Talk:The Shining (film)

Regarding Recently Reverted bad Edit

Adolf Hitler became chair of the Nazi party on July 28, 1921, not July 4,1921.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, to be fair the IP editor just named the commonality of the year, not the exact date, but this only belongs if it's one of the connections noticed by Geoffrey Cocks in his book Wolf at the Door (with citation), not if it's just an editor's observation.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Blake Burba (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cocks thinks the number is significant for a different reason, recurring uses of the number 7 or multiples of 7 echoing the pattern of Thomas Mann's novel The Magic Mountain (also in an isolated snowbound hotel) of the number 7 and multiples of 7.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for Mentioning Race of Hallorann

Copied from 2009 talk page discussion (now in archive), since once again editors are trying to remove mention of his race from article.

Although it is difficult to explain the reasons for it in the context for this article 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. (NEW: This is a dramatic device sometimes referred to perjoratively as the magic Negro. )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)

Also since many people think Kubrick has incorporated an indirect theme of Native American genocide into his film and Kubrick has Hallorann killed (not in the book) this also makes Hallorann's race relevant from the point of view of the film. --WickerGuy (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Hallorann is a character in a second King novel "It" in which he is both an activist for African-Americans, a victim of racism, and uses his "shining" power to thwart a racist-motivated attack. Yet another reason for mentioning his race, although I realize this topic is more or less already settled.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Recopied here from archive.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is "more or less already settled." What I see both here and in the archives is one editor working real hard to convince himself that it's worth including. Where is the discussion? This isn't the Wiki for the book. In the movie, his race has no significance whatsoever. It has no place in the plot summary. If critics have discussed the ugly "magic negro" stereotype then it's worth including there. I am editing this out. Ninestraycats (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's true the case was made entirely by me (in the archives many months and moons ago- above is merely sum of earlier discussion), but three other editors agreed, although you have a point it might be better discussed in the "reception"/"criticism" section. Probably more discussion of this with respect to the novel than film.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At least change the footnote that calls him African. Unless I missed something, the man's clearly American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninestraycats (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this information is relevant and noting the race of the character is valid, but the text in the reference doesn't necessarily verify that the character is African-American. The information in the reference is related more to the character and his significance within the plot. Should this information and supporting citation be moved to the Cast, Cast notes or Production section instead? AldezD (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the claim that "the text in the reference doesn't necessarily verify that the character is African-American." Are you saying that that's what a ref should focus on, not be focused on that it's relevant to mention?--WickerGuy (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If the character's race is so relevant to the character, that should be explained in the body of the article, not in a reference that is only viewed when following the ref link or in hidden text when attempting to edit the article. AldezD (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

YOu have definitely made your case!! I can't work on the article till late tonight, but if you don't get to it by then, then I'll have a go.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot description erroneous

I'm a newbie here, but I've just watched the film and I have not seen a single 'visiting doctor' as mentioned in "Jack's wife, Wendy (Shelley Duvall), tells a visiting doctor that Danny has an imaginary friend called Tony and that Jack has given up drinking because he had hurt Danny's arm after a binge." There is no such scene in the movie, and I couldn't find any reference to this on the web other than this wikipedia article.--badman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.239.122 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The scene with the doctor occurs before they go to the hotel, very early in the film. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to RJ's description the following scenes are intercut with Jack's being interviewed about becoming the caretaker. Danny has been talking to Tony while looking in the bathroom mirror. Danny then sees has a vision of blood pouring into the hallway of the hotel and faints (although his falling to the floor is not shown onscreen) then we see a nervous Wendy smoking while she describes Danny symptoms - and what brought the family to Colorado - to the Doctor who is played by Anne Jackson. Since you are from the UK you probably have the DVD of the shortened version as mentioned here [1], thus, you will be missing other scenes from early in the film. Your best bet will be to find a friend with a region free DVD player and see the region 1 DVD or to search the net and see if you can find a site where you can stream the full length version. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good observation, Marnette! I had not thought about the user having seen only the shortened version. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I was typing the above memories of the shortened Euro version started rattling in my head. The IP would have found several mentions of them on the web (including at IMDb) if they had continued hunting. It is a little chilling to think of having to watch this film without those scenes. MarnetteD | Talk 04:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The pattern is that all the cut scenes take place in the outside world whether it is the visiting doctor or Hallorann's trip back to the Overlook. Jack's job interview is also slightly curtailed in the shorter version. The cut of the doctor seems odder to me because it omits the introduction of "Tony". In the shorter version, Tony would be introduced in Danny's conversation with Hallorann re "Why don't you want to talk about it?" "Tony told me not to". Wonder if it's worth putting some kind of note at the top of the Plot section of this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article has a section that pretty well covers the situation here The Shining (film)#Cast notes and it is also mentioned briefly here The Shining (film)#Post-release edit and European version so I'm not sure that we need to go over it again. If the question comes up again we can just point readers to those two sections. Of course, that is just one editors opinion and other thoughts are welcome. The info in the post-release section does raise a question. Does the footage of Ullman talking to Wendy and Danny still exist? It hasn't shown up on any DVD release that I am aware of. I've seen some still pictures of the pie throwing scene from Dr Strangelove but I can't remember seeing any of this cut scene. MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Followup. I did not see that some editing about this had already occurred when I made my earlier post. I would just add that I think that it is a given that plot sections here at WikiP are based on the fullest version of the film. Shortened (or Directors cut lengthened versions for that matter) are usually mentioned in their own section later in the article. If this specific question were raised often and over a period of time we might consider changing this but I don't see that situation at this time. Again other input is welcome and thanks to all for their time and efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of various film articles I have looked at the only one that has a brief note mentioning multiple versions at the head of specifically the "Plot" section is Blade Runner. The existence of multiple versions is noted the lede of Dune (film). Longer versions are discussed in the article's "release" section only of Dances with Wolves. The Fellowship of the Ring (film), Terminator 2.

However, The Shining is very unusual in that the two versions both saw widespread theatrical release at more or less the same time, and the availability of diverse versions was based on geographical region rather than release medium such as home video or broadcast TV, and/or having the alternate version released years later! The longer version of Fellowship has been shown twice in theatres, having played for one week only 2 years after initial release and for one day only 10 years after initial release. Alternate versions of Blade Runner were also released to theatres, both well over a decade after the initial release of the film, and all theatrical releases were to all markets- a time-difference rather than a geographic region difference. Longer versions of Wolves and Dune and Terminator 2 were seen on broadcast TV and home video only, and again all versions were released in all markets.

Similar to The Shining is Gandhi which had a shorter version released in India only due to the potential offensiveness of one scene. This is not even mentioned on Wikipedia, and I haven't a clue to what the home video situation there is.

At any rate, I thinking of putting the note back, but placing it in the lede rather than the Plot section.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting it in the lede makes sense though we might wait a day or stwo to see if anyone else responds. Do you have any info about the existence of the cut segment from the end of the film? MarnetteD | Talk 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops I see the edit has already occurred - that is what I get for reading my watchlist from the bottom up. Others are still welcome to chime in though. MarnetteD | Talk 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no info about the cut segment, but think it highly likely that all copies are gone, given SK's modus operandi, unless some enterprising projectionist saved a copy, a la the film Cinema Paradiso.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Or maybe they are in a different salt mine in Kansas from the one where footage from 2001 was found :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You will want to see [2] Contains viewer recollections from alt.kubrick.net

Many thanks for tracking this down and sharing it with us. The memories shared are a wonderful study in the nature of that human phenomena. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on Last Wednesday's Nonsense

The biz someone tried to add last Wed (2dae is Sat) about Slim Pickens being offered the role of Dick Hallorann in The Shining was actually in the WP article on Slim Pickens for six freaking years utterly uncited, and has been repeated all over the web as a consequence. When I realized this, I posted on the poster's talk-page (after posting the usual template against disruptive editing) an acknowledgement that the edit had probably been made by him in good faith, and posted a modest reprimand on the Talk page of Slim Pickens asking how such stuff could remain uncited and unchallenged for six years, although someone on the Talk page had already challenged it (without receiving a reply) in May 2006. (See Talk:Slim_Pickens#The_Shining).--WickerGuy (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Note/query on the Budget

OK, Imdb says the budget for this film is about 22 million, while Box Office Mojo says 19mil. Any reason to prefer one over the other? Wouldn't want to put conflicting info in infobox- would look sloppy. Any thoughts?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As per dozens (or at least 10s) of conversations at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film talk page IMDb is a form of a wiki with anyone submitting info and little fact checking by the people that then add them to the article. On a side note they don't always correct there mistakes. I have submitted, at least four times over the years, the fact that Barry Jackson is one of the 2nds at the last duel in Barry Lyndon and is never seen in a British soldiers uniform yet they have failed to change that - I should add that this is in contrast to my submission to them about Harry Towb's role - which they did change - when I finally spotted him after about 25 years of trying to find where he is in the film :-). As to BOM I am pretty sure that most of the discussions have come down on their side as a sourced - especially in relation to IMDb. But, in case I am in error, you might post your question on the filmprojects talk page - or at least post a link to this conversation there and see what other responses you get. MarnetteD | Talk 22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BOM is reliable as it isn't user edited and The Numbers backs up the BOM figure here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, just on the subject of Imdb, they were reasonably quick just this past Christmas vacation in merging three different Chris Harveys all into the same person, as well as giving him one credit falsely attributed to a fourth Chris Harvey. You can see the corrected bio here [3]. You will note that Chris Harvey(IX) and (XII) are no longer in the system although higher Roman numerals are. He's my younger brother, so I'm in a position to know. All the credits except "Molecules to the max" were distributed among three Chris Harveys (with no additional credits), and "Molecules..." was wrongly attributed to Chris Harvey(X) who really DID work on Watchmen and Tree of Life, which my bro did not.

However, four years ago I submitted he was the nephew of C. Mason Harvey and Lois Chartrand (both of whom have Imdb pages- no one else with those name) and those have never gone in.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Typically we don't use IMDB to source anything. There are differing views on that, but usually most people are ok with Box Office Mojo. The thing with budgets is that they don't get released so pretty much every budget amount is either an estimate or leaked information, apart from the odd case where the studio releases the information. Budget information conflicts more than any other information on the film articles so we typically do a range i.e. $100–120 million when we can't pin it down exactly. In this instance though I'd go with BOM over IMDB because in all likelihood the IMDB estimate was submitted by a user rather than put on there by the studio. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen King bio says 19 mil: [4]. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cocks section

I understand that the book by Cocks has some relevance, but I don't see how it warrants an entire section, particularly given the extraordinary tenuousness of the argument. I only make this comment because the rest of the article is so nicely balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.211.169 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tricky point, but it's mainly IMO a question of the degree of exposure (not agreement) the argument has received and reputation of Cocks outside of this re Wikipedia guidelines (which I/we might be misinterpreting). Unlike some other bizarre theorists about The Shining, Cocks has published with a reputable academic publishing company, and other literature on Kubrick has at least taken him seriously enough to mention him (even only to debunk). Even Kubrick's co-screenwriter, Diane Johnson, has mentioned Cocks, and has said SK might have been thinking along this lines perhaps subconciously but she's not aware of it.

Not sure Cocks is any more tenuous that Rob Blakemore, who also has a section.

Consider by contrast the recently release documentary Room 237 whose director was NOT bound by any WP guidelines. He discusses a wide range of theories about The Shining including both Cocks and also the most utterly bizarre and crackpot theories by Jay Weidner -Shining is an allegory of Kubrick's breakdown while faking the Apollo moonlanding. That theory IS discussed on WP....in the article on moonlanding conspiracy theories, but not here!!! WP guidelines would ban it regarding WP:FRINGE.

But we might want to tighten and shorten Cocks. Still thinking....--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sequel

Somebody made a sequel called Redrum: The Shining II. It is a video game, not a movie. You can look it up, but I just think there should be something about it on this article.--173.21.2.193 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably in the article about the novel, not here, unless the likeness of the actors in the movie are used.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, uses imagery from the movie, but it appears to be unauthorized non-profit "fan fiction". As such, it would only merit mention in the section "Parodies and homages" and we would need to establish significance from a secondary source.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture

The popular culture section is a bloody mess. Many of the examples given are trivial and poorly referenced --- by my count, probably 1/3 of the references are not reliable or notable enough to support the assertions being made, and some of them are nothing more than opinions. In addition to that, the section is poorly laid-out and formatted, making it very difficult to edit. I think this could be culled down to about half its current size if someone wants to help me with the pruning shears. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like me to take a hatchet to it. Doniago (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have at it! Anything that is questionable can be discussed here, but the vague and unreferenced cruft should go. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a style section WP:In popular culture which should be adhered to fairly rigorously. If some references are similar, there might be a case for grouping them. The comparable section in the article on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) follows the WP guidelines far more strictly than this one and could be a model for what this one ought to look like. (But in some cases see if there are better refs than the one's used. Personally, I would really like to keep the Kate Bush ref).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure

I did a lot on both of these sections, but I was far far greener and inexperienced when working on this section that when I worked on the pop culture section of Odyssey. I almost feel about my work on the pop culture section here the way Kubrick did about his first film Fear and Desire which he kept away from the public most of his life. So yes, chop away.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I ended up using more of a scalpel than a hatchet as it turned out. Still,  Done? Doniago (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You did a great job, Doniago. I removed a couple more items, one of which was sourced with a blog, and a couple "references" that seemed to be nothing more than editor's opinions, and did some additional cleanup and reorganization. I think it's  Done. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot differences - new/old mixup?

In the section "Plot differences" we currently have: "In the novel, Jack's final act is to enable Wendy and Danny to escape the hotel before it explodes due to a defective boiler, killing him. The destruction of the Overlook hotel from fire caused by an exploding boiler,[102] is also new; the film ends with the hotel still standing."

"also new" does not make sense, because the book came before the film - or does this mean something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an error to me. In the book the boiler explodes; in the (later) film, it does not. Doniago (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

REDRUM

Reinstituted a change first suggested here. At least in Helvetica and Times, ᗡ - taken from this Unicode block - bears a far greater resemblance to a backwards D than does the majuscule latin alpha, Ɑ. If the former looks worse than the latter in some other common font, please let me know here. Otherwise, I think it's a justifiable change.

Of course, I think REDRUM/MURDER (+ footnote) would do the job just as well, without the need for exotic characters. But that's another discussion. --121.222.249.84 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and primary sources

I tagged the article as using primary sources and doing original research (WP:OR). There is a fair amount of material that cites "see Chapter 55" and the like. That's only permitted when using the novel for a quote to illustrate something, not for verifying a fact stated in the article.

@MarnetteD: you removed the primary source tag. Your rationale is that the article is well-sourced with secondary sources as required and does not need the primary source tagging. However, I assert that this is not so -- since there are many statements that are only verifiable to primary sources (at least as attributed), those statements -- and there are many! -- cause the need for the primary source tagging. Dovid (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what a PS is. For one thing there is no way to talk about a film without referring to it. I would suggest that you ask for input from the film project before proceeding further. MarnetteD | Talk 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if Dovid is talking about the section on the differences between the novel and the book. As there was recently published a thorough and deep account of this on Salon.com by Laura Miller, it might be possible then to easily rework the section with little or no loss of content by using that article.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Your analysis and communication skills are commendable. Dovid (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. D initially tagged the whole article as OR and PS so it was difficult to interpret which section is being referred to. The followup edit is here [5] and it tagged several different sections. Perhaps D can give us more clarifications as to the items in question. As ever WG your efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the tag to the "Differences" section. All of his disputed citations are there. Almost all are direct citations from the novel.

In one case, I sighted he tagged my cite from Geoffrey Cocks, surely a mistaken oversight re his concerns about my overcites on this site. I will "overlook" this. Although it may sometimes seem otherwise, I have in fact not always been the caretaker here.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now partially corrected the problems. There are still a few pieces of stray novel-film differences credited only to the novel. The fact that Jack returns to sanity in the novel is absolutely essential knowledge and MUST stay irregardless. The reasons for Wendy feeling bonded to Jack in the novel and the final revelation of Danny's middle name in the novel are not nearly as essential.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for typewriter authenticity?

The typewriter shown in the image differs in numerous respects from the one shown in the movie. What's the evidence that the image shows the original movie prop, and not just a specimen of the same model? 217.226.74.200 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Jack's character use several different typewriters? This wasn't part of the plot, it was probably a mistake (or, as some argue, something deliberate Kubrick did to try and mess with us, like those guest room doors to nowhere just off the Colorado Room). The 33-minute behind-the-scenes movie Vivian Kubrick made during filming shows Stanley working on a typewriter in the hotel's kitchen. There were a number of machines around the set. --RThompson82 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The 2 minutes cut after premier

Does anyone know if a search for the footage has ever been made? According to the article, the footage went back to the studio. I have a hard time believing it would have been destroyed, though. Still images, probably taking at the time the footage was shot, exist on the web. http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting/shining/hospital.html Has anything ever been published on its fate? --RThompson82 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New Genre

The New genre supernatural was used because demons appeared, there were pop ups but ghosts possess just in case, the film was creepy and it was a great '80s movie since the '70s popular culture based on the 1949 case, The Exorcist (film). What it appears to be that ghosts were especially haunting the hotel, Supernatural is all about ghosts, fantasy, science, spirits, demons, and haunting. That's it, because Supernatural needs to be the new genre in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk • contribs)

Have reliable sources generally referred to it as a supernatural film? We go by what they say, not by our own observations. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

untitled

@MarnetteD: I really don't understand what the problem is with this edit. You say that it removes Rob Ager but it's right there, after the first ref. ("Rob Ager is another proponent of this theory.") Wired is a reliable source for this kind of stuff. And if you think this content doesn't belong here because it's just speculation, then why not remove the sentences about "spatial discrepancies" entirely? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Production time

We could add the actual production time to the article. The principal photography was originally slated to be 17 weeks, and in the end it turned out to be almost a year. So when was it shot? In 1978? 1979? That's what I think should go in the Production section, to illustrate how long the production actually took. --80.187.100.241 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Torrance article

The article Daniel Torrance, a character in this work, was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be seen here. Editors watching this page are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

There was an episode of South Park that used many plot elements from the film as well as some of its iconic shots, this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.6 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fringe interpretations and fan analysis

A section on the differences from the book seems inevitable based on how much discussion there's been. However, WP:FILMDIFF instructs us to write it with a real-world emphasis. I think too much of the section is about listing minor plot changes, even if they are often sourced. Instead, I think we should streamline them down so that the focus is on why Kubrick made the changes. Some of the fringe interpretations could probably be pruned or at least streamlined. I know that they've gotten some press, especially since the release of Room 237, but I think we're giving way too much prominence to them. However, I'm reluctant to go through the article and strip out sourced content just because I think it's trivial and undue. So, what do others think? And, also, how is "the Kubrick FAQ" a reliable source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the post NRP. Differences are so often WP:OR. I think you a right that they should focus on the why. In the case of this film I've read (in more than one place) the hedge maze replaced the topiary as SK felt the technology of the time was not up to making the hedge animals believable. As to the fringe interpretation the thing that seems to get put to one side is the need for "significant coverage in secondary sources" aspect of info in articles. If X {and only X) says this is a theory about an item in the film then it probably should be removed. If X says this is a theory and Y, Z and A comment on it then it has a place in the article. I wouldn't object to you culling items that you find "undue" from the article. If objections arise they can always be discussed on this talk page and a consensus can be reached regarding them. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is tougher than I initially thought. Nelson's book, Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze, was academically published and may in fact be notable enough for its own article. I was drawn to his interpretation that various numbers add up to 237 or whatever. OK, so what? But this specific interpretation was one of the things that inspired the documentary Room 237. I don't know. What I'm thinking is that we could say that Nelson discusses how the various numbers in The Shining are interrelated without going into the depth of reproducing his mathematical formulas, then say this partially inspired Room 237. The formulas themselves seems like overly-intricate trivia of interest only to Kubrick scholars. I'm still looking at some of the other stuff, but this is the sort of streamlining that I have in mind. It's tough to say what's undue and what's not when you're dealing with something that's obsessively analyzed. I'll see what else I find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope you are having at least a little fun with this research NinjaRobotPirate. I wonder if there should be a separate article like "Theories about Kubrick's films" or some such title. The article could be linked to from each individual films article. I'd be interested what Erik thinks. You could also get positive/negative feedback from the filmproject. If the idea doesn't grab you then no worries. MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. It's certainly got support through Nelson's book, and it would allow us to merge some of these more esoteric theories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure what to recommend here. I'm definitely not an expert on dealing with academic coverage. I put together Interpretations of Fight Club, a sub-article of the film's article, but never really completed it. (There are dozens upon dozens of similar sources that I never got around to using.) I don't know if a single Kubrick-theories article would suffice for all of his films. There could be an interpretations sub-article for The Shining, which means interpretations that are too detailed in the film article may fit in the sub-article. Some content may be too indiscriminate regardless, so maybe there are other ways to find which interpretations have due weight (e.g., have been mentioned by an independent party). This is stuff that requires heavy research, though, which is why I never really shaped that Fight Club sub-article into what I wanted it to be. Not sure if that helps; still having my coffee this morning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply Erik. I hope the coffee is delicious - wait wasn't there a theory about the coffee drunk on the way to the Tycho crater in 2001? :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have Nelson's book sitting in front of me. It only has 268 pages. So the citation of pp. 325-326 for all the numerology related to the number 237 can't be right. Perhaps it is a typo, and is meant to refer to pp. 225-226? Those pages are indeed about The Shining. But I can't find the numerology there. I've superficially paged through the section and haven't seen it anywhere else. I did a google books search for the number 237 in the book and it did not identify any passages referring to the sum of its digits or any of the rest of the numerology. Typometer (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's odd. Other sources reference the analysis, like the one I linked above. I don't own Nelson's book, and I don't remember if I accessed it while I was looking into this. I had something like 20 web pages bookmarked in my browser before I realized it was going to take weeks, if not months, of work. I may come back to it some day, but it's too much work for now. If someone else wanted to go through with it, though, there's a Featured article in there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a "New and Expanded Edition" (see back cover) with a page 325. This is for notes and trivia on p. 226. The text might be too close. They didn't include "(partially facetious)". I fixed the reference. Did not see the anything about the product of 2,3,7 is 42, but the preview missed the next page. StrayBolt (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Straybolt has found some of the same info that I did - thanks for your research S) Okay NinjaRobotPirate and Typometer it looks like there have been two editions of the book. The first published in 1982 shows 288 pages. Then the "New expanded edition" was published in 2000 at 352 pages. Goodreads shows that it at 333 pages as does google books. I suspect that the variation in the numbers might be based on some sites counting only the pages that are part of the main text and others including pages (including blank ones) from cover to cover. Typometer please check and see which edition you have as that will be a help. IMO the entry was based on the 2000 edition and we can trust the reference as it is presented. Erik if you would like to check on this that would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

After looking at Straybolt's link maybe it is possible that the exact info is not as solid. I look forward to seeing what the rest of you think about this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the false alarm, and thanks for the prompt replies. My library does not have the New and Expanded Edition. I recently added a note to 237, by the way, which is why I was checking up on sources. All because the George Eastman House recently screened a brand new 35mm print – terrifying! Typometer (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries Typometer. These things happen :-) The interwebs sure make it easy to check on things like this. I'm glad you got to see the new print. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fringe definition: "an ornamental border of threads left loose or formed into tassels or twists". Having a few threads is fine and if people want to follow them off/over the edge, that is where they wanted to go. Since that section is about the difference in the Room Number, I want to cut it down to focus on that. StrayBolt (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Should this be added to section 9.1?

Jack is seen wearing red white a blue in every scene of the film, and Wendy wears clothes with native American prints or earth tones. This further justifies the claims that the movie is an allegory for the American destruction of the Indian people, however I just don't know if its vital information, or how to properly cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.239.175.250 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a published source making that claim, then you can share the source here and it could be added. However, if this is just something you have personally noticed, then it would be original research and we couldn't really include it. Also its importance would also hinge on how important the source thinks it is; if it's the center of their argument that hasn't been already mentioned, then yes. Opencooper (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of sources for themes in this film, and one idea we floated was to break out the themes into its own article, as you can see above. I was going to work on this, but I got distracted by other stuff. Google Books has a lot of excerpts, and you can get access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. One thing I've learned after doing a bit of research on this film is that anything that can be analyzed has been analyzed, so it's mostly a matter of locating the proper sources. I would not be too surprised if someone had written about the significance of the colors used in this film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Shining (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QSnEvFKT to http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QSnEvFKT to http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Source for release dates

I can find no source in the article for the release dates in the infobox. I just reverted a change to the UK release date because no explanation or source was given for the change, but the date as is is also unsourced. What is the basis for these dates? IMDb and RT differ on the US release date, so which source is to be believed? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For the US release, the American Film Institute says May 23: link. For the UK release, the British Board of Film Classification says September 21: link (click on "feature" under "related work"). However, I'm not 100% sure of this because it might just be the date the film was rated, not the date it was released. I'll see if I can find a better source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NRP. This isn't the first time I've seen a release date changed, without explanation, and then noticed that the original date had no source. But, release dates are rarely ever sourced in infoboxes. There has to be a guideline about this, right? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, infobox vandalism in film articles seems to be growing in popularity. WP:INFOBOXREF already says they need to be properly sourced, but sometimes I think MOS:FILM should be modified to repeat this explicitly. I'm still not sure about that BBFC date, and the UK release date is very difficult to find. I bet there's a date hidden somewhere on the BFI website, but I can't find it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

UK release date

Re this edit: Derek Malcolm's review of the film in The Guardian is dated 2 October 1980 [6] so this may be where the date came from. IMDb gives the UK release date as 2 October 1980 in London and 5 October 1980 in the UK [7] so I'm inclined to believe the reverted edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ianmacm. Thanks for your post. This editor has made date changes before but does not provide a reference. Is there a chance that you can find a source other then IMDb since they can't be used. If so please feel free to add that as a ref and edit to match it. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Derek Malcolm's review implies that the film was released in October 1980, not November. IMDb isn't an ideal source but it is usually reliable on these things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In a bit of WP:OR on my part 2 October was a Thursday and the 5th was a Monday. Does that make sense for a nationwide release of a film? especially one made Stanley? I am just curious if you have any insight into this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's likely that the London screening was limited and designed to get a review into the newspapers. It may not have been the national release date, as IMDb implies. Unfortunately, there isn't much online apart from the Guardian review and IMDb, but they both suggest that the film was released in the UK in October 1980. I'm not sure where the infobox date of 7 November 1980 comes from either, it is completely unsourced. The US release date of 23 May 1980 is pretty much certain.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Followup: I've been trying to access UK newspaper archives of Oct 1980 but not getting anywhere. If anyone knows how to get at them it may answer this question to everyone's satisfaction. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I know the US one is right as I was in the theater that day watching it :-) Based on your info how does changing the date to Oct 1980 and leaving the day blank until we can get a WP:RS sound? If that is okay with you please feel free to make the edit. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On the basis of the current evidence, I'm fairly sure that the UK release was in October 1980. The Guardian wouldn't have printed a review of the film over a month in advance, and it ties in with the date given by IMDb. Janet Maslin's NYT review ties in with the release, and Derek Malcolm's probably does too. I thought about emailing the British Film Institute but they might not be able to help and someone might say that it was WP:OR-ish. However, I would be comfortable with October 1980 in the infobox, as it is a better bet than the completely unsourced 7 November 1980.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me ianmacm. Seeing as how you have done the bulk of the work I think you should do the honours and make the edit. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done The template wouldn't let me say just "October 1980" so I've used the date of Derek Malcolm's review.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor who kept changing the UK release date to 2 October 1980. I own an original newspaper advertisement for the film (I'm unable to scan the image) that states 'From Thursday October 2nd at Warner West End cinema and from Sunday October 5th all over London and at selected cinemas across the country'. The unsourced November 7th 1980 release date was made up by someone on IMDB a few years ago.Brianp95 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps you could take a photo of this cutting, upload it to imgur.com or similar, and post the link here. Regardless, it confirms that the film was released in the UK in October 1980, which seems far more likely to be correct than November 1980.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Here it is http://imgur.com/wnJU3Yu Brianp95 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I taped an episode of the BBC One show 'Film 80 with Barry Norman' which aired on Monday September 29 where he reviews the Shining and states "opens Thursday in London's West End." Brianp95 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Monday September 29 1980 Brianp95 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have newspaper advertisements for many other films at the time and I'm willing to upload any others to confirm UK release dates for other films if you want Brianp95 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you must have a very good collection, and I hope that nobody says that it is WP:PRIMARY, WP:ORIGINAL etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Referencial In-Joke or Coincidence?

In a few shots taking place in the food storage room - dry goods , not the freezer - we see quite prominently cans of "TANG". This item was an American made , powdered drink mix , that purportedly was what U.S. astronauts drank. It's flavor was "orange". Possible reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey" & "A Clockwork Orange" ?

( Also notable , on the shelf below , cans of "Calumet" baking powder , who's logo , is a Native American Indian chief. )

75.104.163.77 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks wildly speculative and is WP:OR anyway. One of the few scenes in a Kubrick film which does refer clearly to another Kubrick film is the record shop scene in A Clockwork Orange where there is a reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There are others ianmacm like "Ludivico technique" in CO and a painting by "Ludovico Corda" in BL. The question always is whether SK was doing this deliberately or if it is a coincidence. SK fans (of which I am one) love this stuff, but, as you rightly say without WP:RSs to back it up it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many theories (e.g. Room 237) but I recalled a crew member saying something about Kubrick only specified wanting colorful items for the pantry. I think anything beyond that is conjecture. It's nothing "obvious" like CRM-114. StrayBolt (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that Leon Vitali said that many of the theories in Room 237 are nonsense. For example, the average Earth/Moon distance is more like 238,000-239,000 miles, so the 237 moon distance theory is weak. In the book of The Shining it is Room 217, and it has been said that Kubrick just liked 237 for some obscure reason. And of course, Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke both denied that the origin of HAL 9000's name was "going one better than IBM" and said that it was just a coincidence.----♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RT score and older films

My understanding is that the Filmproject is generally opposed to the use of RT scores for older films like this because those scores tend to be weighted toward recent reviews rather than reviews that were contemporary with the release of the film. Am I incorrect about this? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I'm not a great fan of Rotten Tomatoes as a source, and prefer to stick to quotes from named critics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct TheOldJacobite as is your removal of the info. MarnetteD|Talk 18:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are probably better analyses than Rotten Tomatoes available for a Stanley Kubrick film. RT is messy, includes a lot of self-published bloggers, and doesn't separate theatrical reviews from modern ones, making it very awkward to use on older films. That said, I think it could be used if this is highlighted with a disclaimer, like, "Rotten Tomatoes, which includes a mix of contemporary and modern reviews, rated it X% ...". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at Cabaret (1972 film) and removed the RT analysis there based in part on this discussion, but am a little concerned because the RT discussion did say "The film currently (emphasis mine) holds..." Is the consensus, then, that even if it's clear the RT score is current that it still is best not being included? Perhaps this should be incorporated into the MoS if it's not already there? DonIago (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving this conversation to the filmproject talk page to get consensus on adding Doniago's suggestion, MarnetteD|Talk 14:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is probably not the best source for reviews, but the fact is that it has been accepted as pretty much universal all over film articles in Wikipedia. I fail to see why we should dismiss them for "older films" (older than what, btw?). Especially with the modern cornucopia of media access, new generations of viewers are routinely re-discovering classic films, and their judgment should be no more and no less valued than comments from older viewers. The new perspective on an older film often enriches the depth of analysis and criticism: Kubrick movies in particular have often had their later commentaries shift public perception compared with their contemporary acceptance. In The Shining's case, RT's consensus summary was neither brilliant nor off-base, and I didn't see a reason to delete it. Agree with other commenters that we probably need a wider discussion at the film project. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else comfortable opening the wider discussion? As I could see it getting escalated to RfC level, I'd really prefer not to be the initiator myself, but I'll do it if nobody else is comfortable making the first move. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

plot synopsis gives away too much info

I feel that the relatively large plot synopsis at the top of this article gives away too much about the film and goes beyond what a plot synopsis is designed to do.

I recommend changing it to something like:

"The Shining is about Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), an aspiring writer, who accepts a position as the off-season caretaker of the isolated historic Overlook Hotel in the Colorado Rockies. Wintering over with Jack is his wife Wendy Torrance (Shelley Duvall) and young son Danny Torrance (Danny Lloyd). The hotel had a previous winter caretaker who went crazy and killed his wife, two daughters and then himself. After a winter storm leaves the Torrances snowbound, the family begin to feel the affects of isolation."

giving away Jack's alcoholism and sanity, Danny's "shining" powers, possible supernatural forces in the hotel and that Jack threatens his family, is way too much.

ask yourself this: if your friend had never seen the film before, would you read them that synopsis?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.245.4 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The guideline here is WP:PLOTSUM, which says that plot summaries should not be too long or detailed. It doesn't say "don't include spoilers" or similar. In this respect, the summary of the film isn't unusual. See also WP:SPOILER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I could see it a little shorter since it is in the lead, but I think it is generally okay. I don't like spoilers, in spite of what a scientific study says (warning: contains spoilers). The text of this was copied by me from the novel's lead and adjusted by several editors. This brief summary has less than most movie previews: 1980 trailer, TV opening teaser, 2016 trailer. That's why I don't watch trailers for movies I plan to see. Probably more people know Here's Johnny meme from The Shining scene than watched the movie or heard Ed McMahon say it for almost 30 years on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. I think they would suspect Jack has issues. Also, WP:PLOTSUM is an essay, not a guideline and doesn't specifically say anything about spoilers in the lead. The lead shouldn't end up telling this version. StrayBolt (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone likes spoilers or not; Wikipedia does not censor spoilers. If we censored spoilers, we wouldn't be able to write an encyclopedia topic about any fictional work. We explicitly spell out spoilers pretty regularly in leads, such as Darth Vader, which says he's Anakin Skywalker in the first few words. If you don't want to read any spoilers, don't read an encyclopedia article about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The biggest controversy on Wikipedia is over Agatha Christie's play The Mousetrap, where the article reveals the whodunit. In The Shining, there aren't any great secrets to reveal; it's a haunted house movie with two people stuck in an abandoned hotel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE references

Re this edit: As I said, we are not compiling a list of every obscure and passing reference to the film elsewhere, even it can be sourced. WP:POPCULTURE says "these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format" which is pretty much what is happening here. The "KDK-12" instance is a good example which also has WP:TOPIC issues. This edit has been reverted by two different editors, so there is a need to explain why it is so important, when it is largely listing something that would be more on topic in another article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Those Breaking Bad examples are pretty vague. Even with Vince Gilligan saying he was influenced by Kubrick, the examples are all about similarities, like Walt's arc being similar to Jack's or the Salamanca twins being similar to the Grady twins, etc. I don't think it's needed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also WP:IPCV (well, okay, that's a sub-section), which stipulates that pop culture references need third-party sourcing to establish that they are considered significant in some manner. Or as I like to put it, the source needs to establish not just that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The entire section is now bogged down with non-notable references which aren't really necessary or desirable. It doesn't help if people say "Hey, we must have obscure and trivial reference x just because I can find a source somewhere." If this entire section went, it wouldn't be doing the article a great disservice. See this cartoon. It's remarkably like the way this article's "In popular culture" section is going. Add a section of this kind, and you can guarantee that people will add trivial examples.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The section does need to be rewritten, but I think Gilligan's influence by Kubrick should be included. I did not add the initial connection, but was trying to address each of the undoers by adding content. The "KDK-12" is a sign saying, "This is related to The Shining, not just coincidentally similar." The more I looked, the more there was about The Shining and Kubrick's influence in Gilligan's work. The guidance from WP:POPCULTURE is about influence on notable works, not just mentions. Maybe the section could be reduced/organized to 4 paragraphs: Plot copies, "Here's Johnny", the Grady sisters, and everything else. StrayBolt (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Still, seems a shame there's not a single mention of Edgar Wright's rather blatant and popular homage to the creepy daughters of Delbert Grady in his BAFTA-nominated sitcom Spaced. https://youtube.com/Nsrrq74zmpQ?t=35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories

I think several changes need to be made. Someone suggested Category:Films about alcoholism and that seems valid. While not as strong as King's story, it still exists in the film. Many refer to Jack as a "recovering alcoholic", including this article. Here is an essay which brings up other points about alcoholism in the movie. Category:Films shot in California should be removed unless someone knows what was shot. Category:Familicide in fiction should be added and maybe replace Category:Uxoricide in fiction and Category:Filicide in fiction. Should Category:Patricide_in_fiction] be added? Did Danny kill his father?

Adding "The Kill (Bury Me)" music video to "In popular culture" section

@Ianmacm: The music video The Kill probably has the best reason for inclusion, it literally won an award for being "inspired by" The Shining. It won the 2006 Fuse Fangoria Chainsaw Award for Best Video Inspired by a Movie. It also won the MTV2 award. You reverted the edit citing the essay WP:POPCULTURE which has 4 questions for appropriateness in WP:IPCEXAMPLES of which all are "yes". I'm not sure how you are applying WP:TOPIC. Was it lacking of detail in the prose or needing a more direct link to the video section of the song or the linking to the band or something else? Should I add back the text for the Chainsaw award? For each revert, I tried to address the prior revert and add more info to the article. Have you watched the video? StrayBolt (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The main concern is that the article is acquiring a list of "In popular culture" references which aren't adding significantly to a reader's understanding of the film, like this one. The entire section has been tagged for some time because it contains this type of material. It is more on topic in The Kill and doesn't have to be mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So it would be better to aid the understanding by adding something more, like "Inspired by themes of isolation and insanity present" and/or "The idea of isolation, identity, and self discovery were all elements present in the song."[10] That helps point out the psychological aspects of the film. Much better than another "Here's Johnny!" StrayBolt (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture was split off into a separate article, and it might be time to do this here. Long lists of "in popular culture" references are only tangentially related to the film itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a sequel

The upcoming adaptation of King's novel Doctor_Sleep_(novel)#Film_adaptation is not a sequel to Kubrick's film. It is it's own production entirely separate from this film. It is okay to mention it in the "see also" section but IMO it does not merit a separate section due to WP:UNDUE concerns. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's rather like The Amityville Horror (franchise) which consists of loosely related media. Kubrick is dead and his surviving production staff will not have anything to do with the new film.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus against moving the page. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The Shining (film) → The Shining – The film regularly gets between 15k and 5k page views and sometimes more than 20k while the book gets between 1-1.5k, clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over any other topic named The Shining. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not really going by the page views here, but the disambig is reasonable because the film started life as a novel by Stephen King which is notable in its own right. It's also worth noting the article titles The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and Gone with the Wind (film) although these films are undoubtedly better known today than L. Frank Baum's novel and Margaret Mitchell's novel. Jaws (film) is also separated from Jaws (novel); it's pretty much standard practice on Wikipedia to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - without the book there is no film (or miniseries) for that matter. Page views can be skewed by too many factors to use it as a reason for this change. MarnetteD|Talk 14:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As NOPRIMARY, the but I do think a WP:BROADCONCEPT DAB-like page summarizing the franchise would be more valuable at The Shining than the current redirect. -- Netoholic @ 16:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose book film TV series opera. Let the people choose. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because the book is very noteworthy on its own, and its share of page views is hardly miniscule. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above, and all requested moves and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. IMO the primary topic would be a broad concept article about "The Shining" as a whole, but obviously that doesn't exist yet. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (is there a Snoppose?) I'm seeing pageviews usually less than 5:1 between film and novel, not the 10+:1 in the request (use monthly, log, show values).[11] The auto-suggest in the search automatically creates a default primary, secondary,…. Also, judging by the number of times 237 is changed to 217. StrayBolt (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• redrum Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. An extremely significant novel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It has been explicitly stated that Doctor Sleep IS the sequel to the 1980 film

https://news.avclub.com/doctor-sleep-is-a-sequel-to-the-shining-in-case-this-t-1835485891

Elements of the trailer directly revealed IT IS the sequel and significant changes have been made to the plot of King's second book inorder to keep strong continuity with the 1980 film.

The trailer even goes so far as to reuse the "Shining" Theme music, recreate scenes exactly from the first film, and even also use footage taken directly from the 1980 film. That being the famous Elevator Lobby Blood scene, which was not recreated but is in fact the shot from the 1980 movie. That is the exact shot used in Kubrick's film.

It IS the sequel film and Warner Brothers has explicitly revealed that fact. I will not restore my edit for now, but you need to expect it WILL be restored to the article soon somehow. Did you see the trailer or not? Colliric (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you ever add a reference with your edits? Please see WP:BURDEN. MarnetteD|Talk 08:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It's ok someone else can restore it and do a better write up as mine was average anyway. Warner Brothers marketing delibrately created a bit of confusion (so the trailer would be a surprise, hopefully a nice one for you) I suspect. Colliric (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Kubrick was clear that footage from his films should never be reused in other films. In the DOCTOR SLEEP - Official Teaser Trailer there are several shots that are recreated from the 1980 film. I'm not sure if the slow motion blood from the elevator at 1:37 is taken from the 1980 film and the news.avclub.com source doesn't say this. Stephen King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation as he felt that it deviated from the book. Nevertheless, it is Kubrick's version that has stuck in the public imagination. Warner Bros. owns the copyright on all of this and Kubrick is dead, so they can call it a sequel if they like.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Here is a screenshot comparing the 2019 elevator scene with the 1980 original. This source says that all of the shots are recreated except the elevator scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ianmacm thanks for your posts. Much of my editing on this (including the thread above) was based on the time before the film was in production. Now that the new film has been tied to this one if you or anyone else wants to add a sequel section to the article that is fine. If that happens the item in the "see also" section should be removed as it will be redundant. MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Film poster by Saul Bass removed

Re this edit: nobody has had a problem with the Saul Bass version of the poster until now. Kubrick personally hired Bass and this is discussed in the text of the article. Saying "the poster inserted is a more accurate representation of the film, the article, and the content of both" is pure personal opinion. See also here on IMDb and get a consensus for the proposed change.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

While I personally agree that the version added by DisneyMetalhead is a more accurate representation of the film, the Saul Bass version is still more relevant and appropriate, and we would need to reach consensus to change that. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A Google Images search doesn't suggest that the black and white Jack Nicholson poster is the commonplace one either. I was surprised by this addition as the proposed new image is not at all well known compared to the Saul Bass poster. We do know that Kubrick personally approved the Bass poster regardless of how well it does or doesn't represent the film's content.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Kubrick hiring Saul Bass to make a poster isn't as relevant or important as you're making it sound. Directors/filmmakers and studios hire an array of graphic artists to produce various variations of film posters all the time. Secondly, the film was released with an array of posters. The film has multiple theatrical posters and the others are much more relevant to the topic/article/content than the individual release made by Bass. The article image should be a reflection of the article content - not just an image that is talked about in the article's content. If you feel it is important, placing it in the development of the film section of this article as a thumb image would be constructive. However, the article image needs to be indicative of the content therein.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore.... where in the text does it state that Kubrick 'personally approved/hired' Saul Bass? It is nowhere in this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Saul Bass poster was also used as the book cover at one point as well as the record album of the soundtrack. To be honest I've never seen the alternate one and it looks like a picture taken at an arrest. There is nothing in the documentation for the field about "indicative of the content of the article" so I support retention of the Bass poster.

What is the source for the staement that the film was released with an "array of posters" the one being added was not one of them AFAIK. Perhas a RFC is needed. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a mistake here, it may have been in the article at some stage but it isn't in the current version. Nevertheless, I can't support the black and white Jack Nicholson version because it is nowhere near commonplace, and we know that Kubrick and Bass went through many different designs before Kubrick chose one of them.[12] This source says that "The poster went through 300 versions before getting final approval". Bass also did the title sequence for Spartacus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Nobody has had a problem with the Saul Bass version of the poster until now" is rather presumptuous. I've owned the film on four different formats, and had never seen that Saul Bass poster outside of the Wikipedia article. That image has always struck me as really strange; I honestly have no idea who or what that face is supposed to be, and what, if anything, it has to do with the film. I think DisneyMetalhead's poster is far more representative of the film, though I had never seen it outside of this page either.

