes back her line 'I think we should take Danny to a doctor'</ref>" Forget primary vs. secondary. According to 1b, we might (hypothetically) be able to use "he echoes back her line 'I think we should take Danny to a doctor'" and translate that to "he finds her concerns irritating" but according to the synthetic rule you quoted and "synthesis of published material" we cannot. "I fleshed these points out and went beyond their assertions" yeah that's the definition of original research. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Arichnad, I think what you mean is that fuller cross-referencing reading "Wendy's concern about Danny also triggers Jack's authority issues in the novel[23], while in the film he mainly finds her concerns irritating and hysterical.[24]" is synthetic. But the second half alone is in a weak sense "interpretive" only to the degree that it is somewhat POV. To be in a strong sense "interpretive" you really need IMO to take a chunk of extended synopsized narrative and make a theoretical conclusion that frames a whole set of descriptive statements. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless . . . we shouldn't be interpreting or synthesizing on our own. In other words, it really doesn't matter if it's interpretive or synthetic or whatever as long as it's one of the above: as long as it's original thought, it doesn't matter. Here we can't come to our own conclusions, we can't do our own interpretation. We can't point to the book as evidence when making an interpretation. We can only point to conclusions and interpretations and research done by reliable sources. See my reply below, I think we're going in the right direction and I think things are going well. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I have replaced the tag

"This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details."

with the more specific tag

"This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

plus I have added three inline tags two of which say [improper synthesis?] as in

The book gives notable illustrations of Jack’s issues with authority that are absent from the film in ways that allow the film to alter the characterization of Ullmann and Wendy.[improper synthesis?]

and one of which says [original research?] as in

In the film, the motive of the ghosts is ambiguous but seems to be to reclaim Jack Torrance who is apparently a reincarnation of a previous caretaker of the hotel.[original research?]

This at least creates some specificity as to what the issues are. When I get some time, I'll hit some film journals online and in the UC Berkeley library. --WickerGuy (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you're definitely going in the right direction. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tightened the wording of this section a bit so that some ideas are less scattered, and the areas where OR is an issue are mainly in a smaller area. Essentially, the OR issues really arise in what I say about Wendy Torrance and Stuart Ullmann. This leaves me with a certain conflict between strictness of OR and completeness of the section.

Bottom line is that the differences between the King's Jack Torrance and and Kubrick's Jack Torrance does not run into OR issues for two reasons. One is they have been so widely discussed elsewhere mainly in King's gripes about Kubrick. The second reason is that some of the difference lies in basic plot mechanics- King's Jack Torrance has a last-minute redemption and Kubrick's does not- which is universally verifiable and is free from any POV problems. (If in an alternate cut of "Return of the Jedi", Darth Vader didn't repent and save Luke Skywalker at the end, discussions of how Darth Vader is different would be unambiguous without entailing POV.)

On the other hand, the characters of Stuart Ullman and Wendy Torrance are very different in the book than they are in the movie. There just is less proliferation of material discussing this overtly, as most attention within these discussions is on Jack. But a reasonably complete discussion of the topic really needs to include some discussion of how SU and WT are portrayed differently as well as JT. So there is a conflict between the need to avoid OR and the need to present a reasonably complete account of the subject. I have as such chosen to err favoring completion at the expense of straying slightly into OR, rather than to avoid OR and discuss the differences in personality of only one character instead of three.

--WickerGuy (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This sort of goes along with differences in the novel and film, but not this closely. I'm not an avid Wikipedian, so I felt I'd mention this and let someone who knows what they're doing handle it. A friend of mine posted a link to someone's blog with an enormous in-depth (or perhaps obsessive is a better word) analysis of the film. Apparently, there's a cult following of people who believe that Kubrick hid all kinds of secret things in the film, many of which come from differences in the novel and film. I just thought someone should look into it to add to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.148.98 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This very possibly fails to fall under Wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources. Nonetheless it would help it supplied a URL

--WickerGuy (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on Plot Synopses- Probably not a repository for memorable scenes

More than any other Kubrick movie, there seems to be a strong temptation on the part of many editors to put into the plot synopsis scenes that are very strikingly memorable (one might say iconic) that nonetheless contribute only minimally to the arc of the story structure and mechanics of how the plot is put together.
No matter how peachy-keen and nifty and awesome, etc. etc. does the plot synopsis really need every small detail of the bathtub scene? It may be debatable how much we need a scene-by-scene synopsis- but we certainly don't need a frame-by-frame synopsis of any scene no matter how astonishing its artistic impact is.
At least that's my opinion. And to discuss within the plot synopsis how a certain scene illustrates the genius of Kubrick's directing technique is certainly the wrong place in Wikipedia to do so.

Suggested fix

Start a new section of this article called Memorable scenes

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PostScript om WP guidelines

According to Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary, plot summaries are not recaps.

It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story.

and plot summaries should not have

excessive and repetitive detail.

Given the labyrinthine multiple-act structure of The Shining, it makes sense to include all the major scenes, but again moment-to-moment narration doesn't belong in Wikipedia plot summaries.

Thanks to MarnetteD for calling attention to these pages.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 2 on memorable dialogue

I also don't think a plot synopsis is the place for memorable lines of dialogue no matter how memorable, but in semi-undoing the last edit, I relegated "Here's Johnny" to a footnote rather than removing it altogether.

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Slight plot fixes

I've made minor changes to 7 points of the plot section :

(1) His mother Wendy tells a doctor about Danny's propensity to see visions

Removed; I don't believe she tells the doctor this.

(2) he had physically abused Danny during a binge.

Surely it was after he comes home from the binge; not during.

(3) because telepathically sent pictures seemed to glow, they called the communication "shining"

Removed first part of above; Halloran does not say this.

(4) where he meets a ghostly bartender who plies him with alcohol.

"Plies"? Sounds like he was being forced to drink. Served, surely.

(5) Wendy can't escape the same way because the window is too small

The window was big enough; it was just stuck half-way.

- DropShadow (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had the plots of about seven movies on my WP watchlist for about as many months and I have never seen a plot synopsis go through so many imprudent and ill-conceived revisions and WP edits as The Shining. Most editorial revisions to other film plots are well-thought out including other Kubrick films such as A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Ironically, the deep and lasting impression that The Shining makes on a visceral/subliminal level seems to be precisely why WP editors make such poor decisions here. The WP plot summary becomes a repository for the dream-like impressions and images that trigger such a strong cathexis in the viewer.

Thank you for your good work.

--WickerGuy (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All so true.

Two more :

(6) Dick tells Danny that what he might see in the hotel are only a sort of picture

Dick doesn't actually say this. Later, when Tony and Danny are talking, Tony says "Remember what Mr. Halloran said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real". The "pictures" reference could be Danny's own opinion. Or Tony's, of course.

(7) Wendy discovers the “novel” Jack has been typing ...... A month goes by; Jack has trouble getting his novel started

There's no indication it's a novel he's writing.

-- DropShadow (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta admit I'm responsible for the "novel" bizness. Don't think I had anything to do with the other stuff you fixed up.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What's Going on with Shelley Duvall?

There is a some discussion at the Shelly Duvall page that she is traumatized by her experience making The Shining, and is now institutionalized or otherwise unable to work. Anyone know anything about this? If true, it seems it ought to be included in the article. I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything one way or another besides that she hasn't worked much since 2002. Lafong (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Duvall made The Shining in 1980 and found it very difficult. After making The Shining, she worked yet again for Robert Altman who called her a "changed artist" in a good way as a result of her having worked with Stanley Kubrick. Duvall later went on to be the head producer of a very good cable TV series called "Fairy Tale Theatre". If she's traumatized then it's a delayed reaction. The stuff on the Shelly Duvall page reads "Although recent reports have stated Duvall residing in Blanco, she has been sighted making multiple trips to the original filming site of The Shining." Ummm, that would be England!!!!! Sorry, that would be unsourced urban legend. Those whole last two sentences seem to be a clear violation of WP policy.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that still doesn't explain what happened to her. Where is she? Is she OK? And why doesn't she make movies any more? Anyone know anything? Lafong (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Short and Managable culture-impact section vs. scattered lengthy list

A modest amount of work went into taking a lengthy list-oriented pop culture section of this article and transforming it into a short, manageable section retaining only the most memorable and significant instances of the impact of this film on pop culture, and putting into paragraph format with organizing ideas instead of the form of a scattered bullet-point list. As such, its recent deletion seems overzealous to me.
The user who deleted it has an agenda here which isn't necessarily totally wrong as both trivia and lists are discourage by WP. She or he made a total 85 edits of which 19 (almost one out of four) are removals of trivia or popular culture sections in their entirety, one of which was reverted by Cluebot as vandalism. Some of these which are mere lists, (s)he tags as "original research" [(s)he does not use the acronym "OR"] which seems to me to be a somewhat novel use of the charge. Several of these are in science articles, such as the influence of string theory or quantum gravity on pop culture. Arguably , this might seem a tad frivolous in a science article, but when applied judiciously to an article on movies with brevity and with organization, it seems a little more relevant.
Agree or disagree? --WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The In popular culture section of the article is very restrained and to-the-point, and doesn't in any way spoil the rest of the text or make Wikipedia a very bad place. The two attempts ([1] & [2]) at deletion were very silly. Naturally, that's just my opinion, though I'm right. -- DropShadow (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You may or may not have already noted that after the 2nd deletion, I added references for the generalizations about what images get used frequently, and dropped some POV language, as a bit of tossing a pacifier to the other side. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman's nature

Ok fine. but you have to admit the guy's quite unsettling when you think about it. 92.14.239.107 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• However, how can the term "pot calling kettle black" be applied to this situation ?

are you accussing me of hypocrisy ? if so why ? 92.14.239.107 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm accusing myself of potential hypocrisy. I get accused of introducing POV in about 10 to 20% of my edits, and I've certainly pushed the envelope further in The Shining article than any other WP article I've edited (a distant 2nd place would be Stanley Kubrick article). This is clear as I am the author of 90% of the Differences between the Movie and the Book. While the conclusions there have all been reached by other sources (eventually cited in the article), it took me a while to trace down the citations before the tags could be justifiably removed and a few of the arguments leading to those conclusions have been a bit reshaped by me.
Frankly, though if you've read the novel, the film version of Ullmann is so heavily cleaned up. Characters in Stanley Kubrick films generally behave in an overly methodical and measured (almost stately) way that can seem a bit ominous in certain contexts. However, if you're familiar with some of the deleted scenes that were removed after the first week of the film's release, it's pretty clear he isn't intended to be a bad guy. He isn't any more creepy than the doctor who examines Danny for example. --WickerGuy (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between you and I is that I had a fairly reliable recollection of what community consensus among students of King was, but only committed the WP faux pas of posting before I could back it up, and eventually got my citations together. What you posted on Ullmann was a strong POV violation.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP cautiously allows lists in certain contexts.

Ekwos has been useful in his zeal in improving the the "Popular Culture" section of this article. When he zapped it, I realized it needed to be sourced. When he tagged it some weeks later, I removed a couple of items, and provided considerably better prose context to three more.

(Also, thank you very much to MarnetteD for zapping the ridiculous tricycle video business from this section. I was very busy with term papers and finals when that was added. I briefly glanced at it and meant to return to it, and I failed to note it claimed the the tricycle scene was at the beginning of this film, though I did see it was poorly written.)

However, it must be noted that in certain contexts WP allows lists that are short and add meaning to the article. WP policy states in Wikipedia:Trivia_sections#Not_all_list_sections_are_trivia_sections "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." (emphasis added).

Ekwos seems to be on a mission to remove trivia and "in popular culture" sections everywhere, as this accounts for an overwhelming majority of his edits (over a very diverse range of articles) since he joined in late October 2008 just two months ago. I am grateful that (s?)he forced me to rethink and rework this section, so everything helps. But a little less overkill (such as tagging the film's soundtrack listing as trivia) might help as well.
An unofficial unratified Wikiproject for preserving well-written, well-contextualized, and well-researched "popular culture" sections of articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture. My attempting to add better and fuller commentary to the material in this section followed by the removal of the tag is in the spirit of this project. --WickerGuy (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Mentioning Race of Hallorann

Although it is difficult to explain the reasons for it in the context for this article (though I'm thinking about it), the race of Dick Hallorann is significant given its overall place in the novels of Stephen King. King repeatedly (The Shining, The Stand, The Green Mile) has African-Americans with supernatural psychic abilities who as such act as saviors to other figures in the story consistently implying that African-Americans are usually in closer touch with the supernatural than the more mundane-minded Caucasians. This novel may seem an exception given that Danny Torrance also has the "shining" ability, but he's taught about it by Dick who has it run in his family. In fact, Stephen King's 2008 novel Duma Key was considered noteworthy for having King's very very first NON-magical African-American character.

