Talk:The Shining (film)/Archive 2

message: Interesting to note that Scatman Crothers and Jack Nicholson were both in the movie: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Scatman played Orderly Turkle. Someone please add this to the article. I'm too lazy.
Missing Information
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" redirects here. There is no reference to the text anywhere on the page. What gives? 24.150.42.44 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

message: The plot that is listed here isn't at all the plot in the movie. It looks likes someone changed it completely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihateyourguts123 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: URGENT:

message: I found a few punctuation, technical, and continuity errors and decided to fix it up a bit in the plot section. Also, I noticed a major overuse of pronouns and previously indicated objects and events are also noticeably overstated throughout the plot section.  I, however, have not gone over all of the section and think that there is probably more that should be done. I figured these were minor enough changes, but if I am wrong sorry about that. --iF (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed up the plot section some more, there were some unnecessary and misplaced sentences, and more punctuation and technical errors.  I tried to make the flow of the section better but it is still in need of a lot of work. --iF (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixes

message: In the plot summary it says something about Jack being nonplussed when he sees the bartender, even calling him by his name, Lloyd... I think that the author of that thinks nonplussed means something else, because it means confused or bewildered, and addressing the bartender by his name doesn't sound like something a nonplussed person would do. Is there a better word we could use there?
: change it so the sentence is with the word nonchalantly, probably the word meant. 84.153.255.139 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonplussed

message: "Stanley kubrick was nominated for Razzie award as worst director for this movie."
I find it hard to believe that a movie from the 70s with such high regard and so many accolades as Kubrick's The Shining would receive a worst anything award, let alone a worst director award. Also seeing as the vandal didn't spell Kubrick with a capitol "k" I think it fair to assume that this is the work of a fiendish vandal. Please keep an eye out for these sorts of things on any page JayKeaton 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :Image:Dickhall2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dickhall2.JPG

message: :Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG

message: :Image:Wendyshining.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wendyshining.jpg

message: I changed the following passage:
At first, Jack seems to be enjoying the serenity of the hotel and the mountains, and mentions to Wendy that when he first arrived for his interview, he felt a sense of déjà vu. But soon afterwards, Jack's mental health deteriorates rapidly once the family is alone in the hotel. Winter weather arrives in the mountains, and Jack slowly begins breaking down. 
to
At first, Jack seems to be enjoying the serenity of the hotel and the mountains, and mentions to Wendy that when he first arrived for his interview, he felt a sense of déjà vu. But soon afterwards, Jack's mental health deteriorates rapidly once the family is alone in the hotel. Winter weather arrives in the mountains, and Jack begins breaking down. 
Jack cannot exhibit rapidly deteriorating mental health and slowly be breaking down.  After watching the movie, where the events occur over a period measured in days, it seems as though the breakdown is indeed rapid.  I removed the word "slowly" from the final sentence to keep the tone in line. Jamesfett 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction of contradictory statements

message: I added a  tag to this section, but it was removed. I would suggest putting one there because it fits exactly. According to Wikipedia:Trivia sections a trivia section is just a list of miscellaneous facts, which is what that Production section is.--Msl5046 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production section 

message: The cut hospital scene, is that available on the DVD? I've never seen it, only heard about it. Ebert's review makes reference to it, about how Ullman said the body was never found. That part of his review doesn't make sense if you've seen the 143-minute version as opposed to the 146-minute one. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospital scene question 

message: The words "wish you were here" were added into the photo by a fan. That's not the original image that appears in the film. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 4th Ball, 1921 photo on the article 

message: :Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

message: :Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg

message: I do not think that the long-plot tag is justified. This movie is over two hours long and the plot is complex. The interactions between the three family members if complex and they each have important scenes. The film has several iconic scenes that should be set up and justified. As it stands, there is no easy way to simplify the plot without having to drop the mentioning of important scenes.--Veritysense (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. You are right. In fact, I was thinking just the same, as this movie is developed at the hotel and all what occurs during more than 2 hours and 20 minutes is almost impossible to make its plot any shorter. There's a lot of things that cannot be taken off of the plot, because they reflect the meaning of the film.
If you ask me, I think the plot of the film is much better than it was some time ago, and we should keep it like that, just the way it is. I just finished reading it and it really sounds nice no matter how long it is. So, please, DO NOT make changes to make it a short plot. If anyone does that, this article will get a whole lot worse...
I also think we shoul remove the note, or tag that says that the section is too long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.54.76 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note this is not a fansite. Wikipedia has guidelines for editing its pages. In this instance see WP:FilmPlot. This plot is excessively long for an encyclopedia. Thus the tag should remain. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess this is much more important that all those articles on Chinese train stations that no one reads, and again, let me repeat what was said here: there is no way you can both make the plot shorter and keep the true meaning of the film. I mean, it is a long movie; the longest movies today feature a maximum of two hours or so, this movie was appx. 2 hours, 30 min. and there's a lot of things going on which compose this movie. It's like a puzzle, if you miss a piece, no matter how small that piece is, it's not gonna make sense, so I vote to remove the tag.--Pgecaj (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let me express my opinion on this debate too. Peronally, I think that the importance of this horror movie cannot be denied: it's by far one of the most classic ones not only of its time but of all time, so that said, it is reasonable that the plot of The Shining should be longer than those plots of average movies. Besides, it's not really that long. My vote goes to the removal of the tag.--96.239.4.18 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Plot section is indeed long (over 1400 words - guidelines state no longer than 900), it is not helped by a short lead-in and poor Cast section straight after. The Production and Response sections should come straight after the Plot. I think this would also help balance the weight of the Plot section. -- Nreive (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag on the plot summary as most reviewers think that for this movie in particular the slight extra-long plot is reasonable, and also more votes (including mine) are in favor of it.
Unfortuantely, wikipedia is not a democracy and this tag is properly placed due to the plot not meeting the Manual of Style requirements for a plot summary. A much larger consensus would need to be reached at the wikipedia film projects page before any final removal could occur. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: To quote the guidelines, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." (emphasis mine). There seem to be two main opinions here, those that say the plot is complex and should be left alone, and those that say it violates the guidelines. In other words, no one is arguing that the plot is not, in fact, complex. It seems that this addendum to the guidelines was made specifically for exceptions such as this movie. Removing tag. Kryten107 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having noticed that the Manual of Style is also involved in this debate, I'll leave the removal of the tag to someone else, but my point still stands. Kryten107 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot tag 

message: There was one sentence in this article which read:  "King finally supervised a television remake of The Shining in 1997, which received lukewarm reviews."
It wasn't a remake of Kubrick's film.  It was a more faithful adaptation of King's original novel than Kubrick's film was.
I've changed the sentence to read:  "King finally supervised a television adaptation of his original novel in 1997, which received lukewarm reviews."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.205.134 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1997 TV miniseries: not a "remake" 

message: Does anybody know where I can find Fritz Leiber's excellent review of Kubrick's version of The Shining?  I know it was available online at one point, but now I can't find it.  Minaker (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fritz Leiber 

message: In order to make the scene when Wendy sees that Jack has simply written the same sentence over and over work in other languages, Kubrick had other versions made and filmed as inserts that could then be spliced into the prints for that particular language. Here is a source for that:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/07/13/sv_stanleykubrickprops.xml
24.24.244.132 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Production note/foreign language pages

message: "Jack's relationship with his family is altered drastically in the film. Both Wendy and Danny love him and are loved genuinely in return, but they both seem meek and flat characters in the film; her husband is frequently abusive in one way or another, but Jack often swings back the other way to calm Wendy and assure her that he loves her. Danny would find comfort with Jack that he wouldn't find with his mother. In the film, they seem consistently wounded and Wendy comes off as ignorant instead of a woman trying to keep her marriage together but considers divorce an option if things get too bad."
Parts of this sound a lot like personal opinion, rather than factual differences between the book and the movie. --Deuxsonic (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to consider what MOS:FILM#Adaptations says: "Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged."  Take a look at Fight Club (film)#Writing to see how this can be done.  The large majority of adaptations of source material will have differences for conventional and creative reasons, but it's not the editors' job to cherry-pick what they think is the most important differences, hence the need for reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Commentaries would definitely be helpful in writing such a section.  It sounds like the mini-series DVD commentary is useful, so you could cite that.  It helps because it's a source independent of the editors that's noting the differences, so we editors don't have to assume what differences are worth noting, since some adaptations can have a ton of changes.  It would be great if you could replace the existing section with such cited material!  To cite the commentary, you could either use  or write out the reference in detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences section issue 

message: I moved the Ebert quote down the page to the Alternate Versions section, since that is what he is commenting on. It was quite confusing in its pervious location, since the reader doesn't yet know what was removed that is being commented on, or whether that represents a change from the book or an earilier version of the film.
Stevecudmore (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved Ebert quote

message: I just completely rewrote the plot synopsis, but regret I was unable to make it notably shorter. However, the existing synopsis seemed to not catch the overall arc of events and often focused on moderately unnecessary details (albeit memorable scenes), while omitting other details that seemed significant.
Broadly speaking, it seems that a plot synopsis should not be a "string of memorable moments" or an anthology/montage of "great scenes", but give a sense of the overall arc, flow, and structure of the story. I felt the prior summary played too much like a YouTube tribute.
;Also redid intro summary
I also rewrote the intro summary in order to clarify a few points that were vague. (The hotel isn't just secluded. It's snowbound in the winter.) I also clarified the supernatural aspects.
WickerGuy (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-did plot synopsis from top to bottom 

message: Today I removed the No Original Research tag from the "differences between book and film" section, and it was put back by
User:Arichnad (sic- not Arachnid). Reviewing the policies of Wikipedia more carefully than I had previously, I see that Wikipedia puts a high premium on the use of secondary sources in order to avoid violation of the NOR policy. After putting a lot of citations in the "Differences" section, I see that my citations are about 40% secondary sources and about 60% primary sources (i.e. the text of Stephen King's novel). (Novels are absolutely considered primary sources by Wikipedia.) The official policy of Wikipedia is
To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
* [1a]only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, [1b]the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
* [2] make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
(Numbers inserted by me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources)
In the middle third (see below), I've probably strayed in the area of "analytic, synthetic...explanatory or evaluative claims" about info in the primary source, though the policy is a tad qualified by later stating
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
I do think that all the claims made in the "differences" section as it stands would be non-controversial and universally agreed upon by all King fans (fulfilling condition 1b) but they do indeed go beyond "descriptive". Some of my points about Ullmann and Wendy Torrance are discussed very briefly in the DVD commentary to the mini-series remake, but I fleshed these points out and went beyond their assertions. However, in order to fully establish my points, it is clear that I will have to dig up some kind of semi-scholarly discussion of the book/film differences in a film journal of some kind such as "Jump Cut".
As it stands, I would say the early parts in the "Differences" section about the motivation of the main character (Jack Torrance) are OK, since this has been heavily discussed by Stephen King on multiple occasions in print. The problematic part is that middle section that deals with character motivation of the supporting characters as this veers into "explanatory...claims" about info in the primary source (see paragraph above about DVD of mini-series). Finally, from the point where the hedge maze is discussed to the end, I think this section is on firm ground re wikipedia guidelines as from hereon the discussion becomes purely descriptive rather than interpretive, which is considered by wikipedia to be an OK use of primary source material.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources)
Agree? Disagree? Please feel free to chime in.
--WickerGuy (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my sign name is arichnad (sic).  "in the film he mainly finds her concerns irritating and hysterical.An example is the way he echoes back her line 'I think we should take Danny to a doctor'"  Forget primary vs. secondary.  According to 1b, we might (hypothetically) be able to use "he echoes back her line 'I think we should take Danny to a doctor'" and translate that to "he finds her concerns irritating" but according to the synthetic rule you quoted and "synthesis of published material" we cannot.   "I fleshed these points out and went beyond their assertions" yeah that's the definition of original research.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Regardless . . . we shouldn't be interpreting or synthesizing on our own.  In other words, it really doesn't matter if it's interpretive or synthetic or whatever as long as it's one of the above:  as long as it's original thought, it doesn't matter.  Here we can't come to our own conclusions, we can't do our own interpretation.  We can't point to the book as evidence when making an interpretation.  We can only point to conclusions and interpretations and research done by reliable sources.  See my reply below, I think we're going in the right direction and I think things are going well.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I think you're definitely going in the right direction.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences Section Redux 

message: More than any other Kubrick movie, there seems to be a strong temptation on the part of many editors to put into the plot synopsis scenes that are very strikingly memorable (one might say iconic) that nonetheless contribute only minimally to the arc of the story structure and mechanics of how the plot is put together. No matter how peachy-keen and nifty and awesome, etc. etc. does the plot synopsis really need every small detail of the bathtub scene? It may be debatable how much we need a scene-by-scene synopsis- but we certainly don't need a frame-by-frame synopsis of any scene no matter how astonishing its artistic impact is. At least that's my opinion. And to discuss within the plot synopsis how a certain scene illustrates the genius of Kubrick's directing technique is certainly the wrong place in Wikipedia to do so.
;Suggested fix
Start a new section of this article called Memorable scenes
--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Plot Synopses- Probably not a repository for memorable scenes 