All my video copies have had the classic "Here's Johnny!" still on the cover, except for the square LaserDisc sleeve, which has that on the left and Shelley Duvall freaking out at the axe coming through the door on the right. Not sure if any of the original theatrical posters used the "Here's Johnny!" still (certainly re-release posters did), but whether they did or not, I think it'd be better to include an image that's evocative of the film, rather than whatever the heck that yellow doll-face thing (with logo also not appearing in the film) is supposed to be. If the Saul Bass poster is really as significant as that now-deleted text of the article claimed, that text or an equivalent could certainly be added back, accompanied by the yellow poster image. --Dan Harkless (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Saul Bass designed the theatrical release poster for the film, not the DVD cover. They are not necessarily the same thing. I can understand why some people say "What is the yellow doll face thing for?" but this is what Kubrick chose as the theatrical release poster. The black and white Jack Nicholson version is hardly ever used to represent the film. Full Metal Jacket, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Spartacus, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut all have the theatrical release poster in the infobox. This is normal, a completely random example such as Diamonds Are Forever also has the film poster in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: once again - there is no reference nor statement that is in line with what you are claiming. Kubrick going through 300 versions before this yellow ambiguous poster was made has nothing to do with the discussion frankly. The discussion is - an identifying file/image for an article should be two things: 1) Official, and 2) represent the article accurately. Regardless of the fact that Bass made the poster to Spartacus (which also has nothing to do with this article), there were various theatrical posters. There were re-release posters with Jack Nicholson's "Heeeeeeeere's Johnny" scene. As pointed out by @Dan Harkless: the current image chosen as the poster has nothing to do with the article, other than it was one of the posters released in theaters. It's format and in-descriptive nature is more similar to a teaser poster (something which also exists). The poster I added is not a mugshot as you stated. It is an image of Nicholson, with repeated words typed out via typewriter.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument seems to come down to "The yellow doll face does not represent the film accurately". Maybe it doesn't, but is by far the most common theatrical release poster of the film. The black and white Jack Nicholson poster is extraordinarily obscure and not easy to find even in a web search. As I've said, IMDb uses the yellow doll face poster. Kubrick insisted on full control over every aspect of the making of his films, and this is the version of the poster that he supervised and accepted. See also here which gives background information about the creation of the poster. There is no trace of the black and white Jack Nicholson version here, although it does contain some alternative versions of the poster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Yes, I realize that the image used for almost all video releases and re-release posters doesn't trump the theatrical poster, if indeed the yellow doll-face was the only one used during the original run, worldwide. Seems like someone should be able to dig up references somewhere online if other poster designs were used back in 1980 (technically the original release period went through 1981, including last-in-line Peru; I'm not counting Hong Kong's outlier 1983 release). Note that the U.K. didn't even get the film until after the U.S. release and then 5 other European countries had gotten it, months later. (Personally, my favorite poster is this U.S. / U.K. one with a caricature of Shelley Duvall screaming, but I don't know when it was used, and I'm not, of course, suggesting it would be the best one to use for the main article image.) --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This poster was also used in Britain at the time of the film's release. If the argument is going to be that the yellow doll face doesn't represent the film, this could be used instead. It shows the famous "Here's Johnny" scene. One interesting note from this source is that Kubrick chose the yellow background himself and Bass didn't like it: "Bass' collaboration with the notoriously demanding Kubrick survived a lengthy process during which hundreds of possible images were said to have been submitted for the director's approval. Although this final image was indeed used on most advertisements during the film's U.S release, Kubrick - for whatever reasons - ultimately and unfortunately chose a canary color, much to the chagrin of Bass. Fortunately for us, as a result of this switch Bass chose to commission a small print run of the original, much more effective red design to be silkscreened by the Art Krebs Studio in Los Angeles".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I looked at two data points: original ads and the Kubrick exhibition. All the ads I found in my small sample (more than listed) during the Summer 1980 had the Bass graphic.[13][14][15] The exhibition had either the Bass poster[16] or the "Here's Johnny"/Ax/Duvall poster.[17] I think the latter, if available, represents the movie better and we could move the Bass one to Release. I don't recall seeing the Nicholson/typing poster before. StrayBolt (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also from the archive is this British newspaper advertisement dating from the release of the film in October 1980. This is a low quality version of this film poster. Could there be a consensus to use this instead? It was commonly used at the time of the release, although it is not the Bass poster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Users: Dan Harkless, ianmacm, and StrayBolt -- Something we all agree on is that because there are various other posters available from the film, that more accurately represent the film -- the dollface yellow one, really should go. The poster that I grabbed I felt most accurately portrayed the movie (seeing as the film revolves around Nicholson's character). Regardless, the image needs to represent the article. I'm glad we are all working together to WP:COLLAB on this matter. The one that @Dan Harkless: mentioned... which one is that? The U.K. release poster with the 'Here's Johnny' scene would work but it appears to be more in line with a re-release.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: Well, depending on what you mean by "should go". I don't think it should be removed from the article altogether, as in the original edit. I think this debate and the sources cited have proved that there's an interesting story behind the yellow/red doll-face poster, and it'd be pretty easy to put together a paragraph for the "Release" section summarizing the main points of that. The yellow poster should accompany that; perhaps the red version too. I'd be happy to take a crack at it if someone doesn't beat me to it or feel strongly about writing it themselves.

And yes, that https://imgur.com/a/5n4Ay3q "Here's Johnny!" face / axe / Duvall image is the one I was talking about that graced the cover of my LaserDisc, and it's the one I think would be the best choice for the lead image. @Ianmacm: Thanks for the detective work confirming that that image was indeed used to promote the film back in '80. @StrayBolt: And thanks to you for finding that photo of the theatrical poster collection at the Kubrick exhibition; the fact that the London Design Museum found the Jack/axe/Duvall poster worthy of inclusion seems to legitimize using it as the head image for the article. And after all, the stills that poster is made up of are clearly images Kubrick labored hard over, whether or not he specifically approved them for use in ad campaigns. You could even argue it's better to use images Kubrick produced, rather than Saul Bass, to lead off with.

@DisneyMetalhead: Which one is the Duvall caricature poster as in "What's its provenance?" Yeah, dunno; I wish IMDb had more metadata on it, as it's really neat. --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dan Harkless: Agreed, that the "Here's Johnny" poster seems like the most relevant/most common/most accurate/and best representation for the article - given the research has been done. I also agree that the caricature poster you linked is cool... earlier I was just asking which poster you were referring to. Thanks for linking it to view. I also agree that the Bass posters could be attached as thumb images in the release section. In the release section it would also be noteworthy to state that the film had a number of release posters.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who dislikes the yellow doll face poster intensely should take up the matter with Stanley Kubrick because he chose it to represent the film. The archive shows that this is probably the most common version of the theatrical release poster, although there are others, such as the "Here's Johnny" poster from Britain which is contemporary with the film's 1980 release, as the newspaper cutting shows. I'm not at all sure where the black and white Jack Nicholson typewriter image came from and like two of the other users here, I had never seen it before this thread. Without doubt it is not a commonly used film poster for The Shining, as a web search shows. This is why I proposed the 1980 British poster as a compromise solution, because it shows "Here's Johnny!" which is easily the most famous scene in the film. This could go in the infobox, but it would also be good to show the Saul Bass poster later on in the article because this is the one that Kubrick personally chose.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I don't think anyone has indicated they dislike the doll-face poster intensely (except perhaps Saul Bass, for Kubrick's choice to make it yellow 😏😡). Some people just find it confusing and unrepresentative of the film, for a lead image. In any case, sounds like we have consensus here. I'll make the proposed changes some time today, unless someone strongly objects before then. --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that we would be having this debate if the original red poster recommended by Saul Bass had been used. This looks a lot better and goodness only knows why the canary yellow background was chosen to replace it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The British poster is on the Warner Bros website.[18][19] This is slightly different from the one at the London Kubrick Exhibit, which had just a red "Shining" (no "The"), no "The tide of terror that swept America IS HERE", and an abbreviated list of cast/crew names. StrayBolt (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@StrayBolt: Thanks for the additional find. I got too busy to make the proposed changes the last couple of days, but I'm working on it now. --Dan Harkless (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, took me a while due to busyness, but I've now replaced the infobox image as discussed, and have added a new subsection of ==Release== called ===Ad campaigns===, which features both the yellow and red versions of the Saul Bass poster, and a discussion of their background (pun intended). Thanks to everyone for the research – I ended up citing almost all of the links above. --Dan Harkless (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall writing and Two Gradys section

Just tried to read this article from start to finish. As if it was an encyclopaedia article. When was the last time this was looked at in toto? There are so many needless repetitions yet also many needed clarifications.

One example of the latter occurs in the Two Gradys section:

>>The film's assistant editor Gordon Stainforth has commented on this issue, attempting to steer a course between the continuity-error explanation on one side and the hidden-meaning explanation on the other

The continuity-error explanation? I can guess what this might refer to but it is nowhere explained.

Perhaps someone might like to have a go at overhauling the prose before this article collapses under the weight of everyone adding their own favourite notion, irrespective of whether it makes sense or has in fact already been said.

Viz cartoon time

Here is the front cover of the February 2020 edition of Viz, edition number 292.

• The Grady twins are portrayed by The Fat Slags (Sandra and Tracey)
• Danny is portrayed by Sid the Sexist
• Jack is portrayed by Roger Mellie (the man on the telly)
• One of the ghosts is portrayed by Dolly Earnshaw, who is the best friend of Mrs. Brady - Old Lady
• Sandra is drinking Red Rum
• 292 is written in reverse on the door

All good fun, but it probably doesn't merit adding to the article. Then again, some of the entries in the In popular culture section don't either. You can buy the original artwork of Viz; I would love to own this painting but the cover artwork is very expensive as it is highly sought after.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Passengers

There is a better source here which mentions the link. It's clear that the bartender scene is influenced by The Shining.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Good work ianmacm. Feel free to add it to the article. Your efforts are much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Mountain Dew commercial

During Super Bowl LIV, a commercial was made referencing this movie. Instead of “Here’s Johnny”, it’s “Here’s Mountain Dew Zero!” WR Dennis (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you suggesting an edit? Sundayclose (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect WP:IPCV is relevant here. DonIago (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Article about it here. I'd never seen this before and it is quite good. It stars Bryan Cranston playing Jack Torrance and the twins (yes, really).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made" in introduction

Widely regarded by whom? I've encountered lots of commentary that considers it a classic in its genre (and fair enough), but that's arguably a far less sweeping claim by comparison.

The most recent Sight & Sound poll of film critics about the top-100 greatest-ever films doesn't include Kubrick's Shining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7C23:B600:2807:B60A:89E4:C946 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Unless some evidence is provided, the claim should be removed. Even the Wiki page linked to on the same sentence does not even mention it ... -- H005 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This kind of vague puffery accumulates on most Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Have to agree here. It's easily one of the best horror films ever made, but it doesn't feature regularly in Top 10 lists along with Citizen Kane etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the use of important song, "Midnight, the Stars and You"

This important song from the Bowlly/Noble collaboration is used in the ballroom scene and over the closing credits. I believe that this tune is the music most identified with the film...I would call it iconic. It is not only omitted from the list of non-original music on the soundtrack, it is not mentioned anywhere.

Another Bowlly/Noble piece, "It's All Forgotten Now," ~is~ listed. Its use follows "Midnight, the Stars and You" at the bar and accompanies the cleaning of the jacket in the bathroom. The source referenced in footnote [36], "The Music in the Shining" by Valerio Sbravatti, makes this clear (and verified by my ears).˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:111B:4139:E016:9EB:FBC9:48FA (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Evimeader

Evimeader: please read WP:BRD and do not put back edits straight after they are reverted. This is also edit warring. As I said in this edit summary, these changes are poorly written and are nowhere near an improvement. They also introduce unsourced commentary as previously discussed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

I say that in this latest edit version, a cross reference link should be added since this quote does appear in Wikipedia too. DanielC46 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Some of the film's most iconic scenes, such as the ghost girls in the hallway, the torrent of blood from the elevators, and typewritten pages Wendy discovers on Jack's desk, are unique to the film." - Actually, the novel includes a couple pages reproducing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Drsruli (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What's your source for this? I found at least one source that claims it isn't in the novel, nor do I recall it being in the novel. DonIago (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've checked the text of The Shining (novel) in an ebook using the search facility, and can't find the phrase "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" in it. This requires a source that verifies it, the novel (or at least the copy of it that I have) doesn't have this phrase in it anywhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Real epilogue" section under "Release"

This looks like a duplicate of the epilogue section immediately above it, but badly translated to English. Suggest merging the two sections for the most information. Ylwsub68 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this section has been added in August 2021 and it has several problems, such as mangled English and repeating some of the information already given. "Real epilogue" is misleading because Kubrick cut the final hospital scene a week after the US release in May 1980; "original US ending" is more accurate. Agree that both sections should be merged to avoid duplication.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Minecraft Reference

In the popular video game Minecraft, there are two references to The Shining- the first is that of a texture update being called that, and second, an enemy called the vindictator, if named Johnny, will kill everything in sight. Could these be added to the In Popular Culture section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.131.50 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:POPCULTURE this would need sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dubious linking

Several editors of both the IP and non-IP variety have been adding a link to List of films considered the best. However, as that list doesn't mention this film, it doesn't seem appropriate to link to that list.

Other opinions are welcome. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Time Out poll has The Shining at #2 behind The Exorcist for best horror film of all time.[20] This is not quite the same as all-time greatest lists, where films like Citizen Kane and The Godfather generally do better than The Shining. Kubrick's highest ranked film on these lists is 2001.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done some editing over at "List…" and I agree that a link seems inappropriate now. Think it is a little like Wikipedia:Write the article first. However, there might be some qualifying poll which puts The Shining as best. But until you find that poll and add it and it survives scrutiny, no link. StrayBolt (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Shining axe up for auction

It's Kubrick auction time again.[21] One of the axes used by Jack Nicholson in the film is up for auction. The listing is here and it is estimated to fetch up to $100,000 when the online bidding ends next week. It is made of foam rubber and resin so it is very light. It is believed to be the axe that Jack carried around in the maze scene and is not the one used to smash open the door in the "Here's Johnny!" scene as it is not a real axe. This could be added when we know the final selling price.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hiya ianmacm. I've been forgetting to get back here and leave this info for ya. It is interesting that they are building a film center there. I stayed there a few times back in the late 70s for some sorority/fraternity dinner dances. There have been a LOT of changes to the hotel and town since then. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.[22]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Fun stuff :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UsernameUsername3737 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Appletastic.

— Assignment last updated by Isabella.mitrow (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the opening paragraph

It should be mentioned in the opening that the film is regarded as one of the greatest horror films. In the Reception section of the article, there exists HUNDREDS of articles that list the film among the greatest of all time and this is important in context of the article as a whole. This should be included in the opening to show the impact the film has had over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:B600:8200:54A0:1E3F:D790:F252 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Shelley Duvall's rescinded Razzie Award

It's very clear from the word "rescinded" in the table that the award was rescinded. There's no need to strike that entry as it is confusing and redundant. There is no precedent for this on Wikipedia. 76.49.117.21 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you are trying to twist what I have written in a negative direction in your replies, I will not spend much time in this discussion. You won't get what you want. I'm taking the page back to WP:STATUSQUO. Before you, 6 different users were already undoing each other's edits. ภץאคгöร 07:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course you will not spend time in this discussion because you don't have a case to argue, and lying about how many users have reverted you doesn't help your case (which is a grand total of one because all of the dynamic IPs are from one location -- do a Geolocate to confirm). Trying to get your way with subterfuge (making a false protection report, lying, citing policies that don't support your edit) is not how things are done on Wikipedia. This has been challenged, and so far you are the only editor supporting your edit. You are required to get consensus, per WP:BRD which you yourself cited. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You're desperately trying to get attention from me with your embarrassing accusations. Touch some grass. ภץאคгöร 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why, "Won (Later Rescinded)" can't be used in an instance like this? It's been used at List of awards and nominations received by Bruce Willis and seems reasonably clear. If there's a problem with that article as well, perhaps we need a broader consensus on how rescinded Razzies should be addressed? DonIago (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Doniago. Your suggestion is the way it should be done, and that basically is how it's already done in the article. No need for striking through the name of the award, which is confusing and redundant. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, if there was a broader consensus that striking out the award or deleting it, or any other action, was appropriate, I would support any of those options. But what I'm seeing right now is an argument between two editors about how to handle this without any reference to P&G or existing precedent. It took me all of two minutes to find an existing precedent that also seems like a reasonable solution, unless there are concerns I'm unaware of. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

DonIago, I agree with you completely. There is no precedent, and there is no consensus for striking the name of the award. A consensus for the strikethrough is needed, and I would support any clear consensus for this and all articles. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Charles vs Delbert?

I haven’t seen The Shining so I don’t want to correct this, but the naming seems inconsistent in the plot section. Is the former caretaker named Charles (the name introduced in the section) or Delbert, (the name of the ghost)? Also, it’s confusing to refer to the character just as “Grady.” As someone unfamiliar with the movie, I couldn’t follow the Grady’s as written in the plot. 67.81.35.157 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a section in the article that addresses this point. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)