This recurring motif in Stephen King has caused some controversy. Is he replacing old negative stereotypes with new positive stereotypes that are just as inauthentic? There's an extensive bulletin board discussion about it online that runs many pages. One poster defending King writes

"Moreover, I'd like to suggest that these white writers are motivated not just by a sense of their own culture's inadequacy as a source of magic, but equally importantly by the sense of minority culture's having preserved a greater link to their cultural traditions, even if these are ones fabricated through a romanticized white imagination. Moreover, to liberal whites, minority figures become especially desirable as morally privileged figures because of their people's historical victimization."

See http://www.strangehorizons.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=articles&Number=868&page=0&fpart=2

Like it or not, it's a recurring motif in Stephen King. As such it is significant for purposes of an encyclopedia that Dick Hallorann is African-American, although a fuller discussion would be more appropriate to the article on the novel of The Shining. Please cease and desist from removing references to Dick Halloran's race to the plot summary to this article. If you do, please defend your decision here. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also since many people think Kubrick has incorporated an indirect theme of Native American genocide into his film and Kubrick has Hallorann killed (not in the book) this also makes Hallorann's race relevant from the point of view of the film. --WickerGuy (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New input on old topic. I have just learned that Hallorann is a character in a second King novel "It" in which he is both an activist for African-Americans, a victim of racism, and uses his "shining" power to thwart a racist-motivated attack. Yet another reason for mentioning his race, although I realize this topic is more or less already settled.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Production

The production section is simply a glorified list of trivia points (some of which aren't strictly related to the production phase of the movie). It need to be fixed up. I'll do it myself in a short while if no one else has any plans to tackle it. Bertaut (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, be our guest. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll do it shortly so. Bertaut (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Versions

I just watched what I believed to be the original 1980 version (running 144 minutes); however, reading this article I see that includes a hospital scene featuring dialogue between Wendy and Mr. Ullmann? I'm a little confused as to which version I saw, because the run-time of the version I just finished watching was in fact about 144 minutes (without credits). I watched it online here:

http://static.youku.com/v1.0.0002/v/swf/qplayer.swf?VideoIDS=XMjYwMDc0MjA&embedid=-&showAd=0

Someone also noted that the European version did not include the extra scene, but that version only runs for 119 minutes. What it comes down to is that I'd like to see this hospital scene. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it! Also, what makes up for that 25 minute difference if it's not the hospital scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.160.197 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are strictly speaking three versions. 1) The earlier American version in release for only one week. 2) The cut-down American version after the first week of release. This is also the version on all American videotapes and DVDs. 3) The further cut-down European version. The hospital scene is only in the first of these and is as far as anyone knows lost to posterity or in the Kubrick archives. Hope this helps. --WickerGuy (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Twins" were not

I've changed the references to the Grady girls as being twins. Though they were dressed the same, they were not in fact twins, nor were they supposed to be. Ullman even says as much during the interview: "My predecessor in this job, hired a man named Charles Grady as the winter caretaker. And he came up here with his wife and two little girls, I think about eight and ten." Arakunem^Talk 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true -- but the girls playing the children, Lisa and Louise Burns, are most definitely twins. They were chosen for the role specifically because their father, a camera man, was one of only three crew members who had twin children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.82.30 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So they were. I always thought one was shorter but that could be perspective, or just fraternal twins. Interesting that no RS's have mentioned the apparent discontinuity with using twins when they were specifically mentioned as not twins earlier. Though apparently Kubrick took inspiration from a famous photo by Diane Arbus... not sure if that bears mentioning here or not (if I can find a source for it) as it is somewhat peripheral, bordering on the dreaded Trivia... Arakunem^Talk 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what an RS is- some think Kubrick was inspired by one of his own photoes from the 1950s. When I have a bit more time, I may post the URL here, but am in a bit of a hurry right now.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RS=Reliable Source. Seeing as several have pointed out other seeming discrepancies in the film (Charles vs Delbert), I wonder why none have mentioned the Not-twins-played-by-twins. Just ruminating out loud I guess. :) Arakunem^Talk 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First: "Delbert" might be a middle name or alias assumed for transparent, yet obfuscatory purposes, and/or to disguise embarrassment, simply because Grady is guilty of murder; Secondly: the "twins" can represent: the "two" Gradys (gentleman and murderer), the "two" Jacks (free will and fate), Father and Son (words and visions), the internal and the external (psychotic and supernatural). At least that's my takeaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.227.21 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Question re music

I'd love to know what exactly was that wonderfully foreboding music during the titles at the beginning of the movie when the car was shown travelling along a winding road in stunning countryside?

It's one of the few original compositions for the film by Wendy Carlos, but draws heavily on Berlioz's "The Damnation of Faust"--WickerGuy (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WickerGuy's answer is correct but it should be noted that the song is also using elements from Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique particularly his adaptation of the Dies Irae which runs through various sections of the work. Please note that new items go at the bottom of talk pages and please sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be confused. Both pieces of music by Berlioz involve a trip to the infernal regions of hell. It might be only Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique or it might be both Sf and "The Damnation of Faust"--WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dies Irae is in fact an old motif in Western music, originally written by Thomas of Celano back in the 1200s and traditionally used in Roman Catholic ceremony where it is commonly associated with apocalypse and death. Berlioz and many other later composers quote from it, but in fact it originates from Medieval Catholic liturgy. --79.193.44.129 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture - "knocked up"

"The shining" was referenced in "Knocked up" specifically in a conversation. Would anyone like to add this to the "In popular culture" section? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

contradiction

Intro: "...not initially successful..." "performed moderately at the box office."

