Jason Frost
Member
What.Jack is an alternative name for John, as in John F Kennedy. Daniel Goldin was NASA Administrator during 9/11. Think about it.
What.Jack is an alternative name for John, as in John F Kennedy. Daniel Goldin was NASA Administrator during 9/11. Think about it.
What I think is that most films aren't narrative puzzles, especially Kubrick's films. The Shining like most art is not designed to drop little clues for the audience to turn into Sherlock Holmes and try to decipher what really happened. It's meant to unsettle in its depiction of supernatural horror and the resonance of that horror with real world abuse.
Kubrick may have included the magazine intentionally because of that article or it may indeed be a coincidence. But he definitely didn't choose it as a clue to some larger narrative about Jack beyond the film's borders.
Jack is an alternative name for John, as in John F Kennedy. Daniel Goldin was NASA Administrator during 9/11. Think about it.
It's so, so much better than the movie.
No. There's nothing like that in the book and I imagine Stephen King would have had a total shit fit if Kubrick implied there was. He hates the film, that would have sent him over the edge.
What would this add to the story?
Nope.
It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.
Nope.
It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.
No - it is just implied that he struck him while drunk.
It's really not. Kubrick's film is so much more artful and unsettling than the novel, which is just a solid pulp horror story. The ending of the film in particular is a massive improvement over the original story.
Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.
I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.
I'd feel the same if someone grabbed my work and turned it into something completely different than what I wrote. Oh and then when someone mentions "The Shining," they'll always think of the movie and not the events in the book. I'd be pissed.It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.
Like, if you wanna prefer the novel. That's one thing, I guess. But to outright call what is widely considered to be one of the greatest horror films of all-time trash? That's an opinion that betrays a serious ignorance and lack of understanding of cinema. What the hell?
I'd feel the same if someone grabbed my work and turned it into something completely different than what I wrote. Oh and then when someone mentions "The Shining," they'll always think of the movie and not the events in the book. I'd be pissed.
Chill dude, I know it's sacrilegious, but I don't care for Kubrick in general. You can understand how a film is technically impressive (this movie, or Birdman is another example) and still think it's boring as sin.
I'll just leave it at that though, as I'd prefer to not derail this thread.
This happens all the time to creators of media of all kind, you just kind of have to deal with it.
Just pointing out that calling something boring does your point of view no real justice as its the easiest and ironically,"most boring" criticism someone can make.
Just pointing out that calling something boring does your point of view no real justice as its the easiest and ironically,"most boring" criticism someone can make.
That's not irony. There's no reason to expect criticism to be not boring.
Huh?
It is not "ironically the most boring criticism" because it's not ironic.
Irony is the difference between what you expected to occur and what actually occurred.
Jack should have read the article on avoiding dead-ends instead
I know what fucking Irony is, thanks.
I was referring to your idea that criticism is inherently boring.
It's really not. Kubrick's film is so much more artful and unsettling than the novel, which is just a solid pulp horror story. The ending of the film in particular is a massive improvement over the original story.
The word expect is important there. Criticism is a thing which could be exciting or boring, but doesn't have an inherent state you'd expect it to be in (unlike say, a fire or explosion). Don't get so defensive.
That's not irony. There's no reason to expect criticism to be not boring.
I think mainly because Jack gives off a fairly evil and psychotic vibe from pretty much the beginning of the movie, which wasn't the case at all in the book apparently iirc, I never read it. He also thought Wendy was way whinier and dumber than book wendy or something I think.
Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.
I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.
It's condescending as shit to explain something as basic as irony is to someone. You'd do well to keep that in mind in the future.
Maybe ironic wasn't the best term to describe but it was amusing to see someone use a boring criticism to call something boring though I think it still works fine. As to the point that all criticisms being boring I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.
I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.
I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.
I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.
'Boring' as a criticism towards films I think is fine, because all criticism is essentially subjective. I mean the best film criticism isn't an objective list of what's good or bad in a film, it's a dialogue with somebody you know and respect.
I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.
I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.
I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.
I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.
Criticism is subjective, absolutely, but 'boring' is SO subjective that it says more about the reviewer than the film itself. I think Fast and The Furious movies are boring and find Malick movies absolutely riveting. Obviously, a LOT of people find the opposite to be true, and that's fine, but if you're going to try to make a serious argument about a film and argue that it sucks because it's "boring", that's not an argument, it tells me absolutely nothing about the film.
"Humbert Humbert, a man who has a sexual relationship with his underage stepdaughter. Sound familiar? Lets compare the two characters in more detail.
Both Jack and Humbert are writers. Both of them keep their personal writings hidden from their wives. Both of them secretly despise their wives. And both of them have sexual relations with a minor within their own family unit."
"Elsewhere in the documentary there is an emphasis on sexual behavior from Jack. He tells Kubricks daughter Vivian, You look cute in your red shirt, a soft porn calendar is seen on his bathroom door, he is seen unzipping his pants to pull out a tape recorder and he provocatively unbuttons his shirt to pull out the connecting wires. Kubrick didnt just show us random footage from the set. He chose each clip for thematic reasons."
"In the HD version, several book and newspaper titles are visible in the psychiatrist scene. One newspaper article is called Illness as metaphor and was written by Susan Sontag."
"This was a controversial essay claiming that the medical professions have a tendency to mistakenly label physical health conditions as manifestations of psychological problems. Its more than likely that Kubrick placed this article title in the scene to communicate that the psychiatrists dismissal of Dannys health problem is mistaken. She has either overlooked or deliberately ignored the abuse that has cause Dannys problems."
No - it is just implied that he struck him while drunk.
I think if you watch the movie and WANT Jack to be the same character as the book, it can be a letdown. If you accept he's different, it's a far better story.
Nah, I watched the movie first and then read the book, and I still felt that way.
Kept waiting for the groundskeeper dude to get whacked in the book, and when he survived I was thinking "what the hell, why did they kill him in the movie?" Though now I know that there's a deep, complex reason that he was killed, and I'm just too ignorant to understand it.
Kubrick wasn't cold and distant. This is like the biggest misconception about him, he was actually very tender and sensitive, but he required the audience to do some work and meet him at his level.
Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.
Maybe, but one of the best aspects of the book - Jack's descent into madness - is entirely non-existant in the film.
Yeah yeah, people don't like being wrong.
You can say it's funny, or rich. Sorry, I wasn't really trying to distract from your point. Irony is like 'begging the question' where it gets used wrong so often the word/phrase is losing its meaning.
I dunno man, I like to think of myself as a pretty discerning film goer and I think his films are, much like Nolan's and Fincher's to a lesser degree, amazing to watch but little emotion in the directing.
No they explicitly say in the book that he broke his arm (semi) accidentally while drunk.
In fact the whole book is about a decent into alcoholism and fighting against it literally destroying his family.
I always felt the movie completely missed the point of the book and was weaker for it.
The ending of the movie is just a mess in my opinion.