message: A modest amount of work went into taking a lengthy list-oriented pop culture section of this article and transforming it into a short, manageable section retaining only the most memorable and significant instances of the impact of this film on pop culture, and putting into paragraph format with organizing ideas instead of the form of a scattered bullet-point list. As such, its recent deletion seems overzealous to me.
The user who deleted it has an agenda here which isn't necessarily totally wrong as both trivia and lists are discourage by WP. She or he made a total 85 edits of which 19 (almost one out of four) are removals of trivia or popular culture sections in their entirety, one of which was reverted by Cluebot as vandalism. Some of these which are mere lists, (s)he tags as "original research" [(s)he does not use the acronym "OR"] which seems to me to be a somewhat novel use of the charge. Several of these are in science articles, such as the influence of string theory or quantum gravity on pop culture. Arguably , this might seem a tad frivolous in a science article, but when applied judiciously to an article on movies with brevity and with organization, it seems a little more relevant.
Agree or disagree?
--WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The In popular culture section of the article is very restrained and to-the-point, and doesn't in any way spoil the rest of the text or make Wikipedia a very bad place. The two attempts ( & ) at deletion were very silly. Naturally, that's just my opinion, though I'm right. -- DropShadow (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short and Managable culture-impact section vs. scattered lengthy list 

message: Ok fine. but you have to admit the guy's quite unsettling when you think about it. 92.14.239.107 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between you and I is that I had a fairly reliable recollection of what community consensus among students of King was, but only committed the WP faux pas of posting before I could back it up, and eventually got my citations together. What you posted on Ullmann was a strong POV violation.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Ullman's nature 

message: Ekwos has been useful in his zeal in improving the the "Popular Culture" section of this article. When he zapped it, I realized it needed to be sourced. When he tagged it some weeks later, I removed a couple of items, and provided considerably better prose context to three more.
(Also, thank you very much to MarnetteD for zapping the ridiculous tricycle video business from this section. I was very busy with term papers and finals when that was added. I briefly glanced at it and meant to return to it, and I failed to note it claimed the the tricycle scene was at the beginning of this film, though I did see it was poorly written.)
However, it must be noted that in certain contexts WP allows lists that are short and add meaning to the article. WP policy states in Wikipedia:Trivia_sections#Not_all_list_sections_are_trivia_sections "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." (emphasis added). 
Ekwos seems to be on a mission to remove trivia and "in popular culture" sections everywhere, as this accounts for an overwhelming majority of his edits (over a very diverse range of articles) since he joined in late October 2008 just two months ago. I am grateful that (s?)he forced me to rethink and rework this section, so everything helps. But a little less overkill (such as tagging the film's soundtrack listing as trivia) might help as well.
An unofficial unratified Wikiproject for preserving well-written, well-contextualized, and well-researched "popular culture" sections of articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture. My attempting to add better and fuller commentary to the material in this section followed by the removal of the tag is in the spirit of this project.
--WickerGuy (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP cautiously allows lists in certain contexts. 

message: Although it is difficult to explain the reasons for it in the context for this article (though I'm thinking about it), the race of Dick Hallorann is significant given its overall place in the novels of Stephen King. King repeatedly (The Shining, The Stand, The Green Mile) has African-Americans with supernatural psychic abilities who as such act as saviors to other figures in the story consistently implying that African-Americans are usually in closer touch with the supernatural than the more mundane-minded Caucasians. This novel may seem an exception given that Danny Torrance also has the "shining" ability, but he's taught about it by Dick who has it run in his family. In fact, Stephen King's 2008 novel Duma Key was considered noteworthy for having King's very very first NON-magical African-American character. 
This recurring motif in Stephen King has caused some controversy. Is he replacing old negative stereotypes with new positive stereotypes that are just as inauthentic? There's an extensive bulletin board discussion about it online that runs many pages. One poster defending King writes 
"Moreover, I'd like to suggest that these white writers are motivated not just by a sense of their own culture's inadequacy as a source of magic, but equally importantly by the sense of minority culture's having preserved a greater link to their cultural traditions, even if these are ones fabricated through a romanticized white imagination. Moreover, to liberal whites, minority figures become especially desirable as morally privileged figures because of their people's historical victimization."
See http://www.strangehorizons.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=articles&Number=868&page=0&fpart=2
Like it or not, it's a recurring motif in Stephen King. As such it is significant for purposes of an encyclopedia that Dick Hallorann is African-American, although a fuller discussion would be more appropriate to the article on the novel of The Shining.
Please cease and desist from removing references to Dick Halloran's race to the plot summary to this article. If you do, please defend your decision here.
--WickerGuy (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Mentioning Race of Hallorann 

