Talk:The Shining (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Additional Information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards.

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

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)

1 Fixes
2 Nonplussed
3 Vandalism
4 Differing from the novel?
5 Fair use rationale for Image:Dickhall2.JPG
6 Fair use rationale for Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG
7 Fair use rationale for Image:Wendyshining.jpg
8 Correction of contradictory statements
9 Production section
10 Hospital scene question
11 July 4th Ball, 1921 photo on the article
12 Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg
13 Fair use rationale for Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg
14 Plot tag
15 The 1997 TV miniseries: not a "remake"
16 Fritz Leiber

[edit] Fixes

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)

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)

[edit] Nonplussed

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?

[edit] Vandalism

"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)

Actually, no, this is completely true. Check it out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/awards

Razzie Awards

1981  Nominated Razzie Award Worst Actress
Shelley Duvall

Worst Director
Stanley Kubrick

They were completely wrong in nominating either Duvall or Kubrick, but hey, what can we do? (Ibaranoff24 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Differing from the novel?

Shouldn't there be an analyse-section here? Or, if the risk of POV-madness is too high, shouldn't there at least be a section regarding the difference between the film and the novel (both technical changes and the overall difference of ideas in the two stories)? By "ideas", I mean that Kubrick's film and King's novel are about two different things. Kubrick never intended to please King, or follow the ideas of the story in his book.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dickhall2.JPG

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jacklloyd2.JPG

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.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wendyshining.jpg

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.

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)

[edit] Correction of contradictory statements

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.

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)

[edit] Production section

I added a {{trivia}} 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)

[edit] Hospital scene question

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)

[edit] July 4th Ball, 1921 photo on the article

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

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.

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Overlook hotel 1.jpg

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The 1997 TV miniseries: not a "remake"

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)

[edit] Fritz Leiber

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)