The Shining

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (834 of them)

― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 29 April 2004 02:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

king always loves movies when they stick close to his books. he hated "the shining" so he remade it into a version that he felt was closer. "pet sematary" was a piece of shit too but he loved it because it followed his (admittedly pretty good) novel almost to the letter.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 29 April 2004 03:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

stephen king sure doesn't have a good track record when it comes to having anything to do with tv mini-serieseseses.

Wha? I don't know about you, but Salem's Lot scared the shit out of me when I first saw it.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 29 April 2004 03:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

i don't know about you, but i never saw it!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 April 2004 03:43 (9 years ago) Permalink

I saw a Stephen King-approved Carrie TV movie. That was TERRIBLE.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 29 April 2004 04:29 (9 years ago) Permalink

can't wait for the "stand by me" mini-series with jonathan lipnicki, jonathan taylor thomas, brian austin green and the guy who played jonathan in buffy!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 April 2004 04:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

Watched the last thirty minutes of the Shining miniseries. Yep, now I remember why I hated it in '97.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 29 April 2004 04:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

I dropped it to watch some Dawson's Creek reruns. Jen was mega-hot the last season.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 29 April 2004 05:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

Stephen King isn't very scary so there

― Frank Swedehead, Wednesday, 5 May 2004 20:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

Its pretty amazing that although the whole film is very brightly lit, its still creepy as hell. Whats up with that ghost in the wierd bunny outfit!?

-- Ehh, I rewatched this a few nights ago. When Shelley's running through the Overlook at the end of the film there's this sudden snap-zoom and all of a sudden a fat man in a bear-suit giving a bloody blow-job fills the frame. It lasts for about four seconds, and it's creepy as shit. I was with watching this with Jon William in Rochester a few years ago and I was stoned as could be and thought I was hallucinating the scene. No dice, though.

― Jeremy Coombs (Atila the Honeybun), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 20:50 (9 years ago) Permalink

"pet sematary" was a piece of shit too but he loved it because it followed his (admittedly pretty good) novel almost to the letter.

One good scene (the funeral argument) does not a good book make! I found the whole thing boring and stupid.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 20:53 (9 years ago) Permalink

no one buries pets in a graveyard thats just stupid, mosta the time they are put into stew

― OldHickBill, Wednesday, 5 May 2004 20:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

Scatman Crothers!

― Hero Worship (Barima), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 21:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

I'm a Scatman bad a bid up a boo buddah, oh thats scatman john

― ScatmanJohnFanclub Hostess, Wednesday, 5 May 2004 21:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

i watched the movie and thought it was really bad as i was reading the book i got really scared! its so descriptive ...

― CAss (CAss), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 22:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

I liked how the book put you in the kid's head more than Kubrick's film, but the end was (in typical King fashion) pretty weak.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 22:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Made it through the first 1:50 before I started nodding off tonight.

Compared to the book, now, the only thing I miss is any sort of balance to Jack - even the minor moments of being a loving/caring human being. Everything else Kubrick changed or eliminated seem right on, though.

Seriously one of the most chilling movies right up through meeting Grady in the ballroom/bathroom - that kills all the momentum and drama (poss. I just know what's going to happen). The disassociation caused by the overacting music and framing create tension even in innocuous scenes, but it doesn't work when Kubrick tries to be more traditional, you just start noticing that Shelley Duvall has huge fucking eyes.

The naked black women in Scatman Crothers' bachelor pad are almost as great as the masked biker men in The Royal Tenenbaums.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Sunday, 9 May 2004 08:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

Didn't scare me the first time I saw it, but it gets worse and worse on every viewing, and last time I tried (couple of months ago, on a tuesday afternoon) I had to stop halfway through. For me, it's scary cos having somebody be angry with you is scary, and...Jack's angry with me.

And yeah, the aniaml-outfit-fellatio thing is really really freaky. In the book, it turns out the guy he's sucking off is the owner of the hotel. The owner of the hotel is called Horace Derwent. He's got the same (not particularly common) surname as me. So I shat myself when I read that.

― JimD (JimD), Sunday, 9 May 2004 10:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

"And yeah, the aniaml-outfit-fellatio thing is really really freaky. In the book, it turns out the guy he's sucking off is the owner of the hotel"

yeah, i think it actually works better in the movie because its so inexplicable.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 10 May 2004 00:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

"pet sematary" was a piece of shit too but he loved it because it followed his (admittedly pretty good) novel almost to the letter.
One good scene (the funeral argument) does not a good book make! I found the whole thing boring and stupid.

Well, I just disagree. I liked it because it was just a really creepy update of the monkey's paw. the parts with dead children and the nightime journey to the indian burial ground were really effective to me.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 10 May 2004 00:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

ANYWAY, miloauckerman OTM.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 10 May 2004 00:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

http://waxy.org/random/video/shining_redux.mov

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's really good.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 29 September 2005 16:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

I love the sounds in the shining.

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Thursday, 29 September 2005 16:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

thanks madchen, made my day :)

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 29 September 2005 17:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Stet deserves the credit, really.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 18:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, he didn't make the thing, but he sent it to me.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 18:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

:-)

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 29 September 2005 18:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

that is fucking funny... it'd be even better with a better VO guy.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 September 2005 18:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

"In a world of terror...isn't it nice to know that family still matters?"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 29 September 2005 18:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

the editing is fucking great!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Solsbury Hill" -- even better.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

as is the music.

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

right, xpost :)

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

when solsbury hill comes in, that's where it really takes off

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

who did this? i'm going to try and sneak it into my friend's film festival this weekend if i can get permission!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

WHAT ABOUT PET SEMATARY 2 GUYS??

― Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

Here's what is known so far.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

Apparently it came from here : http://www.ps260.com/

Also, this made the rounds WAY fast... everyone's seen this today (not on ILX, I mean)

― Jimmy Mod Loves Alan Canseco (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 29 September 2005 19:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah, I was coming here to share it, and...well...

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Thursday, 29 September 2005 20:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Servers are getting totally slammed now. I just IM'ed a friend about it, and as I was typing to her she said "wow, another friend of mine just emailed me about that now!"

― Douglas (Douglas), Thursday, 29 September 2005 20:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I got another link to that site just before it first showed up on ilx.

― O'so Krispie (Ex Leon), Thursday, 29 September 2005 20:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

wow, this is really good. the only thing it needs is slightly better production on the voice and a title card listing all the credits

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 September 2005 05:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Full story now up, as drawn together from a number of sources. Links to other contest entries there too.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 3 October 2005 00:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

(The Titanic one is okay but the West Side Story one is great.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 3 October 2005 01:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

the west side story one is pretty good but the others don't match up IMO. (the west side story one suffers from added SFX which i think is a little unfair). & the titanic one doesn't make that much sense when all of the footage it uses is of people running for their lives in the original movie; there's no real difference in meaning.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 3 October 2005 02:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

the west side story one suffers from added SFX which i think is a little unfair

Yeah, but the end results!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 3 October 2005 03:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't think much of the other two, at all, but the shining one is v. v. v. clever

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 3 October 2005 03:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

the parent trap one!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 3 October 2005 03:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

Some more info:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/30/west_side_story_beco.html

http://www.boardsmag.com/articles/magazine/20050601/aice.html

http://www.aice.org/ ('Trailer Park' section)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 3 October 2005 19:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 734 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

how much will you pay me to either name the next aerosmith album that or to not do that

― not feeling those lighters (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 11 May 2013 21:09 (1 week ago) Permalink

haha I will contribute $50 towards that venture

― gr8080, Saturday, 11 May 2013 21:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

The Shilling

― i gave ten pounds and all i got was a lousy * (darraghmac), Saturday, 11 May 2013 21:17 (1 week ago) Permalink

Room 237 is quite something. I'd seen a Jay Weidner film/Q&A two summers ago, so I already knew about all that, but you can definitely become immersed in this film at a level apart from the theories themselves. Keeping the interviews in voiceover was a great decision, and I loved the incorporation of non-Shining clips (mostly but not all from Kubrick films); it sets out to be dreamlike, and I think it is. The impressive thing about the theories is how rarely I found myself thinking, "Oh, please" (the rare egregious example was Ullman's deus ex machina erection). The one I liked best was the idea of "pastness." Not saying I buy any of them, but the theorists pull you in. I also thought the backwards/forwards stuff was a trip--realizing you'd undoubtedly turn up the same amazing juxtapositions with any worthwhile film.

I've seen The Shining enough times by now that I don't think the film will necessarily get any better for me: I'll still love the same things, and still be less enthusiastic about others. But these people are impressive.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 03:58 (5 days ago) Permalink

the numerology one was my favorite! there were 6 cases of 7-up stacked up in the corridor! And that = 42!!!!

