The Shining (1980)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by English Patient

It most likely wouldn't contain any deleted scenes - Kubrick seemed to be fanatical about making sure stuff like that never saw the light of day.

The flip side is, he also seems to have been fanatical about saving it all himself so nobody else had control over it -- so we can safely assume that the footage does still exist.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Supposedly, it's in a hospital, so I would assume he is visiting them. The big thing I remember hearing, they "never found Jack Torrance's body".

Yup! In the hospital.
That's right, because, I've seen pictures of it years ago. With Ullman holding the ball. Unless I saw the actual scene? I forget. I feel like I saw it

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

I believe Wendy visits Stuart Ullman, or he visits her and Danny....etc to check on Danny. And he returns the infamous ball to Danny

Yes and he tells Wendy they didn't find anything unusual at the hotel. I think the scene was intended to assure the audience Wendy/Danny are ok, plus to implicate that Ullman may be

[Show spoiler]a participant in the evil at the hotel, since that same ball lured Danny to Room 237

.

[crissrudd4554]

A still from the deleted scene still exists as well as the script excerpt. Basically Wendy is in the hospital and visited by Ullman who informs her that the hotel was checked and nothing unusual was found and that Jack's body was not found. He insists she come stay with him to recover and on his way out tosses the tennis ball from earlier into Danny's hand and leaves implying he knew of the supernatural nature of the hotel. It then cuts to the sequence with the photograph at the end as played out in the final film. IIRC the hospital scene was only shown for a brief time in the film's original run before Kubrick decided to cut it out.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

A still from the deleted scene still exists as well as the script excerpt. Basically Wendy is in the hospital and visited by Ullman who informs her that the hotel was checked and nothing unusual was found and that Jack's body was not found. He insists she come stay with him to recover and on his way out tosses the tennis ball from earlier into Danny's hand and leaves implying he knew of the supernatural nature of the hotel. It then cuts to the sequence with the photograph at the end as played out in the final film. IIRC the hospital scene was only shown for a brief time in the film's original run before Kubrick decided to cut it out.

Yes, plus right after the 1921 Photo, there is a statement saying "The Overlook Hotel would survive this tragedy, as it had so many others. It is still open each year from May 20th to September 20th. It is closed for the winter.”

However, we only know of one other tragedy, so I think this statement was axed because Kubrick axed another sequence in the film showing Jack in the boiler room going through a diary of many other former owners, etc

[StingingVelvet]

That actually sounds like a cool and creepy scene, but I don't blame Kubrick for wanting to keep the focus on the climax and the hotel.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

A still from the deleted scene still exists as well as the script excerpt. Basically Wendy is in the hospital and visited by Ullman who informs her that the hotel was checked and nothing unusual was found and that Jack's body was not found. He insists she come stay with him to recover and on his way out tosses the tennis ball from earlier into Danny's hand and leaves implying he knew of the supernatural nature of the hotel. It then cuts to the sequence with the photograph at the end as played out in the final film. IIRC the hospital scene was only shown for a brief time in the film's original run before Kubrick decided to cut it out.

Yup. That's it.
Again, either I read it and saw a still image, or I saw the outtake ... (because it's so vivid now that you described it and refreshed my memory).

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

That actually sounds like a cool and creepy scene, but I don't blame Kubrick for wanting to keep the focus on the climax and the hotel.

Yes I think he axed it after realizing audiences at initial theatrical viewings were climaxed at the 1921 photo and that the extra scene was unnecessary hand holding.

[fontcow]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

A still from the deleted scene still exists as well as the script excerpt. Basically Wendy is in the hospital and visited by Ullman who informs her that the hotel was checked and nothing unusual was found and that Jack's body was not found. He insists she come stay with him to recover and on his way out tosses the tennis ball from earlier into Danny's hand and leaves implying he knew of the supernatural nature of the hotel. It then cuts to the sequence with the photograph at the end as played out in the final film. IIRC the hospital scene was only shown for a brief time in the film's original run before Kubrick decided to cut it out.

http://www.theoverlookhotel.com/post...-ending-of-the

http://www.theoverlookhotel.com/post...s-are-all-that

[Show spoiler]

[schlock]

I'd buy a re-packaging if they just used the original Saul Bass poster art on the cover, which seems to have been permanently replaced in all marketing for decades with the grinning Nicholson photo. I know the Nicholson photo is iconic and everyone knows it and it may ensure more sales, but the one-sheet design was way more classy.

shiningposter.jpg

[Tech-UK]

If only there was a SteelBook with that artwork.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The flip side is, he also seems to have been fanatical about saving it all himself so nobody else had control over it -- so we can safely assume that the footage does still exist.

According to Leon Vitali (Kubrick's personal assistant) they incinerated lots of trims and outtakes years ago. Why would Kubrick do this when he's so fanatical about hoarding everything else? Because once the film was finished to his liking, it was done. All the research and tests and whatnot were worth keeping because of their historical value as regards the finished film, but deleted scenes were deemed to be worthless precisely because they were excised from the final product.

Whether Warners still have a large amount of original materials in their vaults is unknown to a mere mortal such as myself, although they do apparently have the trims from 2001 which were edited out by Kubrick shortly after release.

[Jerry Alien]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

According to Leon Vitali

Stop right there

[thatguamguy]

If you want to go by things that Leon Vitali said, presumably you would have no interest in purchasing any widescreen version of "The Shining" or (almost) any other Kubrick movie, because he was pretty adamant about how Kubrick preferred fullscreen, right up until the time when he authorized new releases... but most of us Kubrick fans have come to terms with the fact that Vitali often says things that are later proven to be false.

For the record, though, Warner doesn't have the "trims" of 2001, they have a negative of the longer cut which was stored in their salt mine vaults.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

If only there was a SteelBook with that artwork.

I'd buy that for a dollar!! Maybe even 20 dollars....

[dissention]

The Dryden in Rochester had a print with the original ending about five years ago and was all set to screen it, but either Warners or the Kubrick estate put the brakes on it. I was mightily disappointed, but it is what it is.

[ilovenola2]

[QUOTE=Geoff D;12294419]According to Leon Vitali (Kubrick's personal assistant) they incinerated lots of trims and outtakes years ago. Why would Kubrick do this when he's so fanatical about hoarding everything else? Because once the film was finished to his liking, it was done.
QUOTE]

Perhaps Kubrick remembered what happened to Orson Welles' mutilated masterpiece, "The Magnificent Ambersons."
Hitchcock was also famous for "cutting in the camera." Wise directors do it.

[English Patient]

If there are no outtakes or deleted footage or a new transfer included in a new edition, it's going to be hard to entice people to buy it. I doubt some printed material (like a few lobby card reproductions like in the Citizen Kane collector's edition, or one of those tiny hardbound books like in Kane and Once Upon a Time in America) will do it. I think Warners did a pretty solid job with the quality and amount of special features on the existing disc, so it'll be hard for them to top it. That's why I think they'll just take the easy way out and throw it in a digibook or include one of those little hardbound books, which have a bunch of photos and don't have much substance.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

If you want to go by things that Leon Vitali said, presumably you would have no interest in purchasing any widescreen version of "The Shining" or (almost) any other Kubrick movie, because he was pretty adamant about how Kubrick preferred fullscreen, right up until the time when he authorized new releases... but most of us Kubrick fans have come to terms with the fact that Vitali often says things that are later proven to be false.

For the record, though, Warner doesn't have the "trims" of 2001, they have a negative of the longer cut which was stored in their salt mine vaults.

Eh, I'm just sayin'. Him talking about what old Stan wanted with full screen and all that jazz is one thing to take with a Gibraltar-sized rock of salt, but when he says something like they burned all the outtakes in their possession I can't see why he'd make something like that up, and that really does strike me as something Kubrick would do because that's part of the enigma of the man. He's renowned as this uber-perfectionist and yet if an error was present in the take that he really liked, he used the take anyway.

As for 2001 it's like I said: mere mortals like myself know not what Warners have.

[Jerry Alien]

Off-topic (well, off-film) but the Kubrick footage I'd most like to see is the Eyes Wide Shut stuff with Jennifer Jason Leigh and Harvey Keitel. Has there been anything said regarding its existence?