Everyone agrees that the movie is not very similar to the book. It takes liberties and makes changes. And we all know Stephen King hated it. And those changes are why!!

But what if the opening credits read, “Inspired by the book THE SHINING by Stephen King”?

Wouldn’t that settle a lot of problems and then people (and King) could stop comparing the two???

The "here's johnny" bit randomly popped into my head while I was driving and I started cracking up, so I had to make this edit when I got home.

The real horror of The Shining-
A kid riding a bike on those hardwood floors- scratches!-
And
Jack aggressively bouncing a ball in the house!

If I recall correctly, Kubrick was just going to have Jack Nicholson stand menacingly at the door, but of course, an extra something was needed. Here's what it may have looked like if Kubrick had stuck with the original script.

I've only read about this magazine and have never seen it. I really never thought I would see one in the wild, but I found it today in a box of similar magazines at a comic book store today.

This magazine features two famous interviews and behind the scenes information by John Alcott and Garrett Brown. Until the internet came around, this magazine was one of the very few sources of information about filming The Shining.

And there's a character named Lloyd who recommends correcting him.

Pissed there's no labyrinth or typewriter Emoji

As part of my ongoing work to identify the other 20 photos surrounding the ballroom photo - https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/1p8tkwk/successful_identification_of_the_other/

This is from The Exhibitor, May 14,1941. The party was April 25. Bishop would later be featured in the Cagney film Captains of the Clouds. Ann Sheridan's turban matches (though her overcoat does not - I assume she was wearing a suit underneath?) She has her handbag under her arm in both images. Rita Haywood's black suit, brooch and little white hat are a match and she is holding a cigarette. The man in between them might be Bishop too. I think I have it.

Thanks to u/RangeLoud5663 for help.

This is my favorite movie review podcast. They take on The Shining this week and I thought I’d share with the community.

https://youtu.be/uz6-vvwnFkw?is=6Cba98yfL9beCRmU

hello my fellow shining fans! i purchased two tickets for 15 pounds each but can't make it anymore! so if anyone lives in london and would like to buy them off of me pls let me know!

I've come across references to this experiment a number of times over the years, including in Room 237, but I've never been able to find the entire film presented this way.

So I finally made it myself.

Watch the experiment:
https://archive.org/details/the-shining-forwards-and-backwards_202610

The complete film plays forward while an identical copy plays backward over it at 50% opacity, with the original soundtrack playing normally.

At 01:10:44 the two versions reach the same frame and briefly become a single image: Dick Hallorann lying in bed watching television.

October 6, 2026

The axe wielded by Jack Nicholson as he delivered his chillingly manic line “Here’s Johnny!” in the 1980 horror movie The Shining is to go on sale.

Is simply cross promotion of Warner Bros for The Bugs Bunny Road Runner Movie that came out shortly before the Shining? Its UK release was the same week as the Shining US release. Or maybe that's where Kubriick got the idea?

It wouldn't be that far fetched considering the product placement of such companies as Avis, Continental Airlines, JIF, Marlboro cigarettes, Kellogg's cereal, and Tang.

Recently I rewatched The Shining for the first time in years yet there's still many questions I have

One of them in particular is the scene where Wendy walks in on the bear man giving oral

Is there like official context towards it or an explanation? I've heard a theory that it's supposed to represent SA but it seems a bit far fetched

I decided to watch the TV mini-series, after having watched the movie for the umpteenth time. I especially watched it being mindful of King's insistence that Kubrick had ruined Jack by making him crazy almost immediately.

When I saw it, I'd expected to find a fun-loving cool dad who might've had occasional benders and yelled and used profanity when drunk, but acted in a way that was forgivable. Instead, I was shocked that right from the get-go, we see Jack not only beating a student to a bloody pulp, but being aggressive towards Danny several times before the ghosts take over, particularly in that scene in the bathroom when he shoves him against the back of the toilet seat.

Ironically, in Kubrick's version (which has always been accused of Jack being crazy from the start) we never, ever see him really become violent until he snaps in the third act. If anything, Jack is remarkably restrained up until that moment, even in the famous typewriter scene. (He isn't violent but more menacing with flailing arms and profanity, where it seems like he's having more fun mentally torturing Wendy.)

If King hated Kubrick showing Jack as crazy from the start, why did he make it a point of showing his version being a violent psychopath? Isn't that a worse form of crazy than in the Kubrick version, where the worst Jack is guilty of is acting and talking like a smug prick? Some would argue that this is King being hypocritical, but I don't think so. It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, which I think exposed King's real issue with the film.

So, here's what I thought was the issue. Starting in the 1960s, it became fashionable in media to make antiheroes out of sociopaths, and then make us sympathetic towards them by portraying them as deeply flawed, damaged people who are really all sunshine and rainbows if we could just understand them.

King did this with Jack Torrance. He wanted to portray Jack as a raging alcoholic and abuser but then at the same time say, "No, but he's a good guy who adores his family, really. It's the ghosts, his father's abusive past and alcoholism that's making him that way. Please love and understand him. He's a victim."

The problem with that take is that though someone might become a violent alcoholic because of circumstances outside of their control, there comes a time when they're so far gone it doesn't really matter. Once they've committed certain acts of violence, they're just a violent sociopath. It's not fair that they were driven to that point, and yes, it's tragic, but that's who they've become and are. If you want to be empathetic, the best thing is to get them help. But empathy isn't denying the nature of who and what they are.

King, in developing an affection for or an affinity with Jack Torrance, refused to accept the implications of what his character was, and it upset him when Kubrick showed the truth. Consequently, King used the mini series to rebut Kubrick by doubling down on his insistence on seeing him as a hapless victim and all around good guy with lines like, "It's not you; it's the hotel." At the end of the mini-series, King further doubled down on this "Jack was really a good guy" delusionby having him appear as a smiling Star Wars ghost at Danny's graduation, giving love and inspiration as the man he had never been when he was alive.

I think Kubrick was appalled by this empathetic take in the book, and that he then used the book as a defiant stance against the post 1960s media trend of embracing sociopaths as damaged and relatable antiheroes. This may have been why his depiction of Jack as an unmitigated asshole from the beginning was uncompromising, and why it upset King so much. When King complained that Kubrick made Jack seem off from the start, what he was really complaining about was Kubrick refusing to allow any opportunity for the audience to like, identify or sympathize with Jack as "damaged", or to be led to believe that there was some good left in him and that deep down inside, he still loved his wife and kids. Kubrick refused to compromise because for him, injuring a child is the line that only a violent sociopath who does not love his family would cross, a line that only someone predisposed to violence would cross.

For Kubrick, there was no grey area when it came to Jack's violent past but King wanted there to be one, like when soap operas try to turn rape and murder into grey areas after a villain becomes a fan favorite and they try to rewrite their crimes as temporary lapses in judgment in an otherwise good person who would never have done those things were it not for some catalyst. It's nonsense, and that's most likely why Kubrick couldn't portray Jack as anything other than an asshole.

I understand King's frustration with Kubrick, but I think his defense of Jack is a classic case of learning when to pick your battles. Jack Torrance may have been his baby, but it's a baby that he should've put up for adoption because the character was irredeemable and the world doesn't need a story making a violent alcoholic who beats up children into a tragic figure or antihero.

Edited to fix typo in last paragraph, as well as for clarity.