Reception: "...did very well commercially..." "...made Warner Brothers a profit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbr2000 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but based on memories of what I read in movie magazines of the era. Section now opens with sentence "The film had a slow start at the box office, but gained momentum and steam, eventually doing well commercially and making Warner Brothers a profit. It also opened at first to mixed reviews. For example,..." --WickerGuy (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture -- Music

I can't remember the title, but I specifically remember hearing a song on the radio that sampled the first conversation between Jack & Lloyd does anyone know the name of this song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.133 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting last deletion for different reasons

The material about Stephen King gaining inspiration from the Stanley Hotel is true, but is contextless, tieing in to nothing that comes before or after it, and properly belongs to a discussion of the book, not a discussion of the film. Also, I can find no source verifying that Stanley was a replacement for the Shawnee--WickerGuy (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the introduction to the book, King specifically states that the Overlook is entirely from his imagination, though this doesn't stop the Stanley Hotel from marketing Suite 217 as "The Stephen King Suite". Mr Larrington (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect saying that in the book per se is simply a required legal disclaimer. An opening note in the novel Primary Colors by Joe Klein says "this is a work of fiction and the usual rules apply. None of these characters is real", but everyone knows the character of Jack Stanton is a thinly-disguised Bill Clinton. A similar disclaimer appears in the front of John Ehrlichman's The Company, although everyone knows the fictional president of the US in that novel is a standin for Richard Nixon. King saying this in the intro to the book itself really doesn't seem to me to amount to much. It's to ward off lawsuits.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Halloran's Death?

Just wondering if there should be more mention of Halloran's death in the film under differences from the book. I'd say this is a fairly significant difference since in the movie it is one of the biggest uses of Danny's powers- to summon Dick- and yet very little comes to it, Dick being killed before he can lend much help. (Parodied in the Simpsons). Before reading the book it puzzled me that such a big deal was made of Danny's powers and Halloran's presence while they ultimately turned out to be of little impact. Obviously, in the book, Halloran doesn't die but actually manages to help save Wendy and Danny. Personally I'd say it's worth mentioning, but I don't want to go and edit it out of the blue. 129.215.5.127 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts and Mirrors

The sentence "Many have speculated on whether there were really were ghosts in the film and Kubrick's smart use of mirrors" in teh section Ghosts and Mirrors must be changed. The first half contains twice the verb "were". The second half is in contrast to the first half and personally I think it's kind of difficult to comprehend its sense. Suggestion: "Many have speculated on whether there were really ghosts in the film and also on Kubrick's smart use of mirrors". White rotten rabbit (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have planned since Wed to rewrite this section today. Thanks much for the suggestions.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is "Here's Johnny!" really unique to this film?

I question any and all claims that Jack Nicholson's line "Here's Johnny!" is unique to this film. Ed McMahon used a more drawn-out but similar-sounding version ("Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny!") in the opening of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson from its very first episode in 1962. Though I don't have any references, I'm almost certain Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" line was copied from McMahon's introduction of Carson, which was heard on television in the U.S. and many other countries five nights a week for 18 years before this movie was made (and 12 years afterwards). --RBBrittain (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord. There should be no controversy here. When the film first came out, everyone understood it to be a direct reference to The Tonight Show. However, after Carson left the show in the early 90s, and The Shining gained in popularity, more and more of the younger generation knew the line only with reference to The Shining. Does this article actually claim this is unique to The Shining? Perhaps a clarification of the source of the line is in order.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Throughout this article there is much mention about the changes in opinion of The Shining and how a movie that was once panned is now considered a "classic". Yet in the "reception" portion of this article we see a brief paragraph about the movie's general reception before it segues into an article bu Johnathan Romney which is focused far less on the reception of the film, the quality of the film, or even the details of the film itself, instead analyzing the film via personal opinion attempting to explain the film with supposition, theory, conjecture, and more of those personal opinions. While it may be proper to quote Romney's article in some form, I find the use in this article misplaced, and I find the reception portion to be quite biased as it focuses exclusively on the reasons why people supposedly like the movie, most of said reasons involving some form of "analyzing" of the film, and offering nothing by way of negative criticism even though such criticisms were mentioned earlier in the article. Smokachu (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.26.17 (talk)

Romney's article in part is cited to explain the shift in opinion from unfavorable to favorable and an attempt to analyze why when viewed superficially it is a mundane film, but when more attention is paid to the film, more is revealed. This shift is basically the issue in all three of the critics mentioned, Stephen King, Roger Ebert, and Romney. Your assertion

it focuses exclusively on the reasons why people supposedly like the movie, most of said reasons involving some form of "analyzing" of the film, and offering nothing by way of negative criticism even though such criticisms were mentioned earlier in the article

is I think not really true. Key elements of the Romney article quoted here are "At first sight this is an extremely simple, even static film." followed later by "But look beyond the simplicity and the Overlook reveals itself as a palace of paradox....". Actually, this article fails to quote Romney's statement

At the time of the film's release many critics were unim­pressed by this schema - Kubrick had put so much effort into his film, building vast sets at Elstree, mak­ing a 17-week shoot stretch to 46, and what was the result? A silly scare story - something that, it was remarked at the time, Roger Corman could have turned around in a fortnight.

Maybe that quote needs to be here to justify using Romney in this section, but it was hoped that the context of using Romney was already clear. Perhaps it needs more clarification, with that quote added and other Romney quotes trimmed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1921 Swedish film

Hi Wickerguy. I know that the Swedish article reference mentions Kubrick's name and The Shining. But does it actually say that Stanley ever saw the film? Now I know that he was a voracious film watcher so I know that it is possible that he did. Also does it state that he was actually referencing the Swedish film on purpose? If it doesn't then I feel that this could be one of those coincidences that happens with the creators of films, or music, or painting, or any other of the arts, all the time. The YouTube link only show that they look alike. At the moment the inclusion of the info would seem like WP:OR to me. If it does state that he referred to the '21 film is there any way to provide a translation of the section in question in case any other editors have the same question that I do? Conversely, is there any English language reliable source that backs this assertion up. I would think that just putting the translation here on the talk page with my question or adding the English source as a ref in the article would assuage any further questions. Please don't get me wrong I am not doubting the good faith edits wherein these sources were used. I am just trying to learn more about this situation than I currently understand. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary answer- More to follow.

I didn't put this stuff in. Unfortunately, there is a similar scene in D.W. Griffith's Broken Blossoms, and it seems more probable that both Kubrick and the director of Phantom Carriage were both influenced by the Griffith film than SK being influenced by the the Swedish film, given of course that ANY serious student of film would be perusing as much of Griffith as possible.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Blossoms in its entirety is on YouTube.

Part 9 of 10 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9853ozGcs. Skip to about 2 minutes into this segment totaling 5 minute and 44 seconds. Again, somewhat more likely both films were homage to this, than Shining a homage to Phantom Carriage.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the full-length books I know of on Kubrick references either Phantom Carriage or Broken Blossoms. Internet articles can be found which claim both PC and BB as influences on this scene. I suggest rewording the picture caption to reflect ambiguity and resemblance without asserting homage.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this film surrealist? Sort of. At least a descendant of surrealism.

