I finally saw the Shining and utterly confusing

Quasar44

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jun 21, 2020
31,516
16,029
1,788
Phoenix, AZ
Some reason I never saw this classic the right way. The movie is clearly one of the best horror movies of all time. I dont remember Psycho being this great.

Anways. I just read the book ending was far different than the movies.

Was this a movie about scary Indian Ghosts getting revenged from white terrorism?? Or was this an actual movie about real family violence and abuse.

Wow, I now just read from others that Jacks character was sexually abusing Danny ( which they said is why he invented a made up friend to deal with it).

Also not sure why Mr. Torrenance was in a 1927 photo at the end and found it very bizare

Anyways, movie was creepy and Jack Nicolson was terrific. Wow just remember another creepy scene witch may have been a guy in somekind of animal outfit. I think it was a a dog.
 
Wow, I now just read from others that Jacks character was sexually abusing Danny
That's just incorrect. Jack was an alcoholic and the stress of that as well as struggling to make his wife happy caused him to be a bit too physical with the kid. There was nothing in the book or the movie about sexual abuse.

Now that you've seen the Hollywood version, do yourself a favor and find the made for TV miniseries with Steven Webber and Rebecca DeMornay. Unlike the movie, Stephen King actually worked with the producers and writers to make the movie more true to his work in the book. I get chills even today, thinking back to that scene of the suicide in the bathtub. Brrrrrr...
IMO, the miniseries was MUCH better than the movie.
 
That's just incorrect. Jack was an alcoholic and the stress of that as well as struggling to make his wife happy caused him to be a bit too physical with the kid. There was nothing in the book or the movie about sexual abuse.

Now that you've seen the Hollywood version, do yourself a favor and find the made for TV miniseries with Steven Webber and Rebecca DeMornay. Unlike the movie, Stephen King actually worked with the producers and writers to make the movie more true to his work in the book. I get chills even today, thinking back to that scene of the suicide in the bathtub. Brrrrrr...
IMO, the miniseries was MUCH better than the movie.

I hate Kings politics but how is it possible?? How can one man literally write dozens upon dozens of horror masterpieces . Crazy

Thanks for clearly up the abuse.
 
I hate Kings politics but how is it possible?? How can one man literally write dozens upon dozens of horror masterpieces . Crazy

Thanks for clearly up the abuse.
His masterpieces were done while he was drunk. He doesnt even remember writing Cujo. Ever since he became sober many years ago, his books have sucked.
 
Some reason I never saw this classic the right way. The movie is clearly one of the best horror movies of all time. I dont remember Psycho being this great.

Anways. I just read the book ending was far different than the movies.

Was this a movie about scary Indian Ghosts getting revenged from white terrorism?? Or was this an actual movie about real family violence and abuse.

Wow, I now just read from others that Jacks character was sexually abusing Danny ( which they said is why he invented a made up friend to deal with it).

Also not sure why Mr. Torrenance was in a 1927 photo at the end and found it very bizare

Anyways, movie was creepy and Jack Nicolson was terrific. Wow just remember another creepy scene witch may have been a guy in somekind of animal outfit. I think it was a a dog.
The picture at the end was signifying that the Hotel absorbed his soul. Kings books are supernatural, so the "made up friend" wasnt made up at all, he was an actual ghost; a previous soul that was taken by the hotel.
 
You now need to look at what Kubrick had in his mind behind the literal plot .
He -pays homage to several past great films and directors and this is clear to see .He may even reference his part in directing the fake moon landing footage -- though this is contentious , imo.
It is a tale heavily involved in reincarnation and soul possession .
But that is for you to find out, as well as enjoy a spectacular film loosely based on a Stephen King story.
 
You now need to look at what Kubrick had in his mind behind the literal plot .
He -pays homage to several past great films and directors and this is clear to see .He may even reference his part in directing the fake moon landing footage -- though this is contentious , imo.
It is a tale heavily involved in reincarnation and soul possession .
But that is for you to find out, as well as enjoy a spectacular film loosely based on a Stephen King story.
I wouldnt say its "loosely based" on the story. Its pretty freakin close. Sure, the bushes dont turn into monsters at the end in the movie, but by and large its the same story.
 
I wouldnt say its "loosely based" on the story. Its pretty freakin close. Sure, the bushes dont turn into monsters at the end in the movie, but by and large its the same story.
Footloose is my fave movie, No.2 is The Shining
 
Some reason I never saw this classic the right way. The movie is clearly one of the best horror movies of all time. I dont remember Psycho being this great.

Anways. I just read the book ending was far different than the movies.

Was this a movie about scary Indian Ghosts getting revenged from white terrorism?? Or was this an actual movie about real family violence and abuse.

Wow, I now just read from others that Jacks character was sexually abusing Danny ( which they said is why he invented a made up friend to deal with it).

Also not sure why Mr. Torrenance was in a 1927 photo at the end and found it very bizare

Anyways, movie was creepy and Jack Nicolson was terrific. Wow just remember another creepy scene witch may have been a guy in somekind of animal outfit. I think it was a a dog.
One of the best movies of all time (IMO).

Here's what I got out of it. I believe the hotel was haunted by evil spirits of the past. I also think that Jack had a dark side and was a perfect vessel for the evil spirits (or spirit) of the past to use. The son had a sort of “sixth sense” and was able to see the hotel's dark past through premonitions and visions. The movie is basically the progression of Jack absorbing more and more of the hotel's past evil as he began putting that evil into real time action.
 
The movie is basically the progression of Jack absorbing more and more of the hotel's past evil as he began putting that evil into real time action.
Stanley rarely tub thumped his private convictions . Just hinted at them and gave you lots of clues .
He was most interesed in past time regressions which could be of individuals or incidents with several persons .
As such he is perhaps commenting on a purpose of life -- to learn , overcome and change a repeating lesson . Which Johnny conspicuously did not .
 
Some reason I never saw this classic the right way. The movie is clearly one of the best horror movies of all time. I dont remember Psycho being this great.

Anways. I just read the book ending was far different than the movies.

Was this a movie about scary Indian Ghosts getting revenged from white terrorism?? Or was this an actual movie about real family violence and abuse.

Wow, I now just read from others that Jacks character was sexually abusing Danny ( which they said is why he invented a made up friend to deal with it).

Also not sure why Mr. Torrenance was in a 1927 photo at the end and found it very bizare

Anyways, movie was creepy and Jack Nicolson was terrific. Wow just remember another creepy scene witch may have been a guy in somekind of animal outfit. I think it was a a dog.


Read the book. Then read it again.

Both the movie and the book are masterpieces, but one has little to do with the other.
 
Torrence was in the 20's photo because he became a part of the hotel's legacy. I like the sequel where the psychic kid grows up as an alcoholic like his father and uses his ability to fight off a demon cult.
 

Forum List

Back
Top