Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
Direct sequel to a Kubrick film?

XSig-gwPcgNEqYiOquqI6i_RvCI3o4Xnsc4fgZvklbsQIrhmhZeZULTZvw0DIVIIOo8dNjfnVijyNwOZ4ePvR_7-zLjcVfc5vyVkGLY=w600-h244-nc


2010 - also based on a sequel by the original author, was an underrated and excellent sci fi thriller that never attempted to emulate the original.
 

apocat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,162
2010 - also based on a sequel by the original author, was an underrated and excellent sci fi thriller that never attempted to emulate the original.

I really like 2010, but you're kind of making his point for him. It was eclipsed by its predecessor from day one. It's not enough to make a good movie if you want to make a sequel to a Kubrick film. It needs to be utterly fantastic.

I'm still glad 2010 was made, and I hope this is good too, but it's fighting an uphill battle, albeit one of its own choosing.
 

digitalrelic

Weight Loss Champion 2018: Biggest Change
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,124
The audacity of following up Kubrick is blowing my mind a little. Look out for Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon remakes.

Looks horrid.

It's an adaptation of Stephen King's novel. Stephen King wrote a sequel to his own book and this is an adaptation of that. It's not at all comparable to remaking Clockwork Orange or Barry Lyndon.
 

spx54

Member
Mar 21, 2019
3,273
forgot this was coming out, looks excellent

the recreation of imagery from The Shining was pretty stunning, wow
 

Zor

Member
Oct 30, 2017
11,537
It's a sequel to the original book with some references to the movie.

It's the sequel to the book AND Kubrick's movie, I linked to an interview with Flanagan in the last page where he explains as much. The first task he set himself was to convince Stephen King that the movie of Doctor Sleep HAD to take place in the Kubrick Shining universe. Given King's very public feelings on the movie of The Shining, Flanagan sure as hell wanted to make things even more ambitious for himself.
 

Chrome Hyena

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,780
I enjoyed the Doctor Sleep book, some decent moments.

I'm in the minority I think, I deeply disliked The Shining film. I just didn't think it was that great, a lot of the nuance from the book was lost (unavoidably perhaps). In the book there is all this build up as to why Jack goes mad, it makes sense given all you know about him, why his character lets the Overlook twist him. In the film he just goes bonkers for no obvious reason. Plus stuff like the creepy little girls was just unimaginative, but maybe that's me looking at it through the lens of someone who had seen plenty of that trope before he watched The Shining, maybe in 1980 it was fresh and horrifying. The Shining book was genuinely creepy, the hedge animals (brrrr).
Remember most of those tropes are tropes due to this movie. (Well creepy kids more a Children of the Damned thing.)
 

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,800
Cape Cod, MA
Flanagan is on record in a few of the interviews that went live with the trailer essentially saying that his movie exists in both the book AND Kubrick continuity, and that navigating the anachronisms has been part of the challenge of bringing the film to life. In fact, the first task he set himself was convincing King that this movie also needed to be in Kubrick's universe.
I'm glad he's making the effort to do this. I don't care for the book nearly as much as I care for Kubrick's adaptation of it, but I don't want to see all the King fans left in the dust either. Hopefully there aren't any King fans crazy enough not to like the *aesthetic* of Kubrick's movie even if they didn't like the changes. There's no reason this can't satisfy people who prefer the movie or the book simultaneously.
 

Dusktildawn48

Chicken Chaser
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,533
St. Louis
Sorry for the thread bump, but I'm super curious how they're gonna handle


MAJOR SPOILERS!!
dick halloran, who died in the shining movie but not the book. And is in doctor sleep. And like, what about jacks ghost?
 
Last edited: