Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** In the book, they do make trips into town in the early part of their stay. However, it's too long of a drive to be made regularly, and I believe it's mentioned that the road tends to become buried in snow once winter sets in. That's why they keep the snowcat there.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* What is stopping the family from ever leaving the hotel before the storm? If Jack wanted a drink couldn't he have just taken a trip to town?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Firstly, Wendy doesn't really buy Jack's story. Her exact response is: "Whatever the explanation is, I think we have to get Danny out of here" which comes off more like her trying to avoid a heated argument than her truly believing him. Secondly, Jack (and perhaps the Overlook itself) is trying to keep Wendy and Danny from leaving the hotel and is trying to downplay her fears and concerns. If he ''had'' gone with "It might've been some homeless guy who broke in", that would've only encouraged Wendy to leave even more than she already wanted to.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It was explained in the book that no one was taking Dick’s concerns that seriously; he had no tangible reason to think that the Torrances needed immediate help. Sure, they weren’t answering the radio, but they hypothetically had a way down from the hotel if they need it and they would be well-protected from the elements with plenty of food and supplies in the meantime. In the book, it’s often assumed by the characters that the rangers would have gone up to check on them eventually, just not in the middle of an intense winter storm when there are others out there in more dire need of help.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleting repetion and putting in new entry.
** In the movie version, what the ghost is doing is only vaguely implied; it's possible Wendy interupted them as best you can ghosts before he could lift the mask to actually do the deed.
Changed line(s) 83,84 (click to see context) from:
* So the movie is talked about as MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and with the possibility the ghosts are just hallucinations of a very mentally broken family. But if the ghosts aren't real, who opened the storage door and freed Jack? Wendy and Danny both wouldn't, and the three of them are the only people there at the hotel.
** Wendy wouldn't but Danny's only a little kid, used to doing what his parents tell him to. If he heard his father calling for someone to unlock the door, he might have done it - though he'd need to bring a chair or something over to reach the bolt.
** Wendy wouldn't but Danny's only a little kid, used to doing what his parents tell him to. If he heard his father calling for someone to unlock the door, he might have done it - though he'd need to bring a chair or something over to reach the bolt.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Cleanup. Removing meta questions, discussion & first person language
Deleted line(s) 40,48 (click to see context) :
* This is more of a meta thing but why do people give the movie a MaybeMagicMaybeMundane trope? When I first saw it, it all looked as though the supernatural elements were all real in-universe and didn't know it was ever supposed to remotely be vague. Sure, I suppose Jack could've been crazy enough to see ghosts but his wife and kid saw ghosts as well. There's also the often-mentioned unlocking of the freezer but beyond that, there's Danny and Hallorann's shinning together, how Danny got the bruises on his neck (it wasn't Jack so it must've been the lady in the tub as Danny mentioned), or the photo at the end of the movie. Oh, and Jack knew Hallorann was coming to the hotel because Grady told him. Either Grady is a ghost or Jack's hallucinations can predict the future somehow. How can anyone argue this was mundane?
** First of all, as far as I know nobody questions that Danny and Hallorann truly possess telepathic powers. What is questioned by many viewers is whether the ghosts are real. Most of the ghostly sightings come from Jack, who is clearly in the thralls of a mental breakdown. Young Danny, who also sees and hears the ghosts, also shows signs of mental illness. The only other character in the film who witnesses the ghosts is Wendy at the end when she's trying to get away from the murderous Jack. Since she's in a state of hysteria, her visions could easily be hallucinations. In short, none of the three main characters are reliable observers, and so it's possible to interpret the ghosts as existing only in their minds. (For more on this, see [[http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shining-1980 Roger Ebert's analysis]] of the film.)
*** One would think that if you accept telepathy within the realm of a story, ghosts should not be that far-fetched. It's still a supernatural story even if the ghosts weren't real. Also, I would find it a little coicendental that all three characters hallucinate ghosts even though none of them mention ghosts outside reference to the woman in the bathtub (even then, no one called her a ghosts and the Torrences believed she might've been an intruder). This seems to smack a little of Genre Ghetto. Some critics might not be comfortable celebrating a horror movie about ghosts, but if they try to take a more realistic spin on the story, it's somehow more acceptable.
*** I don't agree that just because something supernatural or paranormal happens in a story, therefore anything goes. Indeed, the psychic abilities of the characters are a large part of what make their perceptions so ambiguous (again, read Ebert's analysis). Remember how Hallorann describes the shining to Danny: it isn't just mind-reading, but an ability to see the past, and he suggests that the hotel has left traces of its past which psychics like himself and Danny can pick up. The overriding question is whether the "ghosts" encountered by Jack, Danny, and Wendy (and possibly Hallorann) are physically present in the hotel or are simply visions they experience. The visions could be of people who did in fact once reside in the hotel, but that doesn't make them "ghosts" in the conventional sense. As for the "coincidence" of all the characters seeing ghosts, that isn't so clear-cut. Jack sees ghosts; Wendy and Danny merely see and/or talk to people who aren't there (a symptom of psychosis), and viewers tend to interpret them as also being ghosts, but that isn't the only possible explanation. The bottom line is that none of the major characters have a reliable perspective, and therefore it's difficult to tell what really went on in the hotel, even if they do tap into some otherworldly powers.
*** Not to mention, Jack's "ghost" encounters all happen in rooms with mirrors, with the general implication that he's talking to himself.
** The novel explicitly states that Danny's "Shine" is not only allowing him to see the ghosts, but is starting to power them up like a battery, to the point where they can reach out and interact with non-psychics like Jack and Wendy. Kubrick didn't like the supernatural aspects of the story, believing it to be a pure psychological horror, so he just used the parts from the book he thought would work best on film and left it up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions. This was directly opposite to King's original novel (which was overtly supernatural) and is why King has never liked the film.
** WordOfGod is that the ghosts are real, but that it's meant to be ambiguous until Grady lets Jack out of the freezer:
*** "For the purposes of telling the story, my view is that the paranormal is genuine. Jack's mental state serves only to prepare him for the murder, and to temporarily mislead the audience... As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady (the ghost of the former caretaker who axed his family to death) slides open the bolt of the larder door allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural."
** The above WordOfGod is specifically (in context) related to the Steven King novel. The section that has been edited with ellipsis is: "It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events..." and the line which follows is "...explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters." Stephen King's book had moving firehoses and topiary, as well.
** First of all, as far as I know nobody questions that Danny and Hallorann truly possess telepathic powers. What is questioned by many viewers is whether the ghosts are real. Most of the ghostly sightings come from Jack, who is clearly in the thralls of a mental breakdown. Young Danny, who also sees and hears the ghosts, also shows signs of mental illness. The only other character in the film who witnesses the ghosts is Wendy at the end when she's trying to get away from the murderous Jack. Since she's in a state of hysteria, her visions could easily be hallucinations. In short, none of the three main characters are reliable observers, and so it's possible to interpret the ghosts as existing only in their minds. (For more on this, see [[http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shining-1980 Roger Ebert's analysis]] of the film.)
*** One would think that if you accept telepathy within the realm of a story, ghosts should not be that far-fetched. It's still a supernatural story even if the ghosts weren't real. Also, I would find it a little coicendental that all three characters hallucinate ghosts even though none of them mention ghosts outside reference to the woman in the bathtub (even then, no one called her a ghosts and the Torrences believed she might've been an intruder). This seems to smack a little of Genre Ghetto. Some critics might not be comfortable celebrating a horror movie about ghosts, but if they try to take a more realistic spin on the story, it's somehow more acceptable.
*** I don't agree that just because something supernatural or paranormal happens in a story, therefore anything goes. Indeed, the psychic abilities of the characters are a large part of what make their perceptions so ambiguous (again, read Ebert's analysis). Remember how Hallorann describes the shining to Danny: it isn't just mind-reading, but an ability to see the past, and he suggests that the hotel has left traces of its past which psychics like himself and Danny can pick up. The overriding question is whether the "ghosts" encountered by Jack, Danny, and Wendy (and possibly Hallorann) are physically present in the hotel or are simply visions they experience. The visions could be of people who did in fact once reside in the hotel, but that doesn't make them "ghosts" in the conventional sense. As for the "coincidence" of all the characters seeing ghosts, that isn't so clear-cut. Jack sees ghosts; Wendy and Danny merely see and/or talk to people who aren't there (a symptom of psychosis), and viewers tend to interpret them as also being ghosts, but that isn't the only possible explanation. The bottom line is that none of the major characters have a reliable perspective, and therefore it's difficult to tell what really went on in the hotel, even if they do tap into some otherworldly powers.
*** Not to mention, Jack's "ghost" encounters all happen in rooms with mirrors, with the general implication that he's talking to himself.
** The novel explicitly states that Danny's "Shine" is not only allowing him to see the ghosts, but is starting to power them up like a battery, to the point where they can reach out and interact with non-psychics like Jack and Wendy. Kubrick didn't like the supernatural aspects of the story, believing it to be a pure psychological horror, so he just used the parts from the book he thought would work best on film and left it up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions. This was directly opposite to King's original novel (which was overtly supernatural) and is why King has never liked the film.
** WordOfGod is that the ghosts are real, but that it's meant to be ambiguous until Grady lets Jack out of the freezer:
*** "For the purposes of telling the story, my view is that the paranormal is genuine. Jack's mental state serves only to prepare him for the murder, and to temporarily mislead the audience... As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady (the ghost of the former caretaker who axed his family to death) slides open the bolt of the larder door allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural."
** The above WordOfGod is specifically (in context) related to the Steven King novel. The section that has been edited with ellipsis is: "It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events..." and the line which follows is "...explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters." Stephen King's book had moving firehoses and topiary, as well.
Deleted line(s) 52,61 (click to see context) :
* Just what was [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmOoekbK6YI that man in the dog suit]] doing?
** Exactly what you think he was doing.
*** You learn more about it in the book.
*** In the movie, however, it is [[BigLippedAlligatorMoment never explained, and is never mentioned again, making the whole scene entirely pointless]]. Yes, a somewhat relevant plot point can become utterly pointless if done different in another interpretation.
*** Why would a lack of explanation makes something pointless? I think it's a very significant moment in the film and the fact that it may be Narmy to some viewers doesn't change the fact that it scares Wendy, and would probably scare you too if you were in her position. It's significant that it's the only time any of the hotel's "ghosts" appear to Wendy. So, far from being pointless, it further pushes the ambiguity of the nature of the Overlook - is it really haunted, or is Jack mad? Is Wendy now mad and therefore hallucinating too? Or both? Or neither?
*** It was a vision of something that happened in the hotel once. Perverse partiers linger beyond their welcome. What else is happening in the film?
*** It's a vision of perversity, but the back story is one of betrayal and despair.
*** It's part of a rush of WONDERFULLY surreal eldritch images that I personally consider to be the film's SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome (or maybe more specifically the elevator part is). Would added context really make these images ''more'' powerful than they are as [[MindScrew mind screws]]? Really??
** In the book, Jack is caught up in a costume party that was held sometime in the 1940s in the hotel. The man in the dog suit is a guy called Roger, who was the lover of bisexual playboy Horace Derwent (a Howard Hughes expy). Although Derwent is now bored with Roger, Roger wishes to carry on the relationship, and Derwent tells him that 'if he came to the ball as a doggy, a cute little doggy, he [Derwent] might reconsider'. The party scene includes moments of Derwent humiliating Roger in front of a group of people by making him do dog tricks. The man the dog suit guy is apparently 'servicing' is, most likely, Horace Derwent.
** Some critics believe that it and some of the other horror scenes are supposed to 'stand in' for a traumatic event that happens when Danny wakes Jack up when he goes to get his toy fire engine. This kind of thinking has grown a lot more prevalent as Trauma Theory has advanced.
** Exactly what you think he was doing.
*** You learn more about it in the book.
*** In the movie, however, it is [[BigLippedAlligatorMoment never explained, and is never mentioned again, making the whole scene entirely pointless]]. Yes, a somewhat relevant plot point can become utterly pointless if done different in another interpretation.
*** Why would a lack of explanation makes something pointless? I think it's a very significant moment in the film and the fact that it may be Narmy to some viewers doesn't change the fact that it scares Wendy, and would probably scare you too if you were in her position. It's significant that it's the only time any of the hotel's "ghosts" appear to Wendy. So, far from being pointless, it further pushes the ambiguity of the nature of the Overlook - is it really haunted, or is Jack mad? Is Wendy now mad and therefore hallucinating too? Or both? Or neither?
*** It was a vision of something that happened in the hotel once. Perverse partiers linger beyond their welcome. What else is happening in the film?
*** It's a vision of perversity, but the back story is one of betrayal and despair.
*** It's part of a rush of WONDERFULLY surreal eldritch images that I personally consider to be the film's SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome (or maybe more specifically the elevator part is). Would added context really make these images ''more'' powerful than they are as [[MindScrew mind screws]]? Really??
** In the book, Jack is caught up in a costume party that was held sometime in the 1940s in the hotel. The man in the dog suit is a guy called Roger, who was the lover of bisexual playboy Horace Derwent (a Howard Hughes expy). Although Derwent is now bored with Roger, Roger wishes to carry on the relationship, and Derwent tells him that 'if he came to the ball as a doggy, a cute little doggy, he [Derwent] might reconsider'. The party scene includes moments of Derwent humiliating Roger in front of a group of people by making him do dog tricks. The man the dog suit guy is apparently 'servicing' is, most likely, Horace Derwent.
** Some critics believe that it and some of the other horror scenes are supposed to 'stand in' for a traumatic event that happens when Danny wakes Jack up when he goes to get his toy fire engine. This kind of thinking has grown a lot more prevalent as Trauma Theory has advanced.
Changed line(s) 68 (click to see context) from:
** Actually that part bugs me too, simply because it seems to be the only moment in an otherwise intriguing MaybeMagicMaybeMundane movie in which there is no easy answer from the "Mundane" column. The ambiguity is perhaps shattered irrevocably, and we know we're in a haunted building for real. Because if not, how ''could'' Jack have escaped?? Neither Wendy nor Danny would have ever let him out (Danny even less so, I think, if he were in "Tony" mode), and Hallorrann had not yet arrived. As far as we know, they're alone in the hotel, and Jack doesn't break ''through'' the door, assuming he even could. Didn't Kubrick say that the aspect of the story that fascinated him so much was the multiple possible interpretations?
to:
Deleted line(s) 74 (click to see context) :
*** Further, you could propose that Danny did it in his Tony persona, who may be scheming to force a final confrontation between father and son. In fact, you could probably read the entire film as Tony using his powers to drive Jack insane and eventually die so that (a la the Oedipus Complex) Danny can have Wendy to himself.
Deleted line(s) 77 (click to see context) :
*** Maybe Danny fell for Jack's WoundedGazelleGambit? Not a far stretch, he's only young, and might not understand such a tactic.
Changed line(s) 79,89 (click to see context) from:
** WordOfGod (see quote towards the top of the page) is that everything is meant to be ambiguous ''until'' Grady lets Jack out of the freezer. This moment is meant to end the ambiguity.
** Again - this is WordOfGod related to the book. Not necessarily his film.
** No, Kubrick (the director of the film) mentioned the quote above about the movie, this is WordOfGod related to the film not the book.
** Kubrick has also stated that the film was about a family that was slowly going insane, so there may be a bit of TrollingCreator going around.
* Me again, guy from above paragraph. I just thought of something else. Word has it from some reliable sources that Kubrick's original ending--which sadly I cannot yet find on Youtube; it was cut out right after the premiere--had Wendy awakening in a hospital and being told by Ullman that they NeverFoundTheBody. I guess this could mean either that ''she'' was the insane one and it was all in her head--getting an imaginary husband from that photograph or something...?--or that Ullman, corrupt as he is, was just in a cover-up. The photo stands and ends the current cut, though it could be interpreted supernaturally as well--as Jack really having "sold his soul" to the hotel for that drink, for instance. CAN ANYBODY FIND ME A COPY OF THIS DELETED SCENE? PLEASE?
** According to the documentary ''Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'', Kubrick destroyed unused footage. Sorry.
*** Damn!
** Not the actual scene itself, but [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BMGq1c5YNU here's the screenplay for the scene you're talking about]].
* Regarding the above deleted scene, apparently Ullman gives Danny a yellow ball as a {{Callback}} to the Room 237 scene. I didn't notice a yellow ball, but I uh - ahem - have this habit of looking at my hands during scary movies. Anybody else see this "yellow ball"? I figured it must be important if it was in the original ending...
** The ball rolls down the empty hallway where Danny is playing outside room 237. It's what first lures him inside when he notices the door has suddenly been unlocked. A few people have also pointed out that the "Gold Ballroom" is where Jack offers his soul for a drink and where he's talked into killing his family.
*** Jack also throws a different yellow ball, a tennis ball, at the wall in the Colorado Lounge.
** Again - this is WordOfGod related to the book. Not necessarily his film.
** No, Kubrick (the director of the film) mentioned the quote above about the movie, this is WordOfGod related to the film not the book.
** Kubrick has also stated that the film was about a family that was slowly going insane, so there may be a bit of TrollingCreator going around.
* Me again, guy from above paragraph. I just thought of something else. Word has it from some reliable sources that Kubrick's original ending--which sadly I cannot yet find on Youtube; it was cut out right after the premiere--had Wendy awakening in a hospital and being told by Ullman that they NeverFoundTheBody. I guess this could mean either that ''she'' was the insane one and it was all in her head--getting an imaginary husband from that photograph or something...?--or that Ullman, corrupt as he is, was just in a cover-up. The photo stands and ends the current cut, though it could be interpreted supernaturally as well--as Jack really having "sold his soul" to the hotel for that drink, for instance. CAN ANYBODY FIND ME A COPY OF THIS DELETED SCENE? PLEASE?
** According to the documentary ''Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'', Kubrick destroyed unused footage. Sorry.
*** Damn!
** Not the actual scene itself, but [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BMGq1c5YNU here's the screenplay for the scene you're talking about]].
* Regarding the above deleted scene, apparently Ullman gives Danny a yellow ball as a {{Callback}} to the Room 237 scene. I didn't notice a yellow ball, but I uh - ahem - have this habit of looking at my hands during scary movies. Anybody else see this "yellow ball"? I figured it must be important if it was in the original ending...
** The ball rolls down the empty hallway where Danny is playing outside room 237. It's what first lures him inside when he notices the door has suddenly been unlocked. A few people have also pointed out that the "Gold Ballroom" is where Jack offers his soul for a drink and where he's talked into killing his family.
*** Jack also throws a different yellow ball, a tennis ball, at the wall in the Colorado Lounge.
to:
** WordOfGod (see quote towards the top of the page) is that everything is meant to be ambiguous ''until'' Grady lets Jack out of the freezer. This moment is meant to end the ambiguity.
** Again - this is WordOfGod related to the book. Not necessarily his film.
** No, Kubrick (the director of the film) mentioned the quote above about the movie, this is WordOfGod related to the film not the book.
** Kubrick has also stated that the film was about a family that was slowly going insane, so there may be a bit of TrollingCreator going around.
* Me again, guy from above paragraph. I just thought of something else. Word has it from some reliable sources that Kubrick's original ending--which sadly I cannot yet find on Youtube; it was cut out right after the premiere--had Wendy awakening in a hospital and being told by Ullman that they NeverFoundTheBody. I guess this could mean either that ''she'' was the insane one and it was all in her head--getting an imaginary husband from that photograph or something...?--or that Ullman, corrupt as he is, was just in a cover-up. The photo stands and ends the current cut, though it could be interpreted supernaturally as well--as Jack really having "sold his soul" to the hotel for that drink, for instance. CAN ANYBODY FIND ME A COPY OF THIS DELETED SCENE? PLEASE?
** According to the documentary ''Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'', Kubrick destroyed unused footage. Sorry.
*** Damn!
** Not the actual scene itself, but [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BMGq1c5YNU here's the screenplay for the scene you're talking about]].
* Regarding the above deleted scene, apparently Ullman gives Danny a yellow ball as a {{Callback}} to the Room 237 scene. I didn't notice a yellow ball, but I uh - ahem - have this habit of looking at my hands during scary movies. Anybody else see this "yellow ball"? I figured it must be important if it was in the original ending...
** The ball rolls down the empty hallway where Danny is playing outside room 237. It's what first lures him inside when he notices the door has suddenly been unlocked. A few people have also pointed out that the "Gold Ballroom" is where Jack offers his soul for a drink and where he's talked into killing his family.
*** Jack also throws a different yellow ball, a tennis ball, at the wall in the Colorado Lounge.ambiguity.
** Again - this is WordOfGod related to the book. Not necessarily his film.
** No, Kubrick (the director of the film) mentioned the quote above about the movie, this is WordOfGod related to the film not the book.
** Kubrick has also stated that the film was about a family that was slowly going insane, so there may be a bit of TrollingCreator going around.
* Me again, guy from above paragraph. I just thought of something else. Word has it from some reliable sources that Kubrick's original ending--which sadly I cannot yet find on Youtube; it was cut out right after the premiere--had Wendy awakening in a hospital and being told by Ullman that they NeverFoundTheBody. I guess this could mean either that ''she'' was the insane one and it was all in her head--getting an imaginary husband from that photograph or something...?--or that Ullman, corrupt as he is, was just in a cover-up. The photo stands and ends the current cut, though it could be interpreted supernaturally as well--as Jack really having "sold his soul" to the hotel for that drink, for instance. CAN ANYBODY FIND ME A COPY OF THIS DELETED SCENE? PLEASE?
** According to the documentary ''Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'', Kubrick destroyed unused footage. Sorry.
*** Damn!
** Not the actual scene itself, but [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BMGq1c5YNU here's the screenplay for the scene you're talking about]].
* Regarding the above deleted scene, apparently Ullman gives Danny a yellow ball as a {{Callback}} to the Room 237 scene. I didn't notice a yellow ball, but I uh - ahem - have this habit of looking at my hands during scary movies. Anybody else see this "yellow ball"? I figured it must be important if it was in the original ending...
** The ball rolls down the empty hallway where Danny is playing outside room 237. It's what first lures him inside when he notices the door has suddenly been unlocked. A few people have also pointed out that the "Gold Ballroom" is where Jack offers his soul for a drink and where he's talked into killing his family.
*** Jack also throws a different yellow ball, a tennis ball, at the wall in the Colorado Lounge.
Changed line(s) 91,92 (click to see context) from:
** In the book, it's never referred to as "the Shining." It's either a verb (people "shine") or the noun is called "the shine." In an essay, King noted that the novel was originally called The Shine. Someone at the publisher thought it might be taken as something racist because the term might connote black shoeshine boys when we meet the (also black) cook, Dick Hallorann. And yes, that's just as stupid as it sounds. So the publishers changed the title to ''The Shining,'' which King never liked. As different from the novel as the movie is, the characters and concept are still adapted from the book so the adaptations have the same title.
*** Not quite as stupid as it sounds, unfortunately. The term "coonshine" is a racial slur related to black shoeshine boys, and, like "coon," "shine" was used as a racial slur up until around the early 1960s. Since the book was published in 1977, there'd be plenty of people who still remembered the usage and might make the unintended connection.
*** Not quite as stupid as it sounds, unfortunately. The term "coonshine" is a racial slur related to black shoeshine boys, and, like "coon," "shine" was used as a racial slur up until around the early 1960s. Since the book was published in 1977, there'd be plenty of people who still remembered the usage and might make the unintended connection.
to:
** In the book, it's never referred to as "the Shining." It's either a verb (people "shine") or the noun is called "the shine." In an essay, King noted that the novel was originally called The Shine. Someone at the publisher thought it might be taken as something racist because the term might connote black shoeshine boys when we meet the (also black) cook, Dick Hallorann. And yes, that's just as stupid as it sounds. So the publishers changed the title to ''The Shining,'' which King never liked. As different from the novel as the movie is, the characters and concept are still adapted from the book so the adaptations have the same title.
*** Not quite as stupid as it sounds, unfortunately. The term "coonshine" is a racial slur related to black shoeshine boys, and, like "coon," "shine" was used as a racial slur up until around the early 1960s. Since the book was published in 1977, there'd be plenty of people who still remembered the usage and might make the unintended connection.title.