― You must be very cold in the sack. (sarahell), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:12 (5 days ago) Permalink

Did that make the film? (I drifted a couple of times.) I know there was 2 x 3 x 7 = 42.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:13 (5 days ago) Permalink

oh, i took a bathroom break in the middle (it was part of a double feature), it was an instance of 42 that I noticed, but maybe it didn't make the film?

― You must be very cold in the sack. (sarahell), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:15 (5 days ago) Permalink

I don't think it did, but that's good--they need to line you up for Room 237: The Next Generation.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:17 (5 days ago) Permalink

it's so interesting! i like that it shows how the film, for these people, works more like a mirror reflecting the viewer. you find out a lot more about the people than the movie

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:53 (5 days ago) Permalink

xxpost sarahell they do briefly show the stacks of 7-up when they cover some of the "42" theories/patterns

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 05:23 (5 days ago) Permalink

There is a brief homage in iron man 3 where tony fights an extremis warrior in a restaurant kitchen and we get a brief ide glance of a can of Calumet.

― UTW, USA, ILX LIFER (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 14:10 (5 days ago) Permalink

Found an online version of the original article Steadicam guru Garrett Brown wrote for American Cinematographer back in August of 1980, entitled 'The Steadicam & The Shining'

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/page2.htm

It's pretty great reading

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:22 (4 days ago) Permalink

oh that rules vg thanks.

Although Stanley knows an astonishing amount about an astonishing number of things, his grasp of antenna theory is weak. He is, however, a formidable opponent in an argument - with or without the facts - so some bizarre theorems were actually tested and a disturbing number of them actually worked. By switching to various antennas hidden behind the walls, we were finally able to provide Stanley with acceptable remote wireless video nearly anywhere within his sets. To annoy him we would indicate the forest of TV antennas aimed at the studio from suburban Borehamwood and imply that the TV signal was escaping the sound stage and being watched by a gaggle of "Monty Python" women every morning:
"Ooooh, poor Mr Brown!... That take seemed perfectly good to me!"
Somewhat later, our imitation ladies got even more sophisticated:
"Ooh, must be the 24mm Distagon!, see how it's vignetting in the viewfinder!"

― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:27 (4 days ago) Permalink

god i would kill for a 24mm distagon

― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:28 (4 days ago) Permalink

xpost yeah that cracked me up

and this:

Although he would admit that I could produce a printable take by any reasonable standard within the first few tries, Stanley would seldom respond with anything but derision until about take 14. He did not appear to be comfortable until we were well beyond take 20.

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:29 (4 days ago) Permalink

Now the entire contraption [used for the Big Wheel shot] got to be quite difficult on the high speed corners. Dennis had to enlist relays of runners to get us around the course. Finally we had an explosive tire blow-out and the chair "plummered in", barely avoiding a serious crash. Afterward we switched to solid tires and carried no more than two people.
Stanley contemplated this arrangement and decided that the chair should have a super-accurate speedometer, and while we're at it so should the Moviola dolly and the Elemack.

― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:38 (4 days ago) Permalink

lol I like this analogy: The only tricky aspect of shooting from the chair is that starts and stops tend to be dramatic. It is a little like carrying a full punch bowl in a decelerating rickshaw!

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:59 (4 days ago) Permalink

As Danny backs up stepping in his own footprints to fool Jack, I had to back up ahead of him also in bis footprints! To accomplish this I had to wear special stilts with Danny-shoes nailed to the bottom so I wouldn't make the footprints any bigger!

― 乒乓, Friday, 17 May 2013 00:13 (3 days ago) Permalink

I HAVE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THAT.

― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Friday, 17 May 2013 00:28 (3 days ago) Permalink

HOLY SHIT. DANNY-SHOES.

― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Friday, 17 May 2013 00:28 (3 days ago) Permalink

so awesome

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 17 May 2013 02:05 (3 days ago) Permalink

I watched that Viv Kubrick making-of documentary...I love seeing Kubrick decide to lie on his back under Nicholson for the kitchen show-down when he's shouting through the door at Duvall.

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 17 May 2013 02:06 (3 days ago) Permalink

Garret Brown's commentary on the blu-ray is a delight. Don't know if it's on previous DVD versions, but find a way to watch it if you can.

― Huston we got chicken lol (Phil D.), Friday, 17 May 2013 02:22 (3 days ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.