I did not add this film to the category of surrealist films, but am defending it on this grounds. All of the following sources see some elements of surrealism in a strict formal sense in Kubrick's work. About half these books are studies of surrealism, not studies of Kubrick. Kubrick was indeed influenced by the strictly surrealist work of film makers like Luis Bunuel. However, most tellingly the painter Salvador Dali late in life cited Kubrick as an influence on him. Finally, Kubrick himself in an interview stated

"I have always enjoyed dealing with a slightly surrealistic situation and presenting it in a realistic manner. I've always liked fairy tales and myths, magical stories. I think they are somehow closer to the sense of reality one feels today than the equally stylized "realistic" story in which a great deal of selectivity and omission has to occur in order to preserve its "realist" style."

Quoted in Kubrick : Inside a Film Artist's Maze (2000) by Thomas Allen Nelson, p.14

It's true SK is not as radically surrealistic in the sense that Frank Zappa's 200 Motels or various David Lynch films are, but certainly the elements are there.

Books linking Stanley Kubrick with surrealism in a formal sense include

Surrealism and cinema By Michael Richardson

Stanley Kubrick: essays on his films and legacy By Gary Don Rhodes

Dali, Surrealism and Cinema By Elliott H. King (best source in this list re Kubrick and surrealism)

Stanley Kubrick and the art of adaptation: three novels, three films By Greg Jenkins

Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick By Mario Falsetto

Stanley Kubrick: a narrative and stylistic analysis By Mario Falsetto

The philosophy of Stanley Kubrick By Jerold J. Abrams

Kubrick, inside a film artist's maze By Thomas Allen Nelson

Hidden minds: a history of the unconscious By Frank Tallis

--WickerGuy (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cocks

The section on Cocks may violate the "undue weight" rule of WP and thus need some rewriting, but it certainly does not in any way violate Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. That section states explicitly

Fringe theory in a nutshell:

• In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
• Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

A chapter from Cocks' book appears in the anthology "Depth of field: Stanley Kubrick, film, and the uses of history" by University of Wisconsin Press (he is also one of the three editors so it's not fully independent- the other two editors are respected English lit critics). The book also contains essays by Kubrick biographer Vincent LeBrutto, and Shining co-screenwriter Diane Johnson, and Eyes Wide Shut co-screenwriter Frederic Raphael.

Cocks' views are also discussed (though to be rebutted) in Julian Rice's major study Kubrick's Hope and are discussed in Jason Sperb's :"The Kubrick facade: faces and voices in the films of Stanley Kubrick‎". As noted above according to WP "Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory".

Again, there is a case to be made that discussing this violates WP "undue weight" rules, but in no reasonable sense does this constitute a fringe theory.

This section could be cleaned up by mentioning something of Rice's rebuttal to Geoffrey Cocks.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

add more sources, reduce the weight. this is not a question of controversy. it is a question of limited referencing to a single opinion piece and giving undue weight to what would be considered a fringe theory. this section could be summed up, properly referenced, in a few sentences. simples. 129.11.76.230 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the issue is Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory, which this does not fit at all given the theory's wide circulation.

I added a paragraph about the rebuttal to Cock's view by Julian Rice, as well as Cock's background. As for verifiability, WP is quite clear this is about "verifiability, not truth", and Cock's book was published by Peter Lang Publishing, a respected academic publisher.

Undue weight is corrected by adding rebuttals which I did.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

putting things in bold doesnt make them true. that this is a fringe theory is only one aspect. this is single author, unverified material. with respect to you added material, it it completely uncited. the entire arguement, regardless of fringe-ness or verifiability is given undue weight in the article. this is an article on a film, not a popular culture essay. sorry to be harsh, as it appears you are keen to have this in, but it adds little to the article and could be summarised in a properly cited sentence or two 129.11.77.198 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again,

1) you have a very good point re "undue weight"!!! Except see 4 below.

2) WP's definition of verifiability is not truth, but verifiable from 3rd party sources. The book is published by a mainstream academic publisher with plenty of footnotes. See their website at http://www.peterlang.com

3) This does not satisfy WP's definition of a fringe theory, which is heavily based on notability rather than credibility. (For example, if only a tiny minority of classics scholars believe The Odyssey is written by a woman, but the issue is widely discussed in classics circles, it does not meet WP's definition of a fringe theory. More tellingly, almost any discussion in WP of creationism needs to emphasize its emphatic rejection by mainstream science, but as it is a significant cultural force, creationism certainly gets discussed in WP) Boldface doesn't make things true, but suggests I think you have missed the point.

New point,

4) There's not much difference between this Cocks material and the Blakemore theory already mentioned in the article. The two are parallel. Blakemore focuses on treatment of Native Americans- Cocks argues the bad treatment of Native Americans is a metaphor for bad treatment of Jews. Blakemore publishes in San Francisco chronicle- Cocks publishes a book by an academic publisher. (http://www.peterlang.com/home.cfm?vLang=E&vScreenWidth=1152) If we omit the only slightly more far-fetched Cocks theory, aren't we now giving undue weight to Blakemore- Perhaps we should put the two in a single paragraph, and link them.

5) I would in fact regard the work of Rob Ager on Kubrick to be a fringe theory because it is entirely self-published without much citations. RA is not a professional scholar.

What are you looking for in citations? That other Kubrick scholars have discussed Geoffrey Cocks. Cocks' sources and footnotes? I cite specific pages in Cocks quite a lot. This part of your objection is very unclear. What do I need to cite?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP definition of "verifiability"

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."

I think you are confused about WP's definition of verifiability and fringe, though you may have a point on undue weight.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, you're quite right about the 'Blakemore' section above, that needs to go too as it is. this easily meets the criteria for a fringe theory since you've only cited the work of a single author and a single book/article. you've added a counter argument but not given citations for it - thus it cannot be taken as reliable. find more reliable sources that state both theories and this will remove this problem. if not, the entire section contains unreliable and unverified material and must be a lone theory of a single author.

in addition, you've missed the point about this being an article about a film, not a social science or pop culture essay. maybe this deserves a page of it's own. it adds very little information on the film itself in it's present form with relation to the weight given in the article. as such, i have removed it. it can be easily cut down or moved to a page on its own.

have a look at the 'Themes' section from featured article Fight Club (film) - these theories and interpretations are dealt with briefly and heavily cited in a single paragraph, with a separate page for greater depth. 81.96.242.64 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Blakemore's essay is discussed in two major books on Kubrick and one major book on Stephen King

Stephen King on the Big Screen‎ Mark Browning

Kubrick's hope: discovering optimism from 2001 to Eyes wide shut‎ - Julien Rice

Depth of field: Stanley Kubrick, film, and the uses of history‎ - Cocks, Dederick, and Perusek

Blakemore's essay is also assigned reading in quite a few college film courses!!!!!