*** Not quite as stupid as it sounds, unfortunately. The term "coonshine" is a racial slur related to black shoeshine boys, and, like "coon," "shine" was used as a racial slur up until around the early 1960s. Since the book was published in 1977, there'd be plenty of people who still remembered the usage and might make the unintended connection.
Changed line(s) 95,100 (click to see context) from:
* Okay, I may be totally dumb about this one, but... Why does Danny carefully follows his steps backwards into the labyrinth? I understand this is a way to find back the entrance, but it's also the surest way to stumble into Jack, who is also following Danny's steps. How does he manages to lure Jack ''and'' find the exit?
** Jack is, at this point, highly confused and basically operating on animalistic instinct. The only thing it looks like he's thinking about is opening Danny up like a can of green beans. I always figured Danny wasn't really trying to lure Jack anywhere, that was just the quickest way to get him to lose Danny's trail. That way, Danny could escape, which he knows how to do (presumably) because he went through the maze at least one other time with his mother, earlier in the movie. And possibly more times, who knows? The point is, I think he took a risk of running back into Jack because Jack was moving faster than Danny was at the time, and would have surely caught up if Danny hadn't done something. It's just a happy coincidence that isolation or ghosts or alcohol or whatever has driven Jack so nuts that he can't figure out where Danny has gone, and spends the rest of his life thrashing around madly in the maze. Also, you're not totally dumb on this one. There are no stupid questions.
*** There's also the more practical reason, which we see in the next scene of Jack finding Danny's footprints. When he follows them back, they appear to stop at that spot. He then (IIRC) rubs out any other footprints he makes and hides until he can get away. Smart thinking.
*** Seconded, Danny backsteps and then jumps off the path, rubbing out the prints he makes on landing, so that Jack will follow the prints 'til they stop, but won't know where or in which direction Danny has disappeared to. I always thought Danny, being small, pushed or burrowed his way through the hedges until he could pick up the backtrail and escape, or just get through to the outside.
*** No there's no way Jack was moving faster than Danny. Even though Jack is an adult and Danny's just a kid, Jack was probably suffering from a concussion from Wendy's bat and was visibly walking/running with a severe limp by the time he was chasing Danny. With Danny hightailing it out of the hotel and into the maze and Jack limping in pursuit, Danny was most definitely moving far faster than Jack was.
** Why he retraced his steps was explained, but as for how he got out, he just followed the trail back out. Both he and Jack left a trail of footprints, and they never deviated from that path until Danny backtracked and hid.
** Jack is, at this point, highly confused and basically operating on animalistic instinct. The only thing it looks like he's thinking about is opening Danny up like a can of green beans. I always figured Danny wasn't really trying to lure Jack anywhere, that was just the quickest way to get him to lose Danny's trail. That way, Danny could escape, which he knows how to do (presumably) because he went through the maze at least one other time with his mother, earlier in the movie. And possibly more times, who knows? The point is, I think he took a risk of running back into Jack because Jack was moving faster than Danny was at the time, and would have surely caught up if Danny hadn't done something. It's just a happy coincidence that isolation or ghosts or alcohol or whatever has driven Jack so nuts that he can't figure out where Danny has gone, and spends the rest of his life thrashing around madly in the maze. Also, you're not totally dumb on this one. There are no stupid questions.
*** There's also the more practical reason, which we see in the next scene of Jack finding Danny's footprints. When he follows them back, they appear to stop at that spot. He then (IIRC) rubs out any other footprints he makes and hides until he can get away. Smart thinking.
*** Seconded, Danny backsteps and then jumps off the path, rubbing out the prints he makes on landing, so that Jack will follow the prints 'til they stop, but won't know where or in which direction Danny has disappeared to. I always thought Danny, being small, pushed or burrowed his way through the hedges until he could pick up the backtrail and escape, or just get through to the outside.
*** No there's no way Jack was moving faster than Danny. Even though Jack is an adult and Danny's just a kid, Jack was probably suffering from a concussion from Wendy's bat and was visibly walking/running with a severe limp by the time he was chasing Danny. With Danny hightailing it out of the hotel and into the maze and Jack limping in pursuit, Danny was most definitely moving far faster than Jack was.
** Why he retraced his steps was explained, but as for how he got out, he just followed the trail back out. Both he and Jack left a trail of footprints, and they never deviated from that path until Danny backtracked and hid.
to:
* Okay, I may be totally dumb about this one, but... Why does Danny carefully follows follow his steps backwards into the labyrinth? I understand this is a way to find back the entrance, but it's also the surest way to stumble into Jack, who is also following Danny's steps. How does he manages to lure Jack ''and'' find the exit?
**Jack is, at this point, highly confused and basically operating on animalistic instinct. The only thing it looks like he's thinking about is opening Did you miss the scene after that? Danny up like a can of green beans. I always figured Danny wasn't really trying starts to lure Jack anywhere, that was just the quickest way to get him to lose Danny's trail. That way, Danny could escape, which he knows how to do (presumably) because he went through the maze at least one other time with retrace his mother, earlier in the movie. And possibly more times, who knows? The point is, I think he took a risk of running back into Jack because Jack was moving faster than Danny was at the time, and would have surely caught up if Danny hadn't done something. It's just a happy coincidence that isolation or ghosts or alcohol or whatever has driven Jack so nuts that he can't figure out where Danny has gone, and spends the rest of his life thrashing around madly in the maze. Also, you're not totally dumb on this one. There are no stupid questions.
*** There's also the more practical reason, which we see in the next scene of Jack finding Danny's footprints. When he follows them back, they appearsteps to stop at that spot. He then (IIRC) rubs out any other footprints he makes and hides until he can get away. Smart thinking.
*** Seconded, Danny backsteps andan extent, then jumps off into a side passage and hides around the path, rubbing out the prints he makes on landing, so that corner. Once Jack will follow passes him, comes to the prints 'til they stop, but won't know where or in which end of the trail, and then picks a random direction to go in, Danny has disappeared to. I always thought Danny, being small, pushed or burrowed his way through starts running in the hedges until he could pick up the backtrail opposite direction and escape, or just get through to the outside.
*** No there's no way Jack was moving faster than Danny. Even though Jack is an adult and Danny's just a kid, Jack was probably suffering from a concussion from Wendy's bat and was visibly walking/running with a severe limp by the time he was chasing Danny. With Danny hightailing it out of the hotel and into the maze and Jack limping in pursuit, Danny was most definitely moving far faster than Jack was.
** Why he retracedretraces his steps was explained, but as for how he got out, he just followed to the trail back out. Both he and Jack left a trail of footprints, and they never deviated entrance from that path until Danny backtracked and hid. there.
**
*** There's also the more practical reason, which we see in the next scene of Jack finding Danny's footprints. When he follows them back, they appear
*** Seconded, Danny backsteps and
*** No there's no way Jack was moving faster than Danny. Even though Jack is an adult and Danny's just a kid, Jack was probably suffering from a concussion from Wendy's bat and was visibly walking/running with a severe limp by the time he was chasing Danny. With Danny hightailing it out of the hotel and into the maze and Jack limping in pursuit, Danny was most definitely moving far faster than Jack was.
** Why he retraced
Changed line(s) 110 (click to see context) from:
* I'm probably missing some context from the book, which I haven't read, unfortunately, but the scene of Jack "selling his soul" for a drink caught my attention. It was outright stated that all the alcohol was removed from the hotel for insurance reasons. So how in the world was Jack able to get a glass of bourbon from Lloyd, ghost or no ghost, and actually taste it, to boot?
to:
* I'm probably missing some context from the book, which I haven't read, unfortunately, but the scene of Jack "selling his soul" for a drink caught my attention. It was outright stated that all the alcohol was removed from the hotel for insurance reasons. So how in the world was Jack able to get a glass of bourbon from Lloyd, ghost or no ghost, and actually taste it, to boot?
Deleted line(s) 119 (click to see context) :
* Meta question: Why didn't Shelley Duvall just quit considering how badly Kubrick was treating her? Yes, she signed a contract, but it's not like a jury is gonna say "Your boss may be psychologically torturing you, but tough shit!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Wendy wouldn't but Danny's only a little kid, used to doing what his parents tell him to. If he heard his father calling for someone to unlock the door, he might have done it - though he'd need to bring a chair or something over to reach the bolt.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The mask presumably had a mouth hole intended for things like eating, drinking, breathing...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
** As of ''Literature/DoctorSleep'' , we find out that Hallorann's coping mechanisms are extremely strict, and as Danny grows older, he teaches him how to compartmentalize (literally) the ghosts into boxes so they won't bother him again. While this is a bit of a RetCon, it explains how Hallorann was never harmed by anything in the hotel, along with the previous explanation that he was likely never alone.
to:
** As of ''Literature/DoctorSleep'' , ''Literature/DoctorSleep'', we find out that Hallorann's coping mechanisms are extremely strict, and as Danny grows older, he teaches him how to compartmentalize (literally) the ghosts into boxes so they won't bother him again. While this is a bit of a RetCon, it explains how Hallorann was never harmed by anything in the hotel, along with the previous explanation that he was likely never alone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 39 (click to see context) from:
** Roger Ebert's suggestion that none of the main characters are reliable narrators seems reasonable. We're viewing from the points of view of the people who are in various stages of losing it. Note that when Jack talks to Wendy after returning from room 237, he doesn't seem to be upset in the slightest at what happened in the room
to:
** Roger Ebert's suggestion that none of the main characters are reliable narrators seems reasonable. We're viewing from the points of view of the people who are in various stages of losing it. Note that when Jack talks to Wendy after returning from room 237, he doesn't seem to be upset affected in the slightest at what happened in the room room. Was this Wendy's POV, seeing an uncaring self absorbed Jack blowing off her worries? Maybe Jack's experience in 237 with the ghost women didn't occur at all, explaining why he was so nonplussed and it was merely Danny's shining fantasy?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Wendy was terrified because someone much bigger and stronger was swinging an axe to break a door with the apparent intent to kill her. She could have possibly stabbed him at the moment he stopped but it was very brief and even if she thought to use the knife it's unlikely it would take him down. She grabbed the knife earlier to use as a weapon but wasn't expecting Jack to show up with an axe in a murderous rage.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Roger Ebert's suggestion that none of the main characters are reliable narrators seems reasonable. We're viewing from the points of view of the people who are in various stages of losing it. Note that when Jack talks to Wendy after returning from room 237, he doesn't seem to be upset in the slightest at what happened in the room
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 37 (click to see context) from:
** Hallorran didn't know there was any physical danger, just that something weird is happening and that they can't contact the hotel by radio. My question is why did he go to the hotel alone? Why didn't at least one forest ranger go with him? They know they can't contact the hotel and that there's a small child there. Plus Holloran is at least well into his 60s and going up the mountain alone would be dangerous on its own.
to:
** Hallorran didn't know there was any physical danger, just that something weird is happening and that they can't contact the hotel by radio. My question is why did he go to the hotel alone? Why didn't at least one forest ranger go with him? They know they can't contact the hotel and that there's a small child there. Plus Holloran is at least well into his 60s and going up the mountain alone would be dangerous on its own.
Added DiffLines:
* Why did Hollorran go to the hotel alone? Why didn't at least one forest ranger go with him? They know they can't contact the hotel and that there's a small child there. Plus Holloran is at least well into his 60s and going up the mountain alone in the dead of winter would be dangerous on its own.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Hallorran didn't know there was any physical danger, just that something weird is happening and that they can't contact the hotel by radio. My question is why did he go to the hotel alone? Why didn't at least one forest ranger go with him? They know they can't contact the hotel and that there's a small child there. Plus Holloran is at least well into his 60s and going up the mountain alone would be dangerous on its own.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* So the movie is talked about as MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and with the possibility the ghosts are just hallucinations of a very mentally broken family. But if the ghosts aren't real, who opened the storage door and freed Jack? Wendy and Danny both wouldn't, and the three of them are the only people there at the hotel.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Meta question: Why didn't Shelley Duvall just quit considering how badly Kubrick was treating her? Yes, she signed a contract, but it's not like a jury is gonna say "Your boss may be psychologically torturing you, but tough shit!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Perhaps because Jack still loved his father even if he had horrible memories of him. Abused children can still love the parent or parents who abused them on some level despite the abuse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
*** No. In fact, it gets more baffling as Abra starts interacting with Tony when she's very young (she thinks Dan is Tony's father for a while).
to:
** Alternatively, he is an imaginary friend that somehow became a separate entity.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Another possibility is that the ghosts work under YourMindMakesItReal logic: if you ''believe'' them to be able to harm you, they can, but if you just convince yourself they're "pictures in a book," they have no power over you except to frighten you.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why do they jump right from "there was no one in Room 237" to "this woman doesn't exist and Danny strangled himself"? Like, it's clear that Jack doesn't believe that, and also clear why he'd lie (because he doesn't want to say he walked in, saw a woman, and immediately made out with her before realizing she was dead and decomposing), but why does Wendy go along with this? And for that matter, why doesn't Jack come up with a more believable lie? It seems like the reasonable conclusion to draw in that situation- Danny was clearly attacked by *someone*, and it wasn't one of his parents, it's not like the room was locked (Jack even says that he found the door open), and the hotel likely has hundreds of rooms someone could hide in- would be that there was some kind of intruder that ran away when Danny saw them. It could even be a homeless person or a staffer that stayed behind when everyone had cleared out, hoping to hide out in the hotel, eating the food and living rent-free, that tried to strangle Danny because they were worried they'd be discovered. We the audience know that's not what happened, but it's odd that the characters don't even consider this.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:
* That shot of Jack frozen in the snow. He doesn't appear to be in the same spot he was previously, in fact he seems to be ''away'' from the hedges, and he's sitting upright instead of collapsed on his back like in the previous shot. I guess what I'm asking is, did Jack actually manage to make it out of the maze, only freeze to death right there?
to:
* That shot of Jack frozen in the snow. He doesn't appear to be in the same spot he was previously, in fact he seems to be ''away'' from the hedges, and he's sitting upright instead of collapsed on his back like in the previous shot. I guess what I'm asking is, did Jack actually manage to make it out of the maze, only to freeze to death right there?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* That shot of Jack frozen in the snow. He doesn't appear to be in the same spot he was previously, in fact he seems to be ''away'' from the hedges, and he's sitting upright instead of collapsed on his back like in the previous shot. I guess what I'm asking is, did Jack actually manage to make it out of the maze, only freeze to death right there?
