Talk:The Shining (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial text

I like separating book from movie, but the 1997 TV-movie got lost in the shuffle somewhere. Either it deserves its own article or it should be mentioned here. --Feitclub 17:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

snowcats

Absolutely no need for the repeated namechecking of the various models of snowcats. "Snowcat" would suffice. The model of the vehicle is of no real relevance whatsoever to the story.

typewriter story

After Jack admonishes Wendy for interrupting him, if one listens to the typewriter carefully, one can deduce that Jack is in fact typing the phrase "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

that is awesome. but still i don't quite believe you can hear that, carefully or not.

Plot summary

The plot summary is excessively long -- I think we could cut it down without removing too much information. (WP has a tendancy towards overlong "summaries" that actually recap every scene in the film; I must confess to writing some myself. Thoughts? jdb ❋ (talk) 05:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to do that. What is lacking is some headerization, however, which would be a much more constructive means at managing the summary. I'll do this myself if I get time, thanks for bringing it up. Dysprosia 06:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a summary. That is the whole plot of the movie. I feel like I've seen the movie again after reading that. --Vyran 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that I cleaned up the article and went over the plot summary, I would agree that this could definitely stand to be cut down without losing any significant content. That, or we should consider changing the heading from "Synopsis" to "Complete Storyline," because a synopsis is supposed to be brief. Nufy8 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a lot of detail in the movie, and I would not like to lose description which would make analysis of certain aspects of the movie more difficult. Have a look at the external link I just added - almost none of the aspects in the analysis would make sense to the reader unless one had a copy of the film at hand or a description of the work. Since we can't really provide the former, the latter must suffice. Hopefully I (or someone else) may merge some of the points made in that analysis in the article itself. Dysprosia 02:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should cut important analytical content, I'm saying we should remove content that is unimportant to the story line or its subtexts. Example:

Dick suggests to Wendy that he and Danny get some ice-cream. Dick and Danny speak, and Dick explains to Danny that his telepathy was called "shining" by his grandmother, who also had the same gift.

Is it really necessary to say that he suggested to Wendy that he and Danny go get ice-cream? Couldn't we just say that he speaks privately with Danny about the shining, etc.? Nufy8 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in those circumstances, it may be beneficial to remove things like that. I'm just worried people will remove more than necessary from the article. Dysprosia 02:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

i find the article in some points inaccurate and misleading. for example, taking just the beginning of the article:

"The audience is introduced to Jack Torrance, driving up to the Overlook Hotel in the mountains of Colorado, to be interviewed for the position of caretaker for the winter. The hotel is completely blocked off by winter snows which make it inaccessible, requiring an on-site caretaker to keep the building in repair."

the way this is written implies that the hotel is snowed up when jack has his job interview. it is only later during the winter that this happens.

"Jack sees this new position as an opportunity to start a writing career. Jack is unfazed when the manager informs him about one of the previous caretakers who killed his wife and two daughters, cut them into pieces, and "put both barrels of a shotgun in his mouth".

i didn't think at all that he was unfazed. he tried to give that impression - but kubrick manages to make the scene and jack's character rather sinister, auguring what is gonna happen late on.

"However, he warns that his wife, Wendy, would be affected by the story as she is "a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict."

the word "affected" suggests that the story would have an emotional impact on wendy - in a manner that goes against jack's intention of giving the hotel manager the impression that he is the right person for the job. he tries to make light of the whole thing, making it seem that wendy would enjoy the tale as a connoisseur of horror stories.

i could go on quoting passages from the article which give an entirely different impression of the film from the one that came across to me. (surendran reddy - clazz@gmx.net)

Some of what you say are good points, and I'll address these in the article when I get a chance. Others are more subjective interpretations. The summary should be as objective as possible. Dysprosia 22:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I—like many others, it seems—am having issues with the synopsis section. Does it really benefit the article to have so many minor details about the plot? I think some of the statements in the synopsis are innaccurate as well. Is anybody interested in cooperating to improve and further summarize the section? I really don't think the synopsis should be so detailed. --Berserk798 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A line in the section "You've always been the caretaker" should read "I mean... a little extra foot pounds of energy, per second per second." since Jack is referring to a sudden jank, e.g. too much acceleration. Acceleration is change in distance per second per second. Writing the sentence as "per second... per second" only infers he is merely repeating the word 'second' when he is in fact alluding to the fact that acceleration is an inverse funtion of time squared.