It seems then that what needs to be done here to clean up this section is discuss a lot more about what other authors have said about Blakemore- thus relying on third party sources rather than the primary source. In that sense, this is a rather legitimate complaint which I will try to address and perhaps also trim the section. However, the existence of these sources and the widespread use of BB in college film classes does I think definitively establish that this does not meet WP's formal definition of a "fringe" theory which has to do with who is discussing it rather than with how widely it is believed. Clearly, the theories of BB and GC are somewhat complementary. Thank you for refining your thoughts on this.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put in more about the personal background and reception of Blakemore and Cocks in this section.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Cox Redux

In a recent re-edit of this section, I note that Diane Johnson the co-screenwriter of "The Shining" in the course of an essay devoted to talking about her collaboration with Kubrick spent two paragraphs discussion Geoffrey Cock's theories about "The Shining". If this doesn't establish notability, I don't know what possibly could. Please don't delete this section again without a good explanation posted here.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

The attempt to remove the cast list is misguided at best, First the Manual of Style for the wikiproject for films has them as one of their main inclusions in articles. Next we are not here to send people to IMDb. Their unreliability aside why make readers go to another webiste when they come here to get their info. Next, neither the lead, the infobox nor the plot provide provide a complete cast list. Nor should a reader be forced to dig through the plot to find cast names. Until there is a consensus to remove cast list from this - and all other wiki film articles - I feel that this should be left on the page. One other thing your recent edit removed a great deal more than the cast list. This was done without any explanation. The length of this article is well within the standards for a film of such note. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast, there it says "Alternatively, Tenebrae discusses "Production" in its own section, and provides the cast via the plot summary only. When a character is introduced in the plot summary, the actor playing that role is listed in parentheses immediately following the name of the character." So nothing wrong with that. Guidelines also says we should avoid "simply re-iterating IMDB". DCincarnate (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point actually. Specifically it says (emphasis added)

The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others.

Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits. Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format, but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary, e.g, an example from Witchfinder General:

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally do NOT understand why the entire "Music and Soundtrack" section was removed. It's a distinctive soundtrack, very essential to the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. It was moved up.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

On the whole an excellent job of trimming quotations and merging sections. May attempt to tweak just a bit of this.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack's alcoholism mentions

To supplement my edit summary of my removal of content. Jack's battle with alcohol is first mentioned (obliquely) when he tells Ullman that he doesn't drink. This is then shown to be somewhat dissembling when Wendy talks with the Doctor about how he hurt Danny while drunk. These two scenes occur within the first 15 minutes of the film. I don't have the book at hand but I think this means that it could be argued that his drinking is mentioned earlier in the film then the book. I think it could be said that the emphasis on his drinking problems is different from the book as the novel does go into them in more detail but that is, at least in part, down to the storytelling differences between novels and film (and between King and Kubrick come to that). Other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally inclined to agree. It would be more correct to say JT's alcoholism is more understated in the film and brought to the foreground in the novel. The book opens with Ullmann's interview with Jack and Ullmann confronts Jack very forcefully about his drinking. Later while Ullmann shows him around (on the same visit) Jack has an internal monologue about how badly he needed a drink "or a thousand". Later early passages describe JT's drinking binges. But you are right it is mentioned obliquely quite early in the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the alteration on the main page. I knew that you would be on top of it and come up with something that would fit the needs of the article. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts vs. no ghosts

The article states that "There is a question of whether or not there are ghosts in the film", citing that in all of Jack's suppposed intereactions with ghosts, there's a mirror or a reflective surface present. For myself, I don't see how there could be any confusion about this-- if there are no ghosts, then who let Jack out of the storeroom that Wendy locked him in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.64.51 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. The confusion only exists up to that point.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To twist everything into a materialistic interpretation, is available. Jack repeatedly wiggled the door, or jammed a wire through to move the bolt, or something. Real, active, supernatural ghosts are not required. 75.87.138.107 (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of hidden category- How???

The main page is listed in the hidden category of articles with flagged weasel words. How do you get rid of that?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref #88 contains the "which?" tag, which is used here to ask for clarification as to what episode of the series the ref is referring to, but clicking on the linked word "which" takes you to the weasel words descriptors, so that is the cuplrit. See Template:Which?. That tag is likely not needed here, as the ref does state which episode, so the tag isn't being used as intended (to challenge "many people say" type of statements...) Arakunem^Talk 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The photograph

Just so there will not continue to be misunderstanding of miscommunication, I am posting the entire quote here:

Film critic Jonathan Romney, while acknowledging the absorption theory, wrote "As the ghostly butler Grady (Philip Stone) tells him during their chilling confrontation in the men's toilet, 'You're the caretaker, sir. You've always been the caretaker.' Perhaps in some earlier incarnation Jack really was around in 1921, and it's his present-day self that is the shadow, the phantom photographic copy. But if his picture has been there all along, why has no one noticed it? After all, it's right at the centre of the central picture on the wall, and the Torrances have had a painfully drawn-out winter of mind-numbing leisure in which to inspect every corner of the place. Is it just that, like Poe's purloined letter, the thing in plain sight is the last thing you see? When you do see it, the effect is so unsettling because you realise the unthinkable was there under your nose – overlooked – the whole time."

This is a rather long quotation, certainly, but quotation it is. And that means it should not be altered, unless the intention is to shorten and paraphrase it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Starting a new job has made me a bit careless on WP. I thought you were talking about a quote from the dialogue of the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit difficult to tell when I first looked at it, because it is a rather long quote. We might be better served by setting it off in a blockquote, so that there are not any further problems. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts/cabin fever

This entire subsection is too speculative and reads like some editor's thoughts/opinions about the film. Furthermore, neither of the refs meet the standards for reliability. As such, it should go. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are 110% right about the first source and I think at least 99% right about the second one. The first source has a general reputation for making wildly speculative and bizarre interpretations of Kubrick's films to the point of being parodied on the web. The fact that Ager may have a legitimate point here is not good enough for him to be included. The same observation that Jack is frequently talking to a mirror when speaking to a ghost is made in the book "Hollywood's Stephen King" by Tony Magistrale which IS reliable (pp.94-95). I suggest rewriting & shortening the section to focus on Magistrale. I can do it in the next 24 hours. If you want to provisionally delete the section as it stands, feel free.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(PS I realize WP accepts published PhD theses and Master's theses, but probably not undergrad papers (since they don't have to pass a committee)- Too bad, there is an entire such paper online dealing entirely with this topic which is pretty good.)--WickerGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, if you have a good source, I see no reason to delete the section, but the two self-published sources are not adequate. I will leave it be for now and trust to your subsequent edits. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi-Def Digest quote

I removed the following from the "establishment as classic" subsection, and bring it her for discussion:

Writing in Hi-Def Digest, critic Peter Bracke has written

..just as the ghostly apparitions of the film's fictional Overlook Hotel would play tricks on the mind of poor Jack Torrance, so too has the passage of time changed the perception of 'The Shining' itself. Many of the same reviewers who lambasted the film for "not being scary" enough back in 1980 now rank it among the most effective horror films ever made, while audiences who hated the film back then now vividly recall being "terrified" by the experience. 'The Shining' has somehow risen from the ashes of its own bad press to redefine itself not only as a seminal work of the genre, but perhaps the most stately, artful horror ever made.

Are Hi-Def Digest, or Peter Bracke, so notable as to justify this quote? I find that doubtful, but would like to hear other editor's opinions. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Marginally/somewhat. Bracke is best known as a reviewer of horror films, and co-authored an entire book on the history of the "Friday the 13th" series ("Crystal Lake Memories") in collaboration with the screenwriter of the original film, Sean Cunningham. Bracke also did the DVD audio commentary for the first "Friday the 13th" film. He is quoted in the Wikipedia articles on the films "Ed Wood", "Beside you in Time", and of course "Friday the 13th".

"High-Def Digest" reviews exclusively Blu-Ray copies of films and spends much of its reviews on tech details of how good the transfer actually is. Citations from reviews from HDD appear is quite a lot of Wikipedia articles including "Carlito's Way", "Pan's Labyrinth", "A Christmas Story" etc. It's a long list- so I think we are safe on notability of the venue.

I put that quote in the article largely because I thought it the most eloquent and succinct statement of the well-known shift in perception over the decades of "The Shining". Not an original observation or opinion- just one of the best statements of it among many to choose from.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. I think it safe to say the High-Def Digest is the leading source for reviews specifically of Blu-Ray copies of movies. Google "Blue Ray Reviews" and they are the very first site that comes up.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WickerGuy's assessment of the quote as "eloquent and succinct". For those of us who experienced Kubrick's films in real time this happened again and again. The reviews upon release were mixed at best and usually had at least one lambasting from a prominent critic. In fact if you switch out the term "horror" with "sci fi", "historical drama" etc. I feel like I have read one reviewer or another write this (though not always as eloquently) about almost every Kubrick film a decade or so after its release. I feel that the quote is worth including, but that is just one editors opinion and as RepublicanJacobite says other opinions are welcome. I wonder what the assessment of them will be a hundred years from now. MarnetteD | Talk 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me. I do not read these kinds of magazines, so I was not familiar with it, nor do I read much on horror films, so I was not aware of the author's notability. That aside, he does sum up the way the film was perceived, and the shift in that perception, well. When it's put back in, can we fix the formatting, which looks wonky? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put it back with a slightly longer lead-in & kept out the Imdb quote that RepJac later deleted. The formatting is standard WP usage of the <blockquote> template. I don't know if there's a better way. (Use of colons?) Personally, I'm not at all a fan of the F13 films nor do I own a Blu-Ray player, but I keep just barely enough abreast of horror to know who PB is, and have just enough of a foot in the high-tech community here in Silicon Valley to know what Hi-Def Digest is, though I don't read it. Always nice to have an edit dialogue instead of an edit-war.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been so effortless I almost feel like something must be wrong. Thanks for fixing that up. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Razzies

The mention of The Shining getting nominated for a Razzie has been in the article for months and months, was recently deleted, then restored, then deleted again with the query "are we suddenly legitimating the razzies"?

Since the Razzie award is covered routinely by the BBC and CNN and is voted on by a somewhat large international committee which includes both film critics and (anonymous) Hollywood celebrities, and a few celebrities have even showed up to accept the award (notably Halle Berry who gave a hilarious parody of her Oscar acceptance speech a few years earlier), it seems to me to be more WP:Notable than say "Golden Turkey" which is just the opinion of Michael and Harry Medved.

However, it might be worth adding to the article that The Shining got its nomination the very first year of the Razzie's existence when the ceremony had no coverage and only a tiny handful of malcontents were voting on the awards and the ceremony was in one person's living room long before the voting ballooned to an international committee that included reputable film critics and (anonymous) Hollywood celebrities. This should either be mentioned or cited as a reason for not including this in WP.

I DO think the mention of the Razzies should be excised from the Stanley Kubrick article, but should be retained here. I don't really have a good reason for saying this- it's frankly just gut intuition.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake I was editing just before going to sleep (crankily at that) and when I woke up I new that I had made an error in removing this info. They are fun and not just a worst of list. Thanks for taking the time to reply and fix the mention on the article main page. Normal editing will resume shortly. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Were you editing crankily or going to sleep crankily or both? :) --WickerGuy (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly both and that is the worst. Today is much nicer and the smile in your message helps even more. Many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

REDRUM

Sorry, but it's not fully accurate to say that "REDRUM" is ' "MURDER" spelled backwards as seen from a mirror. ' Like I said in my edit summary, when Danny writes it, the second 'R' in "REDRUM" is mirror-reversed, but the first one isn't. So, while "REDRUM" in the movie is very nearly like mirror writing, it's not strictly speaking the same thing. Surely we don't want a misleading statement that it is in the plot summary? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Of the over two dozen edits I've seen you make, I think this is the very first with which I strongly disagree. It is misleading only in a very superficial sense insofar as Danny can't quite form his letters correctly. It also actually helps(!!!) the the viewer see that "REDRUM" is "MURDER" spelled backwards since "R" (unlike "M" and "U"- the first two letters of "Murder") is not a symmetric letter. By reversing only one of two R's we get one correct "R" in both the forwards and backwards words and re "Murder" the first three instead of the first two letter of "Murder" are correctly formed- thus the viewer is not forced to stop and puzzle anything out but gets it immediately and viscerally - essential to a suspense film. Respectfully--WickerGuy (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Also the fact that in both directions the first "R" is correct and the second one backwards is useful to the viewer.

More importantly to the point, it's essentially a matter of adapting from a book to a visual medium. The book simply states that Danny has been compulsively writing "REDRUM" which is later visually recognized to be "MURDER" in a mirror. But this is just baldly stated without visuals. With two instances of "R", having one backwards actually aids the viewer in recognition.

This is also the first time I've noticed that in the book it is Danny who recognizes the word reversal, but in the film it is Wendy.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"the fact that in both directions the first "R" is correct and the second one backwards is useful to the viewer" - but that fact isn't mentioned in the article, so how is it helpful?? I really don't see the justification for stating something in the article that you admit is not quite true. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant that it is psychologically useful to the viewer to the film in facilitating faster word-recognition. I'm simply making a reasonable observation in the cognitive psychology of pattern recognition, similar to the oft-observed fact that scrambled words are much easier to recognize if the first and last letter are correct. I don't really understand what you are asking- whatever it is you seem to have completely misunderstood what I meant! (Viewers of the film surely don't need a WP article to figure it out.) As such asking "how is it helpful" if "the fact is not mentioned in the article" is a total non sequitor.

I'm simply observing that since Danny reverses the second R when he writes "Redrum" then when it shows up in a mirror instead of the first two, rather the first three letters of "murder" are correctly oriented (the first two being symmetric), thus making very quick word-recognition that much faster psychologically. Then it may (possibly I suspect) be an additional help that in both directions it is the second R and not the first that is reversed.

In fact (now that I've checked) when writing "Redrum", Danny also reverses the D making the first FOUR (out of 6) letters in "Murder" correct. So in neither "Redrum" NOR "murder" all all 6 letters correctly oriented.

In both directions only 4 out of 6 letters are correctly oriented (M and U being symmetric).

Either way, we have one word with two reversed letters ("redrum") when viewed in a mirror become another word with two reversed letters ("murder"). But it's pretty obvious what the words are meant to be. A footnote of qualification might be in order, but it's so crucial to the plot omitting it from the summary would be silly. And it bogs down the article in technical detail to qualify it in the plot summary outside of a footnote.

Any film director sensitive to the psychology of quick pattern recognition would have done more or less the same, I think. Given a choice between a) one correct word and one with 4 reversed letters, and b) two words each with two reversed letters, I think any smart director would make the latter choice.

Stephen King simply didn't have to deal with this issue. He could just say "And then eyes widening in horror, he saw the word REDRUM reflecting dimly from the glass dome, now reflected twice. And he saw that it spelled MURDER" (all caps and no reversed letters in text of book p. 343 of 2002 edition with new foreword by King). For a film it makes more sense to distribute reversed letters 50-50 instead of no reversed letters in one, and four reversed letters in the other. It's less burdensome to the viewer, especially in a suspense film.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate versions on IMDB

The IMDB page for alternate versions is used twice as a reference in this article, which might be a problem. IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source because much of its content is user-generated. The "alternate versions" page, for example, cites no sources for its claims. How can we then use it as a source here? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely other sources regarding the alternate versions of the Shining other than Imdb, although from what I recall they pretty much tally with what Imdb says. I think they could be tracked down although it would take a bit of work finding sources that aren't themselves using Imdb as their source (most of which don't fall under our criterion of reliability anyway). It's definitely true the the Euro version is 24 minutes shorter and removes Danny's doctors exam, etc., so some mention of it must be made here. Will look this afternoon and evening.

As for the stuff recently removed, I'm personally OK with using Imdb as a supplementary source if something better is a main source, but this seems to not be the prevailing sense at WP.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I removed today is the bit that was sourced to the IMDB trivia page. If Allegra's book, or a biography of Angelica says the same thing, let's use that. But, I know from experience that the IMDB trivia pages are full of garbage. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. That's why I corrected it to read AH "has been cited as saying". But it's utterly dispensable and unnecessary.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And Allegra's book says nothing about it.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An important point in dealing with King's response to the film

In Stephen King's book Danse Macabre (1981), a nonfiction survey of the horror genre from 1950 to 1980, King offers an appendix dealing with films from that period (beginning on pg. 415 of the paperback version). In the introduction to this appendix King states, "All of [the films] seem to be particularly interesting in one way or another; if I may say so without sounding like an Academy Awards presenter, all of them have contributed something of value to the genre. You will find my own personal favorites marked with an asterisk."

When one reaches The Shining on the alphabetical list, you find that it is marked with an asterisk (ie. one of King's personal favorite horror films of the 1950-1980 era). Very strange, in light of his alleged response to the film in this article. 174.101.90.51 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that King progressively soured over time to the Kubrick film. However, his progressive negative reaction is very well documented (and cited in this article), and certainly formed the basis for his wanting to do the TV remake in the '90s. Stanley Kubrick returned the film rights to Steven King (who supervised the TV mini-series remake) expressly on the condition that he refrain from future public comment on the Kubrick film, and much of King's feelings about the film are discussed on the DVD audio commentary of the TV mini-series remake (the audio commentary being made after Kubrick's death, I guess it was felt the contract no longer applied.)--WickerGuy (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point well taken. I've looked at some of the citations and you are indeed correct. Still, should it's inclusion in King's list in Danse Macabre also be included in the article?174.101.90.51 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick's reaction to Stephen King's comments?

Stephen King's comments about the film are well known, however what did Kubrick think about these comments? I can't find a word about this on the internet. Or did he just not care at all? Laurent (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As with discussion of so many of Kubrick's films, he appears to have been largely silent.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'here's johnny'

this may have been brought up already, but re nicholson imrovising this line, in his '04 playboy interview he says, "With 'Here's Johnny', I was so anti-television at that point I didn't even know where the line came from. Stanley Kubrick had to explain that it was a line from a TV show." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.182.54 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What a mess

This article is a disaster. Someone else edit for a while. Blake Burba (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)