The Shining three different running times on Blu-ray

[Frere Fitch]

Just to add:

[Show spoiler]Jack's hitting of Danny is mentioned in both versions. The only difference between the two is that in the long cut, we learn that Jack was under the influence of alcohol during the violent incident, whereas in the short version, Jack is under the influence of alcohol while confessing to the incident (or at least he thinks he is).

So Kubrick, through the juxtaposition of words and imagery, allows the audience to build a mental picture even without the early exposition. And it works really well.

[demoni]

King is going to write a sequel to his book. Let's hope someone makes a movie of that... NOT!

[SymbioticFunction]

I far prefer the longer cut. I especially find that cutting away to Scatman Crothers and the 'normal world,' gives the movie far greater impact when one is returned to the isolation of the hotel and the odd occurences/behaviour within. I haven't ordered this yet but will certainly avoid the shorter version, Kubrick approved/preferred or not.

[mayorofsmpleton]

King is going to write a sequel to his book. Let's hope someone makes a movie of that... NOT!

Not really a sequel. It's supposed to take place in a hospital where Danny now works as an adult. It's not supposed to necessarily be a horror story, etc.

I'm not typically a huge fan of sequels but in situations like this it's not really the same as a quick cheap cash in. It's more of a "spin-off," story.

It's not like "The Shining, Part 2!" where it's 5 years later and another family with an alcoholic patriarch is coming to take care of the hotel...

It's about revisiting a character/characters down the road 10-20 years and seeing where they are now.

ALIENS works so well because it takes a single character (who became the lead in ALIEN by default) and follows her on a different direction in her life recovering from the events of the first film. It breaks new ground and does something different with it's own theme, subject matter and even the genre (Alien is a dark and moody horror film -- ALIENS is more of an action/adventure drama).

Some sequels aren't necessarily just rehashes. If it's trying to say/do something different I never get why it's such a big deal.

Toy Story 2/3 were similar. Disney wanted sequels to Toy Story immediately following the theatrical success but PIXAR refused until they had a story worth telling. In the case of TS3 it took 'em over 10 years before they decided they nailed the story down.

King's THE SHINING was a hit over 30 years ago. If he wanted to do a cheap cash-in he could have used any number of ideas. He waited until he had a story worth telling apparently. It's a "sequel" I suppose -- but not in the way we typically would envision one.

I'm all for seeing how it turns out.

[billyearle]

I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread! I bought the UK Kubrick set cause it was cheaper. I grew up with the US cut, when I watched the UK BD I thought somethings were missing, but attributed it to possible memory errors on my part. Thought I may have imagined things from the book or the original trailer were in the movie that weren't.
The shorter cut isn't bad. It's nice that it does move more quickly, but I still prefer the longer cut overall, as a few of the cuts are harmful IMO.

[I KEEL YOU]

As I mentioned in the official Shining thread, I think there are good and bad aspects to both cuts:

The shorter cut feels more claustrophobic, there is no evidence that they have television, there are less scenes that take place outside of the hotel and there are less scenes with actors other than the main three.

The thing I like the best about the longer cut are scenes of the beginning - the extended tour of the hotel and the extended interview scene that adds to the mood of the film.

But I got both, just like any fan of The Shining should.. I would also love to see the extended scene at the end as an extra, even though Kubrick really wanted to get it cut soon after the movie is released.

[Kryptonic]

Having imported the U.K. version and watching it last month, I can safely say that it's my favorite version of the movie. More compact and psychological, it really makes a great movie even better.

[Villiam Hayes]

I am putting the U.S. release on my wish list as I've never seen the extended version,I will get it ordered in the new year,I'm curious to see what I make of it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Having imported the U.K. version and watching it last month, I can safely say that it's my favorite version of the movie. More compact and psychological, it really makes a great movie even better.

I much prefer Kubrick's cut, which can be found on the US disc. Much better build of suspense along with more flushed out character development.

[Takeshi666]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I much prefer Kubrick's cut, which can be found on the US disc.

But the UK cut is Kubrick's preferred version

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Takeshi666

But the UK cut is Kubrick's preferred version

That's not what I read. I read that he himself cut the movie the way the US disc is cut and then the studio asked him to shorten the length of it. Is this not true?

[Takeshi666]

Considering how secretive Kubrick was about his filmmaking, I don't see a much better source for information on this matter besides the bonus features.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That's not what I read. I read that he himself cut the movie the way the US disc is cut and then the studio asked him to shorten the length of it. Is this not true?

That is not true. Kubrick cut the film for international releases in Europe because he thought that the European audiences were smarter and didn't require all of the padding. Both cuts were personally done by Kubrick, so one is not a "director's cut", they both are. It's just a matter of preference. Personally, I've always felt the U.S. version to be overlong and the sequences at the beginning during the interview and with Halloran returning to the Overlook to bring the film to a dead stop.

[Kryptonic]

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1215

[shogun123]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

That is not true. Kubrick cut the film for international releases in Europe because he thought that the European audiences were smarter and didn't require all of the padding. Both cuts were personally done by Kubrick, so one is not a "director's cut", they both are. It's just a matter of preference. Personally, I've always felt the U.S. version to be overlong and the sequences at the beginning during the interview and with Halloran returning to the Overlook to bring the film to a dead stop.

This is indeed true.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Personally, I've always felt the U.S. version to be overlong and the sequences at the beginning during the interview and with Halloran returning to the Overlook to bring the film to a dead stop.

this this this this this this

[slappy9001]

I ordered the UK version not that long ago since I had never seen the shorter cut. It DOES play differently and seems more like a "normal" horror movie. I'm not sure which version I prefer yet.

[shogun123]

Originally Posted by slappy9001

I ordered the UK version not that long ago since I had never seen the shorter cut. It DOES play differently and seems more like a "normal" horror movie. I'm not sure which version I prefer yet.

I prefer the 142 mins version even though Kubrick's preferred cut was the 119 mins version. I would love to see the 146 minute version but that's not very likely.

[vidjunkie]

Wow I am glad this thread was bumped, I had no idea there was 2 versions available on Blu, I have the US version I will have to get the UK version just to see the difference for myself.

Thanks for bumping lol

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by statikcat

So Kubrick prefers the short version. Any opinions from fans who have seen both?

I've seen both. The shorter one is better. The Shining is a great film, but at 144 minutes it takes an awful long time to get started. The cuts are mostly introductory stuff, and I think it's better without the skeleton scene that looks more like a cheezy horror film than The Shining.

I remember the scene in the hospital at the end, so I must have seen it right when it came out in theaters.