The Shining (1980)

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

^^^ This 110%.

Probably more than any other debate about films, when anybody makes the claim that the UK's lite beer version of THE SHINING is superior to the U.S.'s, I want to slam my head repeatedly against a wall. To me, it's like suggesting that a bite of ice cream is more pleasurable than a bowl. It's one of those points of view I find nearly impossible to just shrug off and say, "Well, that's just their opinion and they're entitled to it."

I understand people debating which version of, say, Blade Runner is best. Or which version of Donnie Darko or The Outsiders is best...etc. But I never thought there was an actual debate over which The Shining was better until I came here... to Blu-ray.com

So I think that's why I find it so fascinating.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

^^^ This 110%.

Probably more than any other debate about films, when anybody makes the claim that the UK's lite beer version of THE SHINING is superior to the U.S.'s, I want to slam my head repeatedly against a wall. To me, it's like suggesting that a bite of ice cream is more pleasurable than a bowl. It's one of those points of view I find nearly impossible to just shrug off and say, "Well, that's just their opinion and they're entitled to it."

And someone else might say that too much ice cream is fattening for you. I feel full up and properly sated with the shorter cut, whereas the longer cut has so many more scoops that I start to get bored with each new spoonful, and the sprinkles of the cobwebby skellingtons are totally lost on me by then.

Opinions! Yeah!

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And someone else might say that too much ice cream is fattening for you. I feel full up and properly sated with the shorter cut, whereas the longer cut has so many more scoops that I start to get bored with each new spoonful, and the sprinkles of the cobwebby skellingtons are totally lost on me by then.



Opinions! Yeah!

Poor emaciated Brit can't handle 'Murican Super-Sizes, SUVs and other Bigly things. All small and no big makes Geoff a dull boy. Now, can we all argue about the aspect ratio, like real film nerds? I kid, I kid. Carry on!

[Matt89]

The film is about Jack's slow descent into madness. Slow. The movie loses its effect when you chop 25 mins out of it. The movie was supposed to be that length, not shorter.

~Matt

[Geoff D]

And yet one of the most common complaints about the movie is that, hey, it's Jack Nicholson, so that descent into madness doesn't seem quite so nuanced as it would otherwise be, and drawing that out any longer doesn't help it any. Kubrick himself shortened the film, apparently without any pressure on his shoulders other than what he applied to himself, so I'm very happy to stick to the shorter cut as my main viewing and leave the longer cut for when I feel like overindulging on cobwebby sprinkles.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

What? Jack Torrance in the Kubrick film is clearly a lunatic from the very beginning. In the book and miniseries, it's a descent into madness, but not the Kubrick film. The biggest criticism about the Kubrick film I see is that Jack Torrance is obviously crazy from the beginning.

[P-Rock]

True, and the evil forces in the hotel just give him that little push.

If you compare it to the book it's an awful adaptation, but as a stand alone movie it's a masterpiece. Kubrick could've better opted for an 'inspired by' instead of a 'based on'.

The Shining was a very personal book for King, who was battling with his own alcohol addiction, so I get that he wasn't too pleased when Kubrick removed almost all the alcoholic addiction references. On top of that Kubrick also turned down King's script.

But not even King can deny this movie is a supernatural, psychological horror masterpiece.

[Axl Rose]

The Shining- Typewriter Tantrum! - YouTube

[mzupeman]

Been a long time since I knew which versions were in what regions, but I feel the cut we have here in the US is flawless. Such an intensifying slow burn, meticulously crafted. Kubrick really knew what he was doing.

[TylerDurden389]

Still never even seen the shorter cut myself. Way I see it, the first time I saw the original "Dawn of the Dead", it was the "Director's Cut" (actually an 'extended edition' as Romero never approved it), and when I saw the theatrical version about a month later, I felt like I was watching a tv cut that was edited for both time and content.

So yeah, less Jack is whack (sorry, lol).

[Fairfax]

Originally Posted by Matt89

The film is about Jack's slow descent into madness. Slow. The movie loses its effect when you chop 25 mins out of it. The movie was supposed to be that length, not shorter.

My bold. Not sure why you'd write that; it's very different from the novel so I don't think there's any "supposed" about it. I can't say I'm surprised many people disagree with me re: length/cut, but then I do feel a lot of the opinion(s) comes down to what you grew up with and/or saw first. As stated, I think the longer cut is unnecessarily bloaty even if I don't subscribe to 'less is more' in all fields. The tour dragged too long, the extra Hallorann scenes certainly didn't need to be there (yes, they're there in the book but I don't think it's like-for-like, and let's be honest, towards this climatic part of the film he's just a device anyway) and the skeletons were a complete joke. But it's less individual scenes and more the overall impact. I think it makes for a very different movie with the international cut feeling more intense so I don't agree when people merely state it's X amount of minutes chopped out.

Then again I bought both cuts so it's not like it really matters all that much. Certainly, though, the US edition can gain that little bit more dust on the shelf.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Fairfax

My bold. Not sure why you'd write that; it's very different from the novel so I don't think there's any "supposed" about it. I can't say I'm surprised many people disagree with me re: length/cut, but then I do feel a lot of the opinion(s) comes down to what you grew up with and/or saw first. As stated, I think the longer cut is unnecessarily bloaty even if I don't subscribe to 'less is more' in all fields. The tour dragged too long, the extra Hallorann scenes certainly didn't need to be there (yes, they're there in the book but I don't think it's like-for-like, and let's be honest, towards this climatic part of the film he's just a device anyway) and the skeletons were a complete joke. But it's less individual scenes and more the overall impact. I think it makes for a very different movie with the international cut feeling more intense so I don't agree when people merely state it's X amount of minutes chopped out.

Then again I bought both cuts so it's not like it really matters all that much. Certainly, though, the US edition can gain that little bit more dust on the shelf.

"Hallorann scenes didn't need to be there"

I disagree.
Hallorann is literally the only character who gets murdered. Hallorann is literally the only character to explain what the shining actually is!
We should all agree that more Hallorann is understandable.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And someone else might say that too much ice cream is fattening for you.

I used the word "pleasurable". I would consider even a fitness nut (provided they weren't lactose-intolerant, the poor bastards) to concede that a bowl of ice cream is more pleasurable than just a bite, and any exceptions to that, in my book, are nuttier than fans of the U.K. cut of THE SHINING seem to think Jack Nicholson is from the word 'go'.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Matt89

The film is about Jack's slow descent into madness. Slow. The movie loses its effect when you chop 25 mins out of it. The movie was supposed to be that length, not shorter.

~Matt

Except half the stuff cut is Shelly Duvall saying "over" on the radio a thousand times, which has nothing to do with Jack Torrance.

And no movie is "supposed" to be any certain length.

[P-Rock]

Kubrick prefered the shorter cut. Just sayin'.

The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the Director's Cut when in fact director Kubrick regarded the 113 minute version as the superior cut of the film. When the film was released on home video in the US, Kubrick endorsed the shorter version of the film as the 'official' version.

Here are all the cuts made for the superior International version.

The biggest cut is Halloran traveling back to the hotel. Not really something I'd really miss. The shorter version imo is leaner and meaner.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Except half the stuff cut is Shelly Duvall saying "over" on the radio a thousand times, which has nothing to do with Jack Torrance.

And no movie is "supposed" to be any certain length.

Of course some movies are "supposed" to be a certain length. Sergio Leone's cut of Once Upon a Time in America is "supposed" to be as long as it is. Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is "supposed" to be 217 mins long.

And yes Nicholson is kinda crazy from the outset, but it's a slow build until he actually loses his mind. He's not an axe-wielding psycho from the outset. I always felt the movie was long because it was meant to mimic the long winter and Jack's slow descent into total madness. I just feel chopping 25 mins out of the movie takes away from that effect. Kubrick might've trimmed some scenes down that people found "boring", but as a result he also removed some beautiful steadicam tracking shots. Half of the reason I love this movie so much is because it's beautifully shot. I want more of The Shining, not less.

Lol, everything is an argument on here.

~Matt

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Of course some movies are "supposed" to be a certain length. Sergio Leone's cut of Once Upon a Time in America is "supposed" to be as long as it is. Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is "supposed" to be 217 mins long.

And yes Nicholson is kinda crazy from the outset, but it's a slow build until he actually loses his mind. He's not an axe-wielding psycho from the outset. I always felt the movie was long because it was meant to mimic the long winter and Jack's slow descent into total madness. I just feel chopping 25 mins out of the movie takes away from that effect. Kubrick might've trimmed some scenes down that people found "boring", but as a result he also removed some beautiful steadicam tracking shots. Half of the reason I love this movie so much is because it's beautifully shot. I want more of The Shining, not less.

Lol, everything is an argument on here.

~Matt

If you didn't see the shorter cut your argument is null and void.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

If you didn't see the shorter cut your argument is null and void.

Lol. I have seen the shorter cut so my argument is valid?

No need to be such a b*tch about it man.

~Matt

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Of course some movies are "supposed" to be a certain length. Sergio Leone's cut of Once Upon a Time in America is "supposed" to be as long as it is. Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is "supposed" to be 217 mins long.

And yes Nicholson is kinda crazy from the outset, but it's a slow build until he actually loses his mind. He's not an axe-wielding psycho from the outset. I always felt the movie was long because it was meant to mimic the long winter and Jack's slow descent into total madness. I just feel chopping 25 mins out of the movie takes away from that effect. Kubrick might've trimmed some scenes down that people found "boring", but as a result he also removed some beautiful steadicam tracking shots. Half of the reason I love this movie so much is because it's beautifully shot. I want more of The Shining, not less.

Lol, everything is an argument on here.

~Matt

There are still plenty of great steadicam shots left in the European cut and Jack's change/possession isn't any more sudden. Length isn't everything. The European cut is already a deliberate paced film, the US cut stretches the film out to an epic length which it can't quite support. And then there is the tacky shot of the cobwebbed skeletons which was wisely cut for the European version.

[P-Rock]

Yeah, that scene was horrible. The doctor's visit in the beginning didn't add much either, except that Danny is a special boy, but we know that the minute he begins about Tony, so it's just unnecessary exposition.