He pauses before saying "per second" again. Hence the ellipsis. The quote reflects what he said, not mathematical correctness. Dysprosia 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This film is far too complex to be boiled down too much IMHO. -

Plasticbadge 02:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No film is too comples to be boiled down, that's what summaries are. I also think the opening paragraph reflects a lot more of the novel than the film. Satchfan 07:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

The Analysis section looks to be completely original research and is highly POV. I'm inclined to cut it and move it to the talk page -- objections? jdb ❋ (talk) 05:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely needs cleanup and shortening of the plot summary, which is about as long as the entire movie.

Analysis: highly POV, but perhaps useful in the future as an alternative take on the themes of the film. Let's move it here as a keepsake.

Summary: overblown. Needs to be seriously cut down. Kea 07:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An analysis section should be present, though if the ideas are found in external analysis of the film, there's no reason why the points should be removed. Unsourced ideas can be removed. Dysprosia 08:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The analysis that's currently in the article doesn't list a source. It seems likely that it's just the opinion of whoever first added an "Analysis" heading. The need for the section is clear, but the analysis that's in there seems to fall under original research. -- Xastic 21:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think most of what I saw in the Analysis section is overboard--it's over-analytical. Is there any reason, other than for the sake of academic discussion, to think that King or Kubrick meant to mock the protestant work ethic with the "all work and no play" deal? I just see an incoherent list of mini-theories that don't amount to much at all. It's not a novel by Dostoevsky, it's a Stephen King book, and a Stanly Kubrick film.

I agree, at least with the first statement. I am removing the analysis section altogether, since none of it is referenced and it's conclusions are not necessarily evident. If the author(s) can provide some sort of reference material to support it, I would not have any problem with putting it back in. I think a deep analysis of the works could be enlightening, but not without any support.Ionesco 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Guinness Record?

What scene was it that got shot 127 times? Seems odd to mention it, then not specify. Matt Deres 03:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Guinness website doesn't specify, and I haven't found any other site that does. Nufy8 03:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard that it was the scene in which Dick Halloran shines, receiving Danny's message, in the hotel room (or whatever he was in)StevenNemes 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference also contains a non-sequitor. It is stated: "The participant in those retakes was Shelley Duvall. Jack Nicholson asked Stanley Kubrick to take it easy on the aging Scatman Crothers after the actor broke down crying, 'What do you want, Mr. Kubrick?'" If the participant was Shelley Duvall, why is Scatman Crothers the one breaking down? -- 1:38 AM September 29, 2006 (EST)

I read that the scene was the one where Shelly Duvall ran up the stairs and saw the dogman that took 127 takes, and one of the cameramen commmented on how he had to run up the equivalent of the Empire State building. The scene where Danny "shines" only had 40 takes when Scatman Crothers broke down crying. DocRocks1 08:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining Genre Conventions

"Although it can be seen as a horror film, The Shining defies many of the conventions of the genre." Why is this mentioned at the start but never again? I'd like to read about how it defies genre (obviously having bright lighting is one of them, but I'd still like to know).

I'm going to remove that statement; there is nothing about it that defies the genre, it is just a unique piece of the genre. --Berserk798 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

apparently, the film comes off in a way that suggests that Jack's lack of access to booze, his confinement, rage, contempt for his wife & anger at being a failed writer suggest that what is happening is not supernatural but simply mental breakdown -- Stephen King mentioned this in an article way back -- that he felt like Kubrick focused too much on the physical part of Jack's breakdown and not on the supernatural portion of the event -- Krysstoffer

Twins

I recall that the manager of the hotel, when describing the murder that occured there, said that the little girls were sisters, but (paraphrasing) "one was 8 and one was 10". The little girls in the remainder of the movie look like identical twins, but they could easily not be. Is there something (perhaps in the book?) that says that they are? Scapermoya 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the imdb page, and the actresses that played the girls are twins apparently, but is there something in the storyline that addresses this?Scapermoya 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote influence

Is the "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy" from Vonnegut's Jailbird or vice versa? The book came out in 1979 while the movie in 1980.

"Quotes" Section

I do not find any merit at all in this section; it doesn't give any information about the film at all, save for the "Here's Johnny" quote, and it gives off the aura of being there entirely for the entertainment of fans. I propose that we make an entire section for the "Here's Johnny" quote (and possibly give additional information on the impact it has made and parodies of it) and remove the other quotes. --Berserk798 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article

Hi. I just thought I'd add my opinion here as to some things that the article could do with. I've not seen the movie, and came to WP wanting to get an overview of it - specifically because I've not seen the movie I wanted to know what it's about, without spoiling the whole plot. I have a general awareness that it's a scary movie (not that the opening of the article makes this clear), and I think that Jack Nicholson becomes the "baddie" but is this a 'supernatural'/horror movie, with an implication that he gets possessed, or is it a story of his descent into madness through more earthly mental illness? Reading the opening few paragraphs of the 'synopsis' leaves both possibilities open (mentioning the previous murderous caretaker and his alcoholism). As someone who's not seen the movie I'm not keen on reading the whole synopsis to find out, but the opening section before the synopsis currently gives very little info.

Problems with Trivia

My problems with the trivia on this page are basically my problems with trivia on most wiki pages…where is the proof that these claims are in fact accurate. I don’t want to just go delete things that I feel are with out merit…I simply would like some references to sources for the so called facts about the film.

Other thoughts - the synopsis is pretty long - it looks like it gives an almost scene-by-scene breakdown of the movie - I'm not sure whether that's needed. Also, the Trivia section looks like it could benefit from splitting up - the film seems to get referenced/parodied a lot, so perhaps "References in Popular Culture" could be split away from other "Trivia" items. 86.1.161.152 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To your first point, the movie doesn't make this explicit either. To your second, there is a lot of detail in the movie and it benefits the article to recount it to a fair extent. Dysprosia 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a large sign of amateur writers more than anything, in the notion that most of the information is hardly encyclopedical, but suits better for advertising purposes (or fandom). The Shinning is a popular movie, yet the article embarrasses itself by being on the same league as other articles with long synopsis and catchy titles between acts and scenes (such as War of The Worlds, for example, another tremendously popular movie, another deeply embarrasing article). So far, one of the best articles that balances both issues (being fairly popular and being a good article at the same time) is Blade Runner, as the article not only is informative but at the same time very well written. Needless to say is that wikipedians should look into it as to how to write a good article about a movie.

If something is "hardly encyclopedic", remove it. If there is a dispute about something which you would have removed, let's discuss it. If there's amateur writing, state what is wrong or fix it yourself. Dysprosia 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please do not delete or change the current poster image being used in the Infobox. Thank you very much. (Ibaranoff24 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Do you have a specific reason for this? Guidedbyalan 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone take a screen capture or something for the "Overlook" section of the synopsis? It would nicely round things out, since it's the only synopsis section without an image. -- Shoejar 11:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Special Characters for "Redrum"

A minor point perhaps, but the text about Danny writing "REDRUM" on the wall and his mom seeing it in the mirror needs to be fixed. As you can see in [screen capture], the middle two letters are reversed in Danny's writing. That means when viewd in the mirror, the final two letters are reversed. So it's "reDRum" and "murdER", where the letter I've capitalized are reversed. I tried to make this correction in the article but didn't know how to produce those characters. Help, anyone? Anson2995 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

REDrum-MUrder was used in a Dick Tracy comic strip and a epsiode of The X-Files.

simpsons reference

when homer forgets to pick up bart from his soccer game milhouse writes on the wall 'trab pu kcip' after his dad yells at him a shot of the mirror reveals the backwards message 'pick up bart'

127 takes??

127 takes for one scene?????? Shouldnt be suprized-one scene of Mike Teevee and his father in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory took only 40 takes to do!!!!

Camera Walk

According to IMDB trivia:

During the first steadicam tracking shot of Danny on his tricycle, a sign reading "Camera Walk" can be seen next to a staircase.

I watched the film, and you can indeed see a tripod with what looks like a marquee poster board with "Camera Walk" written, along with smaller writing similar to marquee info. Does anyone know the significance of this reference. At first I thought it was a film flub, but it seems quite intentional. Bytebear 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the book about it. -- Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 02:19, 30 Oct 06 (+11 ≈ 13:22, 30)

External link

• How Well Do You Know: The Shining at Box Office Prophets

Is this type of link appropriate? A user removed previously-posted links to similar quizzes, but we think they are appropriate, given that they are directly applicable to the film

BOP tk 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There are probably many trivia websites on a plethora of subjects. I would say they are too common and deliver no real information (that can't be found elsewhere). I would say not important, but others may disagree. Bytebear 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hidding

The word "Hiding" was spelled as "Hidding", so I changed it.

The Music

Who wrote the piece of music which is playing when Jack Nicholson enters the Gold Room for the second time, and what is its title? 217.43.199.206 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The song you are thinking of is called "Midnight, the Stars and You". It was played by Ray Noble's orchestra with vocals provided by Al Bowly and was a popular English dance tune of the 1920s. 81.152.148.0 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)