The shining wtf @ the end

Memphis said:
I think people need to start ignoring iBot, with any luck he'll just get bored and go away.
Click to expand...
He asked a very reasonable question and got a set of ridiculous and unfair replies.

He hasn't done anything remotely worthy of that comment in this thread.
 
It's because he belongs to the hotel.

To be honest it's ages since I've read the book and so am on shaky ground here making that statement but I think that's what it was about.

Basically the best bet is to read the book, it's far superior to the film in my opinion.
 
I think Jack Torrence (I think that was the father's name) had a latent shining ability which left him susceptible to influences from the hotel and the child just had a stronger ability.
Honestly, just read the book, it's absolutely brilliant, much better than the film and clears up a lot of the unanswered questions.
 
pre1twa said:
So how did this all tie in with the kids ability to 'shine'. Ultimately the shining part of the film wasn't well developed in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Simian said:
The TV Mini Series explains it a bit better!... Or even the Book!!.. That explains it best!! :D
Click to expand...

Stephen King didn't like how the film turned out!... quite a lot was cut out from the book!!!

Its not a bad film but the TV series and Book are FAR superior!.. (like most Stephen King Adaptations!!)
 
Isn't it obvious?

I'm sorry to differ with you, sir. But you are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker. I should know, sir. I've always been here.

It's a recurring cycle.
 
It shows that he had no control over his actions and that he was doomed from the start and will continue for all time to make the same decisions.
 
Last edited:
Bill101 said:
It shows that he had no control over his actions and that he was doomed from the start and will continue for all time to make the same decisions.
Click to expand...

Not quite so definitive, according to some:

The duality of Delbert/Charles Grady deliberately mirrors Jack Torrance being both the husband of Wendy/father of Danny and the mysterious man in the July 4th photo. It is to say he is two people: the man with choice in a perilous situation and the man who has "always" been at the Overlook. It's a mistake to see the final photo as evidence that the events of the film are predetermined: jack has any number of moments where he can act other than the way he does, and that his (poor) choices are fuelled by weakness and fear perhaps merely speaks all the more to the questions about the personal and the political that The Shining brings up. in the same way Charles had a chance - once more, perhaps - to not take on "Delbert's" legacy, so Jack may have had a chance to escape his role as "caretaker" to the interests of the powerful. It's the tragic course of this story that he chooses not to.

and

The more we try to make sense of what's happening in the present, the more we're faced with what happened - to the same people perhaps - in the past. This lends credence to the supposition that there is another element of time at work here and another sense of reality in action.. to a timezone where our notions of "history" and "the present" are somehow (willfully) intermingled.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html
 
Last edited:
just stumbled upon this thread after seeing the reply to bum thread and someone commented on iBot.. made me laugh :)
 
I think that this film is prime to be remade closer to the book.

As a standalone film it is great...But it pales in comparison to the book.

Imagine a modern remake...With the Bushes and everything...Giant lions on fire!

*n

This inhuman place breeds human monsters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom