Doctor Sleep (2019)

[cinemaphile]

Well my interest just went from about a 3 to a 9.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Getting a Scottish actor makes sense. They don't have go method acting by chugging down a few bottles, because it's already a life style.

[prozacnation1978]

Perfect casting with ewan

[Darkstream]

So questions... so many concerns... but the biggest one is:


Will this be made as a direct sequel to Kubrick's The Shining film?

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

So questions... so many concerns... but the biggest one is:


Will this be made as a direct sequel to Kubrick's The Shining film?

It will probably be similar to The Silence of the Lambs, in the sense that the story is a sequel, but will be treated like a stand-alone film.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

It will probably be similar to The Silence of the Lambs, in the sense that the story is a sequel, but will be treated like a stand-alone film.

Yes, but there are major differences between King's novel and Kubrick's film -- which one will this movie follow without contradiction?

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Yes, but there are major differences between King's novel and Kubrick's film -- which one will this movie follow without contradiction?

Again, going back to The Silence of the Lambs, they removed all of the Red Dragon references from the film and made it stand-alone. So I suspect they'll do the same with Doctor Sleep as well.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Again, going back to The Silence of the Lambs, they removed all of the Red Dragon references from the film and made it stand-alone. So I suspect they'll do the same with Doctor Sleep as well.

Oh, well, that would be a safe way to play it, but also a way that's a lot less interesting.

I've never read Doctor Sleep, but I suspect there needs to be some references to The Shining for it to work, since it deals with Danny being haunted by the past. Maybe they can get away with being vague and just not go into too much detail with certain events. Still, if they give us even one visual reference specifically from the Kubrick film, like in a flashback or something, they should stay consistent with that source and avoid giving us anything that was specific to the novel that may contradict the film, and vice versa. If Jack Torrance had a roque mallet instead of an axe, then he better had died in an explosion and not froze to death as the movie depicted.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Then again, The Shining is an iconic film, so there might still be some references to it in Doctor Sleep. While Manhunter flopped at the box-office, so it doesn't make sense for The Silence of the Lambs film to mention Will Graham when most people at the time didn't know who he was.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Then again, The Shining is an iconic film, so there might still be some references to it in Doctor Sleep. While Manhunter flopped at the box-office, so it doesn't make sense for The Silence of the Lambs film to mention Will Graham when most people at the time didn't know who he was.

Since Manhunter wasn't such a big success, they probably felt it was better to have Silence of the Lambs as more of a stand-alone film. Although I prefer Manhunter, I think the whole reason Red Dragon was made later was to make the story more in line with Silence of the Lambs. Obviously, they wanted the movies to be more consistent with each other by having the same actor portray Hannibal Lecter.

But unlike Manhunter, everyone knows Kubrick's The Shining, so for the makers of Doctor Sleep to ignore that film and try to make a quasi-sequel that is only vaguely related, it may cost them. Audiences may not go for it. It might end up being similar to the way the film version of Queen of the Damned was received in connection to Interview with a Vampire.

[Al_The_Strange]

I'm spoiler-tagging the whole lot of this for folks who haven't read the books and all, but I tried not to spoil any endings or reveals.

I think it could work the way Cyber's describing it--IIRC,

[Show spoiler]the Dr. Sleep novel didn't really harp on the specific events of The Shining all that much, it was more about Danny falling into the same patterns as his father, and suppressing the Shining with booze. Not so much trauma of the past as it is the threat of Danny repeating his dad's fall arc. I think the only things Dr. Sleep needs to carry over are:

• The basic plot of the Shining--the Torrances went to the Overlook Hotel, got terrorized by ghosts and Jack going nuts, Jack died, Wendy and Danny escaped. The chief difference between the novel and film is how Jack perished, but the Dr. Sleep movie doesn't really need to specify whether he went out as the hero or villain--it can be left ambiguous. Other things (like the difference of opinion over King's preference of supernatural terror or Kubrick's psychological terror) don't really need to be trudged up.
• Dick Halloran--survived in the book, died in the movie. Might have had a scene in the Dr. Sleep book, but I can't remember now. Does he need to come back in the movie? I don't see any reason to--might as well leave him out. Or if they do have him in the movie, he can easily be a flashback or mental projection or something.
• Wendy, I think died before the events of Dr. Sleep, so there's no connection involved there.
• The actual site of the Overlook hotel is the biggest thing I can think of--it was just a ruin in the book and it comes to play in the climax, but frankly it always felt like a left-field addition to me. The movie could work either without it, or (more than likely) revisiting it in its full, intact condition. The climax could work the same way regardless--I'm sure the film will want to turn it into some kind of wacked-out labyrinth for the final act so they can repeat the same scares as Kubrick's film, but I hope they don't.

And I think that's it. Everything else is a fresh new story, just as it should be.

[imsounoriginal]

Probably gonna skip this, just don't have any interest in a Shining sequel. I did also say the same thing about BR2049 last year until that first teaser turned me around, so maybe that'll happen here. But as of now I'm just not feeling it, even with McGregor.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Since Manhunter wasn't such a big success, they probably felt it was better to have Silence of the Lambs as more of a stand-alone film. Although I prefer Manhunter, I think the whole reason Red Dragon was made later was to make the story more in line with Silence of the Lambs. Obviously, they wanted the movies to be more consistent with each other by having the same actor portray Hannibal Lecter.

But unlike Manhunter, everyone knows Kubrick's The Shining, so for the makers of Doctor Sleep to ignore that film and try to make a quasi-sequel that is only vaguely related, it may cost them. Audiences may not go for it. It might end up being similar to the way the film version of Queen of the Damned was received in connection to Interview with a Vampire.

I prefer Manhunter as well. Some people say that Red Dragon is "closer" to the novel, but as someone who has actually read the books, I can tell you that it's highly exaggerated. Manhunter is closer to the novel in terms of characters and tone, if anything.

But yeah, I'm not saying they should totally ignore The Shining. Just keep it vague and subtle is all.

[Darkstream]

That's the thing I'm trying to get at... Even if this Doctor Sleep movie can get away with avoiding any direct connection or references to Kubrick's The Shining, the question is: Should it? I mean, that film is so iconic and stylish in its own way, people may want more of that in this sequel.

I'm sure many of us aren't expecting a total duplication of Stanley Kubrick's style and tone, but I think there are many who do, and if the film doesn't deliver on that level, it could be the main reason for its demise. I think it's a tricky thing. Should we want or expect a sequel as worthy as Blade Runner 2049 was to Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, or should we just accept that it may just be what Return to Oz was to the classic Wizard of Oz film?

I think that what Blade Runner 2049 did is exactly the way to go. They need to give us more of what we got in its own stylish way, while still maintaining a tone close enough to make us believe it is within the same world as its predecessor.

If it is too much its own thing, no one will really care. Unless of course, the story is so extraordinary and the film so well executed that people will have no choice but to like it.

[CyberpunkCentral]

But at the same time, if you treat it like a sequel, it may alienate the new generation. Fans of the original will go and see it either way. So they really got to find that balance.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

But at the same time, if you treat it like a sequel, it may alienate the new generation. Fans of the original will go and see it either way. So they really got to find that balance.

I agree they really do have to find a balance. Like I said, it's going to be tricky.

As far a new generation goes... if you haven't seen The Shining yet, then why the heck are you going out and seeing any other horror film? Reminds me of that Ready Player One scene. I mean, who hasn't seen The Shining that's over a certain age and likes movies?



Oh, and I thought of another movie and sequel pairing that just don't quite mesh together well enough and the sequel is practically forgotten because of it. It should have been the most obvious choice to compare this situation to, especially because the first film was done by Stanley Kubrick.

2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact.

It's not that 2010 is a bad sequel -- it's actually a lot more grounded -- it's just that it lacks so much, especially the style that made Kubrick's film a masterpiece.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Never seen 2010, so I can't really compare. I know the Tom Ripley films also have a set of stand-alone sequels. Well, I'm assuming anyway. I never realize it was a film series to begin with.

[Darth Marcus]

Jack's still kicking. Give the man a nice paycheck and have him come haunt Ewan's thoughts and dreams.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Never seen 2010, so I can't really compare. I know the Tom Ripley films also have a set of stand-alone sequels. Well, I'm assuming anyway. I never realize it was a film series to begin with.

Yes, I've seen them both. And enjoyed both. But I never really looked at them as sequels. They're kind of like stand alone interpretations of the same character in different stories -- more like how most of the Bond films are not really connected to each other.




As for 2010 -- all you need to know, as I'm sure you're already aware of based on the reputation of 2001, is that it doesn't compare.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

more like how most of the Bond films are not really connected to each other.

Or X-Men.