message: The production section is simply a glorified list of trivia points (some of which aren't strictly related to the production phase of the movie). It need to be fixed up. I'll do it myself in a short while if no one else has any plans to tackle it. Bertaut (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: I just watched what I believed to be the original 1980 version (running 144 minutes); however, reading this article I see that includes a hospital scene featuring dialogue between Wendy and Mr. Ullmann? I'm a little confused as to which version I saw, because the run-time of the version I just finished watching was in fact about 144 minutes (without credits). I watched it online here:
http://static.youku.com/v1.0.0002/v/swf/qplayer.swf?VideoIDS=XMjYwMDc0MjA&embedid=-&showAd=0
Someone also noted that the European version did not include the extra scene, but that version only runs for 119 minutes. What it comes down to is that I'd like to see this hospital scene. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it! Also, what makes up for that 25 minute difference if it's not the hospital scene?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.160.197 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions 

message: I've changed the references to the Grady girls as being twins. Though they were dressed the same, they were not in fact twins, nor were they supposed to be. Ullman even says as much during the interview: "My predecessor in this job, hired a man named Charles Grady as the winter caretaker. And he came up here with his wife and two little girls, I think about eight and ten." ArakunemTalk 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So they were. I always thought one was shorter but that could be perspective, or just fraternal twins. Interesting that no RS's have mentioned the apparent discontinuity with using twins when they were specifically mentioned as not twins earlier. Though apparently Kubrick took inspiration from a famous photo by Diane Arbus... not sure if that bears mentioning here or not (if I can find a source for it) as it is somewhat peripheral, bordering on the dreaded Trivia... ArakunemTalk 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what an RS is- some think Kubrick was inspired by one of his own photoes from the 1950s. When I have a bit more time, I may post the URL here, but am in a bit of a hurry right now.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RS=Reliable Source. Seeing as several have pointed out other seeming discrepancies in the film (Charles vs Delbert), I wonder why none have mentioned the Not-twins-played-by-twins. Just ruminating out loud I guess. :) ArakunemTalk 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Two things.  First: "Delbert" might be a middle name or alias assumed for transparent, yet obfuscatory purposes, and/or to disguise embarrassment, simply because Grady is guilty of murder; Secondly: the "twins" can represent: the "two" Gradys (gentleman and murderer), the "two" Jacks (free will and fate), Father and Son (words and visions), the internal and the external (psychotic and supernatural).  At least that's my takeaway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.227.21 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Twins" were not 

message: I'd love to know what exactly was that wonderfully foreboding music during the titles at the beginning of the movie when the car was shown travelling along a winding road in stunning countryside?
:It's one of the few original compositions for the film by Wendy Carlos, but draws heavily on Berlioz's "The Damnation of Faust"--WickerGuy (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WickerGuy's answer is correct but it should be noted that the song is also using elements from Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique particularly his adaptation of the Dies Irae which runs through various sections of the work. Please note that new items go at the bottom of talk pages and please sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~.  MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I might be confused. Both pieces of music by Berlioz involve a trip to the infernal regions of hell. It might be only Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique or it might be both Sf and "The Damnation of Faust"--WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dies Irae is in fact an old motif in Western music, originally written by Thomas of Celano back in the 1200s and traditionally used in Roman Catholic ceremony where it is commonly associated with apocalypse and death. Berlioz and many other later composers quote from it, but in fact it originates from Medieval Catholic liturgy. --79.193.44.129 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re music

message: "The shining" was referenced in "Knocked up" specifically in a conversation. Would anyone like to add this to the "In popular culture" section? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture - "knocked up" 

message: Intro: "...not initially successful..." "performed moderately at the box office."
Reception: "...did very well commercially..." "...made Warner Brothers a profit."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbr2000 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: I can't remember the title, but I specifically remember hearing a song on the radio that sampled the first conversation between Jack & Lloyd
does anyone know the name of this song?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.133 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture -- Music 

message: The material about Stephen King gaining inspiration from the Stanley Hotel is true, but is contextless, tieing in to nothing that comes before or after it, and properly belongs to a discussion of the book, not a discussion of the film. Also, I can find no source verifying that Stanley was a replacement for the Shawnee--WickerGuy (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the introduction to the book, King specifically states that the Overlook is entirely from his imagination, though this doesn't stop the Stanley Hotel from marketing Suite 217 as "The Stephen King Suite". Mr Larrington (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect saying that in the book per se is simply a required legal disclaimer. An opening note in the novel Primary Colors by Joe Klein says "this is a work of fiction and the usual rules apply. None of these characters is real", but everyone knows the character of Jack Stanton is a thinly-disguised Bill Clinton. A similar disclaimer appears in the front of John Ehrlichman's The Company, although everyone knows the fictional president of the US in that novel is a standin for Richard Nixon. King saying this in the intro to the book itself really doesn't seem to me to amount to much. It's to ward off lawsuits.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting last deletion for different reasons 

message: Just wondering if there should be more mention of Halloran's death in the film under differences from the book. I'd say this is a fairly significant difference since in the movie it is one of the biggest uses of Danny's powers- to summon Dick- and yet very little comes to it, Dick being killed before he can lend much help. (Parodied in the Simpsons). Before reading the book it puzzled me that such a big deal was made of Danny's powers and Halloran's presence while they ultimately turned out to be of little impact. Obviously, in the book, Halloran doesn't die but actually manages to help save Wendy and Danny. Personally I'd say it's worth mentioning, but I don't want to go and edit it out of the blue. 129.215.5.127 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloran's Death? 

message: The sentence "Many have speculated on whether there were really were ghosts in the film and Kubrick's smart use of mirrors" in teh section Ghosts and Mirrors must be changed. The first half contains twice the verb "were". The second half is in contrast to the first half and personally I think it's kind of difficult to comprehend its sense. Suggestion: "Many have speculated on whether there were really ghosts in the film and also on Kubrick's smart use of mirrors". White rotten rabbit (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have planned since Wed to rewrite this section today. Thanks much for the suggestions.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts and Mirrors 

message: I question any and all claims that Jack Nicholson's line "Here's Johnny!" is unique to this film.  Ed McMahon used a more drawn-out but similar-sounding version ("Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny!") in the opening of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson from its very first episode in 1962.  Though I don't have any references, I'm almost certain Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" line was copied from McMahon's introduction of Carson, which was heard on television in the U.S. and many other countries five nights a week for 18 years before this movie was made (and 12 years afterwards).  --RBBrittain (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord. There should be no controversy here. When the film first came out, everyone understood it to be a direct reference to The Tonight Show. However, after Carson left the show in the early 90s, and The Shining gained in popularity, more and more of the younger generation knew the line only with reference to The Shining. Does this article actually claim this is unique to The Shining? Perhaps a clarification of the source of the line is in order.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Here's Johnny!" really unique to this film? 

message: Throughout this article there is much mention about the changes in opinion of The Shining and how a movie that was once panned is now considered a "classic". Yet in the "reception" portion of this article we see a brief paragraph about the movie's general reception before it segues into an article bu Johnathan Romney which is focused far less on the reception of the film, the quality of the film, or even the details of the film itself, instead analyzing the film via personal opinion attempting to explain the film with supposition, theory, conjecture, and more of those personal opinions. While it may be proper to quote Romney's article in some form, I find the use in this article misplaced, and I find the reception portion to be quite biased as it focuses exclusively on the reasons why people supposedly like the movie, most of said reasons involving some form of "analyzing" of the film, and offering nothing by way of negative criticism even though such criticisms were mentioned earlier in the article. Smokachu (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Romney's article in part is cited to explain the shift in opinion from unfavorable to favorable and an attempt to analyze why when viewed superficially it is a mundane film, but when more attention is paid to the film, more is revealed. This shift is basically the issue in all three of the critics mentioned, Stephen King, Roger Ebert, and Romney. Your assertion it focuses exclusively on the reasons why people supposedly like the movie, most of said reasons involving some form of "analyzing" of the film, and offering nothing by way of negative criticism even though such criticisms were mentioned earlier in the article  is I think not really true. Key elements of the Romney article quoted here are "At first sight this is an extremely simple, even static film." followed later by "But look beyond the simplicity and the Overlook reveals itself as a palace of paradox....". Actually, this article fails to quote Romney's statement At the time of the film's release many critics were unim­pressed by this schema - Kubrick had put so much effort into his film, building vast sets at Elstree, mak­ing a 17-week shoot stretch to 46, and what was the result? A silly scare story - something that, it was remarked at the time, Roger Corman could have turned around in a fortnight. Maybe that quote needs to be here to justify using Romney in this section, but it was hoped that the context of using Romney was already clear. Perhaps it needs more clarification, with that quote added and other Romney quotes trimmed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I did not add this film to the category of surrealist films, but am defending it on this grounds.
All of the following sources see some elements of surrealism in a strict formal sense in Kubrick's work. About half these books are studies of surrealism, not studies of Kubrick.
Kubrick was indeed influenced by the strictly surrealist work of film makers like Luis Bunuel. However, most tellingly the painter Salvador Dali late in life cited Kubrick as an influence on him. Finally, Kubrick himself in an interview stated
"I have always enjoyed dealing with a slightly surrealistic situation and presenting it in a realistic manner. I've always liked fairy tales and myths, magical stories. I think they are somehow closer to the sense of reality one feels today than the equally stylized "realistic" story in which a great deal of selectivity and omission has to occur in order to preserve its "realist" style."
Quoted in Kubrick : Inside a Film Artist's Maze (2000) by Thomas Allen Nelson, p.14
It's true SK is not as radically surrealistic in the sense that Frank Zappa's 200 Motels or various David Lynch films are, but certainly the elements are there.
Books linking Stanley Kubrick with surrealism in a formal sense include
Surrealism and cinema
By Michael Richardson
Stanley Kubrick: essays on his films and legacy
By Gary Don Rhodes
Dali, Surrealism and Cinema
By Elliott H. King (best source in this list re Kubrick and surrealism)
Stanley Kubrick and the art of adaptation: three novels, three films
By Greg Jenkins
Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick
By Mario Falsetto
Stanley Kubrick: a narrative and stylistic analysis
By Mario Falsetto
The philosophy of Stanley Kubrick
By Jerold J. Abrams
Kubrick, inside a film artist's maze
By Thomas Allen Nelson
Hidden minds: a history of the unconscious
By Frank Tallis
--WickerGuy (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this film surrealist? Sort of. At least a descendant of surrealism. 

message: To supplement my edit summary of my removal of content. Jack's battle with alcohol is first mentioned (obliquely) when he tells Ullman that he doesn't drink. This is then shown to be somewhat dissembling when Wendy talks with the Doctor about how he hurt Danny while drunk. These two scenes occur within the first 15 minutes of the film. I don't have the book at hand but I think this means that it could be argued that his drinking is mentioned earlier in the film then the book. I think it could be said that the emphasis on his drinking problems is different from the book as the novel does go into them in more detail but that is, at least in part, down to the storytelling differences between novels and film (and between King and Kubrick come to that). Other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally inclined to agree. It would be more correct to say JT's alcoholism is more understated in the film and brought to the foreground in the novel. The book opens with Ullmann's interview with Jack and Ullmann confronts Jack very forcefully about his drinking. Later while Ullmann shows him around (on the same visit) Jack has an internal monologue about how badly he needed a drink "or a thousand". Later early passages describe JT's drinking binges. But you are right it is mentioned obliquely quite early in the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply and the alteration on the main page. I knew that you would be on top of it and come up with something that would fit the needs of the article. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack's alcoholism mentions

message: The article states that "There is a question of whether or not there are ghosts in the film", citing that in all of Jack's suppposed intereactions with ghosts, there's a mirror or a reflective surface present. For myself, I don't see how there could be any confusion about this-- if there are no ghosts, then who let Jack out of the storeroom that Wendy locked him in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.64.51 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. The confusion only exists up to that point.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To twist everything into a materialistic interpretation, is available. Jack repeatedly wiggled the door, or jammed a wire through to move the bolt, or something. Real, active, supernatural ghosts are not required. 75.87.138.107 (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts vs. no ghosts 

message: The main page is listed in the hidden category of articles with flagged weasel words. How do you get rid of that?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref #88 contains the "which?" tag, which is used here to ask for clarification as to what episode of the series the ref is referring to, but clicking on the linked word "which" takes you to the weasel words descriptors, so that is the cuplrit. See Template:Which?. That tag is likely not needed here, as the ref does state which episode, so the tag isn't being used as intended (to challenge "many people say" type of statements...) ArakunemTalk 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of hidden category- How??? 

message: Just so there will not continue to be misunderstanding of miscommunication, I am posting the entire quote here:
:Film critic Jonathan Romney, while acknowledging the absorption theory, wrote "As the ghostly butler Grady (Philip Stone) tells him during their chilling confrontation in the men's toilet, 'You're the caretaker, sir. You've always been the caretaker.' Perhaps in some earlier incarnation Jack really was around in 1921, and it's his present-day self that is the shadow, the phantom photographic copy. But if his picture has been there all along, why has no one noticed it? After all, it's right at the centre of the central picture on the wall, and the Torrances have had a painfully drawn-out winter of mind-numbing leisure in which to inspect every corner of the place. Is it just that, like Poe's purloined letter, the thing in plain sight is the last thing you see? When you do see it, the effect is so unsettling because you realise the unthinkable was there under your nose – overlooked – the whole time."
This is a rather long quotation, certainly, but quotation it is.  And that means it should not be altered, unless the intention is to shorten and paraphrase it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting a new job has made me a bit careless on WP. I thought you were talking about a quote from the dialogue of the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit difficult to tell when I first looked at it, because it is a rather long quote.  We might be better served by setting it off in a blockquote, so that there are not any further problems.  Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photograph 

message: This entire subsection is too speculative and reads like some editor's thoughts/opinions about the film.  Furthermore, neither of the refs meet the standards for reliability.  As such, it should go. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 110% right about the first source and I think at least 99% right about the second one. The first source has a general reputation for making wildly speculative and bizarre interpretations of Kubrick's films to the point of being parodied on the web. The fact that Ager may have a legitimate point here is not good enough for him to be included. The same observation that Jack is frequently talking to a mirror when speaking to a ghost is made in the book "Hollywood's Stephen King" by Tony Magistrale which IS reliable (pp.94-95). I suggest rewriting & shortening the section to focus on Magistrale. I can do it in the next 24 hours. If you want to provisionally delete the section as it stands, feel free.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: (PS I realize WP accepts published PhD theses and Master's theses, but probably not undergrad papers (since they don't have to pass a committee)- Too bad, there is an entire such paper online dealing entirely with this topic which is pretty good.)--WickerGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you have a good source, I see no reason to delete the section, but the two self-published sources are not adequate.  I will leave it be for now and trust to your subsequent edits. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts/cabin fever 

message: The mention of The Shining getting nominated for a Razzie has been in the article for months and months, was recently deleted, then restored, then deleted again with the query "are we suddenly legitimating the razzies"?
Since the Razzie award is covered routinely by the BBC and CNN and is voted on by a somewhat large international committee which includes both film critics and (anonymous) Hollywood celebrities, and a few celebrities have even showed up to accept the award (notably Halle Berry who gave a hilarious parody of her Oscar acceptance speech a few years earlier), it seems to me to be more WP:Notable than say "Golden Turkey" which is just the opinion of Michael and Harry Medved.
However, it might be worth adding to the article that The Shining got its nomination the very first year of the Razzie's existence when the ceremony had no coverage and only a tiny handful of malcontents were voting on the awards and the ceremony was in one person's living room long before the voting ballooned to an international committee that included reputable film critics and (anonymous) Hollywood celebrities. This should either be mentioned or cited as a reason for not including this in WP.
I DO think the mention of the Razzies should be excised from the Stanley Kubrick article, but should be retained here. I don't really have a good reason for saying this- it's frankly just gut intuition.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake I was editing just before going to sleep (crankily at that) and when I woke up I new that I had made an error in removing this info. They are fun and not just a worst of list. Thanks for taking the time to reply and fix the mention on the article main page. Normal editing will resume shortly. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you editing crankily or going to sleep crankily or both? :) --WickerGuy (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly both and that is the worst. Today is much nicer and the smile in your message helps even more. Many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Razzies 

message: In Stephen King's book Danse Macabre (1981), a nonfiction survey of the horror genre from 1950 to 1980, King offers an appendix dealing with films from that period (beginning on pg. 415 of the paperback version). In the introduction to this appendix King states, "All of [the films] seem to be particularly interesting in one way or another; if I may say so without sounding like an Academy Awards presenter, all of them have contributed something of value to the genre. You will find my own personal favorites marked with an asterisk." 
When one reaches The Shining on the alphabetical list, you find that it is marked with an asterisk (ie. one of King's personal favorite horror films of the 1950-1980 era). Very strange, in light of his alleged response to the film in this article. 174.101.90.51 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that King progressively soured over time to the Kubrick film. However, his progressive negative reaction is very well documented (and cited in this article), and certainly formed the basis for his wanting to do the TV remake in the '90s. Stanley Kubrick returned the film rights to Steven King (who supervised the TV mini-series remake) expressly on the condition that he refrain from future public comment on the Kubrick film, and much of King's feelings about the film are discussed on the DVD audio commentary of the TV mini-series remake (the audio commentary being made after Kubrick's death, I guess it was felt the contract no longer applied.)--WickerGuy (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, point well taken. I've looked at some of the citations and you are indeed correct. Still, should it's inclusion in King's list in Danse Macabre also be included in the article?174.101.90.51 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important point in dealing with King's response to the film 

message: Stephen King's comments about the film are well known, however what did Kubrick think about these comments? I can't find a word about this on the internet. Or did he just not care at all? Laurent (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As with discussion of so many of Kubrick's films, he appears to have been largely silent.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kubrick's reaction to Stephen King's comments?

message: this may have been brought up already, but re nicholson imrovising this line, in his '04 playboy interview he says, "With 'Here's Johnny', I was so anti-television at that point I didn't even know where the line came from. Stanley Kubrick had to explain that it was a line from a TV show."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.182.54 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'here's johnny' 

message: This article is a disaster.  Someone else edit for a while.  Blake Burba (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess