Follow TV Tropes

Following

History YMMV / TheShining

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies would go on to say that their opinions on the movie haven’t really changed despite the vindication, stating that their main problem (along with a general dislike of Kubrick's filmography as a whole) was the same one that Stephen King himself had: They wanted a more faithful adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies would go on to say that their opinions on the movie haven’t really changed despite the vindication, stating that their main problem (along with a general dislike of Kubrick's filmography as a whole) their main problem was the same one that Stephen King himself had: They wanted Wanting a more faithful adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies would go on to say that their opinions about the movie haven’t really changed despite the vindication, stating that their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; wanting a more faithful movie adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies would go on to say that their opinions about on the movie haven’t really changed despite the vindication, stating that their main problem (along with a general dislike of Kubrick's filmography as a whole) was the same one that Stephen King himself had; wanting had: They wanted a more faithful movie adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies have to say that their opinions about the movie haven’t changed since, and that their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; wanting a more faithful adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies have would go on to say that their opinions about the movie haven’t really changed since, and despite the vindication, stating that their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; wanting a more faithful movie adaption of the book.[[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies have gone on to state they don’t regret the nomination, saying their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; wanting a more faithful adaption of the book.[[/note]] Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director.[[note]]The creators of the Razzies have gone on to state they don’t regret say that their opinions about the nomination, saying movie haven’t changed since, and that their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; wanting a more faithful adaption of the book.[[/note]] Nowadays, [[/note]]Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director. (The creator of the Razzies later defended himself by saying his problem was the same Stephen King himself had; he wanted something more like the book.) Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director. (The creator [[note]]The creators of the Razzies later defended himself by have gone on to state they don’t regret the nomination, saying his their main problem was the same Stephen King himself had; he wanted something wanting a more like faithful adaption of the book.) [[/note]] Nowadays, it's generally considered a masterwork of horror.

Added: 182

Changed: 98

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Isn't the "Here's Johnny!" scene supposed to be a meme?


* MemeticMutation: [[spoiler:Jack]]'s frozen corpse is popular for use in image macros joking about snow or the cold.

to:

* MemeticMutation: MemeticMutation:
** Jack busting down the bathroom door with an axe and shouting, "HERE'S JOHNNY!"
**
[[spoiler:Jack]]'s frozen corpse is popular for use in image macros joking about snow or the cold.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* RetroactiveRecognition: A forest ranger is played by Creator/ManningRedwood, who would later be best known for playing Bob Conley in ''Film/AViewToAKill''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Jerkass Has A Point is also not YMMV either.


* JerkassHasAPoint: When Wendy interrupts Jack's conversation with the spectral bartender to tell him what happened to Danny in Room 237, his reaction is, "Are you out of your fucking mind?" - by now, this comes off moreso as spiteful at having been Misblamed for Jack's bruises earlier (after he had already been growing [[HairTriggerTemper abnormally aggressive towards her]] without remorse) than reasonably skeptical, as well as [[ParentalNeglect blithely indifferent towards his son]] given he was quite literally just making excuses about hurting him in the past to a bartender who ''shouldn't exist''. However, while the full context makes it difficult to sympathize with him saying so at this point and it's done [[JerkAss in a shitty way]], it's not a completely unreasonable response to suddenly coming to him for help with a story that ''does'' sound totally ridiculous.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:


* AdaptationDeviation: Ask most people what this series' main issue was and they will tell you it was ''too'' faithful to the source material, including far too many scenes where nothing scary happens, which worked to build a palpable sense of dread in the novel but just seems like pointless {{Padding}} in the series. However, there are at least two major deviations that only serve to make things worse:
** Danny's psychic abilities are apparently known to Wendy and Jack, or at least Wendy, and they have accepted it as reality, based on the scene where Wendy asks Danny if "Daddy got the job" while Jack is still on his way home, and Danny confirms that he did, leading to Wendy's triumphant fist-pumping. In the novel, Wendy wonders why Danny seems to just "know things" but does not actually believe he is psychic, nor does she ask him to make predictions.
** As mentioned below, Tony, who Danny uses as a manifestation of his powers, goes from a somewhat sinister, unseen figure to a teenager in glasses who hovers in midair and is very friendly. This is an explicit deviation from the book, where Danny is shown to trust the visions Tony shows him, and doesn't think Tony wishes to harm him, but is still a little afraid of him due to the severity of the visions or the fact that Tony always appears dim and in the distance, not letting Danny see what he looks like.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* AdaptationalVillainy: Zig-zagged. There's no question that Jack's actions in both the book and film make him a villain, especially when he reaches the point where he willingly joins forces with the hotel's spirits. However in the book, Jack resists the pull of the hotel (which is the true villain) for a good while as it tortures his mind and tries to lure him with alcohol and distrust of his wife. He is the central protagonist, made clear in the book that he is a good man who unfortunately inherited his father's addiction, but having seemingly beaten his addiction, he is a loving husband and father. In the movie, thanks to Jack Nicholson's sinister performance from the first to last frame and barely even the faintest show of resisting the hotel's affect on him, it just seems like Jack is a crazy, abusive man; the perfect personification of the hotel's malevolent intent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* OvershadowedByControversy: While the film is now considered a horror classic and one of the greatest films of all time, it's difficult to discuss it without bringing up not only the immense CreatorBacklash by Creator/StephenKing as a result of the film's heavy deviations from the original book, but also and more significantly Kubrick's abusive treatment of the film's cast on-set, particularly his psychological tormenting of Creator/ShelleyDuvall which seem even harsher due to her lifelong struggles with mental illness and an early retirement from acting. While [[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/searching-for-shelley-duvall-the-reclusive-icon-on-fleeing-hollywood-and-the-scars-of-making-the-shining Duvall eventually did dispel the severity of Kubrick's actions and denied him being abusive]], the perception of his [[EnforcedMethodActing grueling enforcement of method acting]] really isn't a great look, especially since Kubrick never expressed regret over his actions to the day he died.

to:

* OvershadowedByControversy: While the film is now considered a horror classic and one of the greatest films of all time, it's difficult to discuss it without bringing up not only the immense CreatorBacklash by Creator/StephenKing as a result of the film's heavy deviations from the original book, but also and more significantly Kubrick's abusive treatment of the film's cast on-set, particularly his psychological tormenting of Creator/ShelleyDuvall which seem even harsher due to her lifelong struggles with mental illness and an early retirement from acting.Creator/ShelleyDuvall. While [[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/searching-for-shelley-duvall-the-reclusive-icon-on-fleeing-hollywood-and-the-scars-of-making-the-shining Duvall eventually did dispel the severity of Kubrick's actions and denied him being abusive]], the perception of his [[EnforcedMethodActing grueling enforcement of method acting]] really isn't a great look, especially since Kubrick never expressed regret over his actions to the day he died.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* AdaptationDeviation: Ask most people what this series' main issue was and they will tell you it was ''too'' faithful to the source material, including far too many scenes where nothing scary happens, which worked to build a palpable sense of dread in the novel but just seems like pointless {{Padding}} in the series. However, there are at least two major deviations that only serve to make things worse:
** Danny's psychic abilities are apparently known to Wendy and Jack, or at least Wendy, and they have accepted it as reality, based on the scene where Wendy asks Danny if "Daddy got the job" while Jack is still on his way home, and Danny confirms that he did, leading to Wendy's triumphant fist-pumping. In the novel, Wendy wonders why Danny seems to just "know things" but does not actually believe he is psychic, nor does she ask him to make predictions.
** As mentioned below, Tony, who Danny uses as a manifestation of his powers, goes from a somewhat sinister, unseen figure to a teenager in glasses who hovers in midair and is very friendly. This is an explicit deviation from the book, where Danny is shown to trust the visions Tony shows him, and doesn't think Tony wishes to harm him, but is still a little afraid of him due to the severity of the visions or the fact that Tony always appears dim and in the distance, not letting Danny see what he looks like.


Added DiffLines:

** Tony, the "boy" who represents a manifestation of Danny's powers, goes from a distant, spooky figure to...a dorky teenager floating in midair. In the novel, some of the more frightening scenes involve Tony showing visions to Danny. Tony's presentation here makes him unintentionally hilarious.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* AdaptationalVillainy: Zig-zagged. There's no question that Jack's actions in both the book and film make him a villain, especially when he reaches the point where he willingly joins forces with the hotel's spirits. However in the book, Jack resists the pull of the hotel (which is the true villain) for a good while as it tortures his mind and tries to lure him with alcohol and distrust of his wife. He is the central protagonist, made clear in the book that he is a good man who unfortunately inherited his father's addiction, but having seemingly beaten his addiction, he is a loving husband and father. In the movie, thanks to Jack Nicholson's sinister performance from the first to last frame and barely even the faintest show of resisting the hotel's affect on him, it just seems like Jack is a crazy, abusive man; the perfect personification of the hotel's malevolent intent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* CompleteMonster: The Overlook Hotel itself. See [[YMMV/DoctorSleep Doctor Sleep]] for its entry.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* SelfFanservice: Wendy gets hit with this a lot. Fanart depicting Wendy often gives her HartmanHips and a [[BuxomBeautyStandard massive bust]] even though she isn't very curvy in the book and the film gives her AdaptationalUgliness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* SelfFanservice: Wendy gets hit with this a lot. Fanart depicting Wendy often gives her HartmanHips and a [[BuxomBeautyStandard massive bust]] even though she isn't very curvy in the book and the film gives her AdaptationalUgliness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* VindicatedByHistory: ''In a sense.'' While most agree that it doesn't hold a candle (hell, even a ''flame'') to the beloved Kubrick film, it can be argued the miniseries works well with Weber's performance as Jack and following the novel well, {{Narm}} and SpecialEffectsFailure not withstanding.

to:

* VindicatedByHistory: ''In a sense.'' While most agree that it doesn't hold a candle (hell, even a ''flame'') to it's not at the level of the beloved Kubrick film, it can be argued the miniseries works well with Weber's performance as Jack and following the novel well, {{Narm}} and SpecialEffectsFailure not withstanding.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* IAmNotShazam: Thanks to the "Here's Johnny!" scene, the uninitiated would often believe Jack's name is "Johnny." Whenever the scene gets parodied, more often than not, the stand-in for Jack would refer to themselves in third person. Ironically enough, the book (where this scene isn't included) clarifies that Jack's full name is Jonathan, so if it is in the film, too, then he could be referring to himself that way. Interestingly, Jack ''can'' be a nickname for men named John (although it's virtually unheard of these days), so this isn't as strange as it might seem.

to:

* IAmNotShazam: Thanks to the "Here's Johnny!" scene, the uninitiated would often believe Jack's name is "Johnny." Whenever the scene gets parodied, more often than not, the stand-in for Jack would refer to themselves in third person. Ironically enough, the book (where this scene isn't included) clarifies that Jack's full name is Jonathan, John Daniel Torrance (And Danny's is Daniel Anthony Torrance), so if it is in the film, too, then he could be referring to himself that way. Interestingly, Jack ''can'' be a nickname for men named John (although it's virtually unheard of these days), so this isn't as strange as it might seem.seem, and based on the fact that King wrote that Jack's birth name is John, it shows he's definitely using Jack as a nickname.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Moved an example from the Film/ namespace.

Added DiffLines:

* JerkassWoobie: Jack, a very flawed man (an abusive alcoholic specifically) who deep down ''does'' truly love his family, is turned into an absolute murderous monster by the sinister influence of the Overlook, resulting in [[spoiler:his murder of an innocent man, the intense traumatization of his family, and his own lonely death.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
To quote the page, "Do not link to this on the wiki, please. Not even under the YMMV tab."


* SugarWiki/DevelopmentHeaven: The scene wherein we see Jack's manuscript, and all we see is, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," typed over and over again? Each page was individually typed. Creator/StanleyKubrick also shot the pages in four other languages, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In addition to the "Here's Johnny!" line, Jack attacking his family with an axe has become iconic in its own right. It was a croquet mallet in the book.

to:

** In addition to the "Here's Johnny!" line, Jack attacking his family with an axe has become iconic in its own right. It was a croquet roque mallet in the book.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The characterization of Jack himself can become this if you're someone who's suffered under an abusive parent or person and just cannot sympathize with someone like a Jack.

to:

** The characterization of Jack himself can become this if you're someone who's suffered under an abusive parent or person and just cannot sympathize with someone like a Jack.

Added: 882

Changed: 228

Removed: 576

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* JerkassHasAPoint: When Wendy interrupts Jack's conversation with the spectral bartender to tell him what happened to Danny in Room 237, his reaction is, "Are you out of your fucking mind?" - by now, this comes off moreso as spiteful at having been Misblamed for Jack's bruises earlier (after he had already been growing [[HairTriggerTemper abnormally aggressive towards her]] without remorse) than reasonably skeptical, as well as [[ParentalNeglect blithely indifferent towards his son]] given he was quite literally just making excuses about hurting him in the past to a bartender who ''shouldn't exist''. However, while the full context makes it difficult to sympathize with him saying so at this point and it's done [[JerkAss in a shitty way]], it's not a completely unreasonable response to suddenly coming to him for help with a story that ''does'' sound totally ridiculous.



* RealismInducedHorror: Defenders of the Kubrick version of ''The Shining'' often feel that the ambiguous nature of the Overlook Hotel's haunted nature make the film scarier, in that it makes it seem like a similar scenario could happen in the real world.

to:

* RealismInducedHorror: Defenders of the Kubrick version of ''The Shining'' often feel that the more ambiguous nature of the Overlook Hotel's haunted nature supernatural qualities combined with the flatter and less sympathetic take on Jack's character make the film scarier, scarier in this way, in that it makes it seem like adds to a similar scenario believability that Jack's actions could happen in the real world.with or ''without'' any DemonicPossession.



* StrawmanHasAPoint: When Wendy tells Jack about what happened to Danny in room 237, his reaction is, "Are you out of your fucking mind?" and we're supposed to think that he's acting like a complete {{Jerkass}}. However, before this, Jack had been wrongly accused of hurting Danny and never even got to defend himself as Wendy yelled at him and ran away. Now that she's suddenly coming to him for help with a story that sounds totally ridiculous, it's not that hard to see why Jack isn't exactly cheery in this moment, not that it justifies the other JerkAss things he's done.



** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director. (The creator of the Razzies later defended himself by saying his problem was the same Stephen King himself had; he wanted something more like the book.) Nowadays, it is considered one of the masterworks of horror.

to:

** Kubrick's film was panned by contemporary critics on release to the point that it got Kubrick nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director. (The creator of the Razzies later defended himself by saying his problem was the same Stephen King himself had; he wanted something more like the book.) Nowadays, it is it's generally considered one of the masterworks a masterwork of horror.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
These examples are just plain illogical.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
These examples are just plain


* HilariousInHindsight:
** Creator/JackNicholson plays a homicidally insane character [[TheDanza named Jack]] and at one point, is threatened with [[Film/Batman1989 a bat]].
** Also, he quotes Literature/TheThreeLittlePigs before chopping down the bathroom door. Some years later, he'd play [[Film/{{Wolf}} a werewolf.]]
** Jack telling Wendy that "I'm not going to hurt you. I'm just going to ''bash your brains in''." Jack Nicholson would play the Joker [[Film/Batman1989 some years later]], then some decades later the Joker would go in the opposite direction and say [[Film/SuicideSquad2016 "I'm not going to kill ya. I'm just gonna hurt you really, really]] ''[[Film/SuicideSquad2016 bad"]]''.
** Stephen King initially hated the movie. Years later, he makes a cameo appearance in ''Film/ItChapterTwo'', another adaptation of his work...which includes a ShoutOut to Kubrick's ''The Shining'' (a "Here's Johnny!" reference).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Zero Context Example. Likely misuse, given how ambiguous the ending is.


* ItWasHisSled: The ending photograph.

Changed: 466

Removed: 463

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Zero Context Examples. None of these scenes are nearly as famous as the other two.


* SignatureLine: "Heeeere's Johnny!"
** "Come and play with us, Danny. Forever and ever and ever," is similarly famous.
* SignatureScene: The film has several scenes that have become revered, iconic moments of cinematic history, most of which were ''not'' from the original novel.
** [[AxeBeforeEntering Jack chopping down the door with an axe]] and then going "Heeeere's Johnny!" is very likely the most iconic of them all.
** The CreepyTwins at the end of the hallway.
** "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
** Bear-Dog Furry Guy.
** The wave of blood rushing out of the elevator, to the point that it was even [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tgsURVNrI used as a trailer for the film.]]
** [[spoiler: Jack frozen in the hedge maze.]]

to:

* SignatureLine: "Heeeere's Johnny!"
** "Come and play with us, Danny. Forever and ever and ever," is similarly famous.
* SignatureScene: The film has several scenes that have become revered, iconic moments of cinematic history, most of which were ''not'' from the original novel.
SignatureScene:
** [[AxeBeforeEntering Jack chopping down the door with an axe]] and then going "Heeeere's Johnny!" is very likely the film's most iconic of them all.
** The CreepyTwins at the end of the hallway.
** "All work
famous scene and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
** Bear-Dog Furry Guy.
has repeatedly been parodied in other works.
** The wave of blood rushing out of the elevator, to the point that it elevator was even famously [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tgsURVNrI used as a trailer for the film.]]
** [[spoiler: Jack frozen in the hedge maze.
]]

Changed: 98

Removed: 393

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Famous lines, sure, but not memes. Please see the trope's page to see how examples should be written.


* MemeticMutation:
** '''HERE'S JOHNNY!'''
** And to a lesser extent: "RED RUM! RED RUM!"
** "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
** [[spoiler: Jack's frozen corpse]] is popular for use in image macros joking about snow or the cold.
** "Come play with us, Danny...forever...and ever...and ever..." Expect any set of twins, real or fictional, [[CreepyTwins creepy]] or not, to be hit with this at least once.

to:

* MemeticMutation:
** '''HERE'S JOHNNY!'''
** And to a lesser extent: "RED RUM! RED RUM!"
** "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
** [[spoiler: Jack's
MemeticMutation: [[spoiler:Jack]]'s frozen corpse]] corpse is popular for use in image macros joking about snow or the cold.
** "Come play with us, Danny...forever...and ever...and ever..." Expect any set of twins, real or fictional, [[CreepyTwins creepy]] or not, to be hit with this at least once.
cold.

Changed: 968

Removed: 1089

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:


* EpilepticTrees:
** Many interpretations of the movie. There's even a 2012 documentary film called ''Room 237'' detailing some of these.
** There are a few theorists who are genuinely convinced that Creator/StanleyKubrick was responsible for ''faking the film of the moon landing'', and that ''The Shining'' is his attempt at coming to terms with his guilt and confessing his fakery to the world. According to this interpretation, Jack Torrance (an artist living in extreme isolation from his family while working on a project of great personal importance) is meant to be a AuthorAvatar for Kubrick, who was forced into extreme isolation while filming the fake moon landing for NASA. Also, the number "237" is a reference to the supposed 237,000 miles in the average distance between the Earth and the Moon[[note]]the average distance is actually roughly 238,900 miles[[/note]], Room 237 is a stand-in for the soundstage where the landing was filmed, and [[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/03/31/arts/31VITALI3_SPAN/31VITALI3-jumbo.jpg Danny's "Apollo 11" sweater]] is a clue to the film's true meaning.

to:

* EpilepticTrees:
** Many interpretations of the movie. There's even a 2012 documentary film called ''Room 237'' detailing some of these.
**
EpilepticTrees: There are a few theorists who are genuinely convinced that Creator/StanleyKubrick was responsible for ''faking the film of the moon landing'', and that ''The Shining'' is his attempt at coming to terms with his guilt and confessing his fakery to the world. According to this interpretation, Jack Torrance (an artist living in extreme isolation from his family while working on a project of great personal importance) is meant to be a AuthorAvatar for Kubrick, who was forced into extreme isolation while filming the fake moon landing for NASA. Also, the number "237" is a reference to the supposed 237,000 miles in the average distance between the Earth and the Moon[[note]]the average distance is actually roughly 238,900 miles[[/note]], Room 237 is a stand-in for the soundstage where the landing was filmed, and [[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/03/31/arts/31VITALI3_SPAN/31VITALI3-jumbo.jpg Danny's "Apollo 11" sweater]] is a clue to the film's true meaning.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not this trope. Looks like Trivia or Natter.


** The DVDCommentary provides tons of insight into the technical aspects of the production and filming. They also praise Kubrick for elevating King's mere "ghost story" of a novel.

Top