|
|
Post by B'Cup x on Oct 31, 2007 20:18:15 GMT -5
just been watching it for halloween, great film and all, but can anyone explain the end to me. Where jack appears in the photo from 1921, is it meant to be ambigious? as i thought the whole party scenes where all in his head... =/
|
|
Triple Kelly
Vegeta
Not once, twice, but three times a Kelly
Posts: 9,470
|
Post by Triple Kelly on Oct 31, 2007 20:20:39 GMT -5
I must obey Pustulio, and tell you I think it means he was a reincarnation of another guy because of all the weird party people stuff he was encountering. But this is just MY opinion. I could very well be wrong and probably am. Maybe there is an explanation in King's novel.
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Oct 31, 2007 20:20:46 GMT -5
His ghost is stuck there. Yep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Oct 31, 2007 20:23:07 GMT -5
The house claims another damned soul for the "party".
|
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Oct 31, 2007 20:24:44 GMT -5
I used to have an address to a website that focused on discussions and interpretation of the Shining-interesting read, I think I've got it saved on my old computer. This might help out... www.drummerman.net/shining/ |
|
|
|
Post by barryhorowitz4ever on Oct 31, 2007 20:24:57 GMT -5
there are some who claim that its reincarnation, and that he was the caretaker back in the day at the hotel. ive always had two problems with that.
1. why would all the upper class hotel people let a mere groundskeeper be front and center in the picture of their big party?
2. if jack was reincarnated, why do the ghosts of the past call him by the same name he currently has, and why does he look exactly the same in the past as he does now?
it always seemed more likely to me that the evil hotel consumed him, so to speak.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Oct 31, 2007 20:27:08 GMT -5
it's Stanley Kubrick, he's always ambiguous.
But i always interpret it as the Hotel is alive and claims his soul and has done for years with other people (guy who killed Two girls)
|
|
|
|
Post by B'Cup x on Oct 31, 2007 20:30:18 GMT -5
The house claims another damned soul for the "party". I like that idea |
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Oct 31, 2007 20:31:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Wonderful on Oct 31, 2007 20:55:03 GMT -5
Maybe there is an explanation in King's novel. Well, in the book, the hotel possesses Jack and they both explode. So...no. The movie basically has nothing to do with the book. In the movie, the hotel basically takes Jack over and kind of absorbs him into its history. I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Oct 31, 2007 20:59:57 GMT -5
I've read that in Europe there was an alternate ending with Jack waking up in the hospital with everyone
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Oct 31, 2007 21:49:38 GMT -5
There was a scene where Jack talks to the previous caretaker who is now a ghost but is unaware of his former life and thinks he's always been there, same thing happens to Jack.
He's part of the Hotel now so he could show up to the next living person who sees him as a party guest, or a cook or bartender or whatever the Hotel wants him to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Oct 31, 2007 23:38:33 GMT -5
Yep. Grady, the previous caretaker who killed his wife and two little girls, appears to Jack as a butler or something. Jack recognizes him and tells him that he was the caretaker. Grady says something like "No, sir. You're the caretaker. You've *always* been the caretaker"
|
|
|
|
Post by Psy on Oct 31, 2007 23:43:01 GMT -5
The book/TV Movie with Steven Weber was much better than the Jack Nicholson movie.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,796 
|
Post by hassanchop on Oct 31, 2007 23:50:08 GMT -5
Didn't Stephen King hate the Kubrick film?
|
|
|
|
Post by Psy on Oct 31, 2007 23:56:08 GMT -5
Yep, he did. If I recall correctly he was especially irked at the change from a croquet mallet to an axe as well as the topiary scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Nov 1, 2007 0:45:19 GMT -5
I love the OTT acting :
Torrance : .....then I'll HUFF.....and I'll PUFF.....and I'll BLOW your house down !
lmao
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Nov 1, 2007 1:16:26 GMT -5
He is absorbed into the history of the hotel.
|
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Nov 1, 2007 15:03:38 GMT -5
Wow, a French channel broadcasted it as well on that same day.  Anyway, I' ve never seen the movie but I' ve read the book. As far as I remember, there is no picture thing, and considering the whole hotel blow up and burns, I doubt anything would remain from it. Though there is apparently a shadowy form of Jack made of the smoke from the burning building. That' s something I don' t really like when a director adds things to an adaptation of a book or something like this. I mean, I understand that everything mustn' t be exactly like in the book or there would be no point in watching the movie, but this kind of stuff can completely change the interpretation of the ending and/or the story. On a less important note, I also noticed on screenshots that Wendy is black-haired although it is mentionned several times in the book that she is blonde. Well, to be honest, THIS doesn' t change much.  And williwonka666, I checked the site you gave a link to and I want to see the movie now, because that picture of "mad Jack" is EXACTLY how I pictured him when he becomes the monster. |
|
Mr. Mediocre
Hank Scorpio
Bert Early?... sorry, that's a typo. Butt. Ugly.
Much better since I was last here.
Posts: 6,249
|
Post by Mr. Mediocre on Nov 1, 2007 15:07:31 GMT -5
Yep, he did. If I recall correctly he was especially irked at the change from a croquet mallet to an axe as well as the topiary scenes. Well, to be fair, the topiary scenes would have been very, very difficult to pull off convincingly with the special effects of the